Guest Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I fully understand that something similar could happen to any father. Though you might expect a slap in the face if the child did something horrible like commit a crime or something like like that. This girl got hit for not cleaning the house properly. It seems like he thought of her as his property. The problem is his culture should be absolutely irrelevant in the sentencing. And his "community" rallied behind him. If anyone knew a WASP that accidentally broke his daughter's neck, would there be such community support? I agree. His culture should never have entered into it. I was looking at it through the eyes of a father who has been through the teen years with a couple of girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 The guy is 74 and this was a freak accident. Longer sentence won't bring her back or prevent this from happening again. If anything, the extra media attention this is getting is sending out the message to be careful when punishing your children! WWWTT Damn Straight be careful, I mean punishing your kids by spanking them is one thing, hitting them so hard that they die is quite another thing. There are a number reasons for prison time: rehabilitation, prevention and punishment. are amongst them. Just because it will not bring her back nor prevent someone else from abusing their children doesn't mean that punishing the "father" shouldn't be a good reason for a longer sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 A tragedy, I agree. But a horrible accident, I don't know. How hard do you have to hit a person to "accidentally" kill them? My guess is pretty hard. I'm sure he's quite remorseful after the fact, most people who kill in anger are. the same slap very likely would not have killed someone else. This was a fluke accident, but ultimately his fault as he created the conditions for her death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 He accidentally hit her in the face... twice? LOL Hitting someone hard enough to rupture an artery is no accident. have you EVER heard of someone being slapped so hard an artery was ruptured in their neck? This isn't the first person to slap his kids. Some even go further and beat their children mercilessly without killing them. I'm not justifying the abuse. He should have never laid a hand on her, but her death was exactly as tried and convicted: accidental death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Exactly. Blaming a 13 year old girl for not being able to take a punch is idiotic!thats not what he's saying at all. The point is that her death was certainly unusual given the circumstances. That's why it was manslaughter and not second degree murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 How many other ways can an adult take advantage of teenagers or kill them in Canada but only get a slap on the wrists ? Let's see...they can have lots of consensual sex with underage children as long as they are not in a position of trust or authority, and don't otherwise harm them. Or they can just assault and kill them "by accident". Maybe it's just me, but it seems that fugitive sex offenders have it better in Canada than minor children ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 How many other ways can an adult take advantage of teenagers or kill them in Canada but only get a slap on the wrists ? Let's see...they can have lots of consensual sex with underage children as long as they are not in a position of trust or authority, and don't otherwise harm them. Or they can just assault and kill them "by accident". Maybe it's just me, but it seems that fugitive sex offenders have it better in Canada than minor children ! Yep. It's just you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 How many other ways can an adult take advantage of teenagers or kill them in Canada but only get a slap on the wrists ? Let's see...they can have lots of consensual sex with underage children as long as they are not in a position of trust or authority, and don't otherwise harm them. Or they can just assault and kill them "by accident". Maybe it's just me, but it seems that fugitive sex offenders have it better in Canada than minor children !Troll Level: yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Troll Level: yawn. I know, we all know. But let's not discourage the boy. Kinda fun ain't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Troll Level: yawn. If it's troll, why do you encourage it? We are all fighting to encourage superior posts, why on earth would you encourage these disgraceful posts.this goes to you too ogft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I have trouble with trolling. I'm not sure what it is. Is it just something most people on the thread disagree with? I disagree with BC on this issue, but why shouldn't he have his opinion, and express it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 ...I disagree with BC on this issue, but why shouldn't he have his opinion, and express it? Because some here don't want a contrarion view presented in such a sarcastic way. Sixty days served only on two weekdays with probation for the crime of manslaughter seems a bit light to me. Maybe others feel it is too harsh, cruel, and unusual. But I agree that we all get to express our opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I have trouble with trolling. I'm not sure what it is. Is it just something most people on the thread disagree with? I disagree with BC on this issue, but why shouldn't he have his opinion, and express it? because he's not making an argument about the OP. He's taking a jab at a discussion happening in another thread to try to get a rise out of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 because he's not making an argument about the OP. He's taking a jab at a discussion happening in another thread to try to get a rise out of people. Actually, I broached this topic in the other thread before this one even existed. Something about the severity of sentencing in the U.S. and Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Actually, I broached this topic in the other thread before this one even existed. Something