Anyone see that bait car video of the meth addict trying to kill people with his stolen bait truck? Sends chills down yer spine. Sick fuck drove into oncoming traffic screaming "oncoming" and the bastard had a gun,too.While driving the bait car he also stopped to break into afew other cars. He got 4 years and could be out next year for time served. Judge never saw the video.
Oncoming!
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Send him to Guantanamo
He could have been convicted on a dozen charges, did he make a plea bargain? He should never get out,he's as dangerous as Bernardo or Homolka, but he can play the "Poor little me the drugs made me do it" routine and make himself look like the victim.
I cannot see why the judge did not see the tape.What better kind of evidence could you ask for? Maybe he didn't sign a waiver agreeing to be filmed before he stole the truck.
He could have been convicted on a dozen charges, did he make a plea bargain? He should never get out,he's as dangerous as Bernardo or Homolka, but he can play the "Poor little me the drugs made me do it" routine and make himself look like the victim.
I cannot see why the judge did not see the tape.What better kind of evidence could you ask for? Maybe he didn't sign a waiver agreeing to be filmed before he stole the truck.
Last edited:
I wish the judge had seen that video.
I'm not easily disturbed.. and that video made my hair stand on end.
I'm not easily disturbed.. and that video made my hair stand on end.
Aparently
I watched the full news story on that. They said that they had to stop locking the criminals in the bait cars because if there was an accident, it was a major danger to them. SO now they dont' lock them in. As for shutting off the engine, they said they couldn't shut it down from where he was, he was out of the cell range. Dumbass.
4 years with possibility of parole in 1 is just NOT ENOUGH. Hopefully the 1 year will at least get him clean enough to realize what a dope he really is.
I watched the full news story on that. They said that they had to stop locking the criminals in the bait cars because if there was an accident, it was a major danger to them. SO now they dont' lock them in. As for shutting off the engine, they said they couldn't shut it down from where he was, he was out of the cell range. Dumbass.
4 years with possibility of parole in 1 is just NOT ENOUGH. Hopefully the 1 year will at least get him clean enough to realize what a dope he really is.
It was also reported he's had 128 !!!!! convictions. I'll bet this one guy has been responsible for millions in auto damage, lost time from work for victims, police, courts, counsellors, lawyers. When do we ever say enough is enough and put guys like him away until they die?
He's a perfect example of why we need a 3 strikes and you're out (actually in permanently) law in this country and province.
Can someone explain...
...why he was not declared a dangerous offender and locked away for good?
Even our pathetically limp-wristed bleeding heart liberal justice system can achieve that result sometimes...I mean it's not like he's likely to turn his life around and become a motivational speaker!
...why he was not declared a dangerous offender and locked away for good?
Even our pathetically limp-wristed bleeding heart liberal justice system can achieve that result sometimes...I mean it's not like he's likely to turn his life around and become a motivational speaker!
Finally people are seeing how dangerous Meth is. It is an epidemic in the southern US. Oddly enough the danger is not reflected in Canada's legislation, it is classed lower than heroine, cocaine and Marijuana. Shows you how screwed up the system is here. Dealing with Meth as you can see isn't as much fun for the police, far more fun for them to bust mellow and non-violent pot heads.
Some heavy users of the Meth are so far gone they will probably just be able to exist in a mental hospital.
You won't be able to stop it by locking people up, it’s just too easy to setup, cook a batch and disappear. Evidence by the US, their problem is growing. You can slow it down abit by putting limits on sales of cold/allergy medicine(key ingredient), which just now is being discussed by legislators, took them bloody long enough. Education of the danger, done by doctors not cops may be the only thing to stop some people from trying it. They should make screening of a good documentary like "Crank" mandatory for schools. http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/crank/ This stuff melts away parts of your brain forever, sadly some people are just going to be gone forever.
The three strikes idea for sentencing has already been tried in BC. Was called the Bitch, for habitual. I didn't notice a crime free nirvana, did you?
Some heavy users of the Meth are so far gone they will probably just be able to exist in a mental hospital.
You won't be able to stop it by locking people up, it’s just too easy to setup, cook a batch and disappear. Evidence by the US, their problem is growing. You can slow it down abit by putting limits on sales of cold/allergy medicine(key ingredient), which just now is being discussed by legislators, took them bloody long enough. Education of the danger, done by doctors not cops may be the only thing to stop some people from trying it. They should make screening of a good documentary like "Crank" mandatory for schools. http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/crank/ This stuff melts away parts of your brain forever, sadly some people are just going to be gone forever.
