Brass Rail shooting update

[fuji]

It certainly doesn't seem to me that "Hey, I got your cellphone!" constitutes "an insult. . . of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control!" and therefore reduce the charge to manslaughter under S232(1).

Neither you nor I know the full story. How were they treated inside the club before that? Did the bouncers use excessive force in removing them? Was anything rude or insulting said to them while they were being escorted out? The cellphone comment was only the LAST thing said or done to them. We have no idea how much more was said before that. It would not be difficult to produce a long list of witnesses who attest to the rude and offensive treatment that they have received from the BR staff, who are well known to be assholes.

To get 1st you would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the bouncers did not use excessive force, did not say anything offensive. That's hard.

(Note that it's not the bouncers who are on trial here, it is the alleged murderers who are on trial, any doubt is in the accused's favour. If the bouncers are subsequently charged with excessive force in THEIR trial they would benefit from any doubt. It is quite possible that there is reasonable doubt in favour of both sides.)

 

[S.C. Joe]

I don't see 1st but most murders are charged that way and then later on the "right" charge happens.

I don't see 1st because these young men went to the club to have fun. They did not plan on killing anybody. Sure the Crown will say they talk and thought about it while being kicked out.

I love to watch the trail-if it goes that far-it be a long trail too, so I doubt if I could do it. Might be pack with the friends and family too. Heck 18 showed up just for a bail hearing.

There's going to be some hot young ladies-the dancers-taking the stand. Then "king kong" the bouncer, like to hear from these 2 guys what they claim happen also. Would be something else to see. Beat going to a movie.

 

[Aardvark154]

Neither you nor I know the full story. How were they treated inside the club before that? Did the bouncers use excessive force in removing them? Was anything rude or insulting said to them while they were being escorted out? The cellphone comment was only the LAST thing said or done to them. We have no idea how much more was said before that.

To get 1st you would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the bouncers did not use excessive force. That's hard.

(Note that it's not the bouncers who are on trial here, it is the alleged murderers who are on trial, so any doubt is in their favour. If the bouncers are subsequently charged with excessive force in THEIR trial they would benefit from any doubt. It is possible that there is reasonable doubt both ways about what actually happened.)

I was probably about as clear as mud and we are probably "talking past each other". I was speaking of the charging decision, and in that I don't see how the bouncer's actions go to degree. Under my reading of §231(6.2) and §232(1) it would seem that the crucial point is the "threats of violence" one or both of them made against the bouncer - otherwise it would be Second Degree Murder.

Indeed I believe SC Joe mentioned that he'd read that the Crown has charged Awet Zekarias with First Degree Murder. I don't know whether Edward Paredes (the gunman) has been charged with First or Second Degree Murder.

As to mitigation at trial, I of course agree that the totality of events has a bearing. That said I don't about in Ontario but in many jurisdictions the "heat of passion" and "chance to cool off" requirements to the "insulting comments" are generally held to require real immediacy. If so, I don't believe this would be a particularly successful argument given that they had already started to leave and there apparently are witnesses to the "Hey, I got your cellphone!" remark.

I agree that we don’t know what actually happened, and that this will all come out at the trial(s).

 

[Aardvark154]

I don't see 1st but most murders are charged that way and then later on the "right" charge happens.

I don't see 1st because these young men went to the club to have fun. They did not plan on killing anybody. Sure the Crown will say they talk and thought about it while being kicked out.

I love to watch the trail-if it goes that far-it be a long trail too, so I doubt if I could do it. Might be pack with the friends and family too. Heck 18 showed up just for a bail hearing.

There's going to be some hot young ladies-the dancers-taking the stand. Then "king kong" the bouncer, like to hear from these 2 guys what they claim happen also. Would be something else to see. Beat going to a movie.

Joe unless I'm not grasping the nuances the First Degree charge hinges on one or both of them having shot off their mouths making threats which makes if First Degree under §231(6.2). If they hadn't done so I believe we both agree that it would have been Second Degree.

 

[intigued]

I'm not really sure at all the details that you guys are discussing here....but bottom line is that this would never have happened if no one had any guns....to me unless you're a cop you should never have one, and go to jail if even caught with one period!

 

[BULLRYDER]

Where is the data ?

Where is the security video ? The Defense and Crow better subpoena the club before it miraculously disappears.

Neither you nor I know the full story. How were they treated inside the club before that? Did the bouncers use excessive force in removing them? Was anything rude or insulting said to them while they were being escorted out? The cellphone comment was only the LAST thing said or done to them. We have no idea how much more was said before that. It would not be difficult to produce a long list of witnesses who attest to the rude and offensive treatment that they have received from the BR staff, who are well known to be assholes.

To get 1st you would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the bouncers did not use excessive force, did not say anything offensive. That's hard.

