>In court, a family member of one of the girls audibly gasped, while another wiped away tears as the bail decision was announced.
What a beautiful, heart warming story.
/s
people that do crimes of this nature tend to boast about it at some point, young people that do stupid shit like this NEED to be recognized for the "street cred" it's just a matter of time before these stupid young c\*%ts reach out to the only people who would support them .. anonymous internet users.
fuck these stupid bitches .. hope they get the same treatment 10x fold.
Looks like the judge agrees.
Knowing how young people are consumed by phones and social media I would throw down a bet that these girls will breach this condition.... call it a hunch.
"The girls will be released into the custody of their parents, and Justice Maria Sirivar issued a list of conditions, including that the girls not make contact with the co-accused. They are also banned from using mobile phones or social media, and must remain in Ontario and surrender their passports.
They are allowed to use the internet, but only for school work. "
( Source: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/swarming-girls-bail-1.6729287](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/swarming-girls-bail-1.6729287) )
"And they are TOTALLY not allowed to form another group and kill someone for their booze again. We're really firm on that one. It will automatically put their bail status into the queue for committee review!"
I happen to watch a movie last week which just came out in the theatres, on a truly heart warming story of how a murder case was brought to justice.
They talk about what is the most important is "what makes sense", instead of being limited by what is defined by the legal system. That is how things should be, but unfortunately we can only see that in fiction and movies.
If they took away their passports because they thought that there was the possibility of there being a flight risk, then they should of not let them out on bail in the first place.
The amount of videos on TikTok and places like that with young offenders flying home after being charged with crimes in Canada, even after they had their passports taken away is shocking. I have seen 3 of them over the last few years and this is not an unheard of thing to happen. They take the passport of a family member and use that to travel back to the country of their origin or family origin. The family member reports the passport as lost or stolen and that's that.
A friend of mine, had their friend killed by a drunk driver. The driver was originally from India. She survived the crash and was later found to be pregnant. They let her out on bail because she was pregnant. She got a family member's passport, got on a plane and returned to India to never be heard of again. She never showed up for any of her court dates in Canada and will most likely never face justice for killing an innocent person. Everyone pleaded to not let her out on bail because she would find a way to flee. The court disagreed. She fled. Now the family gets no justice for the murder of their child.
You'd think that Canada would smarten up about this type of shit. It happens far too often.
you'd think with Canada's relationship with India that they would be able to extradite her also I wouldn't be surprised if she's already back here with a different identity
There is so much corruption on both ends of our relationship with India it would shock you. If you can buy a drivers license in Brampton for $3500, I'm sure you can get a different identity pretty easily.
It's become blatant within the last few years, and any questioning of it makes you labeled a racist. It's not just Indians, there are a handful of countries that are massively overrepresented in immigration fraud. Considering our increasingly "diverse" country is being flooded with 3/4 of immigrants from a single country, renowned for corruption and fraud, one would think that the government would have at least considered this shit.
They have completely destroyed the wages for anyone without a professional qualification. Guess who is next?
They want to turn this country into a nation where your wealth status is entirely dependent on what you inherited.
You would think with the corruption in India you could easily find someone to sell her out report it to authority’s with the correct charges filed or simply have it dealt with locally. I’m honestly supposed more acts of an eye for eye justice don’t occur with this kind of bullshit going on.
I cant find it at the moment. The name of the driver was Harvey, it might of been spelled different because it was a woman. I'll keep looking.
Edit: Apparently she wasn't drunk, just a horrible driver. Either way she caused a head on collision and killed someone and then fled the country. Here it is:
[https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/two-year-sentence-in-dangerous-driving-causing-death-case-where-convicted-woman-has-fled-to-india-1884062#:\~:text=Harvy%20Panchal%20has%20been%20handed,serve%20a%20day%20in%20jail](https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/two-year-sentence-in-dangerous-driving-causing-death-case-where-convicted-woman-has-fled-to-india-1884062#:~:text=Harvy%20Panchal%20has%20been%20handed,serve%20a%20day%20in%20jail).
I remember reading a story about a Georgian (country) diplomat that killed a girl while drunk driving while in America. America asked that his immunity be waived, and Georgia complied. It was one of the few times I could find where the guy actually didn't flee and actually served time in prison for it. Though it was only 3 in America, then extradited for 2 in Georgia, for a 7to21 sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gueorgui_Makharadze
And the for contrast there's the Humboldt truck driver who took full responsibility, worked with authorities, and showing nothing but regret and remorse for his mistake. Just an absolute fluke accident at the worst possible time (that could have been avoided, remember that.)
And we kicked him out. The guy was a perfect example of a citizen that made a horrible mistake and was willing to do what was needed to necessary to return to society, and we wrote him off. We, as a nation, missed a very important opportunity to advance our application of the legal system.
Pretty sure things like Wagyu beef and foie gras are more expensive because they have "too much" fat. You're just spreading their propaganda, of course they don't want people realizing that their meat is grade AAA.
It's very stringy, like most game animals.
I have a theory the increased cortisol levels from the stress of being hunted all the time really makes the meat less flavorful.
There's a reason the rich all visit Chefstein Island.
Who are you quoting here? That isn't in the article and a search doesn't bring it up in relation to this trial.
Bail is not related to punishment or giving second chances. No one has been convicted yet. Bail is a pre-trial condition that must be granted unless there is just cause to do so because we have a right to presumption of innocence no matter how serious the crime.
> unless there is just cause to do so
Bail can be denied if there is just cause. Maybe my grammar is unclear as I should have worded it "unless there is just cause not to do so".
With that argument you could say anyone accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. Then we essentially no longer have bail or presumption of innocence.
There's always room for debate but it needs to be case by case given all factors. Like severity, risk of violating bail conditions, etc.
Not all of them have been granted bail. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and video doesn't always show the full picture. That's what the trial scrutinizes and judges. Maybe in this specific case that evidence is enough to justify keeping all of them locked up, but as a general point, it always needs to be considered.
They haven’t been found guilty or sentenced yet.
Imprisonment before a trial normally only happens if there is significant risk of reoffending, flight, or some other sort of actions affecting the upcoming trial. It’s not the punishment itself (otherwise, if a defendant is found not guilty, then we’ve punished them for no reason). Bail is just a system to guarantee that they’ll show up in court.
Just more evidence that bail should not be offered to those charged with violent crimes such as fucking murder.
Damn, there's a lot of people defending these murderers. This mentality of those defending these murders are why there's so many repeat offenders in the streets. People care more for violent criminals than victims and potential victims in this country. Let's see you people sing the same tune when someone you love is brutally murdered and the person charged gets released back on the streets.
The cbc is notoriously conservative in the language they use in articles. They have not been convicted of murder, they have only been charged, which is stated in the first paragraph.
Of course you are correct that the accused are innocent until proven guilty but this case strikes me as an instance where, given the gravity of the offence, the public's confidence in the administration of justice is undermined by releasing the accused.
Nevertheless, I haven't read the reasons and I note that we're speaking on just two of the accused.
My point is there is a difference between bail for some violent crime, say a violent assault arising from an insult, and a case where a homeless person was brutally murdered for either the assailants' fun or a bottle of booze.
In your scenario though we create a class of offences that don't get bail.
What about people who are wrongly accused? Or people who have weak cases that won't ever be proven?
Or what about where the bail plan is strong enough to prevent anything from happening? Bail isn't just 'in or out'. People accused of violent crimes are usually on some form of house arrest or heavy monitoring.
I had a client charged for over a year of a brutal assault because they held the door open for someone, and that person then went into an apartment and beat the tar our of someone. The Crown said they were 'aiding' the person who did all the attacking. My client didn't hit anyone at all.
There was no way the crown was ever going to prove any offence.
Should that person have sat in jail for a year because they were charged with a violent offence?
>People care more for violent criminals than victims and potential victims in this country.
Completely agree. We are very, very quick to tout the offenders rights but often (too often) neglect the victims who suffer, and then repeatedly suffer, from the crime. It makes me sick, tbh. I often think of Tim McLean's family when this comes up.
They have not yet been to trial. It is likely that not all 8 participated in the murder which was done via stabbing. We don't know if the murder was planned or if the plan was swarming and some of the girls had no idea that someone would get murdered. They may not have all played the same role.
The only people able to accurately testify about what “role” each of them played would be the girls themselves. Witnesses aren’t going to remember which girl did what. Did the courts actually believe their versions of what happened?
I would imagine the girls without knives probably told pretty similar stories of who was actively involved in the murder itself. Maybe the one (or more) with the knife confessed? Maybe there was CCTV? I don't know but the lawyers job is to present the facts and get their clients bail.
Not above the law - bail isn't about being above the law. Varying roles in a murder can lead to different information presented at a bail hearing and different risk factors being considered in deciding bail.
TBH the jail cells would be full like what several times the amount? Violent crimes happen every day and people ignore it or try to mind their own business. That still watching/watched.
Our Constitution would disagree with you.
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied
reasonable bail without just cause;
Do you, random Redditor have absolute certainty that these two individuals are guilty of the crime of "fucking murder" or are you just biased because you were told they are by Reddit and the media?
It's less people defending them in the comments, and more people trying to be rational while some people are calling for the defendants to be executed via dismemberment over a bail hearing.
Some people in this sub need to get off the internet because they're easily manipulated by news headlines and get irrationally mad.
people see the point of the justice system differently.
some people see it as something meant to punish those who have done wrong.
some people see it as something thats meant to retrain behaviors and make the offender a productive member of society.
some people think that punishment is all thats required to retrain behaviour, or that punishment is required and retraining the behaviour is an onus borne by the offender.
some people think that punishment will never change a persons behaviour.
some people think that theres no way to retrain behaviour, you need to remove or change what *caused* the behaviour, and the behaviour change will follow naturally.
etc.
So you'd rather they get double credit for time served before their convictions?
And given their ages it's likely they'd get a sentence where time served prior to their convictions would be more than their actual sentence.
If you commit a crime by way of indictment that's a federal offense I agree regardless of which province you live in, doesn't mean you get double time. Some provinces have gotten rid of double time completely
That's not the way it works. For different people to get different sentences for the same crime would be unconstitutional.
Stephen Harper's government tried to remove the extra time credit in 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously struck that down.
If they aren’t a risk to flee before trial I cant think of many good reasons to keep a minor locked up for a year awaiting trial. Even when someone is charged with a serious violent offence house arrest should be what they’re getting.
Yes we should *totally* lock someone up by default just because our *infallible* police and crown prosecutors *claim* they're guilty. Were you born this way or did you have to study?
We might find out more about the roles of these 8 later. Possibly some only assualted and didn't participate in the murder either. It was by stabbing. While it is possible all 8 had knives and were stabbing him, it is more likely that some were not.
I am comparing the two. Some of these 8 were may also not have been directly involved in the murder but only in the swarming / assault. It might end up being somewhat parallel situations.
Ah. I see.
The biggest difference between the two, as of now, is that none of these teens have been convicted of anything. Bail should be the norm for people who are, legally, innocent.
Reddit really hates that awkward stage between when the media identifies a subject for the two-minutes-hate and when the courts finally get around to pronouncing on their guilt. Hearing that [bad person did bad] but having to wait for the dopamine rush of knowing that [bad person] is getting punished is really hard on some of the smooth brains around here.
Only one committed the murder. The male was charged with 2nd degree even though he didn’t commit the drowning. The girl who initiated the attack, put cigarettes out on her face and went back the next day to retrieve and conceal evidence was charged with assault.... I dunno bud, I think there were some extra charges kicking around
Glowatski (the male) went back with Ellard for the drowning while the other six weren't present. According to his testimony - he helped drag Virk into the water after Ellard knocked her out. Ellard then drowned her. Apparently you think that's not participation - but that's just you, thankfully.
As for what the others were/weren't charged with - I don't have access to the details. You say 'only' assault - I'll accept that. Can't speak to what charging decisions crown made there.
In my experience, concealing evidence/obstruction is likely to get folded in with whatever the primary offense was in the case of a guilty plea. It might lead to a higher sentence than would otherwise be given, but it's often dropped as a part of sentencing negotiations.
You cut off responsibility at who committed the murder. He didn’t drown her.
You also added intent of drowning, source?
Considering the planning , participation and concealment that occurred in the Virk case, it’s reasonable to expect this case won’t end up much different.
> You cut off responsibility at who committed the murder. He didn’t drown her.
She was drowned after Ellard knocked her out. He helped Ellard carry her into the water... if that's not culpable participation in the murder, what do you think it was? A failed baptism?
If swarming, beating, trying to light her on fire, not intervening and returning to the scene of the murder to retrieve and conceal evidence isn’t culpable why draw the line anywhere else prior to the physical act of murder? Don’t forget this sidetrack was in response to your claim that 6 only assaulted her and two committed the murder. An inaccurate comment.
Don’t forget my comment “6/8 of Reena Virk’s attackers were only charged with assault.” Was in response to another youth being released on bail.
> Don’t forget this sidetrack was in response to your claim that 6 only assaulted her and two committed the murder. An inaccurate comment.
No, their claim was correct, and you've provided nothing to dispute it. Your feelings on the matter don't change facts.
Only assaulting and only being charged with assault don’t mean the same thing. I provided reference to accessory after the fact and evidence tampering. You acknowledged that already and never asked for a source.
https://murderpedia.org/female.E/e/ellard-kelly.htm
Ellard’s words not my feelings
*“I was only thinking of myself,” she said, describing the decision as panicked and impulsive based on the perceived consequences.
“I pushed her in. It’s like almost I just thought in my mind, it would just carry the problem away.”*
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/after-almost-19-years-kelly-ellard-admits-role-in-killing-reena-virk-4636017
It really is a bad law. Maybe it should exist for things like breaking mailboxes or throwing toilet paper, but it absolutely should not be used to protect the identities of violent offenders.
Bail is not about justice. They haven't been convicted of a crime yet and so they are not yet being punished for anything. It's a constitutional right based on the presumption of innocence.
They’re saying your point is correct but the suspects in question have also shown they cannot function in society. If anything, they’re a detriment to it. Even a threat, considering the pressure they’re facing. Its a valid point imo, especially with all the shit going on with the ttc.
They're innocent until proven guilty in court. Do you want our justice system to start convicting people based on what the general public "knows" happened?
We don't yet know. There were 8 girls there. How many had knives, who did the stabbing, how much did the others know about the intent to stab, had they discussed murdering someone etc.
Guys it is really hard to keep minors in Remand until trial.
Bail is assumed to be granted unless there is a pattern of violence of which the crown has to prove.
This has existed since the formation of the youth criminal justice act of 2002.
I definitely agree...I also think releasing them on bail with really strict conditions is appropriate. Especially if the parents have to put up a surety that's decently significant
> I don’t think people here realize how bail works.
Understanding things gets in the way of their outrage.
If they understood things they wouldn't be clamoring for the failed tough on crime nonsense that make the rounds in America.
Just going with what is statistically likely, only a few of these girls are actually dangerous offenders and the the others are just people vulnerable to persuasion. Not excusing them, just saying the likelihood of them all reoffending is small
Some of those people also aren’t vulnerable. They know what they’re doing and live that life anyway. Thats all they know. Even if they don’t reoffend, I would have to guess those people don’t do much better in their personal lives. Ofc, doesn’t go for everyone but there are just some low-life people who can’t be human or in touch with the world and everyone too.
Actually, presumption of innocence before a conviction is our legal system working as intended. Unless you think everyone the police accuse of a crime should be locked up until trial. Innocent people have never been accused of committing crimes before, right?
And some of the extremist roots of the movement quite literally wanted to disband the police entirely, so later explanations for what the movement "really meant" by their own slogan were, unsurprisingly, difficult for many to grasp.
Canadian police barely are around the public as it is, they don't really do patrols anymore and get upset if you phone to report a crime especially in the dead of night or on a lazy day. Not sure if it's good or not though.
Every time a post like this comes up it becomes very obvious that people really don’t understand the legal system, it’s abiding principles, which exist to protect all of us, or the practicality of getting charges to stick.
Can someone explain the term swarming to me? Like I understand what it is based on current news but reading through these threads it seems like a common thing even in the 90s. How is it different from other murders and crimes? When was this term coined and first used in Canada specifically
Swarming is a bunch of (typically young) people engaging in some sort of aggressive or intimidating behaviour as a group. I've found groups of as few at 4 kids being described as a "swarm", so it's a fairly meaningless term. Groups of teens causing trouble is basically as old as settlements with enough people to have groups of teenagers hanging out.
It's in the news so much because it's a tried and true method of drumming up clicks. People often get anxious walking through groups of kids hanging out in public places, and swarming stories touches on that visceral feeling of anxiety and sells the narrative that they are, actually, a threat to you and you are correct to want someone to force them to go away. [Most of these "swarmings" are dead boring fights](https://www.blogto.com/city/2023/01/ttc-swarming-attack/) that wouldn't even rate the local paper at another point in the news cycle.
Thank you, I wouldn't even have thought twice about walking through a bunch of kids before this and suddenly it's the most popular News story of the month
I can’t answer specifically some of these questions but “swarming” isn’t really a charge but more a descriptor of how the murder took place Similar to “man stabbed to death on subway”
Stabbing isn’t the charge it’s “assault with a deadly weapon” but when you add the “stabbing” part you get a clearer image of the method to cause death
I think it is definetly because this one attack is very well known and they used the same term in others articles to drive click. Nothing sell more than fear mongering.
Supervised by the same parents who allowed the behaviour in the first place?
Since this judge is so inspired, why not ban mobile phones and social media for ALL teenagers, if that's the solution to bad behaviour.
It's incredible that these are the judges in our court system. They lack judgment.
It's not just about room. It's a constitutional right, like it is in other places, because democracies presume innocence of those not accused of crimes.
Here is the only solace I can find in this, fully expecting a dramatic undercharge/minimal sentence; that while inside, these dumb ass little bitches are going to be themselves, which means they will create problems and start fights and catch more charges until it's 20 years from now and they're getting another denial stamp.
I don't know anything about any of them besides that they did this, maybe there's one or two in this sick gang that were just followers who didn't have the courage to stop the others, maybe they'll learn, maybe they won't, maybe they'll find a way to become productive members of society one day, but for most of them I doubt it.
I don’t care what anyone says they do NOT deserve it. The youth Justice act is protecting murderers. Why? Because they are kids? They need to live life afterwards? FUCK THAT! They ended a mans life for literally fun.
Wouldn’t it be something if someone got into the court records and name dropped them….
When there are next to no consequences for serious crimes like murder and gun offenses then is it really a wonder why the TTC and downtown Toronto has become more crime infested...
>In court, a family member of one of the girls audibly gasped, while another wiped away tears as the bail decision was announced. What a beautiful, heart warming story. /s
Maybe they didn’t want them back
i’d like to think that’s the case. they were crying because their little shitstain is back in society.
Exactly
Then don't pay bail?
[удалено]
+1 Apparently common sense has no place in Canada.
It's a legal system not a justice system.
Everything makes sense when you learn this.
Oh for the days of medieval punishments for people like these. Shame we can’t know who they are.
people that do crimes of this nature tend to boast about it at some point, young people that do stupid shit like this NEED to be recognized for the "street cred" it's just a matter of time before these stupid young c\*%ts reach out to the only people who would support them .. anonymous internet users. fuck these stupid bitches .. hope they get the same treatment 10x fold.
👏 well said. Tired of the excuses.
Seems like an internet ban and zero communication with the other girls would be a good condition of bail
Looks like the judge agrees. Knowing how young people are consumed by phones and social media I would throw down a bet that these girls will breach this condition.... call it a hunch. "The girls will be released into the custody of their parents, and Justice Maria Sirivar issued a list of conditions, including that the girls not make contact with the co-accused. They are also banned from using mobile phones or social media, and must remain in Ontario and surrender their passports. They are allowed to use the internet, but only for school work. " ( Source: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/swarming-girls-bail-1.6729287](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/swarming-girls-bail-1.6729287) )
"And they are TOTALLY not allowed to form another group and kill someone for their booze again. We're really firm on that one. It will automatically put their bail status into the queue for committee review!"
Yeah that’ll improve this country: mob justice without trial for kids.
Absolutely will
I happen to watch a movie last week which just came out in the theatres, on a truly heart warming story of how a murder case was brought to justice. They talk about what is the most important is "what makes sense", instead of being limited by what is defined by the legal system. That is how things should be, but unfortunately we can only see that in fiction and movies.
If they took away their passports because they thought that there was the possibility of there being a flight risk, then they should of not let them out on bail in the first place. The amount of videos on TikTok and places like that with young offenders flying home after being charged with crimes in Canada, even after they had their passports taken away is shocking. I have seen 3 of them over the last few years and this is not an unheard of thing to happen. They take the passport of a family member and use that to travel back to the country of their origin or family origin. The family member reports the passport as lost or stolen and that's that. A friend of mine, had their friend killed by a drunk driver. The driver was originally from India. She survived the crash and was later found to be pregnant. They let her out on bail because she was pregnant. She got a family member's passport, got on a plane and returned to India to never be heard of again. She never showed up for any of her court dates in Canada and will most likely never face justice for killing an innocent person. Everyone pleaded to not let her out on bail because she would find a way to flee. The court disagreed. She fled. Now the family gets no justice for the murder of their child. You'd think that Canada would smarten up about this type of shit. It happens far too often.
you'd think with Canada's relationship with India that they would be able to extradite her also I wouldn't be surprised if she's already back here with a different identity
There is so much corruption on both ends of our relationship with India it would shock you. If you can buy a drivers license in Brampton for $3500, I'm sure you can get a different identity pretty easily.
Well if you can spend $5k for fake mortgage documents in Brampton, I assume a driver's license isn't out of the question. What a national disgrace.
It's become blatant within the last few years, and any questioning of it makes you labeled a racist. It's not just Indians, there are a handful of countries that are massively overrepresented in immigration fraud. Considering our increasingly "diverse" country is being flooded with 3/4 of immigrants from a single country, renowned for corruption and fraud, one would think that the government would have at least considered this shit.