about the severity of sentencing in the U.S. and Canada.it was a stupid example then and it's a stupid comparison now,Let's see...having consensual sex versus accidentally killing someone. Try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 it was a stupid example then and it's a stupid comparison now, I agree....the lenient sentences in Canada are stupid, especially in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) I agree....the lenient sentences in Canada are stupid, especially in this case. Maybe they're stupid to you, but care to explain the so much better outcomes we have here? Perhaps the stupidity lies elsewhere. Edited May 23, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I agree....the lenient sentences in Canada are stupid, especially in this case.why is it stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 why is it stupid? Especially when you roll out the stats. But I wait with bated breath to hear why getting laid gets you 30 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 why is it stupid? Because it has the effect of purposely watering down the severity for nearly all crimes to the lowest common denominator of the least inconvenient sentence for the convicted offender. Attempts by the current government to impose mandatory minimums are met with derision because "hug-a-thug" restorative justice has taken on a political life of its own, making victims an afterthought. The sentencing principles in Canada's Criminal Code are in direct conflict with many of the sentences prescribed for many offenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Because it has the effect of purposely watering down the severity for nearly all crimes to the lowest common denominator of the least inconvenient sentence for the convicted offender. Attempts by the current government to impose mandatory minimums are met with derision because "hug-a-thug" restorative justice has taken on a political life of its own, making victims an afterthought. The sentencing principles in Canada's Criminal Code are in direct conflict with many of the sentences prescribed for many offenses. Public safety and rehabillitation works so much better than right wing religiouss vengance and punishment. Don't take my word for it, look at the comparitive outcomes. You lose again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 If it's troll, why do you encourage it? We are all fighting to encourage superior posts, why on earth would you encourage these disgraceful posts.this goes to you too ogft. I hear what you are saying. I have a weakness sometimes to get sucked into a cheap fight. So I guess I have to admit I have fallen for it. I will strive to do better and ignore the sarcastic digs that are nothing more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Because it has the effect of purposely watering down the severity for nearly all crimes to the lowest common denominator of the least inconvenient sentence for the convicted offender.How? Every case is tried and heard on the individual circumstances. Explain how this "waters down the severity [of what? sentences?] for nearly all crimes." Attempts by the current government to impose mandatory minimums are met with derision because "hug-a-thug" restorative justice has taken on a political life of its own, making victims an afterthought.That's wrong. The mandatory minimum sentences are being opposed because the violate people's fundamental legal rights, in particular the right to have the circumstances of your case heard and a decision made with regards to those circumstances not some pre-determined legislation that can't possibly account for all circumstances. The sentencing principles in Canada's Criminal Code are in direct conflict with many of the sentences prescribed for many offenses.What sentencing principles are those? And what's the specific conflict? If you're calling mandatory minimums a principle, they're not. A principle is that every individual case will be heard and a decision rendered with respect to individual circumstances. That's a fair and balanced legal approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I was responding to your speculation that it could have been the girl's weakness that caused such an unfortunate "accident". That notion is simply ridiculous. Actually if you think of it and other similar weaknesses, it's not. In a way. Take for example someone who has a very weak immune system and who gets sick a lot. That person has to take special precautions to ensure that they stay healthy at all times. Or someone who has severe allergies. I actually know someone who almost died because of the simple mistake of eating a chicken hot dog at a party where the host was not aware of my friends special dietary requirements (early 80's). Was it the host's fault for not being aware of my friends allergies? Was the host of that party trying to kill people by serving healthy chicken hot dogs? From what I have read, it seems very likely that the girl that died may have been very frail. Was the father aware? If so than I would agree that a longer sentence would be in order. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Actually if you think of it and other similar weaknesses, it's not. In a way. Take for example someone who has a very weak immune system and who gets sick a lot. That person has to take special precautions to ensure that they stay healthy at all times. Or someone who has severe allergies. I actually know someone who almost died because of the simple mistake of eating a chicken hot dog at a party where the host was not aware of my friends special dietary requirements (early 80's). Was it the host's fault for not being aware of my friends allergies? Was the host of that party trying to kill people by serving healthy chicken hot dogs? From what I have read, it seems very likely that the girl that died may have been very frail. Was the father aware? If so than I would agree that a longer sentence would be in order. WWWTT Comparing the act of phsically assaulting someone to death with feeding a dinner guest a chicken hot dog is beyond absurd. Edited May 23, 2014 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.