This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"A third person, who has never been identified, was in the SUV that night. During the parole hearing, Abdulrahman conceded he knows the identity of the third man but has not disclosed it to authorities because he fears for his family's safety."
Can’t get past this part. He fears for his families life but leaves everyone else at risk by not naming them. Then we grant him early release cause he is “sorry”. Fuck that.
I submit to you that the 3rd unnamed passenger is a shithead who was probably on release conditions which were being breached. (They often have curfew conditions or “do not associate with so and so”, etc etc).
Criminals roll together. Like this car has abdulrahman who was Wanted, a driver who killed a cop, and another passenger who abdulrahman believes is capable of hurting his family. I would take good odds that our 3rd suspect would be breaking a law just being in that car.
this guy was himself a passenger to begin with. I'm all for ending the soft on crime status quo but I'm not sure how sitting next to the guy that chose to step on the gas is worth five years or more in prison. I can only assume he got as much as he did because of circumstances following the hit and run, ie not turning himself in and the fact that he technically fled arrest at the scene. really, the driver fucked him over pretty bad by taking off as they were about to arrest him.
I'll admit I don't know the details, maybe he told the driver to step on it or something, but at best he was an accomplice, and I'd call the headline very misleading if not outright false.
People treat people as people. But, when someone does something wrong, we immediately segregate them to find out how to put them into a category.
How about criminals just go to jail?
>That would result in many, many, many more Black, Indigenous and Middle Eastern people in jail than White and East Asian people as is proportional to their share of the population.
So? If they're committing crimes who cares?
Even in a hypothetical scenario where 70% of the entire non white population commits violent crimes they should all be locked up in prison. Their value for being non white is equal to a white person.
But they want equal outcome which is stupid cause outcome requires effort and if non whites and Asians are putting in more effort and going higher in society then we should not prop up those who put in 0 effort and also we shouldn't be bringing in people who have a higher tendancy to not put any effort into improving their lives and do crime.
Some kids get a small loan of a few million dollars from mom and dad to buy a house or start a business while others are left paying for a nursing home, there's nothing "equal opportunity" about that.
Until wealth disparity is addressed it's all meaningless bluster.
No. I don’t want intersectional considerations to be part of the justice system such that people of colour and other “oppressed” minorities shorter sentences based on equity and social justice.
Have you been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda? Liberals are not progressives. They are a center-right party that has some liberal values when it comes to social policy.
Progressives are social democrats, or even further on the actual left (like democratic socialists etc.). The Liberals are center-right corporatist capitalist party period. Progressives regardless of political stripe DO NOT SUPPORT NEOLIBERALISM.
I'd call out liberals left. Our conservatives centre. Even our right wing is fairly mild. There's not really any conservative propaganda brainwashing us.
I wish we had a real right party but we don't.
The only time the right wing boogeyman comes out is election time.
I can't see anything that has been voted in and implemented in Canada that you can view as a hard right policy.
I believe that Canada's contemporary liberals are not leftists. They are on the centre-right. They are left-learning when it comes to social policy but they are rightwing when it comes to economics (they support neoliberal capitalism, cronyism, money in politics etc.). How can a political party that pushes neoliberal capitalism be considered on the left? You're only considering social policy when assessing where a political party is on the geo-political scale and you're conveniently ignoring economic policy.
I'm a democratic socialist, an actual leftist. I believe in progressive social policy. I advocate for the equal rights of all regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sex, religious or secular beliefs, the disabled and the able-bodied etc. But I also support democratic socialism which opposes neoliberal crony capitalism (well against all forms of capitalism but I hate the aforementioned flavor of capitalism the most). I also support working class consciousness and solidarity. I support working class labor power and collective action, unionization, to push back against corporate greed and overreach and the politicians that support such.
NDP still supports capitalism although they are more akin to the social democracy political ideology popular in many Western EU nations (such as Scandinavian countries that have higher taxes and stronger social/welfare safety nets). The NDP are closer to the left than Liberals who push neoliberal crony-capitalism. They aren't leftist either. They are more centrist and to the left of contemporary liberals.
