Judge makes predetermined choice

[Melanie_]

Thanks, Guyser. That's generous based on what you know of me from a few posts, but I'll take it.

[Argus]

If he wanted to scare the boy, why the bullets?

The boy? You mean the twenty four year old drug dealing scum?

If it were my child I would be beside myself. I would worry, fret , lose weight and be miserable.

And clearly - do nothing about it. Great. You're a real brave person.

Such vitriol Argus. Wont answer the questions huh?

I can now see you want the to have your kids raised in some utopian society where there are bunnies and fairies around so your kid can have it nice. I am sorry, but it wont work out. You abdocate responsibilty with every thread you post on this issue.

On the contrary. The big difference between conservatives and the herd over there on the left, is that conservatives demand personal responsibility. That is why I have so little sympathy for a drug dealer. As far as I'm concerned when he started dealing drugs he removed himself from the human race, and I could not possibly care less from then on what happened to him. I don't consider his death to be any kind of loss to society, and I doubt many would - other than drug users and his immediate family. Good riddance.

Lets see now...jurists are idiots , so when you are called what then?

I doubt I would ever be accepted as a jurist on cases such as this because I would not be able to state honestly that I'd never heard of the alleged crime, and have never thought about or formed any real opinion on anything related to the alleged crime.

"Scumbag , No big deal, morally speaking" . So now you are the arbiter of morals? This is not a case of morals, and I am sorry you cannot see that.

I am sorry that you have so little a grasp on morality that you can't see that virtually all criminal law is related to societal mores.

This is a case of law where the guy was tried and convicted of murder. Whether or not you have an ounce of respect for the justice system is immaterial .

Are you under the assumption this is a legal forum where scholars discuss the merits of case law? No. The only reason for discussing situations related to law is our opinion as to the morality, the justice, the rightness or wrongness of a given legal decision. I don't care what the case law says. I care about the justice or injustice of decisions.

Just because it doesn't agree with you , or me, does not mean it doesn't work. Lots of people are scumbags , and they dont die.

Yes, the system is deeply flawed.

So if you feel so strongly about "killing scumbags", then why aren't you out doing something about it. Why not kill the local thug who robs old ladies.

I don't personally know any of those people. I don't move in those circles. I don't live in that kind of area. If I did personally know a drug dealer, however or pimp, or thief, or whatever), i would be doing my best to make life miserable for him. Legally or illegally.

And yes I am a brave person. Thank you for the compliment. You see I would do anything in my power to try and get my daughter out of that predicament. Pretty much anything.....short of murder.

So there are limits to what you would do to save your daughter. Not me.

But not you , and when my daughter gets cleaned up and out from my actions,

Or is out on the street selling her body and getting AIDS because you were afraid to do anything illegal...

I will then be happy to take her for coffee but unfortunately you will have to see your child on weekends , through bars.

No, I'm afraid I'm a little more cunning than this guy. I would have killed him a little less obviously. And it's not like the police would have launched much of an investigation, either. The cops don't care when drug dealers die. They don't put much effort into finding the guilty party.

[guyser]

thats one laughable dance you did.

[jdobbin]

I doubt I would ever be accepted as a jurist on cases such as this because I would not be able to state honestly that I'd never heard of the alleged crime, and have never thought about or formed any real opinion on anything related to the alleged crime.

Most jury trials don't even ask those questions. You are just picked and that is that.

My wife was picked for a triple homicide trial. They never asked her any questions at all except how old she was and what her profession was. Nothing about the case, nothing about what she thought about anything related to the case or crime in general.

[bk59]

Some of these posts are quite interesting. Argus believes in personal responsibility, but apparently only when it suits him. According to Argus the father shouldn't have to take any responsibility for killing someone.

Then again, Argus finds that the victim is not worthy of being called a human being, so clearly it wasn't really a crime. I'm curious Argus, if the victim was gay and the person who killed him believed 100% that being gay was reprehensible and made the victim less than human, would that be OK with you? Because that is what you are advocating. Saying that this crime was justified because you think the victim is less than human opens the door to justifying almost anything you want. It's no wonder you don't like our justice system - it clearly takes a stand that our society doesn't allow that sort of vigilante justice.

