WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I am just hearing that the charges have now been laid (3 murder 2 attempted) but neither side requested any psychological evaluation so he's back in court in early July. Sounds like this might be a fast track. I assume that the murder charges are first degree. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I assume that the murder charges are first degree. WWWTT Times three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I assume that the murder charges are first degree. WWWTT Always for a Peace Officer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Always for a Peace Officer. Only an on duty uniformed one if the accused does not know them. I remember a case back in the 90's where an undercover cop was killed in his car by two women and the first degree was thrown out by the judge for the lesser second degree because the convicted, then accused killers were unaware he was an policeman. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Not my fault you don't understand that the justice system in Canada is designed for trials and hearings, dismissing cases and/or finding convictions and applying appropriate sentencing. ...and all of this results in what?? Protecting the public. Give your head a shake and admit when you post something that is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I assume that the murder charges are first degree. WWWTT I'm surprised to see this post from someone as schooled in the justice system as you are WWWTT. There should be an even a higher charge reserved for scumbag cop killers like this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Ahhhhh, I see that you are trying to escape from standing behind your words now. You not so cleverly say that he was in the midst of a killing spree when in fact at the time he was captured he wasn't. So you want to take the moral high ground after all and you don't 'really' advocate the police murdering the man when they were able to capture him unharmed! Good for you! Sometimes it only requires a few moments to think it through. Alas, had the US military people taken the time to think it through before obeying their government's propagandizing of Iraqis and Afghanis, a lot of live could have been saved. He wasn't shot... he gave up. But if he was still armed and was a danger in any way, shooting him would have been fully justified and not many people would have shed a tear. I don't advocate shooting someone if they have given up... Your silly USA comment is completely asinine and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Count me as standing with both he and Squid on this one. There are monsters that absolutely should be "eliminated" at first opportunity. Or murdered by cops. Or shot in the head twice. Etc, etc. Whatever you want to call it buddy, the world would be a better place without this guy in it. No trial. No bs "rehab" attempts. Just dead. So to answer your first question: Yes. It is better to kill a human being than to capture him and prevent him from killing again. Period. I don't completely agree with this. I don't think he should have been shot if he was unarmed and giving up... although I would understand why it happened, if it did. It would be tough not to pull the trigger when the guy who just killed three of your friends/colleagues comes wandering out of the bushes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 He wasn't shot... he gave up. But if he was still armed and was a danger in any way, shooting him would have been fully justified and not many people would have shed a tear. I don't advocate shooting someone if they have given up... Your silly USA comment is completely asinine and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't completely agree with this. I don't think he should have been shot if he was unarmed and giving up... although I would understand why it happened, if it did. It would be tough not to pull the trigger when the guy who just killed three of your friends/colleagues comes wandering out of the bushes... Good post. Holding back what they wanted to do is a true testament to the training and professionalism of the RCMP officers who arrested him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) No, this is not police abuse here. And WWWTT was not using it as an example of police abuse. Actually, after already bringing up "police brutality" (his words) once. He responded with this gem: Maybe he was acting in self defence and he figured, no sorry cops, you don't look so tuff to me. WWWTT This is quite possibly one of the most disgusting things I've seen anyone post not this forum and I've been here a lot of years. Edited June 6, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Not my fault you don't understand that the justice system in Canada is designed for trials and hearings, dismissing cases and/or finding convictions and applying appropriate sentencing. Now do I bear any responsibility for how you may misinterpret our judicial functions. WWWTT Trials and hearing is one thing, saying that he may have been acting in self defence...that defies all logic, intelligence, good sense, and tact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Only an on duty uniformed one if the accused does not know them. I remember a case back in the 90's where an undercover cop was killed in his car by two women and the first degree was thrown out by the judge for the lesser second degree because the convicted, then accused killers were unaware he was an policeman. WWWTT Regardless, he brought firearms with him to commit his crime and he talked about planning it in advance on his Facebook page. The fact that they were Peace Officers is inconsequential at that point. Even if they were civilians it was clearly first degree murder charges that would be brought upon him. He also has two counts of attempted murder for the other officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Good post. Holding back what they wanted to do is a true testament to the training and professionalism of the RCMP officers who arrested him. Agreed... they showed great restraint under severe ressure. Actually, after already bringing up "police brutality" (his words) once. He responded with this gem: This is quite possibly one of the most disgusting things I've seen anyone post not this forum and I've been here a lot of years. I agree... that was a very disgusting comment by WWTT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 ...and all of this results in what?? Protecting the public. Give your head a shake and admit when you post something that is ridiculous. And what about the accused??? Try using your argument on Guy Paul Morin. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 This is quite possibly one of the most disgusting things I've seen anyone post not this forum and I've been here a lot of years. Why? Lots of people here want to spew HOW they feel, but are avoiding WHY! Reason is because if you actually write out the WHY, you realize that that WWWTT is going to jump all over this one! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Trials and hearing is one thing, saying that he may have been acting in self defence...that defies all logic, intelligence, good sense, and tact. I think you are misquoting this comment here that originated with an exchange I had with bush_cheney. But since you want a go at it, you missed the part where I wrote "MAYBE" But you clearly used the word in your comment, so I will assume that you do not understand the meaning of the word maybe. WWWTT Edited June 6, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Regardless, he brought firearms with him to commit his crime and he talked about planning it in advance on his Facebook page. The fact that they were Peace Officers is inconsequential at that point. Even if they were civilians it was clearly first degree murder charges that would be brought upon him. He also has two counts of attempted murder for the other officers. Ya it sounds like this guy is really spun out and wanted a showdown. We will see what comes out in court if the judge doesn't put too many news bans on the trial. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I think you are misquoting this comment here that originated with an exchange I had with bush_cheney. But since you want a go at it, you missed the part where I wrote "MAYBE" But you clearly used the word in your comment, so I will assume that you do not understand the meaning of the word maybe. WWWTT you should probably stop while you're ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) you should probably stop while you're ahead. What's that, your new debating tactic???? Freekin lame buddy! WWWTT Edited June 7, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 I agree with Cyber and Argus. There doesn't seem to be a viable debate here. You have to squeeze the rock pretty hard to get blood out of it, ie. make some stretch to tie this to police abuse, violence in media. At a certain point, it's just a debate because people want to talk about anything at all. Why are you trying to stifle debate on a debate forum? Is that the role of the moderator?Are you not a moderator? Why are you taking sides? The way I see it, you should either stick to moderating, or if you contribute, do so in a neutral manner. When a moderator start's writing things like "there's no debate here" in a debate forum, you have to wonder what your motives are? If the moderation on this forum is going to be openly biased, then what's the point in contributing here anymore? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 One good aspect of having him captured alive is that we might get an insight into the thought processes that caused him to do this. I hope that information gets out before jailhouse justice is applied by his fellow incarcerated buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) You're not debating anything. Your position is a platitude: innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is arguing against that. However, anyone who has been paying attention saw this guy's libertarian gun fanatic ramblings on Facebook and saw the video of him shooting an officer. There are several witnesses that saw it as well. The courts can deal with the particulars. For you to come on here and publish nonsense about police brutality and this guy's innocence given the evidence we have seen is far beyond distasteful. You should be completely ashamed of yourself, but something tells me that the kind of person who would suggest a man who armours up and murders 3 and attempts to murder an additional 2 cops in a residential neighbourhood in broad daylight probably isn't reflexive enough to feel shame. Edited June 7, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 You're not debating anything. Your position is a platitude: innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is arguing against that. However, anyone who has been paying attention saw this guy's libertarian gun fanatic ramblings on Facebook and saw the video of him shooting an officer. There are several witnesses that saw it as well. The courts can deal with the particulars. For you to come on here and publish nonsense about police brutality and this guy's innocence given the evidence we have seen is far beyond distasteful. You should be completely ashamed of yourself, but something tells me that the kind of person who would suggest a man who armours up and murders 3 and attempts to murder an additional 2 cops in a residential neighbourhood in broad daylight probably isn't reflexive enough to feel shame. Distasteful? Key words here are "evidence you have seen"! Do not confuse with "evidence that will come out in court"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's a reason why we have a justice system, and why it's not to be circumvented by the police or anyone! Including a bunch of posters on a debate forum! Who are you to say I'm publishing nonsense? Who are you to say I should be ashamed of myself? Who are you to say I'm beyond distasteful? You're a piss poor debater that is getting frustrated, unable to score points so you are trying to get personal! As far as I'm concerned, you should be..... WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 I hope that information gets out before jailhouse justice is applied by his fellow incarcerated buddies. I wouldn't bet on that one. The guy that shot Reagan was signing autographs when he was in jail! Why would someone who was put in jail by a cop be mad at someone who is convicted of killing a cop? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 If he were killed I doubt he'd kill again. And what qualities make this person a human being? Same ones as Daniel St. Hubert? (link), excerpts about this gem below: Just before dawn on Wednesday, a man thought by the police to be Daniel St. Hubert sat on a bench in a Chelsea subway station. Two weeks before, Mr. St. Hubert had been released from a five-year term in prison for trying to strangle his mother with an electrical cord. The man boarded a southbound 1 train, quickly hopped off and, the police say, plunged a knife into the side of a homeless man on the platform. Three days earlier, on Sunday, the police said, Mr. St. Hubert, 27, assaulted two small children in a frenzied knife attack in the elevator of a Brooklyn housing project, killing a 6-year-old boy and leaving a 7-year old girl in critical condition. Six days earlier, the police said, he may have fatally stabbed an 18-year-old woman on a Brooklyn street. Some mammals, though they walk on two legs, are not worth the air that they breathe. We need to start forming moral judgments. How does the duties of a soldier to fight for his country in war relate to this act of butchery? To explain it to you in simple terms, a soldier who thinks he is fighting for his country, has in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan been led down the garden path by his country's propagandists. Because, no soldier fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan was fighting for his country. And besides, if the soldier had thought it through as opposed to going after the easy money and employment, he would have come to that conclusions. I have a lot more to say about Afghanistan where the illusion was closer to being credible if I'm asked. I invite a detailed discussion! So you see, if the US led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were promoted and waged on phony reasons, we can only conclude that Bush2 who led that country into those wars is guilty of crimes against humanity equalling thousands of times more egregious crimes than one lone gunman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 You're a piss poor debater that is getting frustrated, unable to score points so you are trying to get personal! As far as I'm concerned, you should be..... WWWTT Gee, is it just me or do you keep accusing everyone of being a piss poor debater? I didn't know you were such a strong supporter of the gun lobby... In the eyes of anyone with two brain cells to rub together this guy is guilty of the crime and no one can tell me that anyone but this guy instigated it because he went to confront the police officers heavily armed, likely having more firepower than all 5 officers combined. You can do your troll song and dance, but no one here is seriously saying we forgo due process but at the end of the day the evidence we have is pretty damning. Or would you like to suggest the guy was having a nice stroll through the neighbourhood with his gun collection on him and the cops brutally attacked him forcing him to defend himself? 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.