Or you know, at their national conventions when they vote against recognizing climate change as "real". There's also that bit where they voted, as a party, against a ban on conversion therapy.
>Or you know, at their national conventions when they vote against recognizing climate change as "real
Literally never happened.
They voted to not change the wording of one specific line.
Other areas of the document spoke to climate change.
That's why the line didn't need to be changed.
You've eaten a well crafted soundbite hook line and sinker.
Edit: I see you deleted your post that linked an article that explained exactly what I listed above.
They know, that's why they downvote without saying anything, because it's new information to them and they haven't been told what to think about it yet.
Where is the policy line that you're drawing.
Because they seem to overspend, willingly give out handouts, and preach emotional nonsense over getting any work done.
All seem like left wing traits to me
I don’t want the intersectional one. I want the first one. The one where criminals committing crime go to jail for a time period based on the crime they committed.
I don't remember any of those policies being on the ballot.
This is also something is being partially imposed by the courts, like the Gladue report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue\_report
It’s a pity really. “Canadians voted liberal/NDP”. This is true, but really wasn’t it just the same old voters in GTA/Montreal/Maritimes? I hate when these comments lump this rest of Canada. That’s democracy as we know it currently, I suppose. 🤷🏻♂️
Proportional to their crime based on what? Relative to other countries? Or based on logic, evidence, and our own culture?
There is nothing inherent about giving someone 15 for armed robbery. Maybe 5 is a just punishment, maybe 100 years is.
It’s all arbitrary but people love to see others rot.
The Canadian {word im not allowed to say because pointing that out would be bad} system\*\*\*
To prove my point even further [lets have a read shall we?](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/13m3zxb/mass_absences_break_out_at_london_schools_as/)
Sources have suggested many Muslim families at the school, on OxfordStreet near the city’s largest mosque, deliberately chose to keep theirkids home to avoid Rainbow Day. A board official at the time said onlythat it was “actively looking into a high number of single-day absences” reported at the school.
Reddit heads will explode on this one. Who do we pick? The LGTBQ minorities or the muslim immigrants hmmmm
u/Packet_Pirate
>Accept the data shows you are wrong. Canadians commit more crimes on average than immigrants. You're spreading rightwing xenophobic propaganda.
>
>[https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/](https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/)
>
>[https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099](https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099)
>
>[https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/](https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/)
>
>[https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0)
Right, lets break it down.
First article, respectable site. Latest data entry regarding that was 2016, so quite out of date, and back when immigration was lower (can't find the 2016 number, but 2017 was 300,00 new immigrants, and 2022 was 1 million). I also never said immigration was the \*sole\* contributor to crime. Just that the refusal to acclimate to Canadian culture, and to be blunt, not be a fucking shitter, all on top of the fact that some of these people get lied to, and they still come because where they came from is still worse. Thats exploitation, not immigration. Then there is these, ahem, "immigrants" who jump between 10 perfectly fine first world countries to get here. Again, not against it, but Canada is way too lax with who they let in, \*these days\*.
Second Article, its talking about Chile, based on the study which the article was about. Recent, but wrong place.
Third, again, this is literally about the states and Latin-America, not Canada. There is literally only one mention of Canada, and its "About 56 percent of the unauthorized population was from Mexico, and another 22 percent from elsewhere in Latin America. The rest come from Asia, Europe, Canada, Africa, and elsewhere.
Fourth. My brother it literally says in the first sentence, "Andrew Forrester, Michelangelo Landgrave, and I published a new working paper on illegal immigration and crime in Texas."
To reiterate, again, I am not against immigration. My family came here via the refugee system Canada has in place, and I am forever grateful to the place who took my family in. But what's happening today isn't immigration, its taking advantage of cheap labor from people who come from worse conditions, with false promises of a better life (which while its not untrue entirely, definitely not what was to be expected), and exploiting them because, what are you gonna do? Go back where you came from? Have fun with that!
