Man kills his daughter. Only gets 60 days!

[cybercoma]

I have no argument against him getting a longer sentence. These were the arguments from the court that you people have a tough time understanding. You're creating all sorts of strawmen about the case, when the fact is it was a horrific accident that no one would have expected. You claim he hit her hard enough to kill her,yet no reasonable person would expect a slap to kill someone. People get into brutal fist fights without dying. People have been KOed with one punch and not died. Those that have died in street fights generally do so from striking their heads on concrete. So to sit here and say that he slapped her to death strikes me as ridiculous. It was an accident. He was charged as though it were an accident. And he got the appropriate sentence given the mitigating factors.

Edited May 27, 2014 by cybercoma

[Army Guy]

I think we all understand perfectly....The courts are NOT doing enough to punish criminals period.....This was not an accident, it was the result of a grown man lossing control and striking a 13 year old for some stupid reason, it was meant to inflict pain and suffering to a child.....( which i thought was again'st the law).....who in this case is simply thrown away...her death not even given a second look, his providing for his family seems to be given a higher priority....the guy is 74 years old , how much can he be providing...send his ass to jail alot longer than 2 years, give him something to think about before he kills again....

How much time would he have recieved if he had done this in the public eye, and not killed her....60 days is a joke, it sends the wrong message....ridiculous indeed, that we shrug this off as a minor crime, that deserves no more attention than someone jay walking....

[cybercoma]

He would have got no time if he didn't kill her, since parents are allowed to slap their kids.

[Boges]

He would have got no time if he didn't kill her, since parents are allowed to slap their kids.

I think you need to re-check your math on that one.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm

Section 43 of the Criminal Code

Section 43 of the Criminal Code(1) reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

The defence of reasonable correction appeared in Canada’s first Criminal Code in 1892. The content has remained virtually unchanged since that time, with the exception of the removal of masters and apprentices from among the relationships covered by the defence.(2)

I think an argument can be made that slapping a 13-year-old in the face for not cleaning properly is NOT reasonable.

Of course I have said several times in this thread that the judge used "cultural" factors in determining his ruling. Meaning it was OK because they do that all the time where he's from. Which is the racism of lowered expectation.

BTW regarding that law. Any teacher that spanks and/or slaps a child in this day and age would likely get fired on the spot. That's probably one of the only things that can get a Unionized teacher fired these days.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

You can suppose all you want. The force wasn't unreasonable. She had no bruising or other signs of trauma that would be consistent with a history of abuse. You guys can try to spin this however you want, but even the prosecutors knew they didn't have an assault nor a murder charge here.

Edited May 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[Boges]

Why would they go after assault charges when he was obviously guilty of manslaughter?

No one is calling it murder, well some are I'm not.

[guyser]

I think we all understand perfectly....The courts are NOT doing enough to punish criminals period.....

And you would be incorrect.

The vast , as in pretty much 99+% of cases are ajudicated correctly.

Im betting if I posted that CDN Forces should be judged by the Somalia affair you would not be in agreement?

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't assault a lesser included offense in this case ?

[Wilber]

You can suppose all you want. The force wasn't unreasonable. She had no bruising or other signs of trauma that would be consistent with a history of abuse. You guys can try to spin this however you want, but even the prosecutors knew they didn't have an assault nor a murder charge here.

Hitting anyone in the face is unreasonable force unless it is in self defense.

[Bonam]

You can suppose all you want. The force wasn't unreasonable. She had no bruising or other signs of trauma that would be consistent with a history of abuse. You guys can try to spin this however you want, but even the prosecutors knew they didn't have an assault nor a murder charge here.

Striking in the face or head is never reasonable as a means of corrective punishment as it has far too high a chance of inflicting significant or lasting harm, even with just a slap. Period. Full stop. Striking in the face or head is only done in anger or with intent to cause harm. Period. Full stop.

What this man did was not a corrective punishment, as those are done in a calm situation in a disciplined manner, and should be applied to an area of the body unlikely to cause any significant or lasting harm (i.e. the buttocks).

[Boges]

Striking in the face or head is never reasonable as a means of corrective punishment as it has far too high a chance of inflicting significant or lasting harm, even with just a slap. Period. Full stop. Striking in the face or head is only done in anger or with intent to cause harm. Period. Full stop.

