Manslaughter for Passenger Fatality..

Forum Sponsor
Moreno636 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The intent of the law has been explained to you. In court it's the intent of the law that matters. You are playing with semantics. No body is adding their own spin on the law that you are having so much trouble understanding. I guess the whole court system has been misled and you got it all figured out.
 
Freestyle72 said:
The intent of the law has been explained to you. In court it's the intent of the law that matters. You are playing with semantics. No body is adding their own spin on the law that you are having so much trouble understanding. I guess the whole court system has been misled and you got it all figured out.
Click to expand...


+1

this guys delusional
 
The rider may or may not have committed an initial crime...we don't know. So the running from the cops is his first certain crime.

The drunk driver has assuredly committed a crime by drunk driving.

So far 1:1

Assuming the dropping of the passenger was directly responsible for her death, biker has committed 2 crimes and killed 1 person.

The drunk has done an illegal traffic violation as his second crime.

So far 2:2 as the crime count goes.

The biker leaves the scene (as part of the first crime) no additional count.
The drunk kills 2 people (2 charges of manslaughter or murder)

So far the count is 2:4

So why would or should the biker be punished more harshly than the drunk?

The drunk has committed 4 crimes and killed 2 people!! Is he better because he didn't run from the cops?!?!

The biker kills 1 person and commits 2 crimes, but why is he to receive more punishment than the drunk?!?!

Running from the cops isn't actually the major offence here....it doesn't necessarily put people at risk though it can. Where as drunk driving is a far riskier endevour. In this case a drunk driver loses control of a much more stable vehicle without provocation! Where as the biker may have been a coward, panicked, ham fisted the throttle and dropped a passenger expecting him to stop.

Not that it is a defence....it was still insanely stupid and he deserves manslaughter if he is actually guilty. But I don't see how anyone can suggest he is punished more so than a drunk driver who kills 2 simply cause he didn't run from some blue lights.
 
Freestyle72 said:
The intent of the law has been explained to you. In court it's the intent of the law that matters. You are playing with semantics. No body is adding their own spin on the law that you are having so much trouble understanding. I guess the whole court system has been misled and you got it all figured out.
Click to expand...

What semantic am I playing with? This is word for word whats in the act.

Classification of murder
231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I havent added or taken away from the act. Everybody else is adding something to it we have (length of time in the plan), deliberately targeting an individual and my favourite "laying in wait" for the person. NONE of this is anywhere in that simple 11 word sentence. So you tell me who is playing with semantics.
 
Moreno636 said:
What semantic am I playing with? This is word for word whats in the act.

Classification of murder
231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I havent added or taken away from the act. Everybody else is adding something to it we have (length of time in the plan), deliberately targeting an individual and my favourite "laying in wait" for the person. NONE of this is anywhere in that simple 11 word sentence. So you tell me who is playing with semantics.
Click to expand...

You are.

The BC Court of Appeal in R v Cairns 51 CCC 3d 90 defined the meaning "planned and deliberate". In doing so they set precedent by which the relevant section of the Criminal Code should be interpreted. You are way off according to that precedent.
 
Moreno636 said:
What semantic am I playing with? This is word for word whats in the act.

Classification of murder
231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I havent added or taken away from the act. Everybody else is adding something to it we have (length of time in the plan), deliberately targeting an individual and my favourite "laying in wait" for the person. NONE of this is anywhere in that simple 11 word sentence. So you tell me who is playing with semantics.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to find one case that proves those definitions wrong.
You will only find that is you who is wrong.
 
Moreno636 said:
What semantic am I playing with? This is word for word whats in the act.

Classification of murder
231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I havent added or taken away from the act. Everybody else is adding something to it we have (length of time in the plan), deliberately targeting an individual and my favourite "laying in wait" for the person. NONE of this is anywhere in that simple 11 word sentence. So you tell me who is playing with semantics.
Click to expand...


what i believe has happened, you have made a fool of yourself by digging the hole deeper, at this point you do not want to admit your wrong and eat your words. rather you are just digging yourself deeper.

