TTC Police Shooting

[guyser]

The who doing the "elevating" is something, not nothing.

The who is nothing, the benefit is for the police & fireman

Then, what weapon were you thinking had been used to shoot when you said "Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job."

If a charge is warranted , I dont care who shot nor why.

[g_bambino]

The who is nothing, the benefit is for the police... If a charge is warranted , I dont care who shot nor why.

You shift the goalposts. The issue was never whether or not a charge is warranted, but your irritation at the fact the police are held to a different standard when it comes to laying charges related to injuring or killing someone--"Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job"--and subsequently at the police themselves for granting themselves that difference--"Part of the problem is the police have elevated themselves to some higher plane in need of certain laws."

When you said that, the who clearly mattered, otherwise you would have simply said the police have been elevated to that plane. The who mattered because you were trying to malign the police as unjustly empowered manipulators of the law in their own favour.

[guyser]

You shift the goalposts.

No I didnt, you misunderstood the intentions of what I wrote, thus clarified in the last post.

I dont care who shot who, meaning if a charge is warranted so be it. You are making it seem as if the rules were a cop shot someone, oh ok, no problem its a cop...when in fact it can be a problem like w Yatim.

Thus, if warranted , charges laid.

The issue was never whether or not a charge is warranted, but your irritation at the fact the police are held to a different standard when it comes to laying charges related to injuring or killing someone

And here is the part when you went off the rail. I have a probelm with police who are or have been elevated to a higher plane, I never referenced that with shooting someone under the guise of the policemans job.

There are necessary and unnecessary laws pertaining to police and or their job.

When you said that, the who clearly mattered, otherwise you would have simply said the police have been elevated to that plane. The who mattered because you were trying to malign the police as unjustly empowered manipulators of the law in their own favour.

It may have mattered to you, but you are joining the two when they are spearate issues.

The police have had someone else manipulate the law in thier favour, they only get the benefit.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Guyser2

[g_bambino]

I have a probelm with police who are or have been elevated to a higher plane, I never referenced that with shooting someone under the guise of the policemans job.

But you did:

Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job.

Part of the problem is the police have elevated themselves to some higher plane in need of certain laws.

Right there, together, one following on the other: someone being shot by a policeman referenced with the elevation of police to a higher plane, all stated in response to the question "You think it's the same when a civilian fires at a cop as when a police officer fires his/her weapon at a perp?" It's neither hard nor irrational to deduce from that together that you don't think the police should be held to a different standard than the rest of the population in the matter of injuring or killing someone with a firearm--"[An officer firing at a perp versus a civilian firing at an officer?] Don't care who did it nor the person's job"--and do think that particular different standard is a benefit they enjoy on the higher plane they elevated themselves to.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[guyser]

It's neither hard nor irrational to deduce from that together that you don't think the police should be held to a different standard than the rest of the population in the matter of injuring or killing someone with a firearm--"[An officer firing at a perp versus a civilian firing at an officer?] Don't care who did it nor the person's job"--and do think that particular different standard is a benefit they enjoy on the higher plane they elevated themselves to.

[ed.: c/e]

Thats your position so be it.

It wasnt mine, they did not go together for the same thought.

The second part was an add on about other laws the police have immunity from.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Guyser2

[Rue]

3 shots... pause ... then 6 more. Intent.

No in law you can not make the leap and just assume like that. You need one more step or process of evidence to convict.

The crucial arguments center around that pause. Why the pause? You will actually see all the arguments zooming in on what is going on in the mind of the officer during that pause. That is the key.

Here is what you can anticipate in the legal arguments:

1-what is the state of officer's mind leading up to, then immediately before he shoots the first 3 times

2-what is his state of mind during the pause or interval

3-what if anything can be said to trigger him to decide to shoot 6 shots.

The above will be magnified step by step by the defence lawyer. Remember you must convict beyond reasonable doubt. You

can't skip over any reason however remote that might lead you to believe between step 1 to 3, something gave reason for the officer to shoot and/or to shoot to defend himself or others.

That is my point. The law does NOT allow you to automatically infer from interval alone, or volume of shots alone murder is proven.

You still need to show intent.

You are mixing up and not understanding that just because the murder is not pre meditated you can skip all these steps. No you can't.