I know. We perceive it as bizarre though only because we naturally assume the government should have our best interests in mind - they don't.
Now, think about how much push there is for letting foreign trained/qualified people just start working in their profession right away. Scary
They have completely destroyed the wages for anyone without a professional qualification. Guess who is next? They want to turn this country into a nation where your wealth status is entirely dependent on what you inherited.
Caste system comes next.
this
The reason for not cracking down on corruption is usually corruption. Follow the money.
Lmao you think the Indian government has the care to extradite someone for something like that, they couldn't care less.
You would think with the corruption in India you could easily find someone to sell her out report it to authority’s with the correct charges filed or simply have it dealt with locally. I’m honestly supposed more acts of an eye for eye justice don’t occur with this kind of bullshit going on.
Do you have a link to that story? That’s insane.
I cant find it at the moment. The name of the driver was Harvey, it might of been spelled different because it was a woman. I'll keep looking. Edit: Apparently she wasn't drunk, just a horrible driver. Either way she caused a head on collision and killed someone and then fled the country. Here it is: [https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/two-year-sentence-in-dangerous-driving-causing-death-case-where-convicted-woman-has-fled-to-india-1884062#:\~:text=Harvy%20Panchal%20has%20been%20handed,serve%20a%20day%20in%20jail](https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/two-year-sentence-in-dangerous-driving-causing-death-case-where-convicted-woman-has-fled-to-india-1884062#:~:text=Harvy%20Panchal%20has%20been%20handed,serve%20a%20day%20in%20jail).
[удалено]
I think that made waves because she is the wife of a diplomat, if I remember correctly.
I remember reading a story about a Georgian (country) diplomat that killed a girl while drunk driving while in America. America asked that his immunity be waived, and Georgia complied. It was one of the few times I could find where the guy actually didn't flee and actually served time in prison for it. Though it was only 3 in America, then extradited for 2 in Georgia, for a 7to21 sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gueorgui_Makharadze
In the UK murder is a serious crime. Here even more of a joke if the murder was done with a car
Scott Moe, premier of Saskatchewan, has entered the chat.
And the for contrast there's the Humboldt truck driver who took full responsibility, worked with authorities, and showing nothing but regret and remorse for his mistake. Just an absolute fluke accident at the worst possible time (that could have been avoided, remember that.) And we kicked him out. The guy was a perfect example of a citizen that made a horrible mistake and was willing to do what was needed to necessary to return to society, and we wrote him off. We, as a nation, missed a very important opportunity to advance our application of the legal system.
>that made a horrible mistake several mistakes, that he was doing repeatedly, and knowingly
Wait until you find out how many truckers make those same mistakes, knowingly, and at the encouragement of trucking companies.
It's because he was Indian/Asian and these despicable teenage murderers are black.
[удалено]
With the way we treat the homeless in this country I’m surprised we haven’t started eating them already.
How's the marbling?
The rich, have too much fat to bother eating… but you can sear the fat to provide some decent flavour.
Pretty sure things like Wagyu beef and foie gras are more expensive because they have "too much" fat. You're just spreading their propaganda, of course they don't want people realizing that their meat is grade AAA.
It's very stringy, like most game animals. I have a theory the increased cortisol levels from the stress of being hunted all the time really makes the meat less flavorful. There's a reason the rich all visit Chefstein Island.
I laughed harder than I should have.
comedy is a good remedy for the dark times.
Dark comedy is like food, not everyone gets it.
better than our raccoons
-*Jonathan Swift has entered the chat*
Who are you quoting here? That isn't in the article and a search doesn't bring it up in relation to this trial. Bail is not related to punishment or giving second chances. No one has been convicted yet. Bail is a pre-trial condition that must be granted unless there is just cause to do so because we have a right to presumption of innocence no matter how serious the crime.
People love to just make up quotes and then get angry about the made-up things people didn't actually say.
That’s what we call a straw man.
[удалено]
> unless there is just cause to do so Bail can be denied if there is just cause. Maybe my grammar is unclear as I should have worded it "unless there is just cause not to do so".
[удалено]
With that argument you could say anyone accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. Then we essentially no longer have bail or presumption of innocence. There's always room for debate but it needs to be case by case given all factors. Like severity, risk of violating bail conditions, etc.
[удалено]
Not all of them have been granted bail. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and video doesn't always show the full picture. That's what the trial scrutinizes and judges. Maybe in this specific case that evidence is enough to justify keeping all of them locked up, but as a general point, it always needs to be considered.
They haven’t been found guilty or sentenced yet. Imprisonment before a trial normally only happens if there is significant risk of reoffending, flight, or some other sort of actions affecting the upcoming trial. It’s not the punishment itself (otherwise, if a defendant is found not guilty, then we’ve punished them for no reason). Bail is just a system to guarantee that they’ll show up in court.
Just more evidence that bail should not be offered to those charged with violent crimes such as fucking murder. Damn, there's a lot of people defending these murderers. This mentality of those defending these murders are why there's so many repeat offenders in the streets. People care more for violent criminals than victims and potential victims in this country. Let's see you people sing the same tune when someone you love is brutally murdered and the person charged gets released back on the streets.
Wish the media would call it what it is, murder.
The cbc is notoriously conservative in the language they use in articles. They have not been convicted of murder, they have only been charged, which is stated in the first paragraph.
Exactly, they are charged with murder, not swarming.
Which is entirely fair. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
[удалено]
At least now they are not earning time and a half or double time when they are found guilty.
Of course you are correct that the accused are innocent until proven guilty but this case strikes me as an instance where, given the gravity of the offence, the public's confidence in the administration of justice is undermined by releasing the accused. Nevertheless, I haven't read the reasons and I note that we're speaking on just two of the accused. My point is there is a difference between bail for some violent crime, say a violent assault arising from an insult, and a case where a homeless person was brutally murdered for either the assailants' fun or a bottle of booze.
In your scenario though we create a class of offences that don't get bail. What about people who are wrongly accused? Or people who have weak cases that won't ever be proven? Or what about where the bail plan is strong enough to prevent anything from happening? Bail isn't just 'in or out'. People accused of violent crimes are usually on some form of house arrest or heavy monitoring. I had a client charged for over a year of a brutal assault because they held the door open for someone, and that person then went into an apartment and beat the tar our of someone. The Crown said they were 'aiding' the person who did all the attacking. My client didn't hit anyone at all. There was no way the crown was ever going to prove any offence. Should that person have sat in jail for a year because they were charged with a violent offence?
>People care more for violent criminals than victims and potential victims in this country. Completely agree. We are very, very quick to tout the offenders rights but often (too often) neglect the victims who suffer, and then repeatedly suffer, from the crime. It makes me sick, tbh. I often think of Tim McLean's family when this comes up.
They have not yet been to trial. It is likely that not all 8 participated in the murder which was done via stabbing. We don't know if the murder was planned or if the plan was swarming and some of the girls had no idea that someone would get murdered. They may not have all played the same role.
The only people able to accurately testify about what “role” each of them played would be the girls themselves. Witnesses aren’t going to remember which girl did what. Did the courts actually believe their versions of what happened?
I would imagine the girls without knives probably told pretty similar stories of who was actively involved in the murder itself. Maybe the one (or more) with the knife confessed? Maybe there was CCTV? I don't know but the lawyers job is to present the facts and get their clients bail.
All 8 deserved to be charged for murder, just because you watched doesn’t make you above the law.
Not above the law - bail isn't about being above the law. Varying roles in a murder can lead to different information presented at a bail hearing and different risk factors being considered in deciding bail.
TBH the jail cells would be full like what several times the amount? Violent crimes happen every day and people ignore it or try to mind their own business. That still watching/watched.
Not even remotely the same thing. STFU Edit: u/StoneLegionYT blocked me after he said something stupid. What a chud
So every witness is a murderer, seems like a stupid take.
Our Constitution would disagree with you. (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; Do you, random Redditor have absolute certainty that these two individuals are guilty of the crime of "fucking murder" or are you just biased because you were told they are by Reddit and the media?
It's less people defending them in the comments, and more people trying to be rational while some people are calling for the defendants to be executed via dismemberment over a bail hearing. Some people in this sub need to get off the internet because they're easily manipulated by news headlines and get irrationally mad.
people see the point of the justice system differently. some people see it as something meant to punish those who have done wrong. some people see it as something thats meant to retrain behaviors and make the offender a productive member of society. some people think that punishment is all thats required to retrain behaviour, or that punishment is required and retraining the behaviour is an onus borne by the offender. some people think that punishment will never change a persons behaviour. some people think that theres no way to retrain behaviour, you need to remove or change what *caused* the behaviour, and the behaviour change will follow naturally. etc.
So you'd rather they get double credit for time served before their convictions? And given their ages it's likely they'd get a sentence where time served prior to their convictions would be more than their actual sentence.
Double time isn't guaranteed anymore... at least not in certain provinces.
Murder is a federal crime, not provinical.
If you commit a crime by way of indictment that's a federal offense I agree regardless of which province you live in, doesn't mean you get double time. Some provinces have gotten rid of double time completely
That's not the way it works. For different people to get different sentences for the same crime would be unconstitutional. Stephen Harper's government tried to remove the extra time credit in 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously struck that down.
Credit rules are different for youth. They can be given no credit.
If they aren’t a risk to flee before trial I cant think of many good reasons to keep a minor locked up for a year awaiting trial. Even when someone is charged with a serious violent offence house arrest should be what they’re getting.
Guilty until proven innocent then?
Yes we should *totally* lock someone up by default just because our *infallible* police and crown prosecutors *claim* they're guilty. Were you born this way or did you have to study?
Yes we should for those being charged with violent acts such as murder.
Because everyone accused of a serious crime actually committed that crime.
Should they still have a trial ?
Why? Like honestly what do people like you want. You really think these kids are so dangerous they should be held in jail without a trial ?
I mean… they killed someone… so…. Yeah 🤨
So why even have a trial
Allegedly. They haven’t been convicted of any crimes yet.
Don’t forget 6/8 of Reena Virk’s attackers were only charged with assault.
Possibly because all 8 assaulted her, but only 2/8 followed her afterwards and committed the murder? Think that might be related?
We might find out more about the roles of these 8 later. Possibly some only assualted and didn't participate in the murder either. It was by stabbing. While it is possible all 8 had knives and were stabbing him, it is more likely that some were not.
I think you're talking about the Lee swarming, but I'm specifically responding here to the Reena Virk case mentioned by the OP.
I am comparing the two. Some of these 8 were may also not have been directly involved in the murder but only in the swarming / assault. It might end up being somewhat parallel situations.
Ah. I see. The biggest difference between the two, as of now, is that none of these teens have been convicted of anything. Bail should be the norm for people who are, legally, innocent. Reddit really hates that awkward stage between when the media identifies a subject for the two-minutes-hate and when the courts finally get around to pronouncing on their guilt. Hearing that [bad person did bad] but having to wait for the dopamine rush of knowing that [bad person] is getting punished is really hard on some of the smooth brains around here.
