• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2 Edmonton police officers shot and killed

It is less cruel to simply execute someone than to lock them away for the rest of their life.

It isn’t a revenge thing, it is a justice thing. It is the most fair punishment that can be applied, other than doing exactly what the scumbag did back to them.

I get you get caught up on semantics of what if they are innocent, but if we are that caught up on it why jail someone? Why arm cops or the military? They could get it wrong and kill the wrong person.

Some actions deserve death as a punishment. Our system well not perfect is about as good if not better than any that has ever been created.

Examples such as the Mosque shooter in Quebec where there is no doubt who did it is a perfect candidate for execution.

I would also include drug dealers, rapists, and the habitual serious offenders who have no interest in being part of civilized society.

“What if they’re innocent?” isn’t semantics. People have been jailed or even executed for things they didn’t do. Not things where they got off on a legal loophole or technicality, but something they didn’t do. Mail for that is awful, but the day they walk out they can at least have years left and a large cheque. If they’re executed, that’s it, they’re dead, their family doesn’t get to see them again.

You’re completely out to lunch if you can’t see the difference between execution as a sentence for someone who’s safely in custody, after a long court process, and a lawful use of deadly force by police to prevent an immediate risk of death or grievous bodily harm. They are not at all the same- but of course I hardly need to point out that things go wrong for police too. You’re scoring an own goal there.
 
“What if they’re innocent?” isn’t semantics. People have been jailed or even executed for things they didn’t do. Not things where they got off on a legal loophole or technicality, but something they didn’t do. Mail for that is awful, but the day they walk out they can at least have years left and a large cheque. If they’re executed, that’s it, they’re dead, their family doesn’t get to see them again.

You’re completely out to lunch if you can’t see the difference between execution as a sentence for someone who’s safely in custody, after a long court process, and a lawful use of deadly force by police to prevent an immediate risk of death or grievous bodily harm. They are not at all the same- but of course I hardly need to point out that things go wrong for police too. You’re scoring an own goal there.
So key term in there is lawful use of deadly force. The only thing which allows you to use deadly force as a police officer is the fact the law allows you to. Rewording that, we give parliament the right to determine where and when we can use deadly force. Executing someone in accordance with the law is the lawful use of deadly force as well.

If anything it is a much more just application of deadly force as unlike the cop or soldier who is just following ROEs and making split second decisions, the death penalty is applied after a trial and all the due process which goes along with that.

At the moment I am writing parking tickets for a living .If I were to take Eaglelord 1's words at face value I have of this morning at least two candidates for immediate execution.
Although I seriously doubt that was his intent.

Serious repeat offenders, i.e. convicted of assault one time, next time convicted of armed robbery, next time convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, next time convicted of child porn, etc.

Parking tickets don’t get anywhere near what would qualify as serious.
 
So key term in there is lawful use of deadly force. The only thing which allows you to use deadly force as a police officer is the fact the law allows you to. Rewording that, we give parliament the right to determine where and when we can use deadly force. Executing someone in accordance with the law is the lawful use of deadly force as well.

If anything it is a much more just application of deadly force as unlike the cop or soldier who is just following ROEs and making split second decisions, the death penalty is applied after a trial and all the due process which goes along with that.



Serious repeat offenders, i.e. convicted of assault one time, next time convicted of armed robbery, next time convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, next time convicted of child porn, etc.

Parking tickets don’t get anywhere near what would qualify as serious.

Arguing this with you is a complete waste of time. Fortunately this is a legal non-starter; no Parliament is going to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to bring back capital punishment. I’m content with that.
 
For an examination of forensics, read up on MotherRisk. Or bite marks. Or any number of other bits of quackery masquerading as science in court rooms.
The fallibility of disciplines that are founded in areas such as chemistry, physics, etc. have a better track record than those involving fields like pathological and behavioral interpretation., primarily because they don't involve SMEs offering opinions. Ontario had to deal with a bad run of pediatric pathology because of a single 'expert' who's analysis was later founding wanting by nobody questioned at the time.

You are trying to explain or convey often complex subjects to either a judge who is, by profession, a trained listener, or a jury, who are not. It is interesting, and somewhat off topic, but judges and juries seem to have a good handle on understanding DNA evidence, even though it is an extremely complex field. Get them listening to a forensic accountant testifying on complex corporate fraud case and you run the risk of loosing them before lunch.

I just don't see the justice in letting people liem Bernardo, Homolka or Bissonnette continue to take up oxygen.