I can only hope that you've raised perfect children. If your child happens to make a mistake that hurts someone else, what happens when an angry father comes along and guns your child down? Don't you think maybe your child deserved the chance to reform? To pay his or her debt to society in an appropriate way (for example, jail) rather than being murdered?

[blueblood]

Some of these posts are quite interesting. Argus believes in personal responsibility, but apparently only when it suits him. According to Argus the father shouldn't have to take any responsibility for killing someone.

Then again, Argus finds that the victim is not worthy of being called a human being, so clearly it wasn't really a crime. I'm curious Argus, if the victim was gay and the person who killed him believed 100% that being gay was reprehensible and made the victim less than human, would that be OK with you? Because that is what you are advocating. Saying that this crime was justified because you think the victim is less than human opens the door to justifying almost anything you want. It's no wonder you don't like our justice system - it clearly takes a stand that our society doesn't allow that sort of vigilante justice.

I can only hope that you've raised perfect children. If your child happens to make a mistake that hurts someone else, what happens when an angry father comes along and guns your child down? Don't you think maybe your child deserved the chance to reform? To pay his or her debt to society in an appropriate way (for example, jail) rather than being murdered?

Being gay is not pushing anything on anyone, a drug dealer pushes drugs on people. Big problem. So the right the drug dealers have are more important than the girl's rights? should this girl have to die so the drug dealer could be free to mess up the minds of others and ruin other's lives? To me one dead drug dealer is better off than 10 dead kids or 10 kids so messed up that death is better than the life they're living. It's the lesser of two evils. Society needs to learn we can't have it all.

[guyser]

So the right the drug dealers have are more important than the girl's rights? should this girl have to die so the drug dealer could be free to mess up the minds of others and ruin other's lives? To me one dead drug dealer is better off than 10 dead kids or 10 kids so messed up that death is better than the life they're living. It's the lesser of two evils. Society needs to learn we can't have it all.

Why do you feel the need to weigh ones rights against anothers rights ? They both have rights, it really is not hard to understand. The father trampled his rights, the dead kid NEVER trampled the girls rights. She willingly went and did drugs.

Now she can willingly go and visit dad in jail.

Society knows one cannot trample others rights and get away with it.

[blueblood]

So the right the drug dealers have are more important than the girl's rights? should this girl have to die so the drug dealer could be free to mess up the minds of others and ruin other's lives? To me one dead drug dealer is better off than 10 dead kids or 10 kids so messed up that death is better than the life they're living. It's the lesser of two evils. Society needs to learn we can't have it all.

Why do you feel the need to weigh ones rights against anothers rights ? They both have rights, it really is not hard to understand. The father trampled his rights, the dead kid NEVER trampled the girls rights. She willingly went and did drugs.

Now she can willingly go and visit dad in jail.

Society knows one cannot trample others rights and get away with it.

To think that a drug dealer doesn't push drugs on anyone is naive. You must be fine with religious people advertising in high school because after all the kids minds aren't impressionable. This drug dealer trampled over the girl's rights and others and paid the price.

[guyser]

To think that a drug dealer doesn't push drugs on anyone is naive. You must be fine with religious people advertising in high school because after all the kids minds aren't impressionable. This drug dealer trampled over the girl's rights and others and paid the price.

Alcohol , gasoline , medicine, food are all "pushed " on you. You have the option of taking some, or none.

Her rights were not trampled, where does that idea come from. HIS rights were, daddy took them all away.

Nice analogy, pushing drugs is illegal, in high school or not. Have him arrested.

Personal responsibility folks, daddy didnt want to agree. Buh bye for a long time.

Gee, couldn't the daughter have said no? Could she not have run away from the situation, nothing indicated she was held against her will from the court case. Maybe the family and friends could have had an intervention , you know saving herself from herself.

Naw, lets just kill the guy.

Those of you who want to kill, have at it. Just dont bitch about the fun you are having deciding to be the mommy or the daddy in prison.