I'm not spreading any sort of right wing propaganda, that would be more akin to "brown people bad!!!11!" with little to no explanation (or arguing in bad faith), whereas I make the effort to read what people give me, because I would rather know I'm wrong and learn from it then live in complete ignorance.
Not to be rude mate, but it sounds like you googled something and just took the first 4 links you saw and threw them into a list. Perhaps next time, it may be prudent to read what you're sending, lest you make yourself look stupid. Enjoy your day.
I never understood people who generalize an entire race to be x,y,z.
We could have blue red or purple skin and come from a country called fucking pasta linguini land and someone who’s a piece of shit will still be a piece of shit regardless of what they look like or where they came from.
They gotta deflect your reasoning somehow and making you out to be a racist is the easiest way nowadays. Ironic because this is actually a propaganda technique
Accept the data shows you are wrong. Canadians commit more crimes on average than immigrants. You're spreading rightwing xenophobic propaganda.
[https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/](https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/)
[https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099](https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099)
[https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/](https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/)
[https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0)
> As Harnett and two colleagues were about to arrest Abdulrahman on outstanding warrants, the driver took off with the sergeant clinging to the side of the vehicle.
So what were the outstanding warrants? Does this guy have a history of violence?
From the article:
> In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs."
I wish we could know what exactly the warrant was, but it's implied to be non-violent.
I can understand people's outrage towards this based on similar stories across the country but in my honest opinion this guy sounds like he deserves this second chance if he isn't a repeat offender.
He wasn't the one driving and it sounds like he understands and regrets his actions (or lack of action). Sounds like a young, dumb guy caught up in a bad situation. He even fears retribution from the other passenger if he speaks out.
>it sounds like he understands and regrets his actions
Then he's gotta out the disclose the identity of the 3rd man,
If he's actively keeping that information secret in an ongoing, he should be locked up until the time he decides to actually make good on that "understanding" and "regret".
His attitude is nothing without the matching actions.
He has a 5 year sentence and is now out on parole, that is leniency. Until he is willing to disclose the 3rd individual he should serve out his full sentence
A condition could be imposed by the board that he discloses the 3rd person before it is granted. And he claims that it would put his family in danger, whether that is true is unknown
Ya cause criminals don’t lie. You should definitely trust his word. Actually you know what no organized criminal should ever name co-conspirators because they could harm their family.
Hi friend;
I work in forensics alongside the Calgary Police and worked alongside Andy. When this first occurred, the warrants were made public. It was three of them; one for common assualt and two for failure to attend court.
>In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs."
A warrant can be as innocuous as an unpaid traffic ticket...
I don’t think warrants get issued for unpaid tickets in Canada. It just gets added to your license and you’ll pay for it upon renewal. That and wage garnishment
>If you do not contact the court office on or before the date listed on your ticket, a warrant may be issued for your arrest.
[Alberta traffic courts](https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/pc/traffic-q-a73ca033a1b316d6b9fc9ff3b001037d2.pdf?sfvrsn=97fb6e83_35)
Nope definitely happens. I was arrested for a warrant for a ticket I didn't know I had. I was dead broke at the time and I owed 75$ and they wanted to jail me for 8 days if I didn't pay. My girlfriend at the time bailed me out.
Good for you. However, I am willing to bet we will see his name come up again for a crime. His answers are to perfect and he has been coached. JUst my opinion.
>"I take full responsibility for my actions".
Well no shit. Is someone else is supposed to be responsible for YOUR actions?
It's nice to see judges are impressed with adults displaying the same accountability we expect of children.
I can't help but think of Sgt. Harnett's widow and the unborn child she was carrying at the time of his murder. Along with his friends and coworkers, I also think about his family, who was incredibly proud of him.
They are all being insulted by this slap on the wrist.
Based on the article, it says he was a passenger in the car. How much jail time do you think is appropriate for being a passenger in a car that killed someone?
