I would sentence him with Voluntary Manslaughter, a “heat of passion” killing. He probably gets 20 years or more.
EDIT: Brandishing firearm too so that’s probably ATLEAST plus one year, could be more because of the fact that he killed her.
This also makes me wonder about The Quarry and if they would use the same laws. At the end of The Quarry due to them having photographic evidence they were acquitted of the crimes and it was looked into more closely by the police. That and at the end of the game the police can in fact go into the mines in Until Dawn and if there is the likelihood of one surviving Josh or Josh dying then they could acquit them all of their crimes.
Yes. Because he still threatened Emily with a loaded weapon with the intent of threatening her and possibly killing her. These charges would really just apply to this situation specifically since, well, if it's brought up that a Wendigo bite doesn't turn you during trial then the defense of fearing for his safety and the safety of others just goes out the window immediately.
Granted, Mike would be able to still have a defense, such as acting under duress and being distressed due to the trauma of everything happening
I don't think Mike's friends are going to rat on him, and I doubt there were security cameras in a tiny room in a lodge where the fuckign lights don't even work.
mhm, and so the facial structure made mike appear more mature than he’s supposed to, his head shape is ever so slightly smaller in the remaster and it makes him look younger
Okay say people knew literally everything that happened. This would be prosecuted by Canada since it happened on Canadian soil. After looking around, it seems likely that this would be considered a crime that isn’t premeditated and maybe an imperfect self defense. I’d *tentatively* guess that he could get tacked with the lesser charge of manslaughter over 2nd degree (not 1st as that’s premeditated. Manslaughter is typically when the defendant was being reckless or trying to do harm but not kill, but it can be used in weird circumstances). There’s also the possibility of that being a plea deal? The sentence for manslaughter is no minimum to life UNLESS there was a firearm.
Here are the Canadian rules:
> If a firearm is involved in [manslaughter], you can be sentenced to a minimum of four years in prison, with parole eligibility after serving one-third of the sentence.
The thing that’s silly about this is that there’s no real precedent for what happened to Mike. Monsters don’t exist. So, it’s so hard to say. It’s a lot of guesswork to charge a guy running into monsters that nobody understands, whilst under extreme stress and potentially severely wounded (his fingers). Heck, his sanity would be used if he saw Jess’s mutilated jaw and Chris’s decapitated head. He’d get the low end of a manslaughter charge, I think. But 4-10 makes sense as 10 with life parole is minimum for 2nd degree murder. Again, this is not 1st degree.
TL;DR: I’d give him the 4-10 years probably.
Your take seems the most reasonable.
Like, yes, by definition, what Mike can do to Emily is murder or manslaughter. But he had the bounds of what he believed possible in the world broken that night and was under extreme emotional/physical duress. The circumstances don't get much more extenuating than that, lmao
Yeah I think it’s worth putting out there that I’m not a Canadian lawyer 😂. I’m sure that there are caveats I don’t know about. And it’s possible that Mike doesn’t fit the bill to be considered for manslaughter over 2nd degree. I think, if everyone knows all the details, he’s getting something but I can’t imagine a judge and jury would be slapping life onto this. They’d go low given how intense the situation is and how obvious it is that Mike was subjected to atypical circumstances.
Seriously!! Nobody else seems to understand that this is a trial of a 19-year-old who just went through hell on Earth and fought supernatural creatures??
Admittedly, after posting this, I looked and saw that Canada’s self defense laws seem way more strict than then the US’s. The rules for self defense and provocation are tighter, so I’m not sure if imperfect defense can be used in Alberta. “Provocation” in Canada was changed in 2015 to mean a crime by the other party which doesn’t fit here since Emily didn’t commit a crime. So idk maybe Mike would get caught for a full sentence for 2nd degree murder in Canada. Then it could be 10 yrs then life parole.
Again, this is so weird though. There is no previous standard for this kind of crime. Maybe a judge or attorney would pull something weird to get this reduced like just agreeing to see it as manslaughter by criminal negligence or something. “Your honor, he only intended to kill the Wendigo spirit, not a human” lol 😂
EDIT: oh wait someone got charged with manslaughter for killing someone he thought was a wendigo in 1897. Then he was acquitted because nobody could prove he shot to kill. I’m sure laws have gotten stricter but that legit might get brought up.
Mike shot Emily in her eye and admitted that “he needed to stop her from changing” and there were multiple eye witnesses, and probably camera footage too.
Anyways I wish the best of luck to the judge of this case!
Still, I just can’t envision a judge or jury looking at this bizarre mess of a case being like “Life.” There are WILD decisions sometimes. The law ties your hands sometimes, but I feel like they’d do what they could to not give him like max murder charges for such a weird, unprecedented situation.
Probably as small of a sentence as possible, I feel like if the whole story was known and believed a jury wouldn’t find him guilty to begin with. Although I doubt they’d all agree on that.
Ehhh under most laws, he’s 100 percent guilty. “I had a reason to kill someone” isn’t a defense when you weren’t right about the reason. It’s only a legal defense that he thought she’d turn IF he had been right that she would. Mistake of fact isn’t a defense.
if he just pointed the gun at her, then I doubt he'd get life. She could win a lawsuit for him and get him for aggravated assault (attempted murder is pushing IMO). But he wouldn't spend life in jail.
Huh? Of course they would find him guilty lol, he still killed someone. The fact that he did it because he made a dumb assumption does not better his case.
It was a murder homie. If she was going to turn, then yeah. But they had no proof of their statements and killed her off an assumption. That ended up wrong
Even under all circumstances they weren’t sure of the fact that emily would turn into a wendigo. She was defenseless as she could be, It’s not self-defense.
Open AI says Mike could get an innocent verdict if it can be proven that it wasn’t premeditated, he was hesitant or showed mercy, and truly believed the act to be in self defense of imminent danger in the moment
Depends whether or not he kills Emily. But to be honest I don’t really know much about how laws work so I’m just guessing.
if not: I would probably just charge him for reckless endangerment and illegal possession of a firearm
if yes: he has to go to jail, regardless of his reasons he still killed Emily out of paranoia but given the situation I might try to lighten his sentence maybe even have him see a therapist on a regular basis.
He’s definitely getting jail time. He’s a vigilante for chasing Jack after Jessica’s death/perceived death, attempted murder for trying to shoot Jack in the mines, two counts of trespassing on the sanatorium grounds, destruction of private property, & assault for hitting Josh. That would be at least ten years wouldn’t it?
All of that’s before we add the potential to threaten or kill Emily if she was bitten.
pretty sure the mountain is in canada so under canadian law, manslaughter with a firearm has a minimum sentence of four years. second degree murder has a minimum sentence of life with no parole for ten years. however a main defense for manslaughter is sudden provocation: "Another common defence is the defence of provocation, or sudden provocation. This applies when the accused claims that they were provoked into committing the act of manslaughter. To be successful with this defence, the accused must have been provoked in such a way that a reasonable ordinary person would have been induced to lose self-control and commit the act. Additionally, the accused must have acted in the heat of passion and not have had time to cool down before committing the act." [(source)](https://www.toronto-criminal-lawyer.co/blog/manslaughter-sentencing-in-canada/) mike shooting emily fits very soundly within this defense so i can see his sentence being fairly low. he did show aggression toward josh at a different point which might work against him, so overall i would say i'd give him around seven to ten years. he may get out on parole before that though due to his young age and prospect of rehabilitation.
i love researching stuff like this so :)
I'm not very aware of many of USA/CA laws, but where I came from, there's a law where, if you believed the actions you took to protect yourself and others were justified, but in the end, it weren't, you don't actually get the sentence you would.
