Doesn't remember stabbing....

[dle]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#221225

What does it matter in the least whether or not he remembers doing it? Fact remains he did it, with eye witnesses to the whole thing. The fact he was pie-eyed should be even more reason to throw his sorry *bleep* in jail. At some point in time people have to become responsible for their actions and substance abuse should never be a "get out of jail free card".

It is ludicrous that people are allowed to use the "drunken" defence, or the "I don't remember" defence. Just another ridiculous slant to our "laws" that allow people to CHOOSE to get themselves so drunk or stoned that they are capable of injuring, or in this case, killing, someone else and then claim "well, it's not my fault and I shouldn't be punished because I was so *bleep*faced I don't remember doing it".

I've decided that since I have the right to vote, I will always exercise that right, but from now on, it's going to be in favour of whichever party has justice reform on their platform in a big way.

[Hassel99]

Shouldn’t you wait for the trial to end and the verdict to be read before you get up in arms?
Defense can say whatever they want, what do you mean by “allowed”?

Him saying it has no bearing on if it’s relevant or believed.

[dle]

Shouldn’t you wait for the trial to end and the verdict to be read before you get up in arms?
Defense can say whatever they want, what do you mean by “allowed”?

Him saying it has no bearing on if it’s relevant or believed.

You are correct in saying the defence can say whatever they want.....and what they want is to muddy the waters and say it should count that the accused does not remember doing what he did because he was too drunk or too stoned. All too often the Judge/jury "allows" that "drunk" defence and takes it into consideration when passing sentence. My point is that it shouldn't make any difference at all whether the person can remember doing the crime after the fact. It doesn't change the fact he did it (if he did). I will assume you read the news regularly and might have noticed that this is nothing new in terms of defence tactics at trial. This particular case has eye witnesses. It will come down to credibility of the witnesses, but in no way should the accused saying he can't remember doing it, therefore shouldn't be punished for it, be a reason for lack of justice, or a lesser sentence even if he is found guilty.

[the truth]

i see him doing very little time..............

like i said little time https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... cle535585/

[LANDM]

i see him doing very little time..............

With your prophetic ability, you should go over to the housing market thread......

[dle]

...and of note in this case, he's already admitted he did it, just that he doesn't remember. He's on trial, so he has a defence lawyer even though he says he did it and twice he said he should consult said lawyer. If he knew he did it, he's admitted he did it, why not plead guilty? Do the crime, do the time. Because he says he doesn't remember - knows he did it, but doesn't remember because he was baked. Because he (and his lawyer) think he will get a lesser sentence if he uses the "drunken" defence and in a lot of cases it works. THAT is the part that is wrong.

Extenuating circumstances? Not in my books....he was responsible for doing the drinking. He knew if he drank lots he'd get very drunk but he kept drinking. Now, he does something while he's drunk and doesn't want to have to suffer the consequences of his OWN choice to drink til he was so drunk he claims he was out of control.

Guess the point is, don't drink til you are out of control. If you do get out of control when you drink, don't drink at all. People will be safer around you.

The day after Waylon Jackson was stabbed to death in his Rutland home, Chad Alphonse told an interrogating officer he knew he did it, but couldn't remember stabbing Jackson.

and "Twice, Alphonse says he should consult his lawyer.

[Piecemaker]

Didn't someone testify that he ran out of the house with no coat and no shoes and then phoned back to g/f or her sister to ask about mayhem left behind? Seems like he remembered then.

[Triple 6]

Didn't someone testify that he ran out of the house with no coat and no shoes and then phoned back to g/f or her sister to ask about mayhem left behind? Seems like he remembered then.

selective memory!

[GordonH]

Wow a criminal with selective memory, what a new concept... that's never been tried before. lol

[the truth]

Didn't someone testify that he ran out of the house with no coat and no shoes and then phoned back to g/f or her sister to ask about mayhem left behind? Seems like he remembered then.

selective memory!

indeed

[the truth]

i see him doing very little time..............

With your prophetic ability, you should go over to the housing market thread......

time will tell

[JayByrd]

The law stipulates that if you are intoxicated, you can't legally:

-operate a motor vehicle
-enter into a contract

Even if you are not actually behaving erratically, the law considers you unfit to engage in these activities when intoxicated, because your ability to understand your surroundings, and make sound decisions, is impaired.

Likewise, one's ability to form the intent to commit a crime like murder becomes legally questionable when a person is intoxicated...for the same reasons as above. I'm afraid we can't have it both ways.

Obviously in this case, when dealing with degrees of murder, intent is everything. By stating he can't remember the stabbing (whether he's being truthful or not), the defendant doesn't have to speak about his state of mind and his intentions at the time...which is the key to a murder conviction.

[dle]

The law stipulates that if you are intoxicated, you can't legally:

-operate a motor vehicle
-enter into a contract

Even if you are not actually behaving erratically, the law considers you unfit to engage in these activities when intoxicated, because your ability to understand your surroundings, and make sound decisions, is impaired.

Likewise, one's ability to form the intent to commit a crime like murder becomes legally questionable when a person is intoxicated...for the same reasons as above. I'm afraid we can't have it both ways.

Obviously in this case, when dealing with degrees of murder, intent is everything. By stating he can't remember the stabbing (whether he's being truthful or not), the defendant doesn't have to speak about his state of mind and his intentions at the time...which is the key to a murder conviction.

I can see how intent fits with 1st degree or premeditated murder. I don't see how it fits with 2nd degree though which is the case here. Isn't 2nd degree more a crime of "passion", a brief snap of anger etc, getting drunk and stupid, in the heat of the moment? If that's the case what does it matter if he actually remembers doing it or not? They aren't trying him for 1st degree, or saying he planned it out in advance and sought out the guy with the intent to murder him in cold blood. Fact remains he killed a guy while he was drunk. He's admitted to doing it. He's trying to blame it on the booze. Quite probably he wouldn't have done it if he had been sober but nobody poured the booze down his throat - that's all on him. Whether he remembers doing it or not shouldn't matter. Unless he's trying to get the charge brought down to manslaughter if that's possible, or get a lighter sentence and get off easier. That's why I have trouble with all of this. What he's trying to do is play the game - he took another's life and but he doesn't want to have consequences. Do you think this will even stop him from ever drinking again? I highly doubt it - so here's a guy who has proven he is incapable of handling his booze, has proven he IS capable of killing someone when he is drinking, and the defence is trying to get him a lighter sentence so he can be back out on the streets possibly to do it again next time he "blacks out" because he got hammered and doesn't remember doing it - again?

[artistwithaflare]

I think this is all very tragic...to everyone involved.
These guys were friends, family....and I doubt neither of them could predict this from ever happening.
Booze...changes every situation and every person.
Terrible outcome.
I hope the sisters reunite in time and my prayers go out to everyone involved.

[dle]

I think this is all very tragic...to everyone involved.
These guys were friends, family....and I doubt neither of them could predict this from ever happening.
Booze...changes every situation and every person.
Terrible outcome.
I hope the sisters reunite in time and my prayers go out to everyone involved.

You are absolutely right. No one would have been thinking there would be a death come out of it....but it did....it's always fun until it's not. The real world isn't Wiley E Coyote and the Roadrunner - not everyone gets back up. Not to minimize this tragedy but did your mom every say to you "it's always fun til someone loses an eye?" Well, booze/drugs are always fun until they are not and by then it's all over but the crying. A good time to think of this might be before the full steam ahead drinking or drugging. I'm sure we've all done stuff out of thoughtlessness or silliness that we regret and wish we could take back but sometimes there are just no "do-overs".