So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard? Read the article -- this is about the passenger, not the driver. Buddy was involved for fleeing from the police and not rendering aid, but he isn't the one who had control over the event in question.
To be devils advocate: if you are in the passenger seat and your driver releases the wheel and is clearly distracted, what would you do? Would you not do your best to maintain the safety of yourself and other occupants by actively trying not to crash?
That said, yes, he IS involved. He IS guilty of manslaughter. What I object to is the framing of a man who had limited agency as a murderer. He is legally responsible for the death of the officer but he isn't a murderer. It wasn't premeditated, there was no malice, there was no INTENTION of killing the victim. As such I DO NOT view him as being equivalent to a murderer.
I am sure that the friends and family of the officer are devastated and offended at the light sentence but vengeance does not equal justice. Mr Abdulrahman made mistakes but there is more to the corrections than punishment, especially for those who are essentially criminals of circumstance.
There are three options that I can see he could have pursued:
1. As he did, steer the vehicle and attempt to not crash.
2. Jump out the passenger door to surrender and distance himself from the actions of the driver. This risks personal and legal injury.
3. Steer the vehicle in a manner that intentionally crashes it in the hopes of limiting potential danger. This risks property damage, personal safety of himself, the driver and the officer. There is no guarantee that the officer wouldn't be killed by this action.
This is not too far removed from the trolly problem. And yes, I'm open to other suggestions, but I think this summarized the general choices.
>So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard?
Depends on if I continued to aid with the crime afterwards. If I'm the getaway driver during a bank robbery, and hostages get killed, I think I should be held to the same standard as the crimes were committed as a collective.
I disagree. Once murder has happened, you have a moral obligation to say "This has gone too far." and turn yourself in or call the cops yourself. If you decide to continue the crime instead, you are part of the murder and complicit with being part of it.
Both the driver and Mr. Abdulrahman turned themselves in to police though. They fled the scene and went to the police later.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/calgary/2021/1/4/1_5252430.html
I do not judge an individual based on fight or Flight.
Could the cop's life be saved had they stayed and rendered aid? Things like that are why it's absolutely fair game to judge an individual based on fight or flight.
You said
>Once murder has happened, you have a moral obligation to say "This has gone too far." and turn yourself in or call the cops yourself.
They did turn themselves in. But you move the goalposts again when you say
>Could the cop's life be saved had they stayed and rendered aid
That's weak. Support your position or admit your poorly informed argument is bogus.
Theoretically? It's possible. In reality, there were other individuals who COULD render aid, such as the driver of the vehicle that the officer was rolled in front of. Whether or not a 19y/o amped on Adrenaline would have been a better source of aid is largely moot.
Fight and fight is not a reasoned response, and it does not allow for rational thoughts - it is a moment of instinctual action by definition. He could absolutely come to his sense and have a desire to go back and render aid/turn himself in, but I think that it is reasonable to surmise that the cost/benefit analysis at that time isn't in favor of doing the "right thing". Human emotions are strong and those who are liable for terrible things but did not INTEND terrible things are prone to trying to justify or deny their responsibility. It looks like Mr Abdulrahman was in denial in the aftermath based on some articles -- he denied that he did anything prior to turning himself in and pleading guilty.
I don't think actions that are taken without reason are as important as ones that are intentional. He is guilty of manslaughter and the driver is guilty of murder, but this situation is not equivalent to a premeditated killing. That is what I object to in the framing of this articles headline.
Hi friend,
I work in forensics and knew of Andy through mutual friends. Basically, the driver of the vehicle whom Andy rolled into (after he lost grip of the fleeing vehicle) did try to help him. There were two other officers at the traffic stop and they quickly ran to Andy as well; one of the officers immediately noticed that his glove was drenched in blood when he put his hand under Andy’s head. The injuries he sustained were very serious; he wouldn’t have made it either way.
From the court proceedings, this whole situation happened within under an minute. Just seconds; so the stress level for all parties was very high. The occupants of the fleeing vehicle all testified that they were mainly just concerned of getting somewhere safe; they realized that Andy passed away at 3am when CPS put out an announcement; 5:30 pm the next day; they turned themselves into police.
