Inglewood murder

[rob the knob]

other thread derailed so trying again. guys made court appearance and go to trieal together.

Accused murderers will stand trial together

Updated: Thu Feb. 18 2010 24:46:29

ctvcalgary.ca

Two men charged with the murder of a Calgary man will answer to the charges in court together.

Darrin Amond and Richard Ceasar are both charged with second degree murder in the beating death of 37-year-old Marcus Deveaux on Monday, February 8, 2010.

Deveaux was found unconscious in a snow bank in Inglewood and died a short time later in hospital.

Deveaux was beaten so badly that dental records were needed to identify him.

Investigators say they believe Deveaux didn't know his attackers and the beating was random.

Police charged 30-year-old Darrin Amond on Tuesday, February 9 and on Saturday, February 13, police charged Richard Christopher Ceasor, 21, in relation to Deveaux's death.

Amond appeared in court via closed circuit television on Wednesday.

The two accused are being held in custody and will be back in court on Thursday.

[A790]

KEEP THIS THREAD ON TRACK PLEASE. THANKS!

[pyroza]

Inglewood always up to no good...

[kaput]

.

[bubbley]

Wow i didnt know they had beat him that bad.

:thumbsdow

[Xtrema]

What prompted the other thread to close? Average thread IQ too low? :rofl:

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Xtrema
What prompted the other thread to close? Average thread IQ too low? :rofl:


Originally posted by A790
KEEP THIS THREAD ON TRACK PLEASE. THANKS!

[baygirl]

Originally posted by Xtrema
What prompted the other thread to close? Average thread IQ too low? :rofl:
Pretty much. People posted pics of Darrin's ex's and his kids names. It got way out of hand.

[can't hide]

I don' think it's unusual for 2 people to stand trial together if they are charged with the same thing.

The Menendez brothers were tried together I believe.

[scat19]

Make them eat concrete and throw them in the ocean.

[7thgenvic]

I think the two dirtbags standing trail together is the right thing to do...Blame them both for the senseless crime they chose.

[abyss]

$10 says they each try to pin it on the other guy. No honour among thieves. Either way, maybe if they stand trial together it'll be over faster and then they'll get locked away faster. One can only hope.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by scat19
Make them eat concrete and throw them in the ocean.

Or hang em by a live wire and dip them into piss.

[Feruk]

I wonder what would happen if they both pled guilty but said that the other guy had nothing to do with it and wasn't even there?

[Doozer]

Originally posted by kaput
Is it unusual for two accused to face a trial together? How does the judging work in a case like that? Why would they pursue the trial like that?
They would pursue it like that for the exact reasons listed below:


Originally posted by abyss
$10 says they each try to pin it on the other guy.

Originally posted by Feruk
I wonder what would happen if they both pled guilty but said that the other guy had nothing to do with it and wasn't even there?

My understanding is that if they had separate trials, the Crown would have to decide which one committed the actual act, and then prove it in that particular trial. They could each blame the other, and while they could still be an accessory, it could be damn near impossible to prove which one did the act.

By trying them together, I think the Crown gets a little more grey area by saying they both did it together, and there isn't the opportunity for them to blame it on the other, which would have to be proven in a separate trial.

[Majestic12]

No, the only thing that really matters is establishing with certainty that the two of them together did it. They can then both be charged with either murder or manslaughter.

Besides, there's no 'grey area' in the criminal law... it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[msommers]

Clearly, this can be solved with a little ECON201:rofl:

[Nigel Mansell]

I would like to see what would happen if they both agreed that only one of them was to blame. Could one of them get life in prison and the other walk free?

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by Nigel Mansell
I would like to see what would happen if they both agreed that only one of them was to blame. Could one of them get life in prison and the other walk free?

Well they could do that but why would they.

Dirt Bag 1 - "I'll take the blame and go to jail".

DBirt Bag 2 - "No, no, no man. I'll take the blame and go to jail."

Dirt Bag 1 - "No man. I want to go to jail."

Dirt Bag 2 - "No, I want to."

Never would happen.

[Nigel Mansell]

I disagree. The way things look now they're both going to be in the clink for a long, long time. Why not threaten to use this strategy to negotiate a lighter prison sentence?


I can see both of them saying that it was only one of them. If it were me charged, why not? I'm going to be in jail for eons anyway, so why not let your buddy go free or at least threaten the prosecution with this strategy?

[Jay911]

Originally posted by Doozer
My understanding is that if they had separate trials, the Crown would have to decide which one committed the actual act, and then prove it in that particular trial.

This. If tried separately, only one can be tried for the actual act of murder. If you convict subject A of murder, you can't then try and convict subject B of the same murder.

If you try them together, you can say that "A and B both contributed to the murder of the victim".

[Majestic12]

Wrong, as I just stated earlier, two or more people CAN be convicted of murdering the same person, even if only one person stabbed/shot/whatever the guy to death.

[can't hide]

I know that just because Mr. Amond was charged first does not mean that he is automatically the more guilty one - if they both did the crime they should both do the time.

I do however have a hard time believing that Amond was such a scared little boy that he went along with whatever Ceasar did/told him to do to protect his ass. Amond was arrested and charged pretty quickly after the incident which would lead one to believe there was sufficient evidence to conclude that he had a major role in this.

[baygirl]

Wasn't the second guy in police custody on an unrelated matter?

[can't hide]

Originally posted by baygirl
Wasn't the second guy in police custody on an unrelated matter?

I think he might possibly have been - for some kind of assualt later/earlier that night.

I don't know what the code is among these lowlives but if my ass was on the line for a murder that I didn't commit you could bet I would be giving up the person responsible right chicken lou.

[ornamental]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/10/07/calgary-amond-sentence.html

[J-hop]

What's with being given "double" credit for time served...

4 years for killing someone? That is sad...

[CompletelyNumb]

Forget what country you're in? Our sentences here are pathetic at best.

Hopefully the conservatives make minimum sentences for all violent crimes. Large minimum sentences.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
Forget what country you're in? Our sentences here are pathetic at best.

Hopefully the conservatives make minimum sentences for all violent crimes. Large minimum sentences.

+1

Also need to change the jails from country clubs to horrible places to be, loose the bleeding hearts that seem to parole everyone and bring back the death sentence.

Amond looks like a real winner, probably a solid contributor to society...

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by J-hop
What's with being given "double" credit for time served...

4 years for killing someone? That is sad...

I actually thought they got rid of this double time bullshit a while back.....what gives?

[masoncgy]

^ He was charged before the 2-for-1 was done away with.

[2007RS4]

4 years. Proof that bleeding heart liberals are
just as bad as the scumbag criminals.