The Criminal Code in all culpable murder charges, i.e., second or first, still requires you examine what I mentioned.

In this case you can't skip the test of showing an intent to kill, i.e., a blatant disregard for human safety PLUS not caring of the person dies.

This is why I stated I wonder if the crown deliberately set themselves up to fail to let the officer off and just play the politics of going through the motion.

If they were charging him with criminal negligence or dangerous use of a firearm your trying to infer negligence from volume of shots is easier to prove-but to go the next step and say it was intended to kill no.

[Rue]

He said exactly what I've said I've read - that the crown will have to prove intent.

Lol, one day Dre is probably going to have the worst nightmare in his life-the need for a defence lawyer with only me

available. Over the years I have had a lot of Dre's in law class. They know it all. Lol.

On a more serious note, in regards to the way the deceased held the knife. That is the kind of evidence that does not

help either side's arguments very much. Very weak.

A madman can in fact switch from clenched hold to flick wrist manouver very quickly. Very hard indeed to second guess.

Its the exact problem. In a state of madness anything can mean anything. You can't assume anything definitive.

This is why some argue back off so you do not misconstrue and others argue always assume the worst.

Either assumption has its merits in training programs but the key is to know which one to use and when.

[Argus]

This is why I stated I wonder if the crown deliberately set themselves up to fail to let the officer off and just play the politics of going through the motion.

If they were charging him with criminal negligence or dangerous use of a firearm your trying to infer negligence from volume of shots is easier to prove-but to go the next step and say it was intended to kill no.

Could the jury not decide to find him guilty of criminal negligence or manslaughter rather than murder?

[dre]

In this case you can't skip the test of showing an intent to kill, i.e., a blatant disregard for human safety PLUS not caring of the person dies.

Those things are not the same as intent to kill. You can have blatant disregard for human safety and indifference and still not be intending to cause death.

Murder

229. Culpable homicide is murder

• (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

  • (i) means to cause his death, or

  • (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

• (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

• (c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

Intent is important but the criminal code specific says that it does not have to be intent to kill. Furthermore you dont even really have to know that your actions are likely to cause death, if they are actions that a person SHOULD know have a reasonable likelyhood of causing death.

Here is what you can anticipate in the legal arguments:

1-what is the state of officer's mind leading up to, then immediately before he shoots the first 3 times

2-what is his state of mind during the pause or interval

3-what if anything can be said to trigger him to decide to shoot 6 shots.

This part at least is correct.

Edited August 30, 2013 by dre

[cybercoma]

Could the jury not decide to find him guilty of criminal negligence or manslaughter rather than murder?

There are lesser-included charges with Second Degree Murder, yes. It's highly unlikely that they'll find him guilty of a lesser-included charge though. He'll likely either be guilty of second or acquitted.

[guyser]

He'll likely either be guilty of second or acquitted.

Or plea down which would be a good thing for him.

[Guest American Woman]

Lol, one day Dre is probably going to have the worst nightmare in his life-the need for a defence lawyer with only me

available. Over the years I have had a lot of Dre's in law class. They know it all. Lol.

I don't doubt it.

I was really surprised by a second degree murder charge rather than manslaughter charge as from all I've read, the Crown brings a manslaughter charge when it doesn't believe the killing was intentional. This would indicate that the Crown believes it was intentional, evidently. Seems to me as if it would be pretty difficult to prove that a police officer, in the moment where he makes such a 'heat of the moment decision,' would be thinking 'I want to kill him!' - and then shoot to kill. As I've said, this officer isn't a rookie - he has had six years of experience on the force. What would set Yatim so apart from all the other perps that he's dealt with that would make Forcillo intend to kill him? Also, if Yatim intended to kill him but didn't, why isn't it being assumed that the cop who tasered him wanted to kill him? As I've pointed out, tasers alone have resulted in death, and it seems to me that using a taser on someone who was shot multiple times would increase the odds of it being lethal. Furthermore, if that cop isn't charged, that's in effect saying that it was reasonable for him to use a taser even after Yatim was shot multiple times, so it seems to me that would help Forcillo's case; that it would give strength to the idea that it was reasonable for Forcillo to feel that Yatim posed a threat.

[dre]

Lol, one day Dre is probably going to have the worst nightmare in his life-the need for a defence lawyer with only me

available.

