The Ridiculous State of Canada's Legal System

[Scotty]

The Globe and Mail reports on what it calls a "landmark ruling" in defense of battered women. Three judges on the Nova Scotia court acquitted a woman for hiring a man to murder her ex husband on the basis that she was justified.

Basically. Think about it. The court said that since her ex husband was out of control, she was justified in trying to have him murdered.

According to the article:

At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her.

She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her.

So basically, what the judges did was shrug and say "Yes, the legal system is not competent to protect her so she's right to try and have the guy killed."

Am I nuts to ask how come the police in Nova Scotia couldn't arrest and detain someone who is sexually assaulting and beating a woman weekly? Not to mention threatening her with a gun to the head? Is there something odd about my suggesting that arresting the guy is the way the system ought to go, as opposed to legalizing vigilante murder?

As one of the comments on the story stated Since hiring someone to kill another person is now legal under certain circumstances, the state will have to define what constitutes legal grounds for a private individual to unilaterally apply the death penalty.

Globe and Mail

Edited April 11, 2011 by Scotty

[ToadBrother]

As one of the comments on the story stated Since hiring someone to kill another person is now legal under certain circumstances, the state will have to define what constitutes legal grounds for a private individual to unilaterally apply the death penalty.

Globe and Mail

While the ruling is troubling, this hardly makes contract killings legal. I think someone needs to actually learn something about the legal system.

[Wild Bill]

According to the article:

At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her.

She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her.

So basically, what the judges did was shrug and say "Yes, the legal system is not competent to protect her so she's right to try and have the guy killed."

Am I nuts to ask how come the police in Nova Scotia couldn't arrest and detain someone who is sexually assaulting and beating a woman weekly? Not to mention threatening her with a gun to the head? Is there something odd about my suggesting that arresting the guy is the way the system ought to go, as opposed to legalizing vigilante murder?

[/i]

There's two different issues here, Scotty. First, is the system screwed up because it apparently can't and/or won't protect this woman from her husband? Of course it is!

However, that poor woman had to protect herself NOW! She didn't have the luxury to wait until the system was reformed, if ever.

So really the court was just recognizing reality. Remember, courts are not supposed to make law. That's the politicians' job.

She acted in self-defence. If courts take that away BEFORE the factors that would actually protect us are WORKING then they essentially would be saying that a victim should let themselves be killed rather than take effective steps to protect themselves.

That's only common sense! Would YOU die rather than break your interpretation of the law?

[noahbody]

There's two different issues here, Scotty. First, is the system screwed up because it apparently can't and/or won't protect this woman from her husband? Of course it is!

The article says she contacted police, but it doesn't say what she told them. I can't believe the police wouldn't act if she had told them he held a gun to her head.

However, that poor woman had to protect herself NOW! She didn't have the luxury to wait until the system was reformed, if ever.

I imagine the ruling will be appealed as it was when Robert Latimer wasn't convicted, twice. The system let him down too, but the system made an example out of him so others didn't start killing the severely disabled.

[blueblood]

There's two different issues here, Scotty. First, is the system screwed up because it apparently can't and/or won't protect this woman from her husband? Of course it is!

However, that poor woman had to protect herself NOW! She didn't have the luxury to wait until the system was reformed, if ever.

So really the court was just recognizing reality. Remember, courts are not supposed to make law. That's the politicians' job.

She acted in self-defence. If courts take that away BEFORE the factors that would actually protect us are WORKING then they essentially would be saying that a victim should let themselves be killed rather than take effective steps to protect themselves.

That's only common sense! Would YOU die rather than break your interpretation of the law?

How in the blue hell is hiring a hitman self defence?

She had an option. Its called a moving van and a restraining order. It should be do not pass go and do not collect 200 bucks for her.

[RNG]

I can have a very strong opinion here since I know virtually nothing about the case or law.

I think that in Canadian law, even up to the Supreme Court of Canada, some rulings are concidered precident setting, and essentially define some facet of law. Others are incident specific. I suspect if the actual ruling was read, this one is incident specific, and not legalizing offing the brother-in-law.

[noahbody]

Here's an article from 2010 to which her husband replied in the comments section.

If you have the time you should review the court tapes from the trial and all court documents involved, you may just be surprised to learn that the evidence before the court will show that Nicole Ryan was indeed a “desperate, frightened woman”, who was just caught red handed attempting to have someone killed, who was 200km away at the time of her arrest and had not had any direct or indirect contact with her for over 5 months. The fact is, I was in a new relationship since the summer of 2007 and wanted a divorce.

http://stephenkimber.com/2010/05/the-teacher-the-hit-man-and-the-questions-that-remain

[Saipan]

The Globe and Mail reports on what it calls a "landmark ruling" in defense of battered women. Three judges on the Nova Scotia court acquitted a woman for hiring a man to murder her ex husband on the basis that she was justified.