[bk59]

Being gay is not pushing anything on anyone, a drug dealer pushes drugs on people. Big problem. So the right the drug dealers have are more important than the girl's rights? should this girl have to die so the drug dealer could be free to mess up the minds of others and ruin other's lives? To me one dead drug dealer is better off than 10 dead kids or 10 kids so messed up that death is better than the life they're living. It's the lesser of two evils. Society needs to learn we can't have it all.

That girl had the right to live. The victim also had the right to live. The fact that he was dealing drugs does not change the fact that he had a right to live. We have penalties for dealing. The father chose to murder him instead.

This talk about the girl's rights is well and good and completely irrelevant. This girl did not die. She didn't even come close to death from what I've heard about this case. Should we have capital punishment now for things that people might do? You might get drunk and drive your car and kill someone. Does that give me the right to kill you? Cigarettes kill people. Should we be gunning down convenience store clerks that sell them? Or maybe the cigarette company executives or tobacco farmers?

He was worried about his daughter. I get that. But that does not excuse the fact that he murdered another human being. It wasn't in self defense. His daughter was not in imminent danger. This talk about "society can't have it all" isn't very compelling. We already have penalties for drug dealing. I think society already has this one figured out. We don't need vigilantes running around dispensing their version of justice just because they think they are right.

[blueblood]

The guy's a drug dealer who pushes drugs on kids, to heck with him. Let me put it this way, I like our extremely low crime rate in rural Canada due to vigilantism, it does happen. I don't have to lock the house, and I can leave the truck idle in the middle of town while getting the mail and not have to worry. Because we take care of ourselves I get to live in peace, mr. drug dealer has to worry about getting his clock cleaned possibly worse. It's a culture thing. Since you guys rely on people to take care of you and the police (whose hands are tied 90% of the time) to keep you safe, what do you guys have? a gong show. When mr. drug dealer's "rights" (to pollute and destroy young minds) are taken seriously, a big mess like this happens. This particular guy was already convicted, he should never have been released.

[bk59]

The guy's a drug dealer who pushes drugs on kids, to heck with him. Let me put it this way, I like our extremely low crime rate in rural Canada due to vigilantism, it does happen. I don't have to lock the house, and I can leave the truck idle in the middle of town while getting the mail and not have to worry. Because we take care of ourselves I get to live in peace, mr. drug dealer has to worry about getting his clock cleaned possibly worse. It's a culture thing. Since you guys rely on people to take care of you and the police (whose hands are tied 90% of the time) to keep you safe, what do you guys have? a gong show. When mr. drug dealer's "rights" (to pollute and destroy young minds) are taken seriously, a big mess like this happens. This particular guy was already convicted, he should never have been released.

To think that a lower crime rate in rural areas is due to vigilantism is wishful thinking at best.

The victim in this case had his right to life taken away. That is wrong. The father should be sent to prison for murder.

The only gong show happening is the one going on here. Where people are defending the taking of a human life just because they don't like the victim.

[cybercoma]

There's only one question that needs to be answered here...

Is it ever acceptable to take another human being's life?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There's only one question that needs to be answered here...

Is it ever acceptable to take another human being's life?

That question is loaded. An affirmative answer would preclude the existence of any military presence in a nation, or law enforcement for that matter.

I think the question should be rethought to some extent.

[jdobbin]

There's only one question that needs to be answered here...

Is it ever acceptable to take another human being's life?

What if the person doesn't recognize it as "life?" If you are brain dead, you are still alive. Should the machine keep you alive no matter the cost? Is it acceptable to turn the machines off?

[guyser]

The guy's a drug dealer who pushes drugs on kids, to heck with him. Let me put it this way, I like our extremely low crime rate in rural Canada due to vigilantism, it does happen. I don't have to lock the house, and I can leave the truck idle in the middle of town while getting the mail and not have to worry. Because we take care of ourselves I get to live in peace, mr. drug dealer has to worry about getting his clock cleaned possibly worse. It's a culture thing. Since you guys rely on people to take care of you and the police (whose hands are tied 90% of the time) to keep you safe, what do you guys have? a gong show. When mr. drug dealer's "rights" (to pollute and destroy young minds) are taken seriously, a big mess like this happens. This particular guy was already convicted, he should never have been released.