Agreed it's not the answer for 99% of crime. But it is an answer to that 1%, IMHO.
As I said previously, I am quite willing to contribute my taxpayer share so that Paul Bernardo or Russell Williams can spend 23 hours a day staring at a TV screen for many - many years. It is the ultimate 'go to your room and think about what you have done'. To me, that is the cost of a society that is, quite rightly, not willing to pay the price of getting a lethal decision wrong.
 
As I said previously, I am quite willing to contribute my taxpayer share so that Paul Bernardo or Russell Williams can spend 23 hours a day staring at a TV screen for many - many years. It is the ultimate 'go to your room and think about what you have done'. To me, that is the cost of a society that is, quite rightly, not willing to pay the price of getting a lethal decision wrong.

You, sir, are a much more compassionate man than I.
 
This graph shows the number of people executed in the United States over the years.


( I don't believe it takes the population increase into consideration. )

Maybe Americans were, or were not, safer back when executions were in high gear. That's for the experts to decide.

But, I wonder when Americans felt safer? Then, or now?
 
So key term in there is lawful use of deadly force. The only thing which allows you to use deadly force as a police officer is the fact the law allows you to.
LE use of force, including deadly force, is not punitive. The aim of any LE use of force is to change the subject's behaviour to that desired by the LEO and gain compliance to the LEO's commands. In other words, de-escalation. If you look at any North American use of force model, it starts with communication and ends with deadly force.
Rewording that, we give parliament the right to determine where and when we can use deadly force. Executing someone in accordance with the law is the lawful use of deadly force as well.
LEO's don't legally "execute" anyone.
If anything it is a much more just application of deadly force as unlike the cop or soldier who is just following ROEs and making split second decisions, the death penalty is applied after a trial and all the due process which goes along with that.
This is a punitive use of force by the state. This in no way equates to the LE use of force in the course of a confrontation.
 
You, sir, are a much more compassionate man than I.
If Bernardo and Williams are to be locked up forever (which I’m sure will be the case), the least the government should do is to have a tv that shows nothing other than Unsolved Mysteries for 24 hours a day. It would be a tv you can’t turn off and is too high up on the wall to be easily destroyed. Let them ruminate on the fact that their ”mysteries” were solved.
 
Are plea deals to avoid the death penalty uncommon?

Green River Killer,

Ridgway pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated murder and agreed to provide information to help locate remains lost for nearly two decades in exchange for prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty.

From what I understand, it is not uncommon for condemned inmates to fight for a stay of execution up until their final hour.

17 March, 2023

 
If Bernardo and Williams are to be locked up forever (which I’m sure will be the case), the least the government should do is to have a tv that shows nothing other than Unsolved Mysteries for 24 hours a day. It would be a tv you can’t turn off and is too high up on the wall to be easily destroyed. Let them ruminate on the fact that their ”mysteries” were solved.
24/7 listening to Robert Stack (the scariest voice on TV when I was younger), might be cruel and unusual punishment for anyone.
 
For an examination of forensics, read up on MotherRisk. Or bite marks. Or any number of other bits of quackery masquerading as science in court rooms.
There have been a number of "forensic sciences" outed as junk science. People claiming to be "experts" and later proven to be fakes.

I listen to a lot of true crime podcasts and sometimes I have to wonder if juries got it right.
 
Wondered the same thing after O.J..

Get a kick out of Ryan and Shane.

Thanks to crime shows on TV, I wonder if modern criminals are better educated than they used to be.
I reckon the smart ones are.

With VPN's, burner phones, being somewhat aware & cautious of leaving forensic evidence, crypto-currency existing, being able to start your own corporation for a few hundred dollars (legally its a separate entity), knowledge of basic computer programming, etc etc

I imagine the more cognizant ones, who are mindful of the above, probably are smarter than they were 20 years ago


Thankfully, a vast majority of unsophisticated criminals are duuummmbbbb
 
Trust me they aren’t that smart. Tv shows are a fantasy of what forensics is.

You are right.

No CSI learning effect for criminals
On the whole, the researchers did not find any connection between watching forensic dramas and the ability to successfully avoid detection after committing a crime.

 
Trust me they aren’t that smart. Tv shows are a fantasy of what forensics is.
Not just forensics. So-called 'police procedurals' and, well . . . just about anything. TV is fantasy.

A side problem is the fantasy, coupled with the fact that most are American, colour the public's expectations up here.
 
Back
Top