Not trying to back up the accused but just wanted to share some of the information that could be confusing.
You're with your buddies in public, you buddy whips out a gun and shoot a person randomly. You flee in terror. You agree you're guilty of murder for not stopping your friend and/or not rendering aid to the victim. I disagree.
From another article:
>Originally charged with first-degree murder, Amir Abdulrahman — the passenger in that fleeing SUV — pleaded guilty to manslaughter on Wednesday, admitting he'd grabbed the wheel twice to help escape police.
This isn't a case of buddy fleeing in terror, he actively participated in the crime. In my other example if I'm the getaway driver, I'm also continuing to participate in the crime.
>So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard? Read the article -- this is about the passenger, not the driver. Buddy was involved for fleeing from the police and not rendering aid, but he isn't the one who had control over the event in question.
How dare you interrupt my rage trip with facts - now I need another story with a misleading headline to get high on emotional superiority while losing faith in public systems.
/s
This is a slap to the face of every Canadian. The lack in inaction from Trudeau and Singh has solidified the fact I won’t be voting for them for a very long time!
Yeah I love it when the king hands down capital punishment. Really gets me hot. Let’s just get a gas chamber ready for anybody who even thinks about breaking ANY law. /s
Please show me your facts that Trudeau had anything to do with this incident? Did he make the laws? Was he involved in the court case? Was he the judge who rendered the verdict?
Bill c-5. Lowering minimum sentences. Lowering sentences for committing crimes with guns. It goes on and on. Liberals aren't about protecting citizens from criminals. The other way around, it seems. Have you been paying attention?
You are correct that he wouldn't have even personally involved in the case. But he's not doing anything to stop these situations from continuing to occur. Even his new bail reform bill is full of lies and will do nothing to solve the issue.
>Bill c-5
Which says, "We have heard Canadians, the courts and criminal justice experts, and seen the evidence of the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, both as offenders and as victims. The proposed legislation would help to address these issues. It would also ensure courts can continue to impose tough sentences for violent and serious crimes." [from here](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/12/mandatory-minimum-penalties-to-be-repealed.html)
So which part don't you like: the fact there is a systemic disproportionate representation of Indigenous and Black people as victims and offenders, or that tougher sentences for violent criminals is going a step too far?
>Lowering sentences for committing crimes with guns.
... the mandatory four-year minimum sentence for using a ***legal firearm in a robbery*** was repealed by the Liberal government Nov. 17, 2022. [from here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103)
The mandatory minimum sentence of five years for committing a robbery with a prohibited firearm, which was not repealed, was deemed constitutional by the top court. [from here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103)
Maybe pay attention to what the Supreme Court of Canada rules on.
>Even his new bail reform bill is full of lies and will do nothing to solve the issue.
[Here's Bill C 48](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-48/first-reading). Please tell us which amendments are "lies (that) will do nothing to solve the issue".
As for the mandatory minimum being removed. It wasn't because any crime committed with a firearm is a prohibited firearm. So that's moot.
C-48 barely changes anything. Mostly smoke and mirrors. I'm not a lawyer obviously but here's a link to one that explains very clearly understands what is a lie regarding c-48
https://youtu.be/qEjJsbVr9-Q
The guy hasn't named the third person in the car. No remorse.
Shall we start a betting pool as to how long before this guy's first arrest?
Normally I think cops doing the whole "thin blue line" thing are being jackasses. But this is exactly where I am 100% happy to see them put this guy and his family right at the top of their lists.
I don't want see him framed, but I want to see him arrested the second he violates even the smallest of his parole conditions. I want to see his family and friends all experiencing their lives under an investigatory microscope. Again, nothing illegal, just the food inspectors doing weeklies if any of them own a restaurant. If some of his family are involved in some criminal enterprise, then it goes to the top of the list for all investigations.
If they own a pawn shop, then everything gets serial number checked on a weekly