The three strikes idea for sentencing has already been tried in BC. Was called the Bitch, for habitual. I didn't notice a crime free nirvana, did you?
Last edited:
We'll never achieve a crime-free nirvana, but under habitual offender legislation there was less crime. And certainly the worst of the chronic offenders - having been put away - relieved the pressure on the overburdened courts and police. With police man power so tight, now would be a perfect time to get the worst of the worst out of society.
Dangerous Offender Designation
Purpose
The Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code are intended to protect all Canadians from the most dangerous violent and sexual predators in the country. Individuals convicted of these offences can be designated as a Dangerous Offender during sentencing if it is shown that there is a significantly high risk that they will commit future violent or sexual offences. The objective of protecting innocent Canadians from future harm can and will ensure in such cases that the offender will remain in prison indefinitely until that risk no longer exists. If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
History of the Legislation
The Dangerous Offender designation began in 1947 with legislation creating the “Habitual Offender” designation. It was based on similar British provisions introduced in 1904 targeting “persistent dangerous criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime".
The Canadian version went significantly further than its British counterpart in that it allowed discretion for the courts to impose either a determinate or an indeterminate sentence. The prerequisite for such a designation was that the offender had to have been convicted of three or more indictable offences and could be shown to be “persistently leading a criminal life”.
The provisions were amended a number of times, but the next major re-drafting occurred in August 1997 with the passage of C-55, and are still in place today:
* Amended the "dangerous offender" (DO) designation to streamline the procedure, making it more efficient;
* Created the new designation of "Long Term Offender" and a new "long-term supervision order" that begins upon the completion of the custodial sentence and can be up to 10 years in length. It provides a complementary option to the DO designation and focuses on offenders not captured by the DO provisions, but who still present a substantial risk to re-offend;
* Enacted section 810.2 recognizance orders for individuals who present a danger of committing a "serious personal injury" offence; and
* Changed the initial parole review for a DO to seven years from the previous three years, and every two years thereafter.
Dangerous Offender Legislation
The Dangerous Offender provision is contained in Section 753 of the Criminal Code of Canada:
753. (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied
(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or
(b) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.
(4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
Dangerous Offender Application and Designation
Under the Dangerous Offender – Long-Term Offender provisions, the Crown may initiate an application where the offender is convicted of a “serious personal injury offence”. This prerequisite is defined in s.752(b) as being a specific sexual assault offence (s.271, 272 or 273), or, alternatively, as meeting the criteria in s.752(a), which requires a finding that the particular offence was essentially violent or potentially violent and carries a potential maximum sentence of at least 10 years or more.
It is the initial responsibility of the provincial (or, in the territories, the federal) Crown prosecutor in each case to make the decision whether or not to seek a Dangerous Offender application. If the Crown believes the offender justifies such an application, the first step is to apply for a 60 day psychiatric assessment under s.752.1. Once the report of the assessor is returned to the court, the Crown uses the information to determine whether the application should proceed. If there is merit, the Crown must gain the written approval of the provincial Attorney General or, for applications within the territories, the federal Minister of Justice before proceeding with the application.
The inquiry by the court focuses on the issue of public protection, and whether or not the risk the offender poses to the general public is severe enough to merit an indeterminate sentence, with no opportunity for parole for seven years. It is the toughest sentence available under the Criminal Code.
As of May 2005, there were 336 active offenders with the Dangerous Offender designation. Seventeen of the 336 active designated Dangerous Offenders have received some form of parole (15 supervised, 1 temporarily detained and 1 deported) and 319 are currently incarcerated.
Purpose
The Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code are intended to protect all Canadians from the most dangerous violent and sexual predators in the country. Individuals convicted of these offences can be designated as a Dangerous Offender during sentencing if it is shown that there is a significantly high risk that they will commit future violent or sexual offences. The objective of protecting innocent Canadians from future harm can and will ensure in such cases that the offender will remain in prison indefinitely until that risk no longer exists. If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
History of the Legislation
The Dangerous Offender designation began in 1947 with legislation creating the “Habitual Offender” designation. It was based on similar British provisions introduced in 1904 targeting “persistent dangerous criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime".
The Canadian version went significantly further than its British counterpart in that it allowed discretion for the courts to impose either a determinate or an indeterminate sentence. The prerequisite for such a designation was that the offender had to have been convicted of three or more indictable offences and could be shown to be “persistently leading a criminal life”.