What this man did was not a corrective punishment, as those are done in a calm situation in a disciplined manner, and should be applied to an area of the body unlikely to cause any significant or lasting harm (i.e. the buttocks).

Unless you're from a country where people do it all the time, then it's fine.

[cybercoma]

Striking in the face or head is never reasonable as a means of corrective punishment as it has far too high a chance of inflicting significant or lasting harm, even with just a slap. Period. Full stop. Striking in the face or head is only done in anger or with intent to cause harm. Period. Full stop.

What this man did was not a corrective punishment, as those are done in a calm situation in a disciplined manner, and should be applied to an area of the body unlikely to cause any significant or lasting harm (i.e. the buttocks).

You're absolutely wrong. Parents are allowed to slap their children. A slap across the face is not enough to be considered intent to cause serious injury. When is the last time you heard of someone being charged with attempted murder for slapping someone across the face? You guys can justify your emotional disgust over this case in any way you choose. The facts are that a reasonable person wouldn't expect a slap across the face to cause serious bodily harm. This was a freak accident that is highly unusual given the circumstances. Since it was a accident, he was tried and convicted for manslaughter.

I'm not arguing that parents should or that even he should have hit her. Of course he shouldn't have. What a stupid comment to make.

[Bonam]

You're absolutely wrong. Parents are allowed to slap their children.

Care to find a cite for that? And if it is true that it is allowed, then it should not be and the applicable law should be changed. Any strike on the face/head can cause injury or even death, as this case aptly illustrates. A slap on the butt is fine, a slap in the face is not.

A slap across the face is not enough to be considered intent to cause serious injury. When is the last time you heard of someone being charged with attempted murder for slapping someone across the face? You guys can justify your emotional disgust over this case in any way you choose.

It has nothing to do with "emotional disgust", my level of emotion in regards to some random dude I didn't know and his daughter is honestly pretty low. It has more to do with the fact that I believe our justice system should reflect that striking someone on the face/head is not an innocent gesture, and causing harm by doing so is not an accident but should be considered an expected result, because it is. Hitting someone in the face or head can easily damage their teeth, eyes, brain, or neck, or any of delicate systems that exist in these areas, even without applying very much force. Yes, death is an unusual and unexpected result from a single strike, but harm is not. Intending to do someone harm and accidentally causing them death instead should be treated as an aggravated assault causing death or something along those lines.

If you care to debate this further, you should go into medical literature and read up about the effects of strikes/blows to the face/head and their potential to do damage even with relatively low force, and the vast vast numbers of recorded instances of significant/permanent damage in such cases. This isn't a matter of opinion, but fact. The face/head is, or should be, completely off limits for any kind of "legitimate" or "allowable" punishment that a parent might do to their children.

[guyser]

You're absolutely wrong. Parents are allowed to slap their children. A slap across the face is not enough to be considered intent to cause serious injury. When is the last time you heard of someone being charged with attempted murder for slapping someone across the face? You guys can justify your emotional disgust over this case in any way you choose. The facts are that a reasonable person wouldn't expect a slap across the face to cause serious bodily harm. This was a freak accident that is highly unusual given the circumstances. Since it was a accident, he was tried and convicted for manslaughter.

I'm not arguing that parents should or that even he should have hit her. Of course he shouldn't have. What a stupid comment to make.

I know you arent making that argument but I do have to correct you on the rst of this.

Bonam is more or less correct.

The law states that reasonable force can be used, but....and this is key , I will quote from Law Scoiety here....

■Hitting a child under 2 years of age. Such a young child is not able to understand why someone is spanking them;

■Hitting teenagers: This may alienate the youth and promote aggressive or anti-social behaviour;

■Using objects to hit such as belts, rulers, etc. because they can be harmful both physically and emotionally;

■Slaps or blows to the head;

■Degrading or inhumane treatment;

■Corporal punishment that causes injury.

Points 2 and 4 are the relevant ones to remember

Edited May 28, 2014 by Guyser2

[Bob Macadoo]

What are you quoting from the law society....their definition of unreasonable force....which isn't defined as such in no statute I can find. In that Point 2 is absurd as a "means test", youth can feel alienated at the drop of a hat.

As emotionally charged as this issue is Cyber is more or less correct.

[guyser]

What are you quoting from the law society....their definition of unreasonable force....which isn't defined as such in no statute I can find. In that Point 2 is absurd as a "means test", youth can feel alienated at the drop of a hat.

As emotionally charged as this issue is Cyber is more or less correct.

Sec 43....

43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances

And then from Law Society of N Scotia, quoting a case (and it wont open)....

Q - How does the court define reasonable force?

A - 'Reasonable under the circumstances' is very broad, so the Supreme Court of Canada created the following definition of 'reasonable force' in disciplining children:

Reasonable force is 'minor corrective force,' short-lived and not harmful. The courts have an objective test to apply in deciding whether the use of force is reasonable. The courts also make use of social consensus and expert advice to decide whether an instance of spanking represents reasonable or unreasonable use of force.

Q - What is not reasonable force?

• Hitting a child under 2 years of age. Such a young child is not able to understand why someone is spanking them;
• Hitting teenagers: This may alienate the youth and promote aggressive or anti-social behaviour;
• Using objects to hit such as belts, rulers, etc. because they can be harmful both physically and emotionally;
• Slaps or blows to the head;
• Degrading or inhumane treatment;
• Corporal punishment that causes injury.

[cybercoma]

Then there must be case law precedent. Regardless, people are slapped in the face all the time and death is not an expected outcome. There can be no rational discussion until people can admit that it was a fluke that she died the way that she did. If death was an outcome that could be reasonably expected from slapping someone across the face, then he would have been tried for second degree murder.

[Spiderfish]

Then there must be case law precedent. Regardless, people are slapped in the face all the time and death is not an expected outcome. There can be no rational discussion until people can admit that it was a fluke that she died the way that she did. If death was an outcome that could be reasonably expected from slapping someone across the face, then he would have been tried for second degree murder.

I'm not sure anyone here is trying to say that his intentions were to slap her to death. But he slapped her, the punishment he used was not what could be considered as acceptable and reasonable, and it did indeed cause her death. I don't think he should face a murder charge, but I also think that 60 days is a joke. I guess it's fortunate that he did not admit that he delivered the blows in anger, or he would likely have a case of NCR by way of temporary insanity.

And I agree with Boges, cultural factors should have no relevance in determining the sentence.

[AngusThermopyle]

Cultural factors are absolutely irrelevant and should never even have been introduced to this trial. What I find very interesting is the fact that he admitted to striking her three times, not just once. This is what he admitted. Also the autopsy reported that she had trauma to her liver. How did that happen? Did he administer a few "foot slaps" while she was down? One thing I am sure of is that this guy lied like a cheap rug under questioning.

[Army Guy]

Cultural factors are absolutely irrelevant and should never even have been introduced to this trial. What I find very interesting is the fact that he admitted to striking her three times, not just once. This is what he admitted. Also the autopsy reported that she had trauma to her liver. How did that happen? Did he administer a few "foot slaps" while she was down? One thing I am sure of is that this guy lied like a cheap rug under questioning.

In this case it seems the justice system failed...60 days is a joke ? i don't care how you explain it 60 days for taking a life is a joke....

[jbg]

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?

We need to respect the guy's indigenous culture, even if he's expressing it in Canada.

[cybercoma]

We need to respect the guy's indigenous culture, even if he's expressing it in Canada.

As a Jewish man, it's funny that you would say that sarcastically.

[AngusThermopyle]

So what about his admission that he struck her three times? Is that not starting to appear a little unreasonable? How about the report that they found trauma to her liver during the autopsy? The fact that his blows killed her would seem to indicate unreasonable use of force.

[jbg]

As a Jewish man, it's funny that you would say that sarcastically.

It is a bit satyrical. I am making fun of the respect that many on this Board show for brutal and inhumane cultures. For example how can pro-gay, pro-feminist and pro-choice people support Islamism? Almost all do.

Then again why do alligators eat their young?

[Guest]

Because they are hungry?

I'm pro-gay, pro-feminist and pro-choice, and I loathe Islamism.

But I agree with you. I do seem to be unusual in that regard.