Manslaughter for Passenger Fatality..

[Moreno636]

Forum Sponsor

As is evident here? ********.

In criminal law, what is fact is what is provable to the satisfaction of the court.

Now, bright boy, short of a diary entry or confession, tell us how you would manage to prove that a rider concocted a plan in advance of a ride that if he were to be chased by police that he would deliberately push off his passenger not only with intent to lighten his load, but also with a specific and deliberate intent to kill her. If you can prove that, then there might be a case for first degree murder. Good luck on that one.

Ahh so you've been reduced to this.

Lets review you first asserted that what I said was nonsense (proved wrong on that one). Then proceeded to state that according to the criminal code there is a time frame for a plan (wrong on that again). Now your reduced to admitting to basically what I said in the first place. That its up to the courts, crown and witness to come to conclusion as to whether or not it was planned.

You spew out nonsense as if its facts all the time...but a little common sense shows that little or anything that you say is fact.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

He'll get his due process just as Bryant did. Unlike Bryant and his attacker's previous history of attacking other motorists, there doesn't seem to be any mitigating circumstances that might help paint the rider in a better light. But he'll still get his due process.

Explain how you come up with the statement "this one killed someone" if you're affording him the same benefit of due process then.

 

[turbodish]

Lets review you first asserted that what I said was nonsense (proved wrong on that one). Then proceeded to state that according to the criminal code there is a time frame for a plan (wrong on that again).

You are placing a completely ridiculous meaning on the time frame implied by the words "planned and deliberate". Saying that a plan concocted in a few seconds prior to a killing qualifies as first degree murder is not supported by case law precedents.

From http://www.owjn.org/owjn_2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185&Itemid=107

• Murder is first degree only when it is both planned and deliberate. The planning and deliberation must come before the beginning of the homicide. For example, someone makes a conscious decision to kill someone else, sets a plan in place and carries it out.
• All other murders are second degree. The homicide must still be intentional or it is not murder, but it becomes second degree murder when the intention to cause the person's death did not occur before the act began. In other words, there was no planning or deliberation. For example, someone assaults another person without having had any plan ahead of time to kill this person, but once the assault is commenced, intends to kill him.
• If the death is a culpable homicide but not murder, it is manslaughter. In other words, where there was no intent to cause death (or bodily harm that is likely to cause death), but the person causing the death was negligent as to whether death occurred, the appropriate charge is manslaughter. A very common example of manslaughter is drunk drivers who cause death. The drunk driver had no intent to cause death or even bodily harm, but his actions were negligent to the point that he has criminal responsibility for the results of his actions.

You spew out nonsense as if its facts all the time...but a little common sense shows that little or anything that you say is fact.

Here are some more facts for you, and some common sense too. Try and absorb some of it this time.

The specific meaning of "planned and deliberate" is defined by precedent set by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R v Cairns, 51 CCC 3d 90:

"I think that in the (Criminal) Code, "planned" is to be assigned, I think, its natural meaning of a calculated scheme or design which has been carefully thought out, and the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed.

"But that does not mean, of course, to say that the plan need be a complicated one. It may be a very simple one, and the simpler it is perhaps the easier it is to formulate.

"The important element, it seems to me, so far as time is concerned, is the time involved in developing the plan, not the time between the development of the plan and the doing of the act. One can carefully prepare a plan and immediately it is prepared set out to do the planned act, or alternatively, you can wait an appreciable time to do it once it has been formed.

"As far as the word "deliberate" is concerned, I think that the Code means that it should also carry its natural meaning of "considered," "not impulsive," "slow in deciding," "cautious," implying that the accused must take time to weight the advantages and disadvantages of his intended action."
​

None of this definition of "planned and deliberate" would apply to a plan concocted in seconds and in the heat of the moment.

 

[turbodish]

Explain how you come up with the statement "this one killed someone" if you're affording him the same benefit of due process then.

The justice system is responsible for affording him due process, not me.

 

[Moreno636]

You are placing a completely ridiculous meaning on the time frame implied by the words "planned and deliberate". Saying that a plan concocted in a few seconds prior to a killing qualifies as first degree murder is not supported by case law precedents.

From http://www.owjn.org/owjn_2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185&Itemid=107

• Murder is first degree only when it is both planned and deliberate. The planning and deliberation must come before the beginning of the homicide. For example, someone makes a conscious decision to kill someone else, sets a plan in place and carries it out.
• All other murders are second degree. The homicide must still be intentional or it is not murder, but it becomes second degree murder when the intention to cause the person's death did not occur before the act began. In other words, there was no planning or deliberation. For example, someone assaults another person without having had any plan ahead of time to kill this person, but once the assault is commenced, intends to kill him.
• If the death is a culpable homicide but not murder, it is manslaughter. In other words, where there was no intent to cause death (or bodily harm that is likely to cause death), but the person causing the death was negligent as to whether death occurred, the appropriate charge is manslaughter. A very common example of manslaughter is drunk drivers who cause death. The drunk driver had no intent to cause death or even bodily harm, but his actions were negligent to the point that he has criminal responsibility for the results of his actions.

