Canadian Police Officer sentenced to 6 years for attempted murder

[Tyrianth]

The first three shots were a fatal injury, it doesn't necessarily mean he was dead - but he would die from his wounds (ex. bullet through the heart or carotid).

My interpretation is that the initial use of his weapon may have been justified (there were no visual witnesses, so the only evidence is the cops testimony of what happened) - given the forensic evidence and what the cop said - they can't prove the first three shots were murder.

However, with the dude suffering fatal injuries on the ground, the cop paused for a minute, then emptied his clip into the dying dude: which aural witnesses heard the gap in the gunfire - and forensics confirmed it occurred after a delay.

So they're saying that - while they can't prove the first three shots weren't justified - emptying his clip into the dying dude was clearly an execution: demonstrating malice. Malice was enough for the jury to decide that, while they have to take the cops testimony that the first three shots were necessary, brutally finishing him / desecrating his corpse was not.

At least, that's how the rather bizarre ruling would have to make sense to me.

According to the wiki article he did not die at the scene, otherwise those final shots would've also been considered murder, not attempted murder.

[Tradewind]

hes a cop his life in prison is gonna be hell, hes gonna be passed around so much

Cops don't get thrown into gen pop. He'll be in adsec or another secure section of the prison. This isn't new.

They're not sending him to Oz.

- - - Updated - - -

At least, that's how the rather bizarre ruling would have to make sense to me.

That's pretty much it, having been watching CBC news all day lol.

[minteK917]

Wait, I am confused.

If the autopsy revealed the first three bullets terminated the subject and were ruled justified, what the fuck do the extra 6 bullets matter? How can you be charged for attempted murder when someone is already dead?

I mean if this is the case, I can understand firing the police officer as a liability, but from the science / legal aspect, what the...?

Because the officer could not know he was dead yet, only down for the count. As per Canadian self defense code, he was no longer a threat. Any lethal action taken further on a person down and unable to do anything, is attempting murder. There is no reason for any police officer or any citizen ever to shoot someone passed out on the ground. Its always gona count as attempted murder or murder even if you were initially defending yourself. He tried to kill the guy, but he was already dead, hence attempted murder and not murder. Intent is the most important part in our justice system, not your actions.

[TITAN308]

Because the officer could not know he was dead yet, only down for the count. As per Canadian self defense code, he was no longer a threat. Any lethal action taken further on a person down and unable to do anything, is attempting murder. There is no reason for any police officer or any citizen ever to shoot someone passed out on the ground. Its always gona count as attempted murder or murder even if you were initially defending yourself. He tried to kill the guy, but he was already dead, hence attempted murder and not murder. Intent is the most important part in our justice system, not your actions.

And I would understand the charges prior to the autopsy.

However after the facts come to light, I just don't see the charges remaining without modification to something weird pertaining to corpse abuse laws.

They straight up said the first three shots were not murder, but the 6 follow up shots, they are basically moving forward with "you murdered a dead body" angle.

[minteK917]

And I would understand the charges prior to the autopsy.

However after the facts come to light, I just don't see the charges remaining without modification to something weird pertaining to corpse abuse laws.

They straight up said the first three shots were not murder, but the 6 follow up shots, they are basically moving forward with "you murdered a dead body" angle.

Thats not how justice work. Hes not charged with murder. Attempted murder. Justice is based on your intent, not only your actions. If you unload your gun on someone passed out, you are attempting to murder them. Thats as simple as it gets. He attempted to murder someone. Dangerous driving, is still dangerous driving even if you hit nobody.

[Tradewind]

And I would understand the charges prior to the autopsy.

However after the facts come to light, I just don't see the charges remaining without modification to something weird pertaining to corpse abuse laws.

They straight up said the first three shots were not murder, but the 6 follow up shots, they are basically moving forward with "you murdered a dead body" angle.

The kid wasn't dead after the first 3 shots, and that action was deemed entirely justified.

Going back and plugging the kid 6 more times to finish them off, is attempted murder and demonstrates malicious intent.

The fact he died later that day as a result of the initial 3 shots is somewhat irrelevant in terms of the judgment. He was still alive, critical, but alive prior to the follow up shots.

[TITAN308]

Thats not how justice work. Hes not charged with murder. Attempted murder. Justice is based on your intent, not only your actions. If you unload your gun on someone passed out, you are attempting to murder them. Thats as simple as it gets. He attempted to murder someone. Dangerous driving, is still dangerous driving even if you hit nobody.

But what if the decision to attempt to murder was in that 5 second window he paused after the first three lawful shots killed him?

- - - Updated - - -

The kid wasn't dead after the first 3 shots, and that action was deemed entirely justified.

Going back and plugging the kid 6 more times to finish them off, is attempted murder and demonstrates malicious intent.

The fact he died later that day as a result of the initial 3 shots is somewhat irrelevant in terms of the judgment. He was still alive, critical, but alive prior to the follow up shots.

I thought the report said the autopsy determined the first three shots were the cause of death?

I guess I got some crossed wires and that is why it is coming off as odd to me. Could be completely my fault.

[minteK917]

But what if the decision to attempt to murder was in that 5 second window he paused after the first three lawful shots killed him?

