Man commits Random Murder, Not responsible cause he was Drunk.

[dj_patm]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/...f-innocent-man

Littlechild was charged with second-degree murder, but a jury ruled his gross intoxication prevented him from forming the intent to commit murder

Wow. Guy slashed a persons throat and stabbed him several times but it's not murder cause he was drunk?

So you can be held responsible if you're drunk and decide to drive or rape someone or assault someone or steal or vandalize, but if you murder someone you're not responsible for having the intent to kill?

[Kobe]

Yah things like this really piss me off about the system...
So stupid...

[TomcoPDR]

Fucked up

[Thaco]

I agree it is complete bullshit,

but to play the devils advocate. he'll still get manslaughter at minimum, which is a joke, but its not like he's walking away from it...

[Mitsu3000gt]

This was the expected outcome, murder charges are rarely taken seriously in Canada. Standard procedure is to drop the charges 1-2 levels of severity and go from there.

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Behead someone? NBD, allowed back into society unsupervised.

I'm cherry picking examples but you get the point.

[Thaco]

Just read another article he's actually getting 6 years, time served since the attack in 2013, plus another 21 months going forward and 2 years of probation after.

Still a joke... They're being sympathetic toward him because he's native and his parents had to go through the residential schools n shit... not sure what his parents ahve to do with him randomly killing an innocent man..

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This was the expected outcome, murder charges are rarely taken seriously in Canada. Standard procedure is to drop the charges 1-2 levels of severity and go from there.

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Behead someone? NBD, allowed back into society unsupervised.

I'm cherry picking examples but you get the point.

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

[dj_patm]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

somehow poking with your dick and poking with a knife is different.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

I would like to hear the definition of "Intent" from this standpoint.


Because by my definition of intent, if a person's decision lead them to an action (I.e drunk guy decides to start slashing and stabbing a guy, causing death), that to me is intent. Its black or white, you either decide to do something and you follow through or you don't.

If a drunk guy is pulled over while driving he clearly is intending to drive that vehicle as he made the decision to drive.

State of mind/ inebriation should have nothing to do with intent in my eyes. A decision was made, and an action was followed through.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

So the best thing to do after committing a heinous crime then would be to immediately get drunk or high and claim you were intoxicated at the time? Everyone would do that if it was the case.

I think if you willingly get into a car drunk, you know the risks (i.e. high chance of killing someone) and if you don't waive any 'intent' requirements that is ridiculous. At that point you are giving people an 'out' or free pass through the very means that got them into the situation in the first place.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the best thing to do after committing a heinous crime then would be to immediately get drunk or high and claim you were intoxicated at the time? Everyone would do that if it was the case.

I think if you willingly get into a car drunk, you know the risks (i.e. high chance of killing someone) and if you don't waive any 'intent' requirements that is ridiculous. At that point you are giving people an 'out' or free pass through the very means that got them into the situation in the first place.

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.

No but they INTENDED to drive the vehicle.
Everything that happens as a result of them driving the vehicle is an outcome of the intended decision.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No but they INTENDED to drive the vehicle.
Everything that happens as a result of them driving the vehicle is an outcome of the intended decision.

Yes, they intended to drive the vehicle, but that alone wouldn't constitute intent to commit murder. If you follow that line of thinking, every homicide is first degree murder and that's the only charge we should have.

[vengie]

I disagree.

First degree murder is a planned murder, and they proved that planning.

Whereas drunk drivers (for the most part) aren't planning to drive later in the evening or didn't think they would get drunk. Whatever the case its a spur of the moment decision. Like a charge of second degree murder.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

Honest question, has this ever been argued?

If you were drunk enough/blackout drunk, it actually may be a reasonable defense

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Is that the cement truck driver or whatever he was? Tschetter or something?

Wonder if he killed himself yet.

[colinxx235]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is that the cement truck driver or whatever he was? Tschetter or something?

Wonder if he killed himself yet.

I haven't read an article about him in probably 4 years since they released him early. To date that has to be one of the worse cases I can recall in Calgary.

The only one that ever hit a bit closer was the Mike Maniago incident (went to school/hockey buddies circle) which was total bullshit to. But drunk driving death cases in Canada do not carry a very harsh penalty and the times that people get away with the DUI because of loopholes they find is frustrating

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.

What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing. You wouldn't be able to kill anyone with any weapon short of a gun if you're intoxicated enough to lose all ability to form intent.

Personally I don't get it.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I haven't read an article about him in probably 4 years since they released him early. To date that has to be one of the worse cases I can recall in Calgary.

The only one that ever hit a bit closer was the Mike Maniago incident (went to school/hockey buddies circle) which was total bullshit to. But drunk driving death cases in Canada do not carry a very harsh penalty and the times that people get away with the DUI because of loopholes they find is frustrating

This cunt killed a family here not too long ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...2016-1.3697785

ONE MONTH into her sentence she got transferred to a "Healing Lodge", doesn't even have to spend any time in a real prison. She's essentially got her own apartment at camp till she's released:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3269509/v...healing-lodge/

The point is, with the massive precedent for nearly no accountability for even the most severe outcomes of drinking and driving, this story doesn't surprise me.