Man Held for Threatening to Kill Someone, Released on Bail & Follows Through

[trtinajax]

Just heard this report on CFRB - Hope the Judge or Justice of the Peace is proud of their complicity

The man charged in the death of a 27 year old woman in Etobicoke on the weekend, was already out on bail.

Toronto Police held a press conference on Monday, updating their investigation into the city's 3rd murder of 2013.

30 year old Emmanuel Owusu-Ansah was arrested in Mississauga on Saturday and charged with first degree murder.

Detective Sgt Brian Borg from Toronto Police says he was already on bail, facing 8 charges including assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

Borg went on to confirm that those charges related to the same victim as this murder.

While the body hasn't been positively identified, police say it was a very violent incident, with the woman first stabbed to death and then her body set on fire.

One of the conditions of Owusu-Ansah's bail was that he remained under house arrest, a condition he allegedly broke.

Police say it was around 7 o'clock on Saturday morning that officers were called to an area around Weston Road and Eglinton for reports of trouble.

Owusu-Ansah was arrested around 9:45 in the Hurontario and Eglinton area of Mississauga.

Detective Sgt Borg says while they do have a person in custody, the investigation is far from over.

He says a number of things were found at the murder scene, and they've released photos in hopes someone has more information

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Hope the Judge or Justice of the Peace is proud of their complicity

Complicit in what exactly??

 

[canada-man]

Complicit in what exactly??

releasing him back into the streets

 

[trtinajax]

Complicit in what exactly??

The murder of the person he said he woanted to kill. If he/she had denied the scum bail an innocent person wouldn't be dead right now & two kids wouldn't be without their mother. Judges should not be allowed to simply wash their hands of crimes they "permit" to happen

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The murder of the person he said he woanted to kill. If he/she had denied the scum bail an innocent person wouldn't be dead right now & two kids wouldn't be without their mother. Judges should not be allowed to simply wash their hands of crimes they "permit" to happen

The problem is you can only lock someone up for "uttering death threats" for so long. Its a relatively minor offense. Even if the judge locked him up for 5 years, who's to say he wouldnt have come out the day after he was released and killed her??

But I get what you're saying, sometimes Canadian justice system is way too soft

 

[HEYHEY]

This is not about the judge who released them, or the person who committed this crime. This is about knives, flammable liquid and lighters. We need to ban them all, IF ATLEAST ONE LIFE IS SAVED ITS WORTH IT!

"A 27-year-old woman whose body was found by police in Etobicoke over the weekend met “an extremely violent end,” police said Monday.

Speaking at an afternoon news conference, Det. Sgt. Brian Borg said the woman was stabbed and set on fire with a flammable substance."

Read more: http://www.cp24.com/news/etobicoke-murder-victim-met-violent-end-police-say-1.1123241#ixzz2IenMgULi


Why does anybody need a knife like that? And lighters?
There should be a knife/lighter/gasoline registry...this is ridiculous, think of the CHILDREN!


All bullshit aside what a fucken horrific way to go and an epic fail of the "justice system"

 

[mandrill]

The problem is you can only lock someone up for "uttering death threats" for so long. Its a relatively minor offense. Even if the judge locked him up for 5 years, who's to say he wouldnt have come out the day after he was released and killed her??

Pretty much the problem. Still, judges are human and make mistakes all the time. Any lawyer has stories of much the same thing as happened here. I'm sure the judge feels bad enough.

 

[rld]

The murder of the person he said he woanted to kill. If he/she had denied the scum bail an innocent person wouldn't be dead right now & two kids wouldn't be without their mother. Judges should not be allowed to simply wash their hands of crimes they "permit" to happen

I am just curious. What evidence was before the person who conducted the bail hearing and what was the position of the crown?

I know it is always fun to look for someone to criticize, other than the criminal, but it is always nice to have some facts before calling someone complicit in a murder.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Pretty much the problem. Still, judges are human and make mistakes all the time

I dont see how the judge made a mistake here though.

He had 2 choices, keep suspect in jail or bail him. If he wouldve kept him in jail, then sooner or later he wouldve been released anyways, and the suspect probably would have killed her then anyways.

If someone is intent on killing another person they'll get around to it sooner or later.

But yeah, the judge probably feels guilty. I dont think he should, the killer should feel guilty

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This is the girl he killed: http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_...97366643749_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x

 

[Narg]

This is not about the judge who released them, or the person who committed this crime. This is about knives, flammable liquid and lighters. We need to ban them all, IF ATLEAST ONE LIFE IS SAVED ITS WORTH IT!

"A 27-year-old woman whose body was found by police in Etobicoke over the weekend met “an extremely violent end,” police said Monday.

Speaking at an afternoon news conference, Det. Sgt. Brian Borg said the woman was stabbed and set on fire with a flammable substance."

Read more: http://www.cp24.com/news/etobicoke-murder-victim-met-violent-end-police-say-1.1123241#ixzz2IenMgULi


Why does anybody need a knife like that? And lighters?
There should be a knife/lighter/gasoline registry...this is ridiculous, think of the CHILDREN!