(Note that it's not the bouncers who are on trial here, it is the alleged murderers who are on trial, any doubt is in the accused's favour. If the bouncers are subsequently charged with excessive force in THEIR trial they would benefit from any doubt. It is quite possible that there is reasonable doubt in favour of both sides.)

 

[S.C. Joe]

If I recall their pictures, these two guys were not white boys. They were not black either but did have darken skin. Of course B.R. won't say thats why after it was apparent these guys did not have big bucks to spend they wanted them out of the club. Not say this as a fact, just a maybe.


We all where not there, maybe they were acting like "assholes".

They were only in there under a 1/2 an hour. If they were drunk coming in, they would have not been allowed to go in. Sure at only 23 years of age they were ID first

 

[ak0831]

COOL IT!

You do not have all the facts, just what was reported in the media. I dont give a shit whether its someone's birthday or not. When a bouncer asks you to behave, you BEHAVE otherwise you get escorted out. I've seen too many kids with the 50 cent attitude and that is exactly what was going on. These guys were not gentlemen, they were behaving like idiots.

No one in this country can legally carry a gun unless they are on the job, ie: cops and security. Laws were broken and these kids were obviously looking for trouble walking into a strip club with a loaded gun and an attitude.

I'm getting sick and tired of anyone that sides with the offender crying poor him, maybe if you did this instead it wouldn;t have happened. Well let me tell you a little thing..... In the UK a shopkeeper was held up by a kid with a knife, a fight broke out and the kid died. Well lets see, the kid was in the process of committing a crime and now the shopkeeper is facing potential murder charges.

It's about time you stopped focusing on the offender and more time focusing on the victim's rights. A father died, a child is without his dad anymore. Thats the one you should be focusing on.

Well Said !!!!!!!!

 

[S.C. Joe]

I've seen too many kids with the 50 cent attitude and that is exactly what was going on. These guys were not gentlemen, they were behaving like idiots.

How do we know that? And I am talking before the shooting started, yeah they were idiots then.

Its bought up 3 reasons they were kicked out, not for acting tough. Seems to me if they were acting like jerks, they would not have said anything about slow buying drinks and the baseball cap on backwards

How do we know it was not their race and not being rich enough for the club taste?

 

[blackdog]

No one here knows the details of that night. What we do know for sure is that someone discharged a gun at a bar in the middle of the city. The result was the death of an innocent man. END OF STORY. The idiot who brought the gun should be stomped on with the full force of the law. There is no reason or excuse for this moronic kid to be bringing a gun to a bar. I dont care if the bouncer insulted his shoes or kicked the little piece of shit in the balls. Any bar can kick out anyone they want. There is no reason to shoot another person. Im a bleeding heart liberal, and a gun owner, I believe that zero tolerance for this kind of behavior is the only policy. Anything else is moronic.

 

[james t kirk]

COOL IT!

You do not have all the facts, just what was reported in the media. I dont give a shit whether its someone's birthday or not. When a bouncer asks you to behave, you BEHAVE otherwise you get escorted out. I've seen too many kids with the 50 cent attitude and that is exactly what was going on. These guys were not gentlemen, they were behaving like idiots.

No one in this country can legally carry a gun unless they are on the job, ie: cops and security. Laws were broken and these kids were obviously looking for trouble walking into a strip club with a loaded gun and an attitude.

I'm getting sick and tired of anyone that sides with the offender crying poor him, maybe if you did this instead it wouldn;t have happened. Well let me tell you a little thing..... In the UK a shopkeeper was held up by a kid with a knife, a fight broke out and the kid died. Well lets see, the kid was in the process of committing a crime and now the shopkeeper is facing potential murder charges.

It's about time you stopped focusing on the offender and more time focusing on the victim's rights. A father died, a child is without his dad anymore. Thats the one you should be focusing on.

Couldn't agree more.

I don't care what these bouncers did or did not do.

These two IDIOTS are resonsible for the death of some poor bastard just walking to the subway at the end of the day after busting his hump.

As far as I am concerned, they can lock up the BOTH of them till they day that they each die rotting in jail. I don't care what their excuse is, or where they came from, or who's in court to support them.

This is the WORST kind of crime.

My only fear is that they are going to simply get a slap on the wrist.

If I had my way, they'd be in my new super jail on Baffin Island for the rest of their misery filled short ass lives.

 

[Aardvark154]

In what I hope are my final comment about this for the time being.

It is a business. They are entitled to have rules, and they are entitled to demand that you leave.

If you feel you are being discriminated against there are ways to proceed and organizations which will help you. However, to cut to the chase - you will have to prove that members of one race who were dressed like they were going to a cocktail party hosted by the Lieutenant Governor were routinely denied entry while members of another race dressed like gang-bangers were let in. Not that members of one race dressed like gang-bangers were denied entry or asked to leave.

