You be the judge.

[PIK]

Now this judge is known for being soft, what do you think.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/23092010/71/central-house-arrest-teen-dragged-woman-botched-robbery.html

[Michael Hardner]

Seems pretty soft to me.

[capricorn]

Now this judge is known for being soft, what do you think.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/23092010/71/central-house-arrest-teen-dragged-woman-botched-robbery.html

That's exactly what I thought when I first read about this.

Here's another one to keep an eye on for sentencing.

A burglar who repeatedly stabbed a homeowner with a screwdriver was acquitted of attempted murder by an Ontario Superior Court jury on Tuesday, but found guilty of aggravated assault, uttering threats, and break, enter and assault.

James Davy Pilon, 48, testified that he was "thrashing" and "flailing" at Kim Eric Logan, 44, to defend himself, jabbing him repeatedly with the screwdriver in a frantic effort to keep his head above water after Logan dragged him by his hair into a backyard swimming pool.

(The accused was identified as "James Baby Pilon" at the start of the trial, but Justice Douglas Rutherford said he discovered that the accused man's correct middle name is Davy and changed the name on the indictment.)

Pilon, who has 91 previous convictions, including 34 convictions for break-and-enter and 10 for possession of stolen property, during the last 30 years, testified he was high on crack cocaine when he saw Logan's Byron Avenue house with the lights off at about 9 p.m. on June 17, 2007.

After he went to his own nearby home to find a screwdriver and gloves, Pilon said, he returned and knocked on Logan's front door at least 15 times to make sure nobody was home. When no one answered, he peered over the fence to the back yard and saw a pet door.

Pilon reached through the pet entrance to unlock the door but before he could open it completely, he said, Logan lunged at him. He said the two men punched each other and then fell on the deck.

Pilon said he gave up, but Logan grabbed him by his long ponytail and dragged him into the water. He said he lashed out at Logan because he was coughing and choking and couldn't breathe.

During the trial, Pilon argued that it did not make sense that he would go to Logan's house with a screwdriver to hurt him.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Burglar+acquitted+attempted+murder/3559407/story.html

91 previous convictions makes Pilon a career criminal. What will it take to keep this dangerous menace off the streets?

Can't wait for his sentencing to find out.

[guyser]

Seems pretty soft to me.

Could have been a little harsher.

All in all , the judges reasoning seems to be in line.

He was 17, victim was willling to accept letter of apology (indicates forgiveness) and first offender.

REmorseful, changed friends, in school....seems like the kid wants to turn his life around.

[guyser]

Here's another one to keep an eye on for sentencing.

I wonder why the homeowner wasnt arrested too?

Aggravated assault? Attempted murder?

I give him a break on the first few shots to the crook, but after that, dragging the guy under water?

Makes one go hmm....

Edited September 23, 2010 by guyser

[Michael Hardner]

Could have been a little harsher.

All in all , the judges reasoning seems to be in line.

He was 17, victim was willling to accept letter of apology (indicates forgiveness) and first offender.

REmorseful, changed friends, in school....seems like the kid wants to turn his life around.

Really ? I didn't see the the victim willing to accept letter of apology part.

[guyser]

Really ? I didn't see the the victim willing to accept letter of apology part.

"Maisonneuve also took the teen up on his offer to write a letter of apology after asking his victim in court if she was willing to receive it."

Can we assume it implies the victim agreed to accept it? Why ask, and why get him to write it if she said no?

[Michael Hardner]

"Maisonneuve also took the teen up on his offer to write a letter of apology after asking his victim in court if she was willing to receive it."

Can we assume it implies the victim agreed to accept it? Why ask, and why get him to write it if she said no?

I suppose so.

[Topaz]

Since he is a teen I would think being embarrassed in front of this peers may help, every month, he has to go in front of the school and tell them what he did and why and why he shouldn't. If he's not in school then he should be or else he'll ended up no where. But I have to say, I don't think it would be wise to place an ad on the net about diamond jewellery, at least, don't ID your address or your last name.

[M.Dancer]

Since he is a teen I would think being embarrassed in front of this peers may help, every month, he has to go in front of the school and tell them what he did and why and why he shouldn't.

Sounds great but would violate the charter of rights.

Humiliation = torture

[PIK]

So if this says he is sorry and writes a letter will he get off to?

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2764949

[GostHacked]

I wonder why the homeowner wasnt arrested too?

The homeowner should never be arrested in a case of someone else violating their property by breaking/entering and theft. In my view, you just nulled your rights by commiting a crime, expect a bat to the head.. or something worse. Did you bring your bathing suit and a towel?

Aggravated assault? Attempted murder?

I'd give him a welcome basket. That's a neighbour I'd want. Sure it might be excessive to dunk him in the water, but damn son, you just tried to break into my place and steal my shit. Slightly different situation ... but....I've had a former roomate clean out the other roomate while I was the main leaser of the apt. None of my shit got stolen, but I felt violated and quite unsecure when it happened. I seriously wanted to break his legs. The reason he stole stuff, is because I gave him an ultamatim to GTFO because he was being abusive to the roomate and me (to a smaller extent).

I give him a break on the first few shots to the crook, but after that, dragging the guy under water?

If you want to deter and put fear into criminals, drag them to the pool for some fun. Slap on the wrists and a little speach no longer works these days. The laws that protect criminals while commiting crimes result in us not being able to defend our homes when the situation arises. That is a very sad situation. And in the case of carrer criminals who have a rap sheet pages long, putting them in the ICU or whatever will solve that problem. Even if the homeowner tried to detain him in any way, the homeowner can be charged with other crap too.

[GostHacked]

Sounds great but would violate the charter of rights.

Humiliation = torture

Cry me a river.

[guyser]

The homeowner should never be arrested in a case of someone else violating their property by breaking/entering and theft. In my view, you just nulled your rights

One's rights are never nulled. Ok maybe at a border crossing .

I'd give him a welcome basket. That's a neighbour I'd want. Sure it might be excessive to dunk him in the water, but damn son, you just tried to break into my place and steal my shit.

I might give him a basket too, but I would probably have to deliver it to the jail for him to enjoy it.

He didnt just dunk him either. Im not saying I wouldnt, i am saying it was risky.

If you want to deter and put fear into criminals, drag them to the pool for some fun. Slap on the wrists and a little speach no longer works these days. The laws that protect criminals while commiting crimes result in us not being able to defend our homes when the situation arises.

The laws that protect everyone you mean?

He was not defending his home when outside trying to drown the crook. He went above and beyond and is guilty of a criminal offence, the same as the robber is. (yes yes,if convicted that is)

Had it been my neighbour, I probably would say I didnt see anything. But I would have a chat with my neighbour later.

[Bryan]

Sounds great but would violate the charter of rights.

Humiliation = torture

Just another in a long list of reasons to dump the charter.

[Wilber]

Maisonneuve stressed that unlike with adult offenders, sending a message to others is not a principle she can consider when sentencing a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Heaven forbid we send a message to other youths that this kind of behavior is not acceptable.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Wilber