The provisions were amended a number of times, but the next major re-drafting occurred in August 1997 with the passage of C-55, and are still in place today:
* Amended the "dangerous offender" (DO) designation to streamline the procedure, making it more efficient;
* Created the new designation of "Long Term Offender" and a new "long-term supervision order" that begins upon the completion of the custodial sentence and can be up to 10 years in length. It provides a complementary option to the DO designation and focuses on offenders not captured by the DO provisions, but who still present a substantial risk to re-offend;
* Enacted section 810.2 recognizance orders for individuals who present a danger of committing a "serious personal injury" offence; and
* Changed the initial parole review for a DO to seven years from the previous three years, and every two years thereafter.
Dangerous Offender Legislation
The Dangerous Offender provision is contained in Section 753 of the Criminal Code of Canada:
753. (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied
(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or
(b) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.
(4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
Dangerous Offender Application and Designation
Under the Dangerous Offender – Long-Term Offender provisions, the Crown may initiate an application where the offender is convicted of a “serious personal injury offence”. This prerequisite is defined in s.752(b) as being a specific sexual assault offence (s.271, 272 or 273), or, alternatively, as meeting the criteria in s.752(a), which requires a finding that the particular offence was essentially violent or potentially violent and carries a potential maximum sentence of at least 10 years or more.
It is the initial responsibility of the provincial (or, in the territories, the federal) Crown prosecutor in each case to make the decision whether or not to seek a Dangerous Offender application. If the Crown believes the offender justifies such an application, the first step is to apply for a 60 day psychiatric assessment under s.752.1. Once the report of the assessor is returned to the court, the Crown uses the information to determine whether the application should proceed. If there is merit, the Crown must gain the written approval of the provincial Attorney General or, for applications within the territories, the federal Minister of Justice before proceeding with the application.
The inquiry by the court focuses on the issue of public protection, and whether or not the risk the offender poses to the general public is severe enough to merit an indeterminate sentence, with no opportunity for parole for seven years. It is the toughest sentence available under the Criminal Code.
As of May 2005, there were 336 active offenders with the Dangerous Offender designation. Seventeen of the 336 active designated Dangerous Offenders have received some form of parole (15 supervised, 1 temporarily detained and 1 deported) and 319 are currently incarcerated.
Crime wasn't any lower because of three strikes. They stopped doing it because it didn't work. Another failed experiment.
It doesn't get the worst off the street, it just locks up the petty criminals that are usually drug addicts. It also just loads up the already over crowded prisons and makes even less resources available having to pay for keeping people in there. Go look at the US, they are spending more every year on prisons, no crime free nirvana there either.
The drug problem has to be worked on in a real way or else things are just going to keep getting worse. If you listen to the police, its all so easy. They just need tougher penalties, well again that is what is going on in the US. Failure there, failure here. Its about time they start to lok at some other options. I remember seeing something the Italians did, where they send drug addicts to a place which is not really a prison. Was more medical than a prison. It was self supporting, had its own farm, a furniture factory I think, and everyone there was a drug addict. They had to go to a job there and couselling. If anything maybe it could sort through the ones that are saveable, some just can't be helped. They try to reform them, but nothing is as good as education before they become addicts. Meth will create many more crazy people like in the video, we don't have the resources to ever lock them all up.
It doesn't get the worst off the street, it just locks up the petty criminals that are usually drug addicts. It also just loads up the already over crowded prisons and makes even less resources available having to pay for keeping people in there. Go look at the US, they are spending more every year on prisons, no crime free nirvana there either.
The drug problem has to be worked on in a real way or else things are just going to keep getting worse. If you listen to the police, its all so easy. They just need tougher penalties, well again that is what is going on in the US. Failure there, failure here. Its about time they start to lok at some other options. I remember seeing something the Italians did, where they send drug addicts to a place which is not really a prison. Was more medical than a prison. It was self supporting, had its own farm, a furniture factory I think, and everyone there was a drug addict. They had to go to a job there and couselling. If anything maybe it could sort through the ones that are saveable, some just can't be helped. They try to reform them, but nothing is as good as education before they become addicts. Meth will create many more crazy people like in the video, we don't have the resources to ever lock them all up.
Last edited:
I'm no fan of the "let's lock them all up" mentality, and God knows I'm no fan of the US style of justice, BUT... as you said - some are just not recoverable. Those should be locked up. Career criminals with multiple, violent offences have no place in society and should be locked up for significant time, maybe permanently. Even under DO legistlation we continue to release dangerous people, despite warnings they will re-offend. What sense does that make? I also believe most recent statistics have shown significant decreases in crime in states with three strikes legislation. If correctly written 3 strikes should get the worst , most violent criminals off the street. There should be no reason a petty crime nets you life - unless you are up to 128 convictions and it shows a career decision. And sorry, drug addict or not - if you commit dangerous,violent or repeated acts of crime - "Bye bye, don't bother to write." I agree education is a key, but haven't we known the dangers of crack, heroin, and meth for years - and we have more addicts than ever?
