Moncton NB shooting

[Signals.Cpl]

You're just trying to spin it back again

WWWTT

Spin what back? The courts protect the criminals by giving them short sentences in cushy jails, they sure as hell are not looking out for the victims, and they are definitely not looking out for the general public.

[Signals.Cpl]

Never said that I was against the fact that there are bad apples. But you seem to want to believe that.

WWWTT

Flip flopping are we now? You basically accused the RCMP of being unprofessional as a whole simply because of a handful of individuals and their actions. If you don't know what you are arguing about how should I know what you are arguing about?

[monty16]

Ya so what?

WWWTT

Something made the guy very angry and I hope that we find out what it was. Unfortunately the RCMP have compromised their honesty in quite a few cases now and so distrust of them is to be expected. One thing for sure, there's no rush to judgment as your opponents seem to want to do.

The Vancouver airport tazering of a man when it wasn't necessary really did cost the mounties in the public's eyes. Too bad because they are probably still the best police force in the world.

[Signals.Cpl]

Just showed you a case where a couple people got convicted for second not first for killing a cop!

Go educate yourself with some real actual cases!

Until then, you are ignorant!

WWWTT

Where are these cases you speak of?

[monty16]

Spin what back? The courts protect the criminals by giving them short sentences in cushy jails, they sure as hell are not looking out for the victims, and they are definitely not looking out for the general public.

Putting a right wing spin on things. We don't need Harper's politicians deciding prison terms for us, we have experts that evaluate prisoners before they are released. It's just like a rabid rightie to try to use one or two mistakes out of thousands to try to make reformed criminals rot in jail for life. The US experience should teach them something but they're not into learning. It's a gut reaction they have to not thinking rehabilitation works.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure. But there is resentment towards cops. Much of their actions are a result as to why someone like Bourque would go on a shooting spree. Simply look at his facebook posts about it. He has an obvious hate on for the police.

Now replace Bourque and police with women and Elliot Rodgers and tell me if this makes any sense what so ever?

You are saying that that the Police were responsible for the actions of Bourque? Doubtful, I know enough people who hate the police and 99% of them have no reason to hate the police other than their own stupidity.

Reasonable force could result in your own death from police. Simply because of the paranoia that has been created. We as the public are fearing cops, and the cops are fearing the public. This is not a good mindset for a free and democratic society.

I dont fear the police, and I don't know anyone that fears the police, well anyone that doesn't break the law on a regular basis. Reality is that there is police brutality but it is nowhere nearly as widespread as you seem to believe.

I've seen many videos online where police go off the rails over traffic stops. And many other horrific scenes of police outright shooting a person. The incident at the LA BART station is one perfect example. A person was already in cuffs, when another police pulled his weapon out and shot that person in the back.

The US has 700,000+ police officers, Canada has 60,000+ police officers, when one of them screws up we hear about it when they do their job every single day its not newsworthy enough to be of any value. Seeking out video's of police brutality does not indicate that police brutality is rampant in either the US or Canada it means you went out and searched for the specific issue.

I do not believe this guy here was mentally unstable in any way. I think that he is a product of that mistrust between the public and the police services. Why it happened in Moncton of all places, I have no clue. Hope we find out. The reasons I do not think he was mentally out of it, was his deliberate targeting of police. The public was not really in danger in any way.

Really? So Marc Lépine was not crazy, the women actually caused it? He deliberately targeted women and the men were in no real danger, so if I am following your logic the women asked for it?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ya so what?

WWWTT

It just sounded like you were a little unclear on what first degree murder is in Canada.

[Big Guy]

Spin what back? The courts protect the criminals by giving them short sentences in cushy jails, they sure as hell are not looking out for the victims, and they are definitely not looking out for the general public.

I disagree with that statement. I believe that the courts are making decisions based on their mandate. Their mandate is not to look after victims but try to make sure that justice prevails. Their mandate is also not to look out for the general public but to facilitate and follow the directions of the legislative branch in the form of laws as dictated by our constitution.

I also think that the courts are fulfilling their mandate well.

[WWWTT]

Where are these cases you speak of?

The death of constable Bill Hancox in 1998.

He was stabbed and was working undercover at the time.. The judge threw out the first for the lesser second because he was in plain clothes, plain car.

I provided the CBC news link but it went bad, sorry.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It just sounded like you were a little unclear on what first degree murder is in Canada.

Sorry, I fully understand.

But you were under the impression that killing a cop always meant the first.

However in constable Bill Hancox case, an undercover cop, a judge threw out the first for the second.

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry, I fully understand.

But you were under the impression that killing a cop always meant the first.

However in constable Bill Hancox case, an undercover cop, a judge threw out the first for the second.

WWWTT

I was under no such impression.

[Signals.Cpl]

The death of constable Bill Hancox in 1998.

He was stabbed and was working undercover at the time.. The judge threw out the first for the lesser second because he was in plain clothes, plain car.

I provided the CBC news link but it went bad, sorry.

WWWTT

Was it because he was under cover, or was it because of other circumstances? Nowhere did I find any evidence that they were found guilty of second degree because he was undercover...

[Signals.Cpl]

I disagree with that statement. I believe that the courts are making decisions based on their mandate. Their mandate is not to look after victims but try to make sure that justice prevails.

Looking after the victim and justice prevailing are often one and the same, locking up a pedophile for his crimes is looking after the victims and serving the justice system. When murderers are allowed to walk out of no security prison the system does not work. When you let someone with 19 DUI's run free with minimal jail time the system fails. The justice system is too lenient to violent criminals, and criminals who destroy lives one way or another. We need a system were repeat offenders are given ever increasing sentences for their crimes and are forced to serve the full sentence rather than giving them short sentences that accomplish nothing but keep them fed, clothes and sheltered for a short period of time.