You really dont like to read do you?

When did he "push" drugs on anyone?

I dont lock my house most of the time either and in fact dont lock my cottage during the summer. So what? Oh yeah, it means I can murder someone.

Who takes care of me? Pure bunk. "Its a culture thing." Let me say this, I think it is a lack of culture perhaps. Hey town, lets kill the druggies selling , even though he has a market from our kids, lets not blame them.

People have rights until they are restricted by a court of law, not some yahoo living rurally.

If you have kids, if they are teenagers , then most of them will at some time experiment.

Make sure your gun is loaded so you can blow them away.

[FTA Lawyer]

I doubt I would ever be accepted as a jurist on cases such as this because I would not be able to state honestly that I'd never heard of the alleged crime, and have never thought about or formed any real opinion on anything related to the alleged crime.

Most jury trials don't even ask those questions. You are just picked and that is that.

My wife was picked for a triple homicide trial. They never asked her any questions at all except how old she was and what her profession was. Nothing about the case, nothing about what she thought about anything related to the case or crime in general.

Argus obviously obtains his breadth of legal knowledge from American television. Having actually participated in picking a jury in a Canadian criminal courtroom, I confirm that jdobbin is absolutely correct...it is an incredibly rare situation that a juror is ever asked anything directly.

In fact, much of the selection process involves mere observance of physical appearance / characteristics and making instinctive decisions on that basis. For example, in picking a jury for a college hockey player accused of sexually assaulting a "puck bunny", the Crown took about half a second to use one of its challenges to remove a guy from the jury pool who showed up wearing a Calgary Hitmen t-shirt.

FTA (aka "soulless lawyer" with absolutely no interest in justice or fairness)

[Catchme]

You know, why has no one brought up the notion if this father so cared about his daughter that he is willing to murder someone to protect her, why did he not move her, or indeed his whole family away, to prevent her from contacing her boyfriend? It would have been a much better solution that murdering someone.

However, apparently the father was too selfish to move, and would rather take a life because of his daughters stupidty. The fact that his daughter, at 16 wanted to live elsewhere and do drugs, says much about her home life IMV.

If it was my daughter, I would move, in fact I did. When she was gettting close to the age where drugs and accessability could factor in, we moved to a rural community where we thought there would be less chance of coming in contact with such things. Only there we found their drug of choice was alcohol legally distributed and caused more problems within the community than drugs would've.

[PolyNewbie]

FTALawyer:When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option.."

We have a scary situation. How can the judges be better at judging than jury members ? Its my understanding that this is technically illegal but a presidence has been set. Its the empire taking power away from the people.

[bk59]

FTALawyer:When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option.."

We have a scary situation. How can the judges be better at judging than jury members ? Its my understanding that this is technically illegal but a presidence has been set. Its the empire taking power away from the people.

I haven't read what the judge said to the jury, so this is a bit of speculation. But if during the trial the accused basically admits to killing the person and offers no defense then the judge is right to tell the jury that they cannot acquit him.

It's something like this: The law says if you do X then it is a crime. The person says "I did X, but I don't think it's a crime because of Y." If Y is not a valid defense, like self-defense, then when following the law acquittal is not an option.

We may sympathize with the father and his desire to protect his daughter. But from my understanding the judge basically was saying that this does not excuse murder. Without any other lawful excuse, then the jury can't just ignore the law and acquit him.

I think a scarier situation would be the jury saying, yes we know he committed murder, yes we know he had no lawful excuse, but we are going to acquit him anyway. That precedent is way worse. It would be condoning murder. If people want to make this sort of thing legal then we should elect a government that is willing to do that, not let people literally get away with murder.

(Edited to fix the quotes problem.)

[cybercoma]

There is no such thing as murder. There is homicide. Any deliberate act of killing another human is homicide. However, sometimes, we condone that killing. Sometimes, we say it is acceptable, in law, under certain circumstances. So get off your high moral horse, here. The fact he killed a scumbag is no big deal, morally speaking.

