Jane Creba Trial: JSR Charged, Controversy!

[lordmandeep]

It appears a lot of bleeding hearts are coming out of defense for JSR...

Some are saying that he was just with the wrong people at the wrong time...

-Some say JSR had self-defense? Self Defense against what???

I could agree he may not be guilty of 2nd degree Murder, but come on, the guy is a savage thug and if he was innocent, he would have ran when the bullets went flying. He was there and was found with a gun? What kind of "innocent" man, stays around for a gunfight and see's people getting shot and then just leaves?

He clearly aided and was part of the events and he is not a just another poor disadvantage minority who got involved with the wrong people.


Saladin once said Compassion should be shown to those who deserve it, and we have just lost our minds in our society showing compassion to the wrong people.

I think this ruling will send a clear message to the thugs with those crafty bleeding heart idealistic lawyers, that the time of legal tricks is over. You where there!!!! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!! Its not murder, but its easily manslaughter at the least!!

Sorry for ranting but I am tired of how these guys who are so poor that they must resort to crime, get such crafty lawyers?

 

[Brian69]

You are not the only one. The justice system has proven time and time again it favours the rights of the guilty over the victims and their families. Dropping associated charges, having sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively (it's like getting free crimes thrown in, or thrown out I suppose), giving 3 for 1 time for pre-conviction custody, the young offender act--the list goes on. It seems that every aspect of the system is geared towards getting them out as quickly as possible.

The worst is potential parole for all including violent offenders. Why not keep murderers locked up for more than 10 or 25 years or even life? I don't care if they are model prisoners--they did something heinous to get themselves into the slammer and can count down the days in full.

Am I less concerned with rehabilitation than taking scum off the streets? Damn straight in the case of violent crime. Violent thugs deserve to bear the full force of the law, not some watered down version of "justice."

 

[cruzin4u]

I totally agree with you.

He was found with a gun, that (to me) makes him just as guilty as whomever pulled the trigger. I have no compassion for JSR whatsoever. Too many of these thugs get a slap on the wrist, so it's about time someone is going to pay the price for their actions. He is lucky that he got what he did. If this were Texas, he'd be gone for 1st degree - 25 yrs to life, no ifs / ands / ors about it.

Wrong people at the wrong time. May be he should start choosing better friends. All those punks should be charged with 1st degree murder for endangering the lives of so many for their actions.

Finally we see some justice. Now we shall see an appeal which will eat up so much money and time over the course of however many years.

 

[lordmandeep]

Last question, if a man has a prior conviction of murder or of a gun crime and is charged a 2nd time, why on earth is he giving bail???


Like hello, clearly the man has not learned his lesson and is a threat here!!!


You know I used to be one of those bleeding hearts, but clearly how can you bleed your heart for people who do not have a soul??

 

[fieras]

I hate how his violent history was excluded from the trial... how is it not relevant? It's a history of violent offences and this is different in what way?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I hate how his violent history was excluded from the trial... how is it not relevant? It's a history of violent offences and this is different in what way?

It's not relevant because the trial is not asking the jury to decide if JSR is a dangerous or bad person, but only if he contributed to the shooting death of Jane.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see JSR in jail for a long time. And, there's certainly logic to your thinking about taking past behaviour into consideration. For example, if you're caught running a red light, and you've already got five tickets for speeding or running red lights or other driving offences, the courts certainly take your prior behaviour into account when setting your sentence for the single running red light offence. Of course, this only applies if JSR was "known" to police.

 

[taal]

You really have to be careful here ... although I'm sure anyone knowing the history of JSR and the details of the case would like to see him behind bars for a very long time it's too easy to jump to that conclusion.

It's what happens to the justice system when we lean toward the guilty decision and prove that wrong instead of what we do today where everything would change. Likely in a very bad way as well.

 

[fieras]

It's not relevant because the trial is not asking the jury to decide if JSR is a dangerous or bad person, but only if he contributed to the shooting death of Jane.

No, but the jury must decide if this person is capable of the violent acts, and a history of similar actions show capability. This does not imply guilt, but it weakens the 'I was in the wrong place/time' defense.