[WWWTT]

Was it because he was under cover, or was it because of other circumstances? Nowhere did I find any evidence that they were found guilty of second degree because he was undercover...

Good question.

The couple were initially charged with first for obvious reasons.

I remember this issue was discussed where I worked and my friend didn't believe that a first degree would ever stick because the cop intentionally hid his identity to work undercover when he was murdered.

Soon enough after that, the judge knocked down the first to second for this very reason and the trial proceeded.

And the conviction was for the second, the defence wanted manslaughter.

WWWTT

[monty16]

Now replace Bourque and police with women and Elliot Rodgers and tell me if this makes any sense what so ever?

You are saying that that the Police were responsible for the actions of Bourque? Doubtful, I know enough people who hate the police and 99% of them have no reason to hate the police other than their own stupidity.

I dont fear the police, and I don't know anyone that fears the police, well anyone that doesn't break the law on a regular basis. Reality is that there is police brutality but it is nowhere nearly as widespread as you seem to believe.

The US has 700,000+ police officers, Canada has 60,000+ police officers, when one of them screws up we hear about it when they do their job every single day its not newsworthy enough to be of any value. Seeking out video's of police brutality does not indicate that police brutality is rampant in either the US or Canada it means you went out and searched for the specific issue.

Really? So Marc Lépine was not crazy, the women actually caused it? He deliberately targeted women and the men were in no real danger, so if I am following your logic the women asked for it?

You've accidentally taken the position that the guy can plead insanity and so you are ruling out first degree! Imagine that!

[Signals.Cpl]

You've accidentally taken the position that the guy can plead insanity and so you are ruling out first degree! Imagine that!

Crazy is someone who has an irrational hatred for a person, group or an institution but knows the difference between right and wrong. Insane is when someone does not know the difference between right and wrong. Bourque might have hatred for the police due to any number of reasons, but the end result is that if he knew right from wrong he was not insane. Besides my definition of crazy is pretty broad but my definition of insane is very narrow, you don't know the difference between right and wrong you fall in the insane category.

[Signals.Cpl]

Good question.

The couple were initially charged with first for obvious reasons.

I remember this issue was discussed where I worked and my friend didn't believe that a first degree would ever stick because the cop intentionally hid his identity to work undercover when he was murdered.

Soon enough after that, the judge knocked down the first to second for this very reason and the trial proceeded.

And the conviction was for the second, the defence wanted manslaughter.

WWWTT

Again though, I don't see any evidence other than your statement to support that, I read that the defence tried to lower it to second degree due to the circumstances the women were in before the murder and due to childhood trauma but nowhere did I read it was because he was undercover.

[monty16]

Crazy is someone who has an irrational hatred for a person, group or an institution but knows the difference between right and wrong. Insane is when someone does not know the difference between right and wrong. Bourque might have hatred for the police due to any number of reasons, but the end result is that if he knew right from wrong he was not insane. Besides my definition of crazy is pretty broad but my definition of insane is very narrow, you don't know the difference between right and wrong you fall in the insane category.

Nice try! LOL

[Signals.Cpl]

Nice try! LOL

Nice comeback...I'll make sure to use shorter words next time, might even add some pictures.

[WWWTT]

Again though, I don't see any evidence other than your statement to support that, I read that the defence tried to lower it to second degree due to the circumstances the women were in before the murder and due to childhood trauma but nowhere did I read it was because he was undercover.

Than find a better link with more info.

Either way, this is just one case and an aside from this thread so I'm not wasting anymore time with this case that happened 15-16 years ago.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

Than find a better link with more info.

Either way, this is just one case and an aside from this thread so I'm not wasting anymore time with this case that happened 15-16 years ago.

WWWTT

So you brought it up as "proof", it doesn't prove a thing, and then you expect me to do research for your "proof"? Love it...

[On Guard for Thee]

Again though, I don't see any evidence other than your statement to support that, I read that the defence tried to lower it to second degree due to the circumstances the women were in before the murder and due to childhood trauma but nowhere did I read it was because he was undercover.

I have not read this link but I would totally agree with you, being undercover should have no bearing.

[WWWTT]

Ok then here goes a last kick at this one

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVj_Cw5RT11MALX4XFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBya3R2ZmV1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1402287170/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fact.on.ca%2fnewpaper%2ftt991019.htm/RK=0/RS=tg5uguQd5k9_PYUudA1Y6Gnwhtg-

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVj_Cw5RT11MAOX4XFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBzajE3bzE3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTAEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM-/RV=2/RE=1402287170/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fact.on.ca%2fnewpaper%2fts991109.htm/RK=0/RS=VUV5j5o7ZMdFJZm_9ysBfTrWcDc-

The women here in this case were tried on second degree murder charges. Their lawyer tried to argue manslaughter but they got the second degree conviction.

In the second link it clearly states that the jury was told that the accused didn't know Hancox was a cop.

I couldn't find any link about the judge throwing out the initial first degree charge.

But obviously it happened because they were TRIED for the second degree.

WWWTT

PS I'm not going to add anything further, that's it, if you still don't believe it, cry me a freekin river!!!!

[On Guard for Thee]

I doubt there ever was a first degree charge. It doesn't warrant it for at least 2 reasons.

[Argus]

I disagree with that statement. I believe that the courts are making decisions based on their mandate. Their mandate is not to look after victims but try to make sure that justice prevails.

There is absolutely nothing in the mandate or mission of our courts related to justice being done.