The prospect of using you as a defense lawyer as being a "worst nightmare" isnt exactly a big self endorsement of your skills... nor is your reading of Canadas murder statutes

[Rue]

There are lesser-included charges with Second Degree Murder, yes. It's highly unlikely that they'll find him guilty of a lesser-included charge though. He'll likely either be guilty of second or acquitted.

Cyber-Argus-they should have charged him second degree murder OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE....whatever else such as manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc.

By not doing that they took away the right to fall back to a lesser charge with the jury.

Doesn't mean they can't plea bargain that but once we head to a full trial its all or nothing like you said Cyb on the second degree charge which is why myself and many other lawyers are scratching our heads.

I also don't see this being plea bargained. It sets a dangerous precedent and I will try explain and it has to do with the debate others are having over whether a police officer should be held to a different standard.

Second degree murder when it was originally drafted was intended for a murder without pre-meditation but by an ordinary person in the heat of the moment-someone angry usually who say starts a fight and kills someone or maybe a domestic violence situation or what we call crime of passions, i.e., you find your wife in bed with some one else. But those kinds of charges usually get bumped down to manslaughter or criminal negligence.

A classic example of second degree murder is a guy shooting into a crowd. But I would say 95% of these are pleaded down to manslaughter or criminal negligence.

Second degree murder was not drafted envisioning a police officer during the course of his work becoming "excessive". You have to keep in mind there is a parallel civil court that allows suing for damages for wrongful death from negligence.

Criminal negligence is not the same thing. For there to be criminal negligence you still need to show an intent to either kill or engage in behaviour you would know could kill someone.

The point Dre can't comprehend is to prove someone knew what he was doing would kill someone has to be proven for a second degree conviction.

Because of that need to go beyond reasonable doubt, it doesn't allow automatic inference simply because 9 shots were fired or even that there was an

interval.

I know its tempting to just arrive at the conclusion the action MUST MEAN killing but defence arguements allow one to raise explanations that can raise the benefit of the doubt to a police officer in the line of duty unlike ordinary shmuckos like you and me for two reasons;

1-precisely because an officer is not an ordinary person-his job requires he use a gun in extreme situations;

2- you and I are supposed to avoid putting ourselves in a position of violence where possible but a police officer may have to put himself directly in a violent act to protect others or society as a whole.

So yes there is a double standard for those reasons.

However that double standard if anything may make it harder on an officer not easier.

Some of you are right in the sense that officer or no officer we all have a standard of care to carry out.

In the case of an officer however to determine that standard of care it's not the same as with you or me-and that is because they are doing a job that removes themself from being an ordinary citizen-we are not supposed to take matters into our own hands-an officer is UNDER certain situations and so therein lies the big difference and therefore discrepancy as to how we determine our standard of reasonable behaviour as opposed to an officer's.

You can't presume the moment the gun is shot by an officer it infers negligence. You might with an ordinary citizen in certain situations precisely because there is no public expectation we use the weapon to protect the public.

.

Dre continues to keep misinterpreting the second degree murder section because he does what a lot of pretend lawyers do. He doesn't read the case law that has interpreted the code wording. To understand how that wording is in fact applied, one has to read the case law.

He keeps stating "the criminal code specific (sic) says that it does not have to be intent to kill. "

Then he went on to state; "Furthermore you dont even really have to know that your actions are likely to cause death, if they are actions that a person SHOULD know have a reasonable likelyhood of causing death."

In regards to his frist statement it should properly read, " the crown will not have to prove intent to kill but only in situations where it can prove an intent to act recklessly, i.e., cause serious harm.

In regards to his second statement, "actions that a person SHOULD know have a reasonable likelyhood (sic) of causing death" can only be proven by showing what was the officer thinking while shooting to then indicate it was lacking.

Dre misses that basic point.

IA reasonable person test for an officer is not a reasonable person test for you or I. Reasonable when examining their behaviour depends on the training they were given and then how they thought they were interpreting it at the time they shot. Dre has totally missed that point.

Again let me repeat, the actual test for determining second degree murder is not written in the code. It arose later through case law, much of it American since second degree murder has been around a lot longer in the US then Canada and so there is much more case law on it ther.

