Cigarette butt escalation to death.

[ZenOps]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/michael-page-vincelli-death-1.4240816

Dumbest reason ever to die over.

[Xtrema]

Someone saw all those youtube videos and think that's a good idea.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Dumb thing to do, the littering and the point making, but dipshit didn't need to punch him. Enjoy the involuntary manslaughter trial, moran.

[lilmira]

Blame women, no?

[rx7boi]

No charges laid yet and no names to be released at this time.

[dj_patm]

Reason #1 why you don't start shit with random people. You have no effing clue what they know or are willing to do. Doesn't matter how big or small they are, you never know.

Most people figure this out in their clubbing days.

Flicking a butt back into someones car is similar to throwing food at them or spitting at them. You should fully expect an altercation.

Also no guarantee charges are laid. Don't know who actually swung first from the story. Guy could have followed him into the starbucks simply to chew him out.

[Brent.ff]

Flicking a butt back into someones car is similar to throwing food at them or spitting at them. You should fully expect an altercation.



gotta say, theres a few more people willing to do it this year in BC..for a pretty apparent reason.

[Tik-Tok]

The altercation happened July 12 and is being investigated as a homicide, but authorities hadn't spoken publicly about the case until CBC News started inquiring about it — prompted by reports from concerned witnesses.
...
Police didn't say if they have identified a suspect. No charges have been laid in the young man's death, and officials are not identifying any of the people involved.

This seems a little odd, no? I wonder what relation the attackers have to someone high up on a food chain.

[lasimmon]

This seems a little odd, no? I wonder what relation the attackers have to someone high up on a food chain.

I bet it was an off duty cop.

[sexualbanana]

Also no guarantee charges are laid. Don't know who actually swung first from the story. Guy could have followed him into the starbucks simply to chew him out.

From what I know about self-defence claims, by the time the couple entered the Starbucks, it won't really matter who swung first as the situation when the couple chased after him into Starbucks. From a legal perspective, the situation can be reduced into two separate incidents:

1) Woman A tosses the cigarette butt out of the window and Victim A tosses it back into her car. There was no physical, and from the sounds of it no verbal, altercation but the conflict ends the moment they separate and Victim A walks into the Starbucks and Woman A walks into the bank. That she does so to get Man A is irrelevant as there is now time to calm the situation.

2) Now the couple enters the Starbucks with the sole intention of confronting Victim A. At this point, Woman and Man A are now the instigators of this entirely new confrontation. It would be very difficult (and likely not even accepted) that Woman and Man A could even qualify to use a self-defence claim for that reason, regardless of whether or not it was Victim A who swung first.

[J-hop]

From what I know about self-defence claims, by the time the couple entered the Starbucks, it won't really matter who swung first as the situation when the couple chased after him into Starbucks. From a legal perspective, the situation can be reduced into two separate incidents:

1) Woman A tosses the cigarette butt out of the window and Victim A tosses it back into her car. There was no physical, and from the sounds of it no verbal, altercation but the conflict ends the moment they separate and Victim A walks into the Starbucks and Woman A walks into the bank. That she does so to get Man A is irrelevant as there is now time to calm the situation.

2) Now the couple enters the Starbucks with the sole intention of confronting Victim A. At this point, Woman and Man A are now the instigators of this entirely new confrontation. It would be very difficult (and likely not even accepted) that Woman and Man A could even qualify to use a self-defence claim for that reason, regardless of whether or not it was Victim A who swung first.

Yea reminds me a lot of that edmonton (?) guy that got charged with assault after chasing down and beating up a would be car jacker. As soon as the immediate danger was gone that situation in the eyes of the law ended. Chasing the guy for two blocks with a bat the guy became the aggressor and was charged as such.

[dj_patm]

Yeah that does make sense.

As mentioned maybe it's someone with some sort of status involved (Cop, Politician, Rich White guy) then and they won't announce anything until someone is charged?

[03ozwhip]

From what I know about self-defence claims, by the time the couple entered the Starbucks, it won't really matter who swung first as the situation when the couple chased after him into Starbucks. From a legal perspective, the situation can be reduced into two separate incidents:

1) Woman A tosses the cigarette butt out of the window and Victim A tosses it back into her car. There was no physical, and from the sounds of it no verbal, altercation but the conflict ends the moment they separate and Victim A walks into the Starbucks and Woman A walks into the bank. That she does so to get Man A is irrelevant as there is now time to calm the situation.

2) Now the couple enters the Starbucks with the sole intention of confronting Victim A. At this point, Woman and Man A are now the instigators of this entirely new confrontation. It would be very difficult (and likely not even accepted) that Woman and Man A could even qualify to use a self-defence claim for that reason, regardless of whether or not it was Victim A who swung first.
nowhere did it say that the butt was still lit or if it was out. if it was still lit, that's a whole different conversation. I can tell you if someone threw a lit butt at my wife, you better believe I'm going to punch you in the mouth.

however, that said, going on with your business and then chasing a guy in an establishment makes it a pretty bad case.

tell me, what would you guys do if that happened to your wife, while right in front of you? nothing?

[jutes]

You are pretty much an idiot for smoking in the first place and even bigger idiot for littering, tiny butt or not. Smokers are basically second class citizens anyway, hopefully the cig companies make their shit even more potent and kill off the masses quicker.

Poor guy did the right thing tossing the, hopefully lit, butt back at that cunt.

[ExtraSlow]

Cigarette smokers are the only people lower than dog owners. Both leave shit all over the fucking world.

[jwslam]

You are pretty much an idiot for smoking in the first place and even bigger idiot for littering, tiny butt or not. Smokers are basically second class citizens anyway, hopefully the cig companies make their shit even more potent and kill off the masses quicker.

Poor guy did the right thing tossing the, hopefully lit, butt back at that cunt.
:clap:

[Disoblige]

tell me, what would you guys do if that happened to your wife, while right in front of you? nothing?
I'd ask my wife, wtf are you doing smoking and why did you litter?
Haha but on a serious note, you're right it would be hard not to do anything in that situation. But after that, I definitely would talk to the wife to ask wtf was she thinking.

[HiTempguy1]

I'd never date a classy lady that throws garbage on the fucking ground.

So yea, I wouldn't be punching the guy, it'd be "yep, you sure deserved that"

[dj_patm]

Yeah if my gf got called out for littering I'd probably agree with the guy calling her out UNLESS he was a total dick about it. If he flicked it in her face and cussed her out, I doubt you guys would just be cool with it. You can be right and still deserve a beat down.

[J-hop]

Yeah if my gf got called out for littering I'd probably agree with the guy calling her out...

Do you have a death wish?

[dj_patm]

Do you have a death wish?

Sometimes.....

[swak]

Smoking kills. :closed: