Murder or manslaughter? Jail time or a suspended sentence? You decide.

You can shoot someone and be acquitted for a variety of reasons -- self defense, accident, insanity, etc.

 

To paraphrase the great Adam Schiff:

"Man II, make the deal."

 

None of which this man claims. His only claim is that he did it to protect his daughter, who was in no immediate danger. So, as this is a baseless claim, the judge has properly instructed the jury that they cannot consider it.

 

Murder one. I sympathize with the man's loss and understand WHY he did it, but the story makes me think premeditation, and that's the ballgame, folks.

Sadly, what he'll find out sooner rather than later is that all he did was cut a branch off the tree. If his daughter's addicted, she'll find another way to get her fix. In fact, she might have already.

He wasn't trying to "protect his daughter" unless Canada has just the one dealer. He wanted revenge. Understandable why he would, but first-degree murder seems pretty obvious.

 

Manslaughter, but he does some time.

What are the Canadan rules about jury nullification?

 

If the jury finds a defendant not guilty, a judge is not allowed to overrule them here in the 'States. However, a judge is allowed to toss a guilty conviction at the end of trial for lack of evidence.

I vote manslaughter.

 

And this may be the reminant memory of an early Law & Order episode wiggling its way into my foreconscious, but can a U.S. jury declare someone not guilty by reason of insanity, even though the defense doesn't offer it up as a plea?

 

Murder one. No doubt. There was no heat of the moment, so no 2nd degree or manslaughter (nothing accidental there.)

 

I'm sorry. You can't have a judge telling people they CAN'T acquit someone. What if they all say, fuck it, and do it anyway? That's just nuts. And it's not the same thing as a judge throwing out a verdict, because that decision would be up to appellate scrutiny down here.

 

Just speculating here, but perhaps the rule is that since the guy allocuted to what happened, the jury cannot acquit because "he deserved it" is not a recognized legal defense for murder.

 

Just remember we're talking about the Canadian judicial system, not the American one.

It might be (I have no idea but I'll look it up) that a judge here is quite within his rights to instruct the jury as he did.

 

My first instinct is to vote not guilty if for no other reason that to tell the judge that if I'm a member of the jury, I damn well can vote not guilty. It can be justifiable homicide. But I don't know Canadian law or how things work north of the 49th parallel.

I think the fact that the girl is 16 makes things more favorable to the father. I think the one thing would be whether the father tried to do things the right way... inform the authorities and give them a chance to handle it. If he didn't do that, then I would say manslaughter. If the authorities didn't do anything, then I would vote not guilty. You have to protect your daughter, and what this piece-of-garbage dealer did was pretty much kill her.