Judges like that would be legitimate target - if true.

[Saipan]

She acted in self-defence.

No she didn't. Else the cops would not only confiscated the guy's guns but he would also be in jail.

She did it because at least two other women got away with is before. One stabbed sleeping man and other shot sleeping man.

I would be in bigger shit if I shoot some intruder in my house.

[Scotty]

No she didn't. Else the cops would not only confiscated the guy's guns but he would also be in jail.

She did it because at least two other women got away with is before. One stabbed sleeping man and other shot sleeping man.

I would be in bigger shit if I shoot some intruder in my house.

I found it telling that she suggested to the hit man it would be a good thing if his girlfriend was 'collateral damage'.

I don't know if Ryan's explanation is true, but it would go a long way to explain the lack of police assistance for her in the claims she made to the court.

[Wild Bill]

I found it telling that she suggested to the hit man it would be a good thing if his girlfriend was 'collateral damage'.

I don't know if Ryan's explanation is true, but it would go a long way to explain the lack of police assistance for her in the claims she made to the court.

Well, it seems there is more to the story than I knew, so it looks like I jumped to some conclusions.

That being said, I'm afraid I just wasn't able to help it. You see, from what I've heard, seen, read and directly experienced over the years I do BELIEVE that our system would expect a victim to let themselves be killed! That the rationale is often that "you should let the police handle it", even when they don't and even if there is no time for a policeman to arrive to protect you!

Sometimes today the law doesn't seem to operate in the real world and that's why I "jumped the gun". I do admit now that the woman seems actually to be in the wrong.

[punked]

Liberal candidate John Reilly dodges soft-on-crime claims

In one case earlier this year, the Court of Appeal said a conditional two-year sentence Reilly ordered for a cocaine trafficker was "demonstrably unfit" and "under-emphasized the principle of general deterrence."

The superior court sentenced the drug trafficker to prison for 30 months.

In another 2004 case, Reilly sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand and was driving while disqualified to four months imprisonment and a one-year driving prohibition.

When he was pulled over, the man's licence was under a five year court directed suspension. He had a lengthy related criminal record, which included eight drinking and driving offences and 15 convictions for driving while disqualified.

The Court of Appeal said Reilly's sentence was "demonstrably unfit" and said he had not properly considered "the gravity of the offence" and had "overemphasized the possibility of rehabilitation."

The superior court issued a sentence of 18-months imprisonment and another five-year driving ban.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Liberal+candidate+John+Reilly+dodges+soft+crime+claims/4585983/story.html

[William Ashley]

The Globe and Mail reports on what it calls a "landmark ruling" in defense of battered women. Three judges on the Nova Scotia court acquitted a woman for hiring a man to murder her ex husband on the basis that she was justified.

Basically. Think about it. The court said that since her ex husband was out of control, she was justified in trying to have him murdered.

According to the article:

At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her.

She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her.

So basically, what the judges did was shrug and say "Yes, the legal system is not competent to protect her so she's right to try and have the guy killed."

Am I nuts to ask how come the police in Nova Scotia couldn't arrest and detain someone who is sexually assaulting and beating a woman weekly? Not to mention threatening her with a gun to the head? Is there something odd about my suggesting that arresting the guy is the way the system ought to go, as opposed to legalizing vigilante murder?

As one of the comments on the story stated Since hiring someone to kill another person is now legal under certain circumstances, the state will have to define what constitutes legal grounds for a private individual to unilaterally apply the death penalty.

Globe and Mail

Well it is a complex situation here is my 1 and 2 on it.

1. It was duress, and self defence.

2. She should have gotten evidence and gone to police ---- however in fearing he would get out and then kill her... this may once again be a form of duress and self defence ---- BUT 1. It was premediated murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. --- While this does make things much easier -- unfortunately it seems that duress and self defence should only be to the point deemed necisary to remove the threat --- the problem is that, it wasn't legal to just kill everyone who might be a threat - now the guy may have gotten a billion years in jail --- if evidence of her statements existed - but it is more or less hearsay until evidence is presented --- the judge thought it was real.... HOWEVER... the public standard is to go to police, not hire a hitman.

Although the problem here is substantiation --- I don't know the particulars of the case, evidence existing to support her story... but I find it "issued"

For instance if people have threatened me, does this make it ok for me to kill the person?

