Spiderfish

I have no problem delaying the decision if further relevant analysis is required. If the purpose of delaying the decision is just a strategy to stall it indefinitely, I fail to see how this could be beneficial. The Rainforest Conservation Foundation's self proclaimed mission statement is that they are "a team of conservationists and scientists empowered by our research to protect the lands, waters and wildlife of coastal British Columbia". I have a feeling they are none too concerned with the economic justification of the pipeline, they are quite likely only looking at the "cost" side and minimizing or negating the "benefit" side of the equation. Comprehensive analysis cannot be done without both sides of the equation.

I agree.

Typical.

You seem to be pretty quick to blindly accept any and all that support yours.

The economic prosperity of Alberta oil benefits all of Canada.

Vote compass wasn't exactly a shining example of neutrality.

True....armed with guns, armed with knives, armed with BMW's. Instead of banning everything, it may be more effective to better try and identify and treat people with the capability and propensity of such destruction.

I'm not sure anyone here is trying to say that his intentions were to slap her to death. But he slapped her, the punishment he used was not what could be considered as acceptable and reasonable, and it did indeed cause her death. I don't think he should face a murder charge, but I also think that 60 days is a joke. I guess it's fortunate that he did not admit that he delivered the blows in anger, or he would likely have a case of NCR by way of temporary insanity. And I agree with Boges, cultural factors should have no relevance in determining the sentence.

I tried bringing that up already, it was suggested that I pick another massacre then. I guess this one doesn't count. Apperently mass killings are typically carried out by sane, balanced, and sound people.

Do you think a robber is really going to complete a detailed analysis of the level of offensive power that will be required before they initiate their attack against a store owner? Doubtful. He is going to bring a weapon that most quickly and efficiently achieves submission of the victim that is available.

Yeah, that one caught my eye as well.

It's maybe a bit ironic that this would present itself as an issue after all of the criticism the current government has taken about their tough on crime initiatives and plans in 2012-13 to increase the prison spending budget by 861 million dollars and to build new prisons and upgrade existing facilities. I'm not sure what happened to those plans...perhaps they heard the criticisms and decided to put their efforts into deficit reduction instead.

The point is that regardless of how silly you think the analogy of banning knives or BMW'S is, a gun ban would be about as effective in preventing this guy's actions. Guns were only one of his several weapons of choice.

This guy killed the first three people with a knife, not a gun. And he ran over several more victims with his car.

I agree, it sounds ridiculous. I guess it's not so much the tool used, but the intent to which it's used for.

Sorry, I must have missed something... I don't advocate for the banning of vehicles any more than I do the banning of guns.

How so? Even his parents admit there were red flags overlooked and missed opportunities to intervene that would have prevented this. Banning guns however, would unfortunately not have.

Yeah, and over 300 US children are killed each year in agricultural accidents, compared with how many potential starving related deaths?

Banning guns would not have done much good for the people he stabbed to death, or the people he ran over with his BMW. I guess we need to start calling on the ban of knives and BMW's now as well. I am thinking that proper diagnosis and tratment of mental illness might be a more efficient solution

Imagine that...the victim's family (aka...his family) asked for leniency. Go figure.

No, it's all about stupid, backwoods Americans who can't comprehend basic social concepts. We got the message, thanks.

Do you have a link? I've not read the judgement, only the link to the story in the OP which states:

I think both our viewpoints are correct. I agree that a slap would normally not result in death. I would also believe that in all probability, it was not a normal slap as it would have to be delivered with enough force to promote a violent motion of her neck capable of causing her fatal injury. I have given this some thought, and although I don't completely agree with your position, I understand what you are saying. If it was a freak accident as has been suggested, a good analogy could be to that of a shaken baby death. These cases are typically tragic in nature, as new parents can be incapable of dealing with the frustration of not knowing how to care for an inconsolable baby. Their actions after the fact are immediately understood as wrong, however are difficult to control during their highly emotional reaction. The obvious difference here is that the guy was 74 years old and the kid was 13. He should be able to control his anger, and definitely should know that assaulting his daughter is clearly crossing a line.

So, you are refuting your analogy?

It is reasonable to conclude that his anger impaired his judgement. He likely wouldn't have hit her so hard, or not at all had he not lost control of his rational judgement.