How's this for a verdict?

It is my understanding that if you kill someone in the commission of another felony, the murder is automatically classified as first degree. Yet dollars to doughnuts this lowlife piece of excrement (bets he has previous convictions? Multiple previous convictions?) will get a much lighter sentence than the otherwise law abiding pharmacist who overreacted and killed a criminal scum who was trying to rob him.

It never fails to blow my mind how we make excuses for the lowest of the low and crucify normal folks for one time mistakes.

 

LKD, what has happened in your life that you have such a low opinion of the justice system? its not fab I agree, but they dont let serious criminals off the hook, for 4 counts of murder in the first degree, and the felony theft, he will be looking at life without parole

 

Yes. Unlike the pharmacist, who will regain his freedom if he lives long enough, this man will never leave prison -- he's just lucky that New York abolished its death penalty.

 

Exactly - In fact, in the case of multiple homicides in the first degree, it's automatically life without parole if you're convicted. And that's in states that don't have the death penalty, like New York. If this happened in say, Texas, he'd receive the death penalty.

 

It's really not that remarkable anymore. Just add little to no regard for human life to a desire to not be incarcerated (and maybe throw in a dash of general animosity toward humanity) and you've got the necessary components for this kind of outcome. It's even done fairly frequently nowadays when there's nothing to be gained by killing innocents.

The (potentially deadly) mistake is to think that these monsters have anything in common with you whatsoever in terms of rational thinking and values to begin with, hence my point about not trusting them to show mercy, do what's right, be decent, exhibit signs of humanity, etc., etc., etc.

 

Regardless of whether somewhere had the finest law enforcement in creation, coupled with a remarkable justice system which fairly and appropreately punishes criminals, if someone is prepared to swap their life to carry out an act such as what we read above nothing is going to stop them, it is an unfortunate risk of 'civilised' society.

 

Well, Ersland the pharmacist might have stopped him.

 

In Canada, the rights of the criminal filth supersede the rights of their victims. The criminals get better treatment from the government than the victims a good chunk of the time, and when they get out they go right back to doing what they were doing before, and if their victims dare to point out the stupidity of that situation, they get hammered and punished worse for harassing or picking on the murderers, rapists, and thieves. It's all fricking bass ackward.

We're too soft on crime and too willing to naively give twentieth chances. It sickens me.

 

do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

 

That couple sounds like it's a perfect pairing. He kills 4 people for no reason, and she's good enough to drive him away from the scene. How sweet.

They probably should have hit a place farther than 1.5 miles away from their home!

 

LKD, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Suspected criminals certainly do have a lot of protections in place to protect them from government abuse, but that is because they are suspected criminals. Once convicted of a crime, convicted criminals are stripped of their basic freedoms and are forced to live behind bars for months, years, decades, or even the rest of their natural lives. I have yet to see the Canadian government do the same to an individual just for being a family member of a crime victim.

 

One can only lament the day Canada abolished that famous law that in paragraph 1 saw criminal scum hanged, drawn and quartered. Paragraph 2 defined criminal scum as people who deserve it. While it was a good and severe law - and a popular one since it also saw justice exacted publicly, many people lamented its demise - even though, inexplicably, eventually the argument that it was kinda arbitrary and vague carried the day (just as if there was anything wrong with that).

The crazy bleeding hearts then suggested, blathering senselessly about 'human dignity', that criminal scum needed food other than bread and water, let alone daylight and a dry cell, free of vermin, and everything went down hill. The next thing they introduced was a so-called attorney, who, get that, enforced their rights in investigative procedures and in court on the spurious grounds that they were not criminal scum but suspected criminal scum, just as if there was a 'presumption of innocence (lol)'.

 

I'd say no one should feel sorry for her. She was arrested because she was an accomplice. She isn't guilty of murder because she didn't actually shoot those inside, but she was complicit in the robbery.

 

You've got me wrong, Ragusa. I'm talking about convicted criminals. Men who rip the penises off of 2 year old children getting parole, and subsequently beating a building manager into a coma, and when the wife of the comatose man brought the comatose fellow to court, the bastard's lawyers said that she was prejudicing the jury against his client. Deride me, mock me, do what you will, that's indicitive of a seriously messed up system.

We had another case, where the kid killed another kid at a party. He got off on a lame ass technicality (there was no doubt as to whether or not the little twerp had done it, mind you, but he was young, and there were extenuating circumstances, and you know, boys will be boys!) He was out on parole in less than a year, with orders to stay the hell away from the family of the kid who he'd put in the ground. Instead, he started doing drive bys, just to mock and torment the grieving family. When the father of the dead boy went out to try to talk to this parole violating sperm waste, the cops gave him a hard time for being confrontational. Maybe that's all cool to you, and the father should just get over it and be happy that the killer is still alive, but I say it's disgusting. So spare me your sarcastic caricature of my character and positions.

 

I'm reminded of this:

 

Ah, les miserables, Javert, the dutious lawman who can see nothing but Valjean's crime and persue's him through the years, only to be consumed by it when he find's him.
this line:

"The man of mercy comes again, and talks of justice!" is the turning point in his mind, when he see's Valjean for more then his parole sheet, and at this moment his life is at an end.

 

Sorry, I recognize the literary reference, of course, but giving a cookie to an orphan doesn't change a rape or murder. And when someone has been paroled, reoffends, paroled again, reoffends again, repeatedly to the point of being on parole for a violent crime for the 15th time, I think it's safe to say that

A: the bastard ain't having a magical change of heart into a pure and sweet member of society

and

B: The system that keeps letting him back onto the street after being shown time and time again that he will reoffend needs an overhaul.

 

do you have evidence to back up your claim?

I cant speak for the US or Canada, but I imagine they have similar systems as the UK, the UK releases people often with conditions, or on licence both with recall to prison, if for example a peadophile is released from prison, a condition of his release is that (for example) he(or she) is not allowed to contact or posess any pictures, indecent or otherwise of anyone under the age ot 18, if suspected of either he will be recalled to prison.