Here are some more facts for you, and some common sense too. Try and absorb some of it this time.

The specific meaning of "planned and deliberate" is defined by precedent set by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R v Cairns, 51 CCC 3d 90:

"I think that in the (Criminal) Code, "planned" is to be assigned, I think, its natural meaning of a calculated scheme or design which has been carefully thought out, and the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed.

"But that does not mean, of course, to say that the plan need be a complicated one. It may be a very simple one, and the simpler it is perhaps the easier it is to formulate.

"The important element, it seems to me, so far as time is concerned, is the time involved in developing the plan, not the time between the development of the plan and the doing of the act. One can carefully prepare a plan and immediately it is prepared set out to do the planned act, or alternatively, you can wait an appreciable time to do it once it has been formed.

"As far as the word "deliberate" is concerned, I think that the Code means that it should also carry its natural meaning of "considered," "not impulsive," "slow in deciding," "cautious," implying that the accused must take time to weight the advantages and disadvantages of his intended action."
​

None of this definition of "planned and deliberate" would apply to a plan concocted in seconds and in the heat of the moment.

See this type of overload of information with irrelevant crap bolded is a typical tactic of yours. NOTHING you posted has anything to do with a time frame of a plan, AGAIN you have failed to do so.

Secondly you keep pressuming that if he did turf her that it couldn't have been premeditated a long time before the incident. That he could have told a riding buddy or made a post on a forum that if he ever got into a chase he would drop his passenger to throw off the cops. This would constitute premeditation and deliberation.

 

[turbodish]

See this type of overload of information with irrelevant crap bolded is a typical tactic of yours. NOTHING you posted has anything to do with a time frame of a plan, AGAIN you have failed to do so.

The BC Court of Appeal ruling talks specifically about the time frame of a plan. Go read it again.

Secondly you keep pressuming that if he did turf her that it couldn't have been premeditated a long time before the incident. That he could have told a riding buddy or made a post on a forum that if he ever got into a chase he would drop his passenger to throw off the cops. This would constitute premeditation and deliberation.

I don't say that it is impossible. I say that it is highly improbable, and virtually impossible to prove even if such was the case.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

The justice system is responsible for affording him due process, not me.

So you only care that the people you deem worthy receive fair and impartial justice.

 

[caboose56]

See this type of overload of information with irrelevant crap bolded is a typical tactic of yours. NOTHING you posted has anything to do with a time frame of a plan, AGAIN you have failed to do so.

Secondly you keep pressuming that if he did turf her that it couldn't have been premeditated a long time before the incident. That he could have told a riding buddy or made a post on a forum that if he ever got into a chase he would drop his passenger to throw off the cops. This would constitute premeditation and deliberation.

Stop being obtuse. I don't like it when I agree with Turbo but you're being ridiculous.

The situation you describe in this second paragraph is still not first degree murder. Second degree at best. First degree murder means there is a plan to kill a particular person ahead of time, not someone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where you're failing hard in your argument here is how you view the planning stage. Reacting to the cherries being lit up and tossing your passenger is not a plan. If at the onset of the ride, he planned to take THAT girl out onto the 401 and he planned to toss her off the back then you'd have a case for first degree murder. Further, to charge someone with first degree murder you'd have to have some grounds to prove that there was a plan.. Good luck with that.

If I admit that I believe in Castle Doctrine, and will shoot (to kill) anyone who breaks into my home.. is it first degree murder if someday that happens? Hardly.

 

[short stop]

If they could somehow prove he had shoved her off the bike, there's no way that they could charge him with first degree murder. What would be the evidence other than "well, he could have thought about it 2 seconds before he did it?" How does that get proven in court? If that were allowed, then theoretically ANY murder charge can be jacked up to first degree, because there's always the possibility that the murderer thought about it before he/she did it.

There has to be evidence of a plan. If witnesses come forward and testify that the rider had spoken to them of pushing her off the bike, then that's a start.

But this is all a silly argument considering that there's no evidence in the first place that she was pushed deliberately. And unless the rider comes right out and admits he did it - it's also almost next to impossible to prove.

 

[omnivore]

If we are entertaining the idea that the girl was intentionally dumped as a decoy, then it is just as likely that the cop intentionally bumped the bike during the chase and that caused her fall.