The above does not in any way include a right to make a scene, refuse to leave, swear, threaten etc. . .

It doesn't matter how upset you are unless you are the innocent party and facing the use of deadly force against you -- you don't have the right to yourself use deadly force.

An entirely innocent passer by is dead, his wife widowed, and his children without a father due to the actions of these two men.

 

[Primetime21]

As to the point of the BR and kids wearing their hats to the side. The bouncers in the club always ask the patrons to either wear their hat the proper way or remove them. I've seen that happen at least 15-20 times in there. They do not allow you to wear your hat gangsta style in that club. If you don't like that rule don't go to the BR, they been doing that for years now.

 

[LancsLad]

Agreed

COOL IT!

You do not have all the facts, just what was reported in the media. I dont give a shit whether its someone's birthday or not. When a bouncer asks you to behave, you BEHAVE otherwise you get escorted out. I've seen too many kids with the 50 cent attitude and that is exactly what was going on. These guys were not gentlemen, they were behaving like idiots.

No one in this country can legally carry a gun unless they are on the job, ie: cops and security. Laws were broken and these kids were obviously looking for trouble walking into a strip club with a loaded gun and an attitude.

I'm getting sick and tired of anyone that sides with the offender crying poor him, maybe if you did this instead it wouldn;t have happened. Well let me tell you a little thing..... In the UK a shopkeeper was held up by a kid with a knife, a fight broke out and the kid died. Well lets see, the kid was in the process of committing a crime and now the shopkeeper is facing potential murder charges.

It's about time you stopped focusing on the offender and more time focusing on the victim's rights. A father died, a child is without his dad anymore. Thats the one you should be focusing on.

Good post.

 

[LancsLad]

As to the point of the BR and kids wearing their hats to the side. The bouncers in the club always ask the patrons to either wear their hat the proper way or remove them. I've seen that happen at least 15-20 times in there. They do not allow you to wear your hat gangsta style in that club. If you don't like that rule don't go to the BR, they been doing that for years now.

There was a time when gentlemen removed all headgear when entering a building, subject to very clearly defined exceptions. With that in place the orientation of the hat is no longer an issue.


.

 

[fuji]

These two IDIOTS are resonsible for the death of some poor bastard just walking to the subway at the end of the day after busting his hump.

I don't think there's a single person here who disagrees with that. We were simply discussing what it takes for it to be 2nd degree or 1st degree. Either is murder.

 

[fuji]

Murder is murder, doesnt matter which level it is when its a deliberate attempt.

I agree with this. 1st degree or 2nd degree it's murder and they need to away for a good long while. I just don't think it'll be 1st because it'll be too easy to make a case that the BR over-reacted, as they have a history of. I also don't doubt that they were trouble makers, but I bet the BR didn't handle it well, as they never do.

Way up thread I made the point that people have a right to be assholes, and not to be shot for being assholes. It doesn't matter what the BR staff did, other than when it comes down to deciding which kind of murder it is. It's murder nonetheless.

 

[Anynym]

The law often makes distinctions based on a judgement (by either a judge or a jury) of an accused's state of mind at the time of the action.

That is, if an accused had intent (in a legal sense), it's treated more harshly than if the intent weren't there. Some mention was made of the Pickton case, and that the jury somehow apparently decided that "premeditation" wasn't present ... on multiple occasions. I don't pretend to understand that decision, but I wasn't in that jury room.

The law course I took many years ago (just an overview) mentioned a case of a man who drove his car, very slowly, over a cop's foot. It could have been decided that he simply maintained the course he had set for his car, and that the cop should have moved. Instead, it was decided that he had formed the "guilty mind" (mens rea) aspect of the charge in the instants immediately before the event, and was found criminally responsible; the act itself (actus reus) was never in question.

So "premeditation" doesn't require a long time to establish: a murder doesn't have to be planned for months in order to qualify for a "first degree" charge.

But often, the question of "first" or "second degree" will be based on what prosecutors believe can be proven in court, rather than what other observers (without the full set of facts) might rush to conclude.

 

[WinterHawk]

What matters is that these 2 idiots broke the law and because of it someone died. Does it really matter that they didn't want to kill the person who died? I don't think it matters. Unless they feared for their lives, and I don't think that was the case, then they should be the price for taking someones life.

Personally I'd draft them as Human Bomb Disposal Units to find roadside bombs. Let the deaths mean someone else lives!!!

 

[fuji]

Does it really matter that they didn't want to kill the person who died? I don't think it matters.

It doesn't matter. If you coldly plot to kill person A, and then while trying to do that, kill person B instead, it is still first degree murder. What matters is not who you killed, but whether you coldly plotted to kill.

Given the facts that have been reported in the papers it seems pretty clear that this is outright murder, the only question is 1st or 2nd degree.

Of course their defense lawyer will beg to differ, and as many have noted, none of us have the full facts.