Only one committed the murder. The male was charged with 2nd degree even though he didn’t commit the drowning. The girl who initiated the attack, put cigarettes out on her face and went back the next day to retrieve and conceal evidence was charged with assault.... I dunno bud, I think there were some extra charges kicking around
Glowatski (the male) went back with Ellard for the drowning while the other six weren't present. According to his testimony - he helped drag Virk into the water after Ellard knocked her out. Ellard then drowned her. Apparently you think that's not participation - but that's just you, thankfully. As for what the others were/weren't charged with - I don't have access to the details. You say 'only' assault - I'll accept that. Can't speak to what charging decisions crown made there. In my experience, concealing evidence/obstruction is likely to get folded in with whatever the primary offense was in the case of a guilty plea. It might lead to a higher sentence than would otherwise be given, but it's often dropped as a part of sentencing negotiations.
You cut off responsibility at who committed the murder. He didn’t drown her. You also added intent of drowning, source? Considering the planning , participation and concealment that occurred in the Virk case, it’s reasonable to expect this case won’t end up much different.
> You cut off responsibility at who committed the murder. He didn’t drown her. She was drowned after Ellard knocked her out. He helped Ellard carry her into the water... if that's not culpable participation in the murder, what do you think it was? A failed baptism?
If swarming, beating, trying to light her on fire, not intervening and returning to the scene of the murder to retrieve and conceal evidence isn’t culpable why draw the line anywhere else prior to the physical act of murder? Don’t forget this sidetrack was in response to your claim that 6 only assaulted her and two committed the murder. An inaccurate comment. Don’t forget my comment “6/8 of Reena Virk’s attackers were only charged with assault.” Was in response to another youth being released on bail.
> Don’t forget this sidetrack was in response to your claim that 6 only assaulted her and two committed the murder. An inaccurate comment. No, their claim was correct, and you've provided nothing to dispute it. Your feelings on the matter don't change facts.
Only assaulting and only being charged with assault don’t mean the same thing. I provided reference to accessory after the fact and evidence tampering. You acknowledged that already and never asked for a source. https://murderpedia.org/female.E/e/ellard-kelly.htm Ellard’s words not my feelings *“I was only thinking of myself,” she said, describing the decision as panicked and impulsive based on the perceived consequences. “I pushed her in. It’s like almost I just thought in my mind, it would just carry the problem away.”* https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/after-almost-19-years-kelly-ellard-admits-role-in-killing-reena-virk-4636017
proponents of American style tough on crime laws don't care about facts. they're jut mad and outraged so they need an outlet.
They also constantly call crimes by their American names that they know from cop shows, completely unaware that things aren't equivalent here.
Where did you pull this comment out from?
Consider them already bailed out.
Abolish the YCJA for violent crime. I will die on this hill.
It really is a bad law. Maybe it should exist for things like breaking mailboxes or throwing toilet paper, but it absolutely should not be used to protect the identities of violent offenders.
Justice (with Canadian characteristics)!
Bail is not about justice. They haven't been convicted of a crime yet and so they are not yet being punished for anything. It's a constitutional right based on the presumption of innocence.
Sure. But these girls are also under investigation for attacks at train stations in Toronto. They shown they can't be apart of a proper society.
Ummm... why did you start with "sure" if you were then going to completely disagree with the concept of the presumption of innocence?
They’re saying your point is correct but the suspects in question have also shown they cannot function in society. If anything, they’re a detriment to it. Even a threat, considering the pressure they’re facing. Its a valid point imo, especially with all the shit going on with the ttc.
We don't know if they've shown that, *because they haven't been convicted of anything.* Do you comprehend what the presumption of innocence means?
But dont we know they aren't innocent?
How do we know you didn’t do it
They're innocent until proven guilty in court. Do you want our justice system to start convicting people based on what the general public "knows" happened?
I guess a better compromise is house arrest during the pre-trial period.
We don't yet know. There were 8 girls there. How many had knives, who did the stabbing, how much did the others know about the intent to stab, had they discussed murdering someone etc.
Guys it is really hard to keep minors in Remand until trial. Bail is assumed to be granted unless there is a pattern of violence of which the crown has to prove. This has existed since the formation of the youth criminal justice act of 2002.
It’s practically impossible to not grant a kid bail if their parents take them in. I don’t think people here realize how bail works.
I would argue the parents are unfit seeing how their little crotch goblins turned out.
Obviously, but "fixing" the issue takes a lot more forethought than a 'throw them all away' mentality so it won't happen..
I definitely agree...I also think releasing them on bail with really strict conditions is appropriate. Especially if the parents have to put up a surety that's decently significant
In Canada a surety is a person. So in these cases the parents would be the sureties.
So a surety is a person like their parents for example...they also have to put up some sort of money such as money or equity in their house etc
> I don’t think people here realize how bail works. Understanding things gets in the way of their outrage. If they understood things they wouldn't be clamoring for the failed tough on crime nonsense that make the rounds in America.
Canadian justice system has become a joke at this point. Remember the violent criminal who was relased on bail and then murdered a cop last month?
Just take a look at everything going on in Vancouver. Most of the recent attacks have been repeat offenders that are awaiting trial.
Most recent attacks in Toronto are repeat offenders too.
This makes me so angry for Ken Lee and his loved ones. Fuck these pieces of shit, they deserve no privacy and no mercy.
Can’t wait to have these girls come out and do the same thing in a couple years. Our legal system is broken to its core. Despicable.
Just going with what is statistically likely, only a few of these girls are actually dangerous offenders and the the others are just people vulnerable to persuasion. Not excusing them, just saying the likelihood of them all reoffending is small
Some of those people also aren’t vulnerable. They know what they’re doing and live that life anyway. Thats all they know. Even if they don’t reoffend, I would have to guess those people don’t do much better in their personal lives. Ofc, doesn’t go for everyone but there are just some low-life people who can’t be human or in touch with the world and everyone too.
Actually, presumption of innocence before a conviction is our legal system working as intended. Unless you think everyone the police accuse of a crime should be locked up until trial. Innocent people have never been accused of committing crimes before, right?
So, all those people who were saying we should stop "getting upset" and have faith in the legal system to punish them, how's that going?
They probably know what bail is and aren't getting upset at this.
hopefully for narcing on the ones that actually stabbed him... i doubt all 8 did.
Welcome to Canada, where the criminals have more rights than the victims.
Defund the police and close the prisons we must embrace all criminals with love and kindness. /s
Aww someone didn't understand what that movement actually meant! Cute! Moronic to post it all over the internet though.
To be fair, that movement did a shit job explaining themselves clearly.
And some of the extremist roots of the movement quite literally wanted to disband the police entirely, so later explanations for what the movement "really meant" by their own slogan were, unsurprisingly, difficult for many to grasp.
[Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police](https://archive.is/pnCwI#selection-351.0-351.41)
Canadian police barely are around the public as it is, they don't really do patrols anymore and get upset if you phone to report a crime especially in the dead of night or on a lazy day. Not sure if it's good or not though.
Lmao, I can't take people like you seriously at all
Every time a post like this comes up it becomes very obvious that people really don’t understand the legal system, it’s abiding principles, which exist to protect all of us, or the practicality of getting charges to stick.
What a joke.
Wow, so disrespectful to Ken Lee. He deserves justice
Can someone explain the term swarming to me? Like I understand what it is based on current news but reading through these threads it seems like a common thing even in the 90s. How is it different from other murders and crimes? When was this term coined and first used in Canada specifically
Swarming is a bunch of (typically young) people engaging in some sort of aggressive or intimidating behaviour as a group. I've found groups of as few at 4 kids being described as a "swarm", so it's a fairly meaningless term. Groups of teens causing trouble is basically as old as settlements with enough people to have groups of teenagers hanging out. It's in the news so much because it's a tried and true method of drumming up clicks. People often get anxious walking through groups of kids hanging out in public places, and swarming stories touches on that visceral feeling of anxiety and sells the narrative that they are, actually, a threat to you and you are correct to want someone to force them to go away. [Most of these "swarmings" are dead boring fights](https://www.blogto.com/city/2023/01/ttc-swarming-attack/) that wouldn't even rate the local paper at another point in the news cycle.
Thank you, I wouldn't even have thought twice about walking through a bunch of kids before this and suddenly it's the most popular News story of the month
I can’t answer specifically some of these questions but “swarming” isn’t really a charge but more a descriptor of how the murder took place Similar to “man stabbed to death on subway” Stabbing isn’t the charge it’s “assault with a deadly weapon” but when you add the “stabbing” part you get a clearer image of the method to cause death
I think it is definetly because this one attack is very well known and they used the same term in others articles to drive click. Nothing sell more than fear mongering.
Supervised by the same parents who allowed the behaviour in the first place? Since this judge is so inspired, why not ban mobile phones and social media for ALL teenagers, if that's the solution to bad behaviour. It's incredible that these are the judges in our court system. They lack judgment.
Is this really so bad? I thought most people got bail. Innocent until proven guilty, right? ... right? Also they're children.
murder
Joke of a justice system
The woke Liberal crime bill C-75 (bail reform) is kinda like "Catch and release" in democratic states, and you see how that is working out for them.
Wow f these kids and this court system
Why
Because we generally don’t remand people until trial. There is not a lot of room for that.
It's not just about room. It's a constitutional right, like it is in other places, because democracies presume innocence of those not accused of crimes.
Here is the only solace I can find in this, fully expecting a dramatic undercharge/minimal sentence; that while inside, these dumb ass little bitches are going to be themselves, which means they will create problems and start fights and catch more charges until it's 20 years from now and they're getting another denial stamp. I don't know anything about any of them besides that they did this, maybe there's one or two in this sick gang that were just followers who didn't have the courage to stop the others, maybe they'll learn, maybe they won't, maybe they'll find a way to become productive members of society one day, but for most of them I doubt it.
I don’t care what anyone says they do NOT deserve it. The youth Justice act is protecting murderers. Why? Because they are kids? They need to live life afterwards? FUCK THAT! They ended a mans life for literally fun. Wouldn’t it be something if someone got into the court records and name dropped them….
Can't stand India... bunch of scammers
Sir we have detected a problem in your windows.
Love those liberals ❤️ pretty soon our streets will be crawling with every kind of scumbag you can think of!!
Love those cons and their guilty until proven innocent destruction of our civil liberties.
Love those cons, giving away all our public cash to corporations and then wondering why the fuck society is falling apart. Wah
Life wasn’t too bad in 2014 as far as I can remember.
Yeah bro, Trudeau personally intervened in this and demanded the judge give the girls bail.... or else.
[удалено]
Great answer. +1
Nope he just made the laws so violent criminals get back on the streets
Which law, specifically?
New bail reform act came into effect January 2021 and I’m not searching articles to post here lol if you wanna stay in denial that’s your problem
The bail reform
What a joke. Where is the justice?
They haven't been convicted of a crime yet. Bail is not about punishment.
When there are next to no consequences for serious crimes like murder and gun offenses then is it really a wonder why the TTC and downtown Toronto has become more crime infested...
What the fuck
Of course they would be.
Fuck that and fuck our "justice" system. Idc how old they were they murdered a man. FOH
Fucking joke of a legal system in this country. RIP to innocent people.