Both seem a little far fetched, but if the second scenario were to happen, of course the charges would be filed justa s they have been-to place all the heat on the rider and none on the cops.

 

[DS2]

If we are entertaining the idea that the girl was intentionally dumped as a decoy, then it is just as likely that the cop intentionally bumped the bike during the chase and that caused her fall.

Both seem a little far fetched, but if the second scenario were to happen, of course the charges would be filed justa s they have been-to place all the heat on the rider and none on the cops.

Yup, the defense will have plenty to play with here...

 

[Moreno636]

Stop being obtuse. I don't like it when I agree with Turbo but you're being ridiculous.

The situation you describe in this second paragraph is still not first degree murder. Second degree at best. First degree murder means there is a plan to kill a particular person ahead of time, not someone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where you're failing hard in your argument here is how you view the planning stage. Reacting to the cherries being lit up and tossing your passenger is not a plan. If at the onset of the ride, he planned to take THAT girl out onto the 401 and he planned to toss her off the back then you'd have a case for first degree murder. Further, to charge someone with first degree murder you'd have to have some grounds to prove that there was a plan.. Good luck with that.



If I admit that I believe in Castle Doctrine, and will shoot (to kill) anyone who breaks into my home.. is it first degree murder if someday that happens? Hardly.

Please show me where in the act it says that a plan HAS to target a particular person. I'll help you out it doesn't. If a person makes a plan to buy s gun and shoot the first random person he meets that's first degree murder. Stop adding your own interpretations of the act, it's there in just read it.

And I'm not gonna even dignify that idiotic example of yours.

 

[caboose56]

Please show me where in the act it says that a plan HAS to target a particular person. I'll help you out it doesn't. If a person makes a plan to buy s gun and shoot the first random person he meets that's first degree murder. Stop adding your own interpretations of the act, it's there in just read it.

And I'm not gonna even dignify that idiotic example of yours.

Of course it is idiotic, that was the point.

:thumbup:

Keep writing... this is comedic gold.

 

[Moreno636]

Of course it is idiotic, that was the point.

:thumbup:

Keep writing... this is comedic gold.

So your telling me you can't figure out the difference between you defending your home from an intruder and someone deciding to kill someone to escape from the cops. And I'm obtuse? Please. Oh and I am still waiting for you to show me where in the act it states that a specific individual has to be targeted.

 

[w33z11]

Please show me where in the act it says that a plan HAS to target a particular person. I'll help you out it doesn't. If a person makes a plan to buy s gun and shoot the first random person he meets that's first degree murder. Stop adding your own interpretations of the act, it's there in just read it.

And I'm not gonna even dignify that idiotic example of yours.

first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.


PLZ TELL ME THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU THIS IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS!

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Up in Sudbury, a d@#chebag was just sentenced to 7 years, after being convicted of killing 3 teenage pedestrians while driving drunk.

If that's the incident from around 2000-2001, the driver wasn't drunk (even under the new blood alcohol limit of 0.05), but he had a G2. The teenage pedestrians in question were walking down the middle of the road (80kph limit)

 

[Moreno636]

first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.


PLZ TELL ME THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU THIS IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS!

That is not the definition, stop making stuff up. The criminal code clearly states that First degree murder is an act that is planned and deliberate. No where does it define the length or breath of the planning nor does it define premeditation. Stop adding your own interpretation of the law.

The example I proposed was a simple one the guy tells one of his riding buddies that if he gets chased by cops while this chic is on the back he is booting her off (Planning) he gets chased and shoves her off ( deliberate act). Two of the factors that are needed for First Degree murder as laid out in the act are fullfilled.

 

[butters]

If that's the incident from around 2000-2001, the driver wasn't drunk (even under the new blood alcohol limit of 0.05), but he had a G2. The teenage pedestrians in question were walking down the middle of the road (80kph limit)

If these are the same incidents this is one hell of an example of how a half a story can lead people way off the mark and this if is the same story it really really really puts a new spin on the 7 years and would then have very little, if anything at all in similarity to this situation.

 

[rich6969]

I am glad this guy got caught and deserve what he gets and more. I do need to say this...... unfortunately the system sucks in this guy well walk again soon like 3 to 4 years maybe sooner..... I speak from experience on this as a EX FRIEND killed a innocent pedestrian crossing the streets well he has so drunk driving his car home one night....He walked away with less then two years.......

 

[BusaBob]

I am glad this guy got caught and deserve what he gets and more. I do need to say this...... unfortunately the system sucks in this guy well walk again soon like 3 to 4 years maybe sooner..... I speak from experience on this as a EX FRIEND killed a innocent pedestrian crossing the streets well he has so drunk driving his car home one night....He walked away with less then two years.......

tragic, on so many levels

Forum Sponsor