They use past behaviour for spousal abuse cases, so why not murder cases?

 

[Admiral Beez]

No, but the jury must decide if this person is capable of the violent acts, and a history of similar actions show capability.

I think the instructions or charge to the jury is "did this person do the crime" not "is this person capable of the crime".

It's splitting hairs I know, but I do not believe the jury is being asked to decide if the person is capable, only if they did it or not, based on the evidence. Obviously, if they think he did it, they must think he was/is capable of doing it, but that's not the question they're deciding upon.

I was thinking back to my comparison above about traffic offences. I need to clarify it, since the judge should not care if I have a dozen speeding tickets or other violations when deciding my guilt on a particular offence such as running a red light. if the evidence does not support the charge, they should aquit. Now, previous behaviour should be taken into consideration when sentences is applied, and I believe this will occur with JSR.

 

[lordmandeep]

I had an exam on a Law Course, and by God it was most technical thing I ever wrote. The meanings of words have to be interpreted in a very specific matter and I found a lot of the Law rules to be stupid and pointless. Like how on earth does it make sense a man can sue for Nuisance even if he knew the nuisance existed when he comes into an area!!

I respect the law, but really to suggest it is perfect is idiotic and imo some parts need to be changed.

Anyways, I respect certain parts are their to ensure fair trials, but the past should be included.

Clearly very few people in our society will have a criminal record. In addition, the same people cause great deals of crimes over and over again.
To suggest a man who has a criminal history should be treated with the same level of integrity, as a man with no history imo is absurd...

Imo it shows the jury the nature of a man and imo the past of a man is important, however I do agree it is wrong to use that solely to convict someone. It should be included to counteract any sort of "I was at the Wrong Place a", or "I am poor minority, and the system is against me" arguments that we have seen in the past used by these Thug's lawyers trying to win some sort of compassion and sympathy.

Imo if the defense can use such ridiculous arguments about a man's nature, why cannot the Crown talk about the persons past to show his "true colours"

Like, The Canadian system is broken, and is far to fair to career criminals/thugs imo and it really has shown its results in recent years.

 

[Chuck]

This crime was ultimately attributed to the gang's collective existence, and therefore should not be attributed to one particular person. All gang members that were present are in my opinion equally guilty as any one of them could have potentially pulled the trigger. Although our legal system obviously doesn't work this way, I believe that it would be best to just send them all to jail for 20 years and be done with it.

 

[lordmandeep]

I seriously think the Jury looked at the case and said a bad thing happened, someone must pay.

The good thing from this case is that the tricky, cleaver lawyers of these thugs are running scared and to the hills and realizing winning on absurd technicalities and excluding evidence for so called "fairness" is not going to work in this case.

The idea that if you are there and were involved in that act, you are responsible and that is the right verdict. Is it fair, not always but considering the circumstances (shotting on Canada's busiest street on boxing day), it is fair.

How these thugs afford lawyers, if they are so poor they must resort to crime is still a mystery.

Are lawyers offering free services?, because I wonder what those lawyers are smoking, showing compassion to such people.

 

[Voltz]

Lawyers are most likely covered by legal aid, some will do the work Pro bono in order to get their names in the media, or to try and set case law, etc. It's not about compassion for them, its just about advancing their career. Scum-bags.

One thing that needs to be done to help reduce gang crime is to put anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm in jail for at least 15 years, in addition to the sentence for whatever crime they may have caught using the gun for.

 

[doady]

Like, The Canadian system is broken, and is far to fair to career criminals/thugs

There is no such thing as "too fair." The justice system should be as fair as possible to people accused of crime.

The real problem is when it is unfair to victims and their families. Personally, I think they should bring back the death penalty. Being more tough on crime and reduce costs at the same time. Win-Win.

 

[ShonTron]

Did someone bring up "lower costs" as a motivation for the death penalty? Wrong!

I love these "law and order" threads. Always brings out the best in people. Call me a bleeding heart, but I will consider moving to New Jersey if Canada goes back to the dark ages. I'm also eligible for EU citizenship, I could always go that route.