Prevention is the only long-term solution
But in the meantime what do you do with the addicts that are out there right now, trying to open my garage door, or stealing the barbecue right off my deck? What am I supposed to do when I confront one of these guys in my own backyard? The cops aren't going to send a couple of guys around to sit in my back lane all night,so calling them isn't the answer. Offer him a cup of tea and talk about how unfair life has been to him?
But in the meantime what do you do with the addicts that are out there right now, trying to open my garage door, or stealing the barbecue right off my deck? What am I supposed to do when I confront one of these guys in my own backyard? The cops aren't going to send a couple of guys around to sit in my back lane all night,so calling them isn't the answer. Offer him a cup of tea and talk about how unfair life has been to him?
What kind of fucking moron are you? If you're claiming that the LAPD supports 'Three strikes' legislation, then back it up with some proof. Yes, I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it. And I am against such 'three strikes' laws. But what the fuck does Guantanamo have to do with it? It appears that you're trying to make a point in your post, but I think it's being lost on us poor, literate souls. If you're advocating sending all those who disagree with you to Guantanamo, you're an even bigger idiot than your past posts have indicated you to be.hornydude said:
Class act
Another enlightened post from the angry and vengeful. I see you're working yourself up into another frenzy there horndud.
hornydude said:
Another enlightened post from the angry and vengeful. I see you're working yourself up into another frenzy there horndud.
We haven't been educating. What has been happening is propaganda disseminated by the police. The police have a whole different agenda; drug war equals jobs and budgets. They have also been saying to kids in schools some of the most harmful crap imaginable. Like pot is just as bad as cocaine or heroine. This loses them credibility right away since most kids have tried pot but might not have tried the harder stuff. But now you have Officer Idiot saying it’s the same, so now they may think why not give it a try. Hence, I have said education should be done by doctors which I think would have more credibility. Education can work; look at what has been done for smoking. Smoking is one of the most addictive things out there yet they are having success.Cock Throppled said:
I think I differ most from you in the way I think drug addiction is a medical problem you think the police and jails are the answer. Just wondering, would you also lock up and throw away the key for a repeat offender of drinking and driving? Always thought it odd when I see these politicians wanting big sentences for abit of pot but then let off drunk drivers with a slap on the wrist. But then you just have to see Michael Campbell and his buddy Rich Coleman. Both convicted for DUI. Interesting huh To me DUI is totally stupid and is just a matter of time before someone gets killed.
quote from from greenvalley- I think I differ most from you in the way I think drug addiction is a medical problem you think the police and jails are the answer. Just wondering, would you also lock up and throw away the key for a repeat offender of drinking and driving? Always thought it odd when I see these politicians wanting big sentences for abit of pot but then let off drunk drivers with a slap on the wrist. But then you just have to see Michael Campbell and his buddy Rich Coleman. Both convicted for DUI. Interesting huh To me DUI is totally stupid and is just a matter of time before someone gets killed.[/QUOTE]
I think there is a medical component to addiction, obviously, but it doesn't force a drinker or drug addict to commit crimes. You can be an alcoholic, but it doesn't make you drive while drunk. You can be a drug addict or use drugs, but it doesn't force you to do home invasions or beat people. Many drug addicts get money without resorting to violence. There are also ways of asking for help. If someone repeatedly commits crimes and uses the excuse of addiction I think that shows a pattern and an unwillingness to change. How do you feel about escalating sentences? Every crime gets you double the sentence from the previous? No need for three strikes then. Where did you get the info in Coleman and Michael Campbell convicted of DUI?
I think there is a medical component to addiction, obviously, but it doesn't force a drinker or drug addict to commit crimes. You can be an alcoholic, but it doesn't make you drive while drunk. You can be a drug addict or use drugs, but it doesn't force you to do home invasions or beat people. Many drug addicts get money without resorting to violence. There are also ways of asking for help. If someone repeatedly commits crimes and uses the excuse of addiction I think that shows a pattern and an unwillingness to change. How do you feel about escalating sentences? Every crime gets you double the sentence from the previous? No need for three strikes then. Where did you get the info in Coleman and Michael Campbell convicted of DUI?