Planned and Deliberate AKA PREMEDITATED

the same website you quoted murder from also quotes DELIBERATE as:

2. Formed with deliberation; well-advised; carefully considered; not sudden or rash; as, a deliberate opinion; a deliberate measure or result.

so you are telling me the accused at the moment PLANNED to kill the girl? UNLESS he and HE ONLY says that his intentions that VERY moment were to kill the victim then no canadian jurisdiction will prosecute him under first degree murder.

what your saying doesn't make any sense - even if he planned to toss the girl im sure his intentions were not to kill her and even if they were, the dude has a very strong defense ADVISED by the very CRIMINAL ACT you are quoting my friend.
 
turbodish said:
You are.

The BC Court of Appeal in R v Cairns 51 CCC 3d 90 defined the meaning "planned and deliberate". In doing so they set precedent by which the relevant section of the Criminal Code should be interpreted. You are way off according to that precedent.
Click to expand...

How does that precedent negate what I am saying?
 
and if you have anything to say to the above post, you are just ignorant
 
01cbr said:
I challenge you to find one case that proves those definitions wrong.
You will only find that is you who is wrong.
Click to expand...

Huh? What are you talking about? Those definitions are also considered first degree murder.
 
w33z11 said:
what i believe has happened, you have made a fool of yourself by digging the hole deeper, at this point you do not want to admit your wrong and eat your words. rather you are just digging yourself deeper.

Planned and Deliberate AKA PREMEDITATED

the same website you quoted murder from also quotes DELIBERATE as:

2. Formed with deliberation; well-advised; carefully considered; not sudden or rash; as, a deliberate opinion; a deliberate measure or result.

so you are telling me the accused at the moment PLANNED to kill the girl? UNLESS he and HE ONLY says that his intentions that VERY moment were to kill the victim then no canadian jurisdiction will prosecute him under first degree murder.

what your saying doesn't make any sense - even if he planned to toss the girl im sure his intentions were not to kill her and even if they were, the dude has a very strong defense ADVISED by the very CRIMINAL ACT you are quoting my friend.
Click to expand...

So your saying that if he told a buddy of his that in the event of a chase isnt a plan? And that throwing a girl of the back of a bike on a highway isnt a deliberate act? Your telling me throwing someone of the back of speeding motorcycle on a highway during a police chase isnt attempted murder? Now whose being ignorant?
 
01cbr said:
Precedent sets the standards for future cases.

Your obviously in over your head here. No one can be convicted of first degree murder based on that definition alone.
Click to expand...

So how exactly is my example not in line with that precedent?
 
Moreno636 said:
So your saying that if he told a buddy of his that in the event of a chase isnt a plan? And that throwing a girl of the back of a bike on a highway isnt a deliberate act? Your telling me throwing someone of the back of speeding motorcycle on a highway during a police chase isnt attempted murder? Now whose being ignorant?
Click to expand...

To be charged with first degree murder it was have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took the victim out for a ride with the intention of throwing her off the back of the motorcycle in order to kill her.
 
w33z11 said:
and if you have anything to say to the above post, you are just ignorant
Click to expand...

You think throwing someone of the back of a speeding bike on a highway while being chased by police isnt attempted murder...yeah and I am ignorant.
 
01cbr said:
To be charged with first degree murder it was have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took the victim out for a ride with the intention of throwing her off the back of the motorcycle in order to kill her.
Click to expand...

Where in the criminal code does it say that the intent has to be premeditated? Note I said the intent, not the act.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
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)
Click to expand...

I believe he is referring to the incident last year where the driver was way over the limit and all over the road. He lost control of his vehicle at high speed and took out 3 kids at a bus stop. He fled and later crashed into a house.

This all happened after a bar fight with a bouncer if im not mistaken.

probably the farthest thing from the example your trying to set.
 
Moreno636 said:
What semantic am I playing with? This is word for word whats in the act.

Classification of murder
231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I havent added or taken away from the act. Everybody else is adding something to it we have (length of time in the plan), deliberately targeting an individual and my favourite "laying in wait" for the person. NONE of this is anywhere in that simple 11 word sentence. So you tell me who is playing with semantics.
Click to expand...

The wording of the statute isn't the be-all-end-all. This is where case law comes into effect - it fills in the gaps that the statue doesn't spell out. Courts are forced to follow case law laid out by higher courts. I'm sure that there's plenty out there that flesh out the details concerning what truly constitutes first degree murder.

I did a quick Google search and in 30 seconds I found a Canadian legal website quoting some case law regarding "planned and deliberate". http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-205/Murder.aspx

It doesn't spell out a specific time frame per se, but my point is that courts are also forced to go by precedents set beforehand and not solely on statute language alone.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom