Castanet

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#247764 great news lets hope they get more than 6 month in jail.

removed. discuss the topic. not the mayor.

Disgusting! 2 weeks living in Kelowna and he gets brutally murdered by a couple of Queensway skids. On Canada Day too with families and kids all around! Who gives a crap about protecting the identity of the 18 year olds involved, they're MURDERERS, their names are public record as far as I'm concerned. Their rights? What rights?

exactly.............

I believe that at age 18 one is considered to be an adult under Canada's Criminal Code.
One 18-year old is schedule to appear in court tomorrow. His name may be one the list. The other is scheduled to appear on February 14, so her name may be on the court list that day.

Depends on their age when the incident happened. If they turned 18 after the crime the prosecutor will more than likely be asking the judge to have them classified as adults.

They brought a knife. To me that’s intent to harm or kill, not manslaughter.

Anonymous123 wrote:They brought a knife. To me that’s intent to harm or kill, not manslaughter.

Manslaughter is homicide committed without the intention to cause death. Murder is intent to kill. Prove that the accused outright intended to kill the victim, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can't prove there was bonafide and actual intent by the accused, they go free.

If you prefer to argue that the accused indeed caused the victim's death under the lesser charge of manslaughter, then you're welcome to do so. You don't need to prove intent - you simply need to prove the accused's actions caused the outcome.

Proving murder is difficult, and the risk is high that the accused would be acquitted.

The crown is simply choosing the charge that is most likely to prevail in court.

Nathan Truant has serious mental health issues, he may not even see a jail cell...unfortunately.

I hope he does.

36Drew wrote:Manslaughter is homicide committed without the intention to cause death. Murder is intent to kill. Prove that the accused outright intended to kill the victim, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can't prove there was bonafide and actual intent by the accused, they go free.

If you prefer to argue that the accused indeed caused the victim's death under the lesser charge of manslaughter, then you're welcome to do so. You don't need to prove intent - you simply need to prove the accused's actions caused the outcome.

Proving murder is difficult, and the risk is high that the accused would be acquitted.

The crown is simply choosing the charge that is most likely to prevail in court.

This is an important point. The fact that the victim was still alive when the assailants left him could have some traction in court in creating doubt about intent.

JayByrd wrote:This is an important point. The fact that the victim was still alive when the assailants left him could have some traction in court in creating doubt about intent.

Even if the victim died immediately - the accused could simply say they seized an opportunity to rob the victim and a fight ensued. The onus is on the prosecution to prove there was intent to kill the victim. The good news is that manslaughter can result in a life (25 years) sentence. Hopefully justice will prevail.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/murder-v ... -1.1155132 these 4 goofs could do as little as a year in jail for manslaughter , pretty sick if you ask me, once again the victim is the victim again

wow useless judge https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#247894

Realeyesrealize wrote:Nathan Truant has serious mental health issues, he may not even see a jail cell...unfortunately.

I hope he does.

judge just gave him bail out to reoffend again, safe bet he is at cornerstone or heart stone as we speak, no way in hell he stays out of trouble while on bail