Bonam Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 An admitted murderer is released just 3 years after slaying his 2 children. Apparently, he's all better now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/12/montreal-guy-turcotte-mental-review.html?cmp=rss I'm sure some left wing posters will now inform us how this is all fully justified and reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 "he's no as defensive as before"? WTH does THAT mean? Well duh.... If I was busted for murder and facing years in jail I wouldn't be "so defensive" either! Love to hear feedback on this. "nah, we don't need more jails", we just need less defensive people.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 An admitted murderer is released just 3 years after slaying his 2 children. Apparently, he's all better now. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ew.html?cmp=rss I'm sure some left wing posters will now inform us how this is all fully justified and reasonable. He was found "not criminally responsible." What has led you to disagree with the court and doctors' assessments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Here it comes...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 cyber - Clearly you are misinformed. The left wing has repeatedly declared itself in favour of random murder in the past and this case furthers their goals in this regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 In fact, come to think of it - even having a justice system is a left-wing idea in the first place isn't it ? Why do I have to rely on the state to serve up my view of what justice is ? It's not fair for me to rely on them for justice when I can serve it up myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Here it comes...... Care to explain why you disagree with the findings of the jury? They're the ones that reached the verdict. Why is your opinion more relevant or valid than the decision reached by 12 people that heard every detail of the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 cyber - Clearly you are misinformed. The left wing has repeatedly declared itself in favour of random murder in the past and this case furthers their goals in this regard. In fact, come to think of it - even having a justice system is a left-wing idea in the first place isn't it ? Why do I have to rely on the state to serve up my view of what justice is ? It's not fair for me to rely on them for justice when I can serve it up myself. Hey man... bitter sarcasm is my schtick. You're the rational one. Get off my lawn! Damn kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Care to explain why you disagree with the findings of the jury? They're the ones that reached the verdict. Why is your opinion more relevant or valid than the decision reached by 12 people that heard every detail of the case? he's over there--------------> running away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hey smarty-pants. The JURY found him guilty. His wife equates him to a mass murderer and equivalent to OJ Simpson. The doctors let him out early. Is the doctor wiser and privy to the court proceedings? The JURY found him guilty of murder. Stabbing his 2 children with a 6 inch blade. They died slowly btw should you care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Hey smarty-pants. The JURY found him guilty. His wife equates him to a mass murderer and equivalent to OJ Simpson. The doctors let him out early. Is the doctor wiser and privy to the court proceedings? The JURY found him guilty of murder. Stabbing his 2 children with a 6 inch blade. They died slowly btw should you care The jury found him "not criminally responsible." Did you even read the article? It's one of the sub-headings even. Are you familiar with the case at all? In July 2011, a jury found Turcotte, who admitted to stabbing his two children to death, not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. Edited December 12, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Very familiar actually! "not guilty" was NOT an option for the jury to decide... This is not commonly known but an extra GF was in the court room. He admitted to the MURDERS! Guilty in a court of law regardless of the options.. Investigate it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Very familiar actually! "not guilty" was NOT an option for the jury to decide... This is not commonly known but an extra GF was in the court room. He admitted to the MURDERS! Guilty in a court of law regardless of the options.. Investigate it.. Everything you just said is completely irrelevant. The outcome was that the jury did not find him guilty nor was he acquitted; they found him not criminally responsible. So back to my original question for you: why do you disagree with the finding of 12 jurors that sat through the entire trial and heard every last detail about the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 No, he was found guilty (not guilty was not an option). I disagree with a doctor saying...."he got better". Let me play a leftist here.... You don't think he will have MASSIVE issues knowing he killed his own 2 kids? It takes 3 years to get over that? You think the doctor was correct? Shouldn't he be coddled further? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 So back to my original question for you: why do you disagree with the finding of 12 jurors that sat through the entire trial and heard every last detail about the case? The jurors may have found him not criminally responsible, but he still killed those 2 children. If he was insane enough to do so, then he should spend the rest of his life in a mental institution instead of a prison. Either way, he should never walk free again. People who kill out of insanity are some of the scariest ones. It should also be note this guy was a doctor, a cardiologist, a smart fellow. Was he really insane, or was he just able to game the system, himself being a doctor and likely having the money for a good team of lawyers? The reality is this man killed two innocent children and is now about to get off scot-free 3 years later. Whatever his mental state, that is simply not right, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) The jurors may have found him not criminally responsible, but he still killed those 2 children. If he was insane enough to do so, then he should spend the rest of his life in a mental institution instead of a prison. Either way, he should never walk free again. People who kill out of insanity are some of the scariest ones. And that's the key, of course. Like the fellow who beheaded a kid on a Greyhound bus, he was as nutty as a fruitcake. Fair enough. But that's as good a reason as any to keep him away from the rest of us forever. The Greyhound nutjob is looking at parole too, apparently. Buy shares in airlines and trains, I guess. Edited December 13, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 And that's the key, of course. Like the fellow who beheaded a kid on a Greyhound bus, he was as nutty as a fruitcake. Fair enough. But that's as good a reason as any to keep him away from the rest of us forever. The Greyhound nutjob is looking at parole too, apparently. If that guy gets unleashed back on society too, I wouldn't even know what to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 It was only one beheading.... Don't the NDP have a 3rd strike rule? Heads up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 I like to know more this mental heath issue and if other children would be safe around him and if he still has a license to practice medicine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Doesn't matter.. He's FREE! Too late now! A doctor says he's good! Let's cheer him on and watch out backs! Unless it's the guy that beheaded the poor student... Then. Well, ask the doctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 People who kill out of insanity are some of the scariest ones.How is someone that kills due to a mental health issue more frightening than someone that plans and carries out murder with a completely healthy mind? It should also be note this guy was a doctor, a cardiologist, a smart fellow. Was he really insane, or was he just able to game the system, himself being a doctor and likely having the money for a good team of lawyers? Someone's intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with their mental health. Brilliant people can be sick. Rich people too can be sick. You're arguing that he really didn't have a mental illness, contrary to the mental health professionals that assessed him and contrary to the judgment of a 12 person jury. How did you reach this conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Your right cyber...... They are both scary as all hell... The mental health experts have always been correct.. Just because he slaughtered his own kids over his wife's infidelity should be overlooked.... With a knife by the way. 3 years is more than enough time to "get better" I broke my wrist in a motorbike accident 4 years ago.... Still in rehab... The minds heals much faster than bones. Let's see what happens when he re-marries..... Let's not judge Edited December 13, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Your right cyber...... They are both scary as all hell... The mental health experts have always been correct.. Just because he slaughtered his own kids over his wife's infidelity should be overlooked.... With a knife by the way. Who said anything should be overlooked? The only thing that's being overlooked her is the jury's ruling of "not criminally responsible." Neither you nor Bonam have explained why you disagree with that conclusion and how you came to your conclusions. I've heard that it's "not right" that he's getting out because "he killed two children." But that doesn't explain your position and why you came to different conclusions than the 12 people in the jury box, the mental health professionals that have evaluated the man, and judge that issued the sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Your assuming the jury wanted him out in 3 years????????? No, a doctor wanted him out in 3 years. I may add that turcotte was seen to show no "short term threat" under house monitor.... Long term? Yes... Let's experiment.... Let's say his next wife fools around on him with kids.... Long term.... Edited December 13, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterman Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 An admitted murderer is released just 3 years after slaying his 2 children. Apparently, he's all better now. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ew.html?cmp=rss I'm sure some left wing posters will now inform us how this is all fully justified and reasonable. I'm not sure how this is a left / right issue, but it's a good example of the current state of our legal system. I think we've gone to far with this "not criminally responsible" business. I'm pretty sure anyone that commits murder isn't really going to be 100% sane, so it's a slippery slope to allow their mental state as an escape rope defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.