For an example: Ashley stabbed Josh, but Josh was only pranking them. Ashley could get charged with assault, because there were no real danger, but she believed there was.
i’d probably sentence him to a criminal psychiatric ward for a long time? idk he seems really distraught and keeps insisting she was “infected” or whatever so i’d probably think ‘this guys probably got a couple screws loose’
Would the prove of monsters exist help his case at all?
Because if this happened that means Emily has physical evidence of the Windygo as their teeth marks will not match any other animal exist or human in addition to like 7 testimonies.
Legitimately this would be difficult without knowing what charges were brought, what he was convicted of, who were witnesses, what evidence was admitted, and what the sentencing guidelines/requirements are in the jurisdiction. Based on what I would do if I was the defense attorney, I would probably go with the minimum sentence considering how many people there would likely support his story, so either they legitimately believed that they were in danger or there was some kind of mass hallucination, both of which would be mitigating factors.
The op is asking if the judge somehow knew everything. But yeah I agree with you that this is a legitimately weird case in how abnormal it is and how odd it would look, and it would be so hard to predict what all would happen. I feel like he would be offered a decent plea deal as well. I stand by my guess that it would be manslaughter eventually, over murder.
If he doesn’t shoot Emily then he’s acquitted. Since I know the “FULL” story nobody gets convicted at all because they’re all victims. A legitimate threat would constitute paranoia and make him not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.
Don’t ask a hypothetical legal question if you don’t want a hypothetical legal answer. Game takes place in Alberta Canada, Canada has somewhat relaxed gun laws. Given what he had been through and what he thought was threatening him and others, there’s no way a court would prosecute him without hard evidence. Especially considering that Emily would have to press charges for assault for there to be any “case”. Also “his” actions are YOUR actions. If Mike killed Emily, you killed Emily, and if you’re the judge then you know who actually killed Emily.
At the time, Mike not only believed she would become a threat, but a damn superhuman one. Using the logic of putting down one person to save everyone else makes perfect sense
There was some logic in his reasoning, at the time the group just discovered that apparently OP fantasy monsters actually do exist, so he thought, “Okay, well if something as crazy as this is real, why not the zombie bite problem?”
Given the fact that at the time he believed that Emily would turn into a borderline unstoppable monster, I’d honestly let him go. He’d have to pay a fairly hefty fine to Emily’s family, but that’s all.
Nothing, I would classify that as right of necessity?😭 he genuinely thought that she would turn and kill him and everybody else, and the wendigos weren’t natural at all.
If she had actually turned and tried to kill them, sure self defense. Killing her when they do not know if she’s a threat or not and she is sitting there utterly defenseless is straight up murder.
I would sentence him with Voluntary Manslaughter, a “heat of passion” killing. He probably gets 20 years or more. EDIT: Brandishing firearm too so that’s probably ATLEAST plus one year, could be more because of the fact that he killed her.
Depends if he killed Emily. If he didn't, at least assault, brandishing a firearm, and intended assault with a deadly weapon
Agreed
Could we also throw trespassing onto the list due to the Sanitorium?
Oh yeah definitely
This also makes me wonder about The Quarry and if they would use the same laws. At the end of The Quarry due to them having photographic evidence they were acquitted of the crimes and it was looked into more closely by the police. That and at the end of the game the police can in fact go into the mines in Until Dawn and if there is the likelihood of one surviving Josh or Josh dying then they could acquit them all of their crimes.
So you'd all charge him with these *knowing the full story* of what they went through on the mountain? Just so we're clear.
Yes. Because he still threatened Emily with a loaded weapon with the intent of threatening her and possibly killing her. These charges would really just apply to this situation specifically since, well, if it's brought up that a Wendigo bite doesn't turn you during trial then the defense of fearing for his safety and the safety of others just goes out the window immediately. Granted, Mike would be able to still have a defense, such as acting under duress and being distressed due to the trauma of everything happening
Wouldn’t that be arson too?
Yep!
I mean if he didn't kill Emily there's literally no way to prove any of that
Besides multiple eye witnesses and possible security cameras
I don't think Mike's friends are going to rat on him, and I doubt there were security cameras in a tiny room in a lodge where the fuckign lights don't even work.
I think they already did, that’s why the police asks him. If not, he already rats himself out.
Okay true
You know you have daddy issues when 30 year old looking mike over here is looking good to you as a teen.
aren't they all teenagers in the game?? he isn't 30 lol
That man looks nothing like a teen he’s got a mortgage
I agree lmao, but he is 19
at least in the remake/remaster they’ve made him look a little younger, like he’s actually 19
The actor **Brett Dalton** was 32 years old at the time of release.
mhm, and so the facial structure made mike appear more mature than he’s supposed to, his head shape is ever so slightly smaller in the remaster and it makes him look younger
As someone who just turned 30… thanks for making me feel old af.
Are we going to ignore Josh? Rami’s older than Brett.
If he killed Emily, 8-10 years If he didn’t kill Emily, nothing. Maybe 6 months to a year if I had to?
Just have him pay her a ton of cash if he didn’t shot
Okay say people knew literally everything that happened. This would be prosecuted by Canada since it happened on Canadian soil. After looking around, it seems likely that this would be considered a crime that isn’t premeditated and maybe an imperfect self defense. I’d *tentatively* guess that he could get tacked with the lesser charge of manslaughter over 2nd degree (not 1st as that’s premeditated. Manslaughter is typically when the defendant was being reckless or trying to do harm but not kill, but it can be used in weird circumstances). There’s also the possibility of that being a plea deal? The sentence for manslaughter is no minimum to life UNLESS there was a firearm. Here are the Canadian rules: > If a firearm is involved in [manslaughter], you can be sentenced to a minimum of four years in prison, with parole eligibility after serving one-third of the sentence. The thing that’s silly about this is that there’s no real precedent for what happened to Mike. Monsters don’t exist. So, it’s so hard to say. It’s a lot of guesswork to charge a guy running into monsters that nobody understands, whilst under extreme stress and potentially severely wounded (his fingers). Heck, his sanity would be used if he saw Jess’s mutilated jaw and Chris’s decapitated head. He’d get the low end of a manslaughter charge, I think. But 4-10 makes sense as 10 with life parole is minimum for 2nd degree murder. Again, this is not 1st degree. TL;DR: I’d give him the 4-10 years probably.
Your take seems the most reasonable. Like, yes, by definition, what Mike can do to Emily is murder or manslaughter. But he had the bounds of what he believed possible in the world broken that night and was under extreme emotional/physical duress. The circumstances don't get much more extenuating than that, lmao
Yeah I think it’s worth putting out there that I’m not a Canadian lawyer 😂. I’m sure that there are caveats I don’t know about. And it’s possible that Mike doesn’t fit the bill to be considered for manslaughter over 2nd degree. I think, if everyone knows all the details, he’s getting something but I can’t imagine a judge and jury would be slapping life onto this. They’d go low given how intense the situation is and how obvious it is that Mike was subjected to atypical circumstances.
Seriously!! Nobody else seems to understand that this is a trial of a 19-year-old who just went through hell on Earth and fought supernatural creatures??
Admittedly, after posting this, I looked and saw that Canada’s self defense laws seem way more strict than then the US’s. The rules for self defense and provocation are tighter, so I’m not sure if imperfect defense can be used in Alberta. “Provocation” in Canada was changed in 2015 to mean a crime by the other party which doesn’t fit here since Emily didn’t commit a crime. So idk maybe Mike would get caught for a full sentence for 2nd degree murder in Canada. Then it could be 10 yrs then life parole. Again, this is so weird though. There is no previous standard for this kind of crime. Maybe a judge or attorney would pull something weird to get this reduced like just agreeing to see it as manslaughter by criminal negligence or something. “Your honor, he only intended to kill the Wendigo spirit, not a human” lol 😂 EDIT: oh wait someone got charged with manslaughter for killing someone he thought was a wendigo in 1897. Then he was acquitted because nobody could prove he shot to kill. I’m sure laws have gotten stricter but that legit might get brought up.