He literally paused a full minute, then unloaded his gun.... there is no justification for a police officer to do that. None. He attempted to murder someone that couldnt do anything.

[TITAN308]

He literally paused a full minute, then unloaded his gun.... there is no justification for a police officer to do that. None. He attempted to murder someone that couldnt do anything.

Ok, then that is the problem, apparently the article and what the OP wrote are completely different.

The OP said he paused 5 seconds, not a full minute.

You are correct, a police officer delivering some 'anchor' shots after waiting a minute, fuck that.

[minteK917]

Ok, then that is the problem, apparently the article and what the OP wrote are completely different.

The OP said he paused 5 seconds, not a full minute.

You are correct, a police officer delivering some 'anchor' shots after waiting a minute, fuck that.

Even if it was 2 seconds. As soon someone you shot is passed out on the ground, you stop firing or its murder lol. Self defense code in Canada is the same for police and civilians. You can outright kill someone as long as your life or health is in jeopardy. As soon as the person is rendered unable to threaten your life/health the use of force is no longer legal.

[Tradewind]

But what if the decision to attempt to murder was in that 5 second window he paused after the first three lawful shots killed him?

- - - Updated - - -



I thought the report said the autopsy determined the first three shots were the cause of death?

I guess I got some crossed wires and that is why it is coming off as odd to me. Could be completely my fault.

The first 3 shots were ultimately the cause of death, though not immediate. Most reports today recounting the incident said that he was paralyzed and critically injured by the first three shots. The next 6 mostly hit him in the lower body/legs.

In short terms. First 3, although ultimately deadly, justified action in the presence of a clear threat. Next 6, he was just shooting a dying cripple for no reason.

[TITAN308]

Even if it was 2 seconds. As soon someone you shot is passed out on the ground, you stop firing or its murder lol. Self defense code in Canada is the same for police and civilians. You can outright kill someone as long as your life or health is in jeopardy. As soon as the person is rendered unable to threaten your life/health the use of force is no longer legal.

It is not that clear cut, if you are in a situation where a gun is justified, just because they drop to the ground doesn't mean the threat is over. I certainly wouldn't say a 2 second window is enough time to draw that conclusion.

[minteK917]

It is not that clear cut, if you are in a situation where a gun is justified, just because they drop to the ground doesn't mean the threat is over. I certainly wouldn't say a 2 second window is enough time to draw that conclusion.

Thats for the jury to decide. This case was pretty clear cut, the first 3 shot where critical injuries the person was paralyzed. The cop emptied his clip in a paralyzed person. This is the reverse of the usual cop hating stuff where everyone think cops should be action heroes. Nobody dodge bullets, once you drop to the floor, it doesent warrant emptying a clip in you, he should have waited to see if the person was even still able to move.

[Tradewind]

It is not that clear cut, if you are in a situation where a gun is justified, just because they drop to the ground doesn't mean the threat is over. I certainly wouldn't say a 2 second window is enough time to draw that conclusion.

If he had a gun, I would agree wholly. But he had a knife, inside an empty bus doing his best Lieutenant Dan impression.

[Twix]

Attempted murder? The victim is dead lol wut

He attempted to murder and was successful.

[TITAN308]

Thats for the jury to decide. This case was pretty clear cut, the first 3 shot where critical injuries the person was paralyzed. The cop emptied his clip in a paralyzed person.

Well yes and in this case, you are saying he waited 60 seconds.

No argument.

2 seconds? Not so sure.

- - - Updated - - -

If he had a gun, I would agree wholly. But he had a knife, inside an empty bus doing his best Lieutenant Dan impression.

And I don't disagree, I am just saying as a general statement, going down doesn't mean threat over.

[Tradewind]

Attempted murder? The victim is dead lol wut

He attempted to murder and was successful.

I know that sometimes reading is difficult, especially in a long thread of 3 whopping pages, but fuck it's been explained like 3 times on this page alone.

He didn't die until after the second shooting.

[Twix]

I know that sometimes reading is difficult, especially in a long thread of 3 whopping pages, but fuck it's been explained like 3 times on this page alone.

He didn't die until after the second shooting.

Which is still murder.

[TITAN308]

I know that sometimes reading is difficult, especially in a long thread of 3 whopping pages, but fuck it's been explained like 3 times on this page alone.

He didn't die until after the second shooting.

I think the problem is and I am not sure if its on purpose, what the OP posted doesn't exactly mesh with the article.

[minteK917]

And I don't disagree, I am just saying as a general statement, going down doesn't mean threat over.

It does not, but you cant go around emptying your gun clips on people on the floor. Laying on the floor is literally the easiest target to hit with a gun. Hey the person i shot is laying on the ground and no longer moving. Do i wait to see what happen while hodling him at gun point or do i empty a clip into him?

Which is still murder.

No because the lethal shots were fired in legitimate self defense, as far as the lack of evidences could tell. Imagine you are fighting with someone thats trying to kill you. You end up choking them, while they are laying on the ground, you just stab them in the neck. Turns out he was dead from the choking. The choking was legitimate self defense. However you demonstrated you had the malicious intent to murder someone no longer a threat to you. Attempted murder.