News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.2K     0 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
11,056
Reaction score
5,005
I have to think that being married to their mother, with her publicly mourning might have been too much for the dad.

Muzzo’s just lucky that Edward Lake didn’t take him with him. That’s what I’d be inclined to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
4,494
Man, it's gotta be tough having your kids taken from you so suddenly and violently. Statistically, the death of children is very tough on a marriage.

We all deal with death and grief differently. In this case, the mother chose to keep the victims front and centre in the minds of the public, media and, to the extent she could, the courts. I don't think we ever heard a word from the father. I would suspect things were unravelling, both personally and in the relationship, from very shortly after the collision.
 

Rufus8

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
433
Reaction score
267
Let's remind ourselves of the realities of the justice system - Vince Li is freely walking around after murdering and eating a fellow Greyhound bus rider, the supreme court said consecutive life terms for multiple murders is terribly unfair to the little misunderstood dears, bail is mandatory including for someone who throws flammable liquid on a random transit rider then sets them alight (but of course that is speculation because of publication ban - got to protect the accused at all costs). Let's not forget all those frequent flier shooters and youthful thugs who know they can't be held accountable for the chaos and injury they cause. How do victims of crime get on with their lives when the justice system lets them down so badly, so casually and so often?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,110
Reaction score
58,599
Let's remind ourselves of the realities of the justice system - Vince Li is freely walking around after murdering and eating a fellow Greyhound bus rider

So something he did while in a psychotic state.......one that is now treated, and one that his doctors have sworn they believe will not recur, is something he should be punished for for the rest of his life?

, the supreme court said consecutive life terms for multiple murders is terribly unfair to the little misunderstood dears

You're editorializing a wee bit. There is a way, if you believe someone is likely to be an ongoing danger, to preclude their release; the crown has to move to have the accused classified as a dangerous offender.

Moreover, life in prison is not a 100% guarantee of parole; it comes with eligibility for parole after 25 years. There are offenders, from prior to the dangerous offender legislation, who have never been released.

Clifford Olsen, a notorious serial killer from an earlier era, convicted in 1982 for his crimes, never was paroled.

What the Court was ruling on was making it impossible for people to even ask for parole; and it was right to rule the law unconstitutional, which it was, on its face.

Letting people ask for parole does not mean giving it to them.

, bail is mandatory including for someone who throws flammable liquid on a random transit rider then sets them alight (but of course that is speculation because of publication ban - got to protect the accused at all costs).

Also not correct. Publication bans are broadly used for 2 reasons, one is to protect the identify of victims and witnesses and the other is to protect the integrity of the justice system. How do we know police have the right person? (to be clear, I strongly suspect they do); but the point is; someone is innocent until proven guilty, which means that if they may ask for a jury trial, you need to find a jury who hasn't already made up their mind.

In rare circumstances, publications bans may directly protect the accused (or their family) if there is a belief they may be at imminent risk of harm or for some other extenuating reason, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Given that an 'accused' has not yet been found guilty, depriving them of their freedom is something to be done with the greatest of caution (otherwise we run the risk of jailing a lot of innocent people); in this case, given the nature of the incident I find bail unlikely, but either way, we shouldn't draw premature conclusions.

Let's not forget all those frequent flier shooters and youthful thugs who know they can't be held accountable for the chaos and injury they cause. How do victims of crime get on with their lives when the justice system lets them down so badly, so casually and so often?

Would you mind providing evidence to support that.......is that even an anecdote?

I don't mean to be unkind, but I like opinions to be supported by evidence and fact, and see a shortage of that here.
 
Last edited:

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
4,494
Let's remind ourselves of the realities of the justice system - Vince Li is freely walking around after murdering and eating a fellow Greyhound bus rider, the supreme court said consecutive life terms for multiple murders is terribly unfair to the little misunderstood dears, bail is mandatory including for someone who throws flammable liquid on a random transit rider then sets them alight (but of course that is speculation because of publication ban - got to protect the accused at all costs). Let's not forget all those frequent flier shooters and youthful thugs who know they can't be held accountable for the chaos and injury they cause. How do victims of crime get on with their lives when the justice system lets them down so badly, so casually and so often?
A couple of points.

I'm not a fan of the SCOC ruling on consecutive sentencing, but without reading its reasoning, I can't comment from a knowledgeable position. I felt the Crown had been using it judiciously and saving it for 'the worst of the worst', but it seems the Court disagreed. NL is correct that having the ability to apply for parole and actually getting it are often two different things. it is not uncommon for the Court to provide some guidance (hints? Easter eggs?) on how the legislature can correct a particular law but I don't know if it has done so in this case. Keep in mind that the government recently table legislation to correct the 'extreme intoxication' legislation that the court also tossed. Whether a Liberal government will introduce something about consecutive sentencing remains to be seen.

Regarding pre-trial release (bail), keep in mind that the accused is just that - guilty of nothing at this point. Punishment doesn't start until they are convicted. It may well turn out that there is a mental capacity issue here. A fairly comprehensive set of circumstances need to exist in order for the State to remove someone's freedom before they are found guilty of a crime; it's not pre-punishment. I will grant that the system seems to fall down with the seeming revolving door of persons who commit further crimes while on pre-trial release, but that is not known to be the case here.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
4,494
Regarding the Neville-Lake family, the issue of PTSD has become quite popular of late. It seems to be tossed around almost as the 'ailment du jour' for explaining all sorts of behavior arising from all sorts of circumstances, including such horrendous events as breaking up with ones boyfriend or losing your cat.