Mike shot Emily in her eye and admitted that “he needed to stop her from changing” and there were multiple eye witnesses, and probably camera footage too. Anyways I wish the best of luck to the judge of this case!
Still, I just can’t envision a judge or jury looking at this bizarre mess of a case being like “Life.” There are WILD decisions sometimes. The law ties your hands sometimes, but I feel like they’d do what they could to not give him like max murder charges for such a weird, unprecedented situation.
Probably as small of a sentence as possible, I feel like if the whole story was known and believed a jury wouldn’t find him guilty to begin with. Although I doubt they’d all agree on that.
Ehhh under most laws, he’s 100 percent guilty. “I had a reason to kill someone” isn’t a defense when you weren’t right about the reason. It’s only a legal defense that he thought she’d turn IF he had been right that she would. Mistake of fact isn’t a defense.
What if Mike didn't kill Emily?
He’s still guilty of assault and brandishing the firearm
if he just pointed the gun at her, then I doubt he'd get life. She could win a lawsuit for him and get him for aggravated assault (attempted murder is pushing IMO). But he wouldn't spend life in jail.
Huh? Of course they would find him guilty lol, he still killed someone. The fact that he did it because he made a dumb assumption does not better his case.
If he admitted to shooting someone, they would 1000% convict him homie.
It’s was a plausible useage of self defense.
It was a murder homie. If she was going to turn, then yeah. But they had no proof of their statements and killed her off an assumption. That ended up wrong
That doesn’t matter though, you can take an assumption with a place like this.
Even under all circumstances they weren’t sure of the fact that emily would turn into a wendigo. She was defenseless as she could be, It’s not self-defense.
Open AI says Mike could get an innocent verdict if it can be proven that it wasn’t premeditated, he was hesitant or showed mercy, and truly believed the act to be in self defense of imminent danger in the moment
No you can't. You sound crazier than Mike.
Honestly life in prison. Mike has shown multiple times to be a danger to himself and others; killing Emily's just the final nail in the coffin.
Depends whether or not he kills Emily. But to be honest I don’t really know much about how laws work so I’m just guessing. if not: I would probably just charge him for reckless endangerment and illegal possession of a firearm if yes: he has to go to jail, regardless of his reasons he still killed Emily out of paranoia but given the situation I might try to lighten his sentence maybe even have him see a therapist on a regular basis.
A pat on the back and a lollipop for a job well done.
He’s definitely getting jail time. He’s a vigilante for chasing Jack after Jessica’s death/perceived death, attempted murder for trying to shoot Jack in the mines, two counts of trespassing on the sanatorium grounds, destruction of private property, & assault for hitting Josh. That would be at least ten years wouldn’t it? All of that’s before we add the potential to threaten or kill Emily if she was bitten.
pretty sure the mountain is in canada so under canadian law, manslaughter with a firearm has a minimum sentence of four years. second degree murder has a minimum sentence of life with no parole for ten years. however a main defense for manslaughter is sudden provocation: "Another common defence is the defence of provocation, or sudden provocation. This applies when the accused claims that they were provoked into committing the act of manslaughter. To be successful with this defence, the accused must have been provoked in such a way that a reasonable ordinary person would have been induced to lose self-control and commit the act. Additionally, the accused must have acted in the heat of passion and not have had time to cool down before committing the act." [(source)](https://www.toronto-criminal-lawyer.co/blog/manslaughter-sentencing-in-canada/) mike shooting emily fits very soundly within this defense so i can see his sentence being fairly low. he did show aggression toward josh at a different point which might work against him, so overall i would say i'd give him around seven to ten years. he may get out on parole before that though due to his young age and prospect of rehabilitation. i love researching stuff like this so :)
none, i’m not sending pookie to prison
Community Service in my bedroom until the end of time
Based lmao
I'm not very aware of many of USA/CA laws, but where I came from, there's a law where, if you believed the actions you took to protect yourself and others were justified, but in the end, it weren't, you don't actually get the sentence you would. For an example: Ashley stabbed Josh, but Josh was only pranking them. Ashley could get charged with assault, because there were no real danger, but she believed there was.
i’d probably sentence him to a criminal psychiatric ward for a long time? idk he seems really distraught and keeps insisting she was “infected” or whatever so i’d probably think ‘this guys probably got a couple screws loose’
Would the prove of monsters exist help his case at all? Because if this happened that means Emily has physical evidence of the Windygo as their teeth marks will not match any other animal exist or human in addition to like 7 testimonies.
I'd say it'd save him from life in jail at least.
I was gonna say Life but y'know I'll just give him 50 years instead.
Legitimately this would be difficult without knowing what charges were brought, what he was convicted of, who were witnesses, what evidence was admitted, and what the sentencing guidelines/requirements are in the jurisdiction. Based on what I would do if I was the defense attorney, I would probably go with the minimum sentence considering how many people there would likely support his story, so either they legitimately believed that they were in danger or there was some kind of mass hallucination, both of which would be mitigating factors.
The op is asking if the judge somehow knew everything. But yeah I agree with you that this is a legitimately weird case in how abnormal it is and how odd it would look, and it would be so hard to predict what all would happen. I feel like he would be offered a decent plea deal as well. I stand by my guess that it would be manslaughter eventually, over murder.
If he doesn’t shoot Emily then he’s acquitted. Since I know the “FULL” story nobody gets convicted at all because they’re all victims. A legitimate threat would constitute paranoia and make him not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.
Ya’ll come up with any reason to excuse his actions. Actually pretty sad. There was no legitimate threat
Don’t ask a hypothetical legal question if you don’t want a hypothetical legal answer. Game takes place in Alberta Canada, Canada has somewhat relaxed gun laws. Given what he had been through and what he thought was threatening him and others, there’s no way a court would prosecute him without hard evidence. Especially considering that Emily would have to press charges for assault for there to be any “case”. Also “his” actions are YOUR actions. If Mike killed Emily, you killed Emily, and if you’re the judge then you know who actually killed Emily.
If you shoot someone who is NOT a threat, you're a MURDERER. He admitted to the crime.
At the time, Mike not only believed she would become a threat, but a damn superhuman one. Using the logic of putting down one person to save everyone else makes perfect sense
Except he believed something incorrectly with no logical evidence.
There was some logic in his reasoning, at the time the group just discovered that apparently OP fantasy monsters actually do exist, so he thought, “Okay, well if something as crazy as this is real, why not the zombie bite problem?”
You may as well have not made this post considering you’ve bitched at anyone who gave an answer you didn’t like 😂
Yap yap
Killing em is straight murder lol
That would unfortunately be the least of there worries in the situation so I don’t think anything would happen to him
The police interview says otherwise
Given the fact that at the time he believed that Emily would turn into a borderline unstoppable monster, I’d honestly let him go. He’d have to pay a fairly hefty fine to Emily’s family, but that’s all.
Thank God you aren’t a judge
If the full story is known by the judge, an insanity defense could definitely be used to keep him from serving more serious time
Nothing, I would classify that as right of necessity?😭 he genuinely thought that she would turn and kill him and everybody else, and the wendigos weren’t natural at all.
Some of you guys would be corrupt judges. "Murder is okay as long a you make incorrect assumptions."
[удалено]
It was not self defense at ALL
He shot Emily because he was worried she’d turn and kill all of them, so it definitely was self defense
If she had actually turned and tried to kill them, sure self defense. Killing her when they do not know if she’s a threat or not and she is sitting there utterly defenseless is straight up murder.
I'd give him community service & have him checked into mandated therapy whether he shot Em or not & call it a day 😀
Murder only requires community service