In this case the crown can not get around the defence arguement that the intent of the officer was not to kill but to immobilize. As I said the only way to surmount the beyond reasonable doubt onus on the crown is to show the officer KNEW death happened and kept shooting or yelled out he wanted the deceased dead or was yelling out something indicating he wanted to hurt him.

Excessive force most certainly is going to be proven in a civil negligence case. In this case its not going to allow the crown or Judge to ignore defence arguements as to what the police officer was thinking or intending to do as he shot. Of course not. The code never intended to take away that right ofg defence with a culpable murder charge. No the law does not allow you to convict someone on inference of behaviour only. That is precisely why it built in benefit of the doubt and even a higher beyond reasonable doubt with criminal trials. Criminal law does not want to create situations where you can automatically convict someone on the most serious of charges-homicide.

We do have what we call strict liability cases where one need only show the action was done to render a conviction, i.e., failing to blow into a breathalyzer-guilt is automatically inferred. If you read the wording for strict liability code sections they are very different to the second and first degree murder sections.

As for Dre he continues to appear to be a legend in his own mind. Maybe he can go serve as the Crown. That is one way to assure this officer walks. However I will try one last time to redirect him back to the actual test the crown must show:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as:

1. an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, i.e.,a killing that was not pre-planned but none-the-less can be shown to have been conducted with malice (negative) afterthought (consequences);
2. was committed in the heat of the moment; (was done impulsively while the perpetrator started off doing something else intended to cause bodily harm or act out with anger) or
3. was caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life; (here the perpetrator must shown to have depraved indifference to human life).

Dre is not correct when he makes it seem as if all the crown has to show is a death happened from the shootings to prove second degree murder. No not at all. You still have to show one of the above 3 types of intentional non pre-meditated types of killings.

In the present case with the police officer the crown has to focus on the above third type of behaviour because as I earlier mentioned and Dre did not understand, the crown cannot show beyond reasonable doubt the first type above because they can’t prove the officer intended to engage in malice (negative behaviour-i.e., a desire to kill) unless suddenly tape can be heard with the officer screaming out or stating” I am going to kill you!”. All the officer has to argue is his intent at all times was to immobilize and in his intense focus he could not tell if the victim was still a threat or not because he could not see the results of his shots or interpreted initial and/o subsequent movement to be threatening and in need of force.

The second type cannot be proven because the officer can easily argue he was acting deliberately to protect himself and his fellow officers-there was no heat of the moment-he was completely focused on taking out the victim from being a threat.

So the crown will focus on the third type and argue the sheer number of shots can infer the officer evidenced a depraved indifference to human life.

...to counter depraved indifference the defence merely need show it was not depraved difference but fear, anxiety, concern for other officers.

...the case law on what will be considered evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted indifferent to human life in the case of a police officer using force has never arisen until this charge.

There is no case precedent to go by. In most situations the officer might be charged with negligence while using a firearm, criminal negligence or perhaps manslaughter but second degree murder? It makes no sense. The requirement to show intent beyond reasonable doubt must be more than simply 9 shots.

In fact all the defence lawyer has to show was that the officer was calm and focused and not out of control. That shows no deliberate intent to kill but a deliberate attempt to immobilize. To jump to the conclusion immobilization and killing are exactly the same is not how the law works. Somehow you must indicate some kind of element in the behaviour that shows the immbolization turned from just that to murder. Shots in themselves will not do that. Another officer yelling stop, you’ll kill him, and he keeps shooting, might have been sufficient.

To summarize to be able to prove second degree murder the crown will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the officer :

1. intended to inflict grievous bodily injury without legal justification;
2. intended to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury.

In regards to 1 above expect the crown to argue to the jury the amount of shots in itself can infer an intent to cause grievous bodily injury and the defence countering saying the officer’s intent was only to immobilize and he could not tell how many shots he made or whether they had penetrated and so kept shooting.

In regards to 2, expect the Crown to argue to the jury that the officer waiting betwen two series of shots can be inferred to mean he wanted to keep hurting the victim after the victim began convulsing on the ground-the defence will counter the officer interpreted the convulsions as the victim trying to kick or get up constituting the need for further immobilization or that his view was obscured and he started shooting again thinking there was movement.

[guyser]

For there to be criminal negligence you still need to show an intent to either kill or engage in behaviour you would know could kill someone.

You're right, it would be Dre's nightmare.

Your statement above is incorrect.

Dre, call Lionel Hutz first .Jackie Chiles second.

[dre]

There are lesser-included charges with Second Degree Murder, yes. It's highly unlikely that they'll find him guilty of a lesser-included charge though. He'll likely either be guilty of second or acquitted.

The judge himself can also reduce the charges.

[cybercoma]

Or plea down which would be a good thing for him.

I don't see him doing that because juries tend to acquit cops.

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently the judge could throw the charge out, as the judge at Const. David Cavanagh's preliminary hearing did.

Forcillo is the third to be charged with second-degree murder. One of the other officers was acquitted, while the second had his charge dismissed, though that decision is under appeal. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/19/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim_n_3779471.html

[dre]

Apparently the judge could throw the charge out, as the judge at Const. David Cavanagh's preliminary hearing did.

Forcillo is the third to be charged with second-degree murder. One of the other officers was acquitted, while the second had his charge dismissed, though that decision is under appeal. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/19/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim_n_3779471.html

Very different circumstances though. The judge in the Cavanagh case thought that the shooting was an accident. His gun was hanging vertically from and it discharged one time while he and two other officers struggled with a violent Eric Osawe.

Its a little different than this case where an officer pumps 9 bullets into a perp who is 15-20 feet away.

[Guest American Woman]

Very different circumstances though. The judge in the Cavanagh case thought that the shooting was an accident. His gun was hanging vertically from and it discharged one time while he and two other officers struggled with a violent Eric Osawe.

Its a little different than this case where an officer pumps 9 bullets into a perp who is 15-20 feet away.

Yet the crown laid the same charge against him as Forcillo, so if it's true that it was simply an accidental shooting, it makes one wonder about the competency of the crown when laying such charges, and it makes me question what evidence they have against Yatim. An accidental shooting being perceived as intent to kill comes across as completely irrational to me.

[Rue]

You're right, it would be Dre's nightmare.

Your statement above is incorrect.

Dre, call Lionel Hutz first .Jackie Chiles second.

Prove it is incorrect. Its tiresome listening to you legal experts misquote how the law would be applied in this specific instance.

Go on prove your point,.

In this specific case please tell me what would be the test for criminal negligence, manslaughter, second degree and first degree murder.

Since you know the difference do tell or do me a favour take Dre and go playmake believe somewhere else.

Criminal negligence is the act of doing something intentional. Negligence means intentional. In the case of criminal law a negligent behaviour beyond reasonable doubt. In this case criminal negligence (which was not the charge by the way) would necessarily mean dangerous shooting of the gun. Because of the specific fact situation, the shooting is only dangerous if it can be shown to have been done without any thought at all to safety.

Not that you would understand but there is no one size fits all test. You have to take the facts of the case and then apply the law and particular charge to the facts. Negligent use of a fire-arm, criminal negligence, manslaughter, are not the same test as second or first degree murder but would still have to show unreasonable behaviour. This is not a member of the public. This is someone held to a different standard of reasonability. We do not start with the proposition that shooting the gun in itself is negligence as we would a member of the public. We have to go the next step and show how it was uncalled for.

As much as you would like to turn this into a strict liability test it isn't and no you 2 legal geniuses are not going to get a lynching where you automatically find the officer guilty because he shot 9 times which is what both you geniuses are arguing.

As well Dre is as usual wrong when he says the Judge can change the charge. No he can not. Only the Jury can. The Judge might be tempted to make a recommendation to the jury to consider a lesser charge but its up to the Jury not the Judge to make that decision and by only charging the officer with second degree murder its the defence who must suggest plea bargain to a lesser charge. The crown has shown its hand in the way it laid its charges without mentioning alternative counts.

But of course you legal geniuses know that.

In this case the Judge will not on his own change the charge. That would be a grounds of appeal.

Who needs law school. We can just come on this forum and spew it out like experts. Lol.

Cyber's original comments were the most accurate.