I've had someone threaten to "get revenge on me" and they were muslim... does this mean I can just go up to them and blow their head off? What about the doctor who threatened to attack me, can I just go and kill them because they want to torture me and violate my rights for the rest of my natural life? Does it need to be a death threat, or does torture qualify? What about a cop who is gonna use force +1 that is if they try to attack me? Does this mean because the cop is willing to shoot me if I defend myself, that it is a risk to life, and I can in self defence kill them outright? So too the military because they are subjecting me - and will kill me if I try to be free... See normally you'd think justifiable use of force, and people might like to believe the cop or soilder is always rights, I don't think that is the case, they screw up too.

The problems here are somewhat apparent?

But overall--- the situation is very complex...

the precendent set here is rather bizare since it is an antisocial response.

(can you hire yourself?)

The other aspect is the women in Afghanistan who were raped and had guns held to their heads the same way... is it ok for them to hire al qaeda or taliban hitman to kill Canadians, Americans or other NATO soilders there? What about in Iraq etc.. same deal.. is it legal to kill the threat because of women going to be raped and murdered, or the threat exists...

What about the Afghan Karzai governemnt that legalized rape, is it ok to kill them beacuse they allow rape?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA398&q=rape+afghanistan+american+soilders&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[BC_chick]

Lots of women have been acquitted of murder when/if there has been evidence of domestic abuse. I'm not saying I agree or not, but it's not much of a stretch to think that attempted murder would fall under the same umbrella given the same circumstances.

This case is not setting a precendece. If anything, it's continuation of existing ones.

[Shwa]

The Globe and Mail reports on what it calls a "landmark ruling" in defense of battered women. Three judges on the Nova Scotia court acquitted a woman for hiring a man to murder her ex husband on the basis that she was justified.

Basically. Think about it. The court said that since her ex husband was out of control, she was justified in trying to have him murdered.

According to the article:

At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her.

She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her.

So basically, what the judges did was shrug and say "Yes, the legal system is not competent to protect her so she's right to try and have the guy killed."

Am I nuts to ask how come the police in Nova Scotia couldn't arrest and detain someone who is sexually assaulting and beating a woman weekly? Not to mention threatening her with a gun to the head? Is there something odd about my suggesting that arresting the guy is the way the system ought to go, as opposed to legalizing vigilante murder?

As one of the comments on the story stated Since hiring someone to kill another person is now legal under certain circumstances, the state will have to define what constitutes legal grounds for a private individual to unilaterally apply the death penalty.

Globe and Mail

You raise some interesting points, but the thread title is pure hyperbole. In what way does this single incident point to the "state" of Canada's legal system, which is comprised of millions of other incidents?

[Keepitsimple]

Fortunately, crime is going down....and our laws are already tough enough.

[Tilter]

How in the blue hell is hiring a hitman self defence?

She had an option. Its called a moving van and a restraining order. It should be do not pass go and do not collect 200 bucks for her.

Oh ya--- restraining orders are fool proof, just ask the lady in Scarboro about the incident a couple of years ago, Oh wait, you can't--- he shot her DEAD.

[Moonbox]

You get a lot more than a restraining order for beating up and sexually assaulting your wife. You go to jail likely for a long time.

This was cold and pre-meditated attempted murder and a sham of a trial and I'd be surprised if it doesn't get overturned.

[Bonam]

The mere fact that this woman knew where to go to hire a hitman suggests she likely has ties to organized crime. Think about it. Would you know who to talk to to commission an assassination? I sure wouldn't. There's a lot more that needs to be investigated about this lady.

[Bryan]

Fortunately, crime is going down....and our laws are already tough enough.

And all those prisons we do have.... they're empty then too, right?

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bryan

[Keepitsimple]

And all those prisons we do have.... they're empty then too, right?

It was a big tongue in cheek......I forgot to put this after my comment........

Edited April 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

In the last 10 years, I'm willing to bet that the number of cases in all of Canada where a partner experiencing domestic violence resorted to contractual homicide was less times than I can count on one hand.

This is honestly a case of particular circumstances informing the judgment/sentencing. The number of times something like this will come up is so minimal that it is truly impossible to make any sort of inferences.

[Moonbox]

It's still cold blooded murder. It was pre-meditated and things like uttering threats and assault as far as I know are jail-worthy offenses. Unless the police are incompetent in the area I can't see why this couldn't have been handled without the help of a hit man......

[RNG]

And all those prisons we do have.... they're empty then too, right?

No, but more and more they are being used as housing for the mentally ill.

[Scotty]

In the last 10 years, I'm willing to bet that the number of cases in all of Canada where a partner experiencing domestic violence resorted to contractual homicide was less times than I can count on one hand.

Maybe, but now it's legal...