Don't say 'we', because only those who are seriously lacking morals condone or accept the killing of another human being.

As for legally - and vigilantism. Vigilantism arises chiefly when the law does not act in keeping with the requirements of the citizenry. Given the stunning level of incompetence of our legal system I'm amazed there isn't more vigilantism.

I'm surprised you can have so much contempt for society's ability to vote, yet in this thread, you're more than willing to allow them to kill.

It is, is it? Do you have any kids you care about? How about we locate a few drug dealers next door to them, where they can meet and chat every day. That okay by you?

I'm not going to be anectdotal, but yes, the park across the street from my neices was a hot spot for prostitution and drug-dealing somali cab drivers. So, in short, I have personal experience, although not my children (and the reason I don't have kids is none of your business, but I treat those kids as my own), I can appreciate what it's like raising kids in that environment.

But wasn't. Too bad, so sad. If the law can't do the job someone else will.

And the way it was dealt with is and should be illegal; therefore, tried and convicted of murder.

Yes, your lack of judgment is noted. Perhaps it stems from a lack of life experience. Clearly you have no children and can't imagine how you could possibly raise one which wouldn't have perfect judgment from the moment it started crawling.

Once again, you question the judgment of people, yet you're allowing them to make the ultimate judgment by killing someone without trial or due process.

Kids are vulnerable to all sorts of persuasion. Didn't we spend a ton of time pointing that out during the discussions on adults having sex with young teenagers? Kids are emotionally immature by their very nature, and driven by emotions and hormones, not common sense. That's why scumbag drug dealers ought to be locked up - or shot.

You're right, kids sometimes don't make the best decisions, no matter how well we think we've taught them. Drug-dealers are scum for doing what they do. Drug-dealers should be locked up for their crime.

But, by the time someone is 16 you would hope they'd have the ability to reason and make decisions for themself. Access to drugs doesn't automatically make someone a junkie. It raises the chances and that's why drug-dealing sould be illegal; however, ultimately there is as an element of personal responsibility on the part of the person choosing to abuse the drugs.

So lock up the drug dealers, put them away, but to allow the government to execute them or to allow citizens (whose ignorance you're very quick to point out everywhere else) to kill them is patently absurd.

Apparently, though, your concern is with protecting the rights and safety of drug dealers, while you have little but contempt for children who don't make perfect decisions.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I'm concerned for a person's right to life. I'm concerned about internet prophets calling at the top of their keyboards for ordinary people to take up killing as a past-time.

My concern is that killing another human being is wrong and as soon as you condone it or find it acceptable, you have to draw a line somewhere. If it's ok to kill drug dealers, how about rapists? How about pedophiles? How about people who steal your property? Why don't we kill eveyone who breaks the law?

Driving-drunk? Executed on the side of the road, like in Nicaragua.

I'm really curious as to why you think ANYONE has the right to take the life of another human being?

[cybercoma]

Are you trying to cite legalism to ME as a justification for whether something is right or wrong?

Have I not already made myself clear on any number of occasions that I hold our legal system in absolute contempt?

I care about right and wrong, about justice, not what some soulless lawyer says.

And you continue to show contempt for the judgment of people, while upholding the idea that PEOPLE should be allowed to decide whether someone lives or dies.

[cybercoma]

Tell you what, sweetie, how about we institute a program where any time a community is having trouble with drug dealers we relocate them next door to you so you can "offer help" to them.

Do you really think she's qualified to do that? Perhaps relocating them to a jail cell where they can get professional help is a better idea than moving them next door to her and infinitely better than moving them to a graveyard.

[cybercoma]

Why do you feel the need to weigh ones rights against anothers rights ? They both have rights, it really is not hard to understand. The father trampled his rights, the dead kid NEVER trampled the girls rights. She willingly went and did drugs.

Now she can willingly go and visit dad in jail.

Society knows one cannot trample others rights and get away with it.

Your forgot to say, she can willing go and visit dad in jail with her NEW drug-dealing boyfriend.