You geniuses need to go and at least make an effort to read a criminal text and some cases before you try

lecture people on Canadian criminal law.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Rue

[dre]

Yet the crown laid the same charge against him as Forcillo, so if it's true that it was simply an accidental shooting, it makes one wonder about the competency of the crown when laying such charges, and it makes me question what evidence they have against Yatim. An accidental shooting being perceived as intent to kill comes across as completely irrational to me.

I cant argue with you there.

In this specific case please tell me what would be the test for criminal negligence, manslaughter, second degree and first degree murder.

I already did.

As much as you would like to turn this into a strict liability test it isn't and no you 2 legal geniuses are not going to get a lynching where you automatically find the officer guilty because he shot 9 times which is what both you geniuses are arguing.

Cool story bro! Except that you are the only one engaging in argument from authority fallacy, and you are the only one claiming to be a legal genius. And far from claiming theres going to be a lynching, Iv said numerous times I think he will probably get aquitted.

As well Dre is as usual wrong when he says the Judge can change the charge. No he can not. Only the Jury can. The Judge might be tempted to make a recommendation to the jury to consider a lesser charge but its up to the Jury not the Judge to make that decision and by only charging the officer with second degree murder its the defence who must suggest plea bargain to a lesser charge

As usual you are wrong, but never mind that the fact that you just torpedoed your orgional argument which was that the charges cannot be reduced. They can.

You geniuses need to go and at least make an effort to read a criminal text and some cases before you try

lecture people on Canadian criminal law.

And you need to stop pretending you have.

[Boges]

Why are we talking about Police being able to pump people full of lead where a private citizen can't?

The only real difference is that in Canada, carrying a concealed handgun is effectively banned so people aren't walking around with a gat in Canada, so it's far less likely. But I would assume if a dude with a knife threatened me a court would consider my right to defend myself just the same as they would a cop.

The question is, did Yatim really pose an immediate threat? I don't think he did, but like everyone here we don't have access to all the evidence but I'm pretty confident he no longer posed any threat after the first 3 shots.

I think this is just an example of some empowered meathead cop getting all butt hurt that a scrawny kid with his man meat out was calling him an effing pussy.

But, as always, that's just my opinion.

[Rue]

I cant argue with you there.

I already did.

Cool story bro! Except that you are the only one engaging in argument from authority fallacy, and you are the only one claiming to be a legal genius. And far from claiming theres going to be a lynching, Iv said numerous times I think he will probably get aquitted.

As usual you are wrong, but never mind that the fact that you just torpedoed your orgional argument which was that the charges cannot be reduced. They can.

And you need to stop pretending you have.

That's it?

You need to learn to read Dre and stop pretending to be a lawyer. I do not throwmy credentials about but after 30 years practicing law and holding a Master's in law as well as a Bachelor's and having taught law at universities and colleges over 15 years you really nee

to stop sometimes when someone who is a lawyer says, stop shooting off at the mouth and learn to read what I stated.

I said the crown can not change its charge to a lesser one because it did not lay an alternative charge. That zipped over your head.

It also zipped over your head that Judges do not unilaterally decide what can be layed as a charge. However American Women is right they can THROW OUT a charge but they do not lay charges its up to the crown to lay down the charge or both sides to plea bargain.

95% of criminal charges are plea bargained to something other then what they are but in this case due to the politics I would be surprised if that happens.

As well Dre you are full of it over the standard of evidence that must be shown and you show that by not understanding simply reading out a code section does not indicate how case law has applied it nor once we are on the topic is your interpretation of the wording even if we went literally correct.

Readers can read for themselves strict liability offences, culpable homicide offences, negligent use of a fire arm, criminal negligence, manslaughter and they can see wording differences which are intentional to change type of elements to be found for each type of offence.

You still need to read the case law. Dre don't bluff on this board with the law it doesn't make your point and no one is interested in getting in debate with you over nonsense.

Most of the readers understand the issues and can use common sense to understand why in criminal law, you don't just assume someone is guilty of a killing because of the no. of shots fired.

Give it a rest Dre. Stick to playing arm chair militant.

[dre]

Dre don't bluff on this board with the law it doesn't make your point.

Nobody is doing that but you.

I weighed in on whether or not there was a requirement for 2nd degree murder that there be a specific intent to kill, and everything I said was accurate. Then you started trying to appeal to your own authority and tossing about all kinds of nonsense.

Stick to playing arm chair militant.

Cool story bro!