I am not a clinician, but if there was ever a need to put faces to circumstances that trigger PTSD, this family would be it.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,110
Reaction score
58,599
A couple of points.

I'm not a fan of the SCOC ruling on consecutive sentencing, but without reading its reasoning, I can't comment from a knowledgeable position. I felt the Crown had been using it judiciously and saving it for 'the worst of the worst', but it seems the Court disagreed. NL is correct that having the ability to apply for parole and actually getting it are often two different things. it is not uncommon for the Court to provide some guidance (hints? Easter eggs?) on how the legislature can correct a particular law but I don't know if it has done so in this case.

The case, in brief, for the consecutive sentencing decision can be found here:


Worth noting, the Court was actually upholding a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

This is the key bit:

1655864717514.png


This decision was also unanimous.

For the full text of the decision, see this link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19405/index.do

Keep in mind that the government recently table legislation to correct the 'extreme intoxication' legislation that the court also tossed. Whether a Liberal government will introduce something about consecutive sentencing remains to be seen.

The case, in brief, can be found here on the SCOC website:


The decision was unanimous, and written by the Chief Justice ( a Harper appointee no less); something I like about our Courts is their effort to find consensus, and their tendency not to appear partisan.

The brief for the related cases, decided at the same time, can be found here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39270-eng.aspx

Here's the key excerpt:

"Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Nicholas Kasirer said section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society and is unconstitutional. He wrote that section 33.1 violates section 11(d) of the Charter because society could interpret someone’s intent to become intoxicated as an intention to commit a violent offence. Section 33.1 also violates section 7 because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that the action was voluntary or that the person intended to commit the offence.

Convicting someone for how they conducted themselves while in a state of automatism violates principles of fundamental justice. Our criminal justice system is based on the notion of personal responsibility. In Canada, two elements of fundamental justice are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. They are: a guilty action; and (2) a guilty mind. Neither element is present when a person is in a state of automatism."

My bolding.

Now, here's the actual decision: (Should you wish to get in the weeds)


Or you could just read this paragraph for your easter egg:

1655864438479.png


The key here is that any law here must show that a person could reasonably foresee the risk of their violent behavior prior to choosing to become extremely intoxicated.

***

Whether the proposed legislation meets that standard, I can't say, as I haven't read the bill yet.
 

Cryptopreneur

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
144
So something he did while in a psychotic state.......one that is now treated, and one that his doctors have sworn they believe will not recur, is something he should be punished for for the rest of his life?
I'm sorry what?

HE CHOSE TO DRINK. HE CHOSE. CHOSE. CHOSE. CHOSE. That is NOT an excuse. I don't care what high alcohol does to your mental state. I don't care if you get into a psychotic state. I don't care if you can't think properly. YOU CHOSE TO DRINK WHILE KNOWING THE EFFECTS OF HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,110
Reaction score
58,599
I'm sorry what?

HE CHOSE TO DRINK. HE CHOSE. CHOSE. CHOSE. CHOSE. That is NOT an excuse. I don't care what high alcohol does to your mental state. I don't care if you get into a psychotic state. I don't care if you can't think properly. YOU CHOSE TO DRINK WHILE KNOWING THE EFFECTS OF HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL.

We're not talking about the same case here; this was about the fellow on the greyhound bus, not Mr. Muzzo.

I quoted what I was responding to; 'Vince Li' is not Muzzo.

The former case has nothing to do w/alcohol.
 
Last edited:

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
4,494
Such research at 10:30 at night!


The decision was unanimous, and written by the Chief Justice ( a Harper appointee no less); something I like about our Courts is their effort to find consensus, and their tendency not to appear partisan.
Senior, learned jurists not acting along partisan lines and simply interpreting the law. What a concept. The US should give it a try.
 

Rufus8

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
433
Reaction score
267
Yes let's all be terribly terribly pedantic about the effect of crime on the victim. Let's also remember that all those lawyers, judges and reams of dead trees with acres of writing on them is so much more important than everyday life. The facts don't merit consideration because we are all dry shells of human beings who only care about what our own lives consist of. That should comfort the Neville-Lake ooops sorry only the Neville family is left now, and of course the family of Tim Mclean and the Ciasulla family, etc,, etc, Luckily for us urban dwellers in no way do random assaults on public transit affect the whole community. Tenzin Norbert Tenzin Norbert Tenzin Norbert < that was my cat walking across the keyboard bad kitty!
 

Rufus8

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
433
Reaction score
267
We're not talking about the same case here; this was about the fellow on the greyhound bus, not Mr. Muzzo.

I quoted what I was responding to; 'Vince Li' is not Muzzo.

The former case has nothing to do w/alcohol.

We're not talking about the same case here; this was about the fellow on the greyhound bus, not Mr. Muzzo.

I quoted what I was responding to; 'Vince Li' is not Muzzo.

The former case has nothing to do w/alcohol.
Muzzo is just as important a case as is Tim McLean, Muzzo was just back from Las Vegas, his hommies slapping him on the back and sending him on his way. Tim Mclean's killer was a diagnosed schizophrenic off his meds, by choice. So that fella is on the street, being patted on the back by his hommies (psychiatrists) and sending him on his way. And he was an immigrant from China, all expenses for his care, legal rep and comfort paid for the rest of his life including a comfy new identity - do you think he would have that back in China? His family brought him here and knew he was ill.
How is it you do not comprehend that the optics are bad all round?
 

Top