All bullshit aside what a fucken horrific way to go and an epic fail of the "justice system"

I'm sure this has been pointed out before ... No one is suggesting that everything that can be used to kill should be banned. Gun control in the US is about limiting access to weapons which (1) make it easy (or, at least, much easier) to kill large groups of people and (2) have no other primary purpose. Ergo, you can kill one or two people with a knife but it's not easy to kill a lot of people with a knife. You can kill a lot of people with a car, but that's not the primary purpose of a car.

No mainstream anti-gun movement (that I'm aware of) seeks to make all guns illegal. We just want to make it a little more difficult for fucktards to kill indiscriminately. Got it?

 

[Narg]

I dont see how the judge made a mistake here though.

He had 2 choices, keep suspect in jail or bail him. If he wouldve kept him in jail, then sooner or later he wouldve been released anyways, and the suspect probably would have killed her then anyways.

If someone is intent on killing another person they'll get around to it sooner or later.

But yeah, the judge probably feels guilty. I dont think he should, the killer should feel guilty

+1

Also, there is an institutional bias in the Canadian justice system against locking someone up for something they might do. We incarcerate people for what they've done. This means the courts are reactive, not proactive. I'd rather live in a society which assumes liberty of the individual as its default position than live in a society in which preventive incarceration is the norm.

 

[destillat]

+1

Also, there is an institutional bias in the Canadian justice system against locking someone up for something they might do. We incarcerate people for what they've done. This means the courts are reactive, not proactive. I'd rather live in a society which assumes liberty of the individual as its default position than live in a society in which preventive incarceration is the norm.

then you are against the 'preventative' 90 day driving suspension on alleged drunk drivers?

i'm not ragging on you... i am actually against it myself... just wondering if your view extends to that

 

[afterhours]

Pretty much the problem. Still, judges are human and make mistakes all the time. Any lawyer has stories of much the same thing as happened here. I'm sure the judge feels bad enough.

A guy with no priors should absolutely be releasable on a reasonable plan (e.g. house arrest) with a reasonable surety. I don't believe the JP made a mistake. JPs and Crowns are always careful on domestics because this scenario is always in the back of their heads. I hope we don't want to live in a society where people who are presumed innocent are being held for months and years pending trial.

 

[afterhours]

+1

Also, there is an institutional bias in the Canadian justice system against locking someone up for something they might do. We incarcerate people for what they've done. This means the courts are reactive, not proactive. I'd rather live in a society which assumes liberty of the individual as its default position than live in a society in which preventive incarceration is the norm.

this bias is also known as presumption of innocence.

 

[Narg]

this bias is also known as presumption of innocence.

True ... but I got to use more words to express the same point. (I get paid for my time, so brevity is not always a benefit).

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

A guy with no priors should absolutely be releasable on a reasonable plan (e.g. house arrest) with a reasonable surety. I don't believe the JP made a mistake. JPs and Crowns are always careful on domestics because this scenario is always in the back of their heads. I hope we don't want to live in a society where people who are presumed innocent are being held for months and years pending trial

I agree with this. He was put on house arrest btw.

Maybe the courts should look into house arrest that includes a GPS monitoring ankle bracelet, so if a suspect tries to make it past his driveway cops nail him right away

 

[afterhours]

True ... but I got to use more words to express the same point. (I get paid for my time, so brevity is not always a benefit).

Actually the problem in the system is that many JPs are not capable of adjudicating a bail hearing because they are political appointees and have not seen the inside of law school. That's the fucking bias right there. A female JP can easily detain an innocent man on a domestic charge, and a guy might not want to wait two weeks for a bail review and would plead guilty just to get out of jail. That's the fucking bias.

 

[Narg]

then you are against the 'preventative' 90 day driving suspension on alleged drunk drivers?

i'm not ragging on you... i am actually against it myself... just wondering if your view extends to that

I agree in theory. In practice, the suspension is intended for drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test. As I recall, a driver has a right to refuse a roadside breathalyzer test. If the driver refuses and is later ordered to take the test back at the police station, enough time may have passed that the driver sobers up enough to fall within the legal limit. Of course, the automatic suspension does violate the presumption of innocence.

Thinking about it now, I am inclined to agree with the automatic suspension either on the grounds that driving is a privilege or, if driving is a right, it is subject to greater limits for the common good than certain other rights (like the rights to life or freedom).

 

[Narg]

Actually the problem in the system is that many JPs are not capable of adjudicating a bail hearing because they are political appointees and have not seen the inside of law school. That's the fucking bias right there. A female JP can easily detain an innocent man on a domestic charge, and a guy might not want to wait two weeks for a bail review and would plead guilty just to get out of jail. That's the fucking bias.

Interesting. I don't practice criminal law, so bail hearings are just theory for me. I have never attended one and several of my friends are Crowns (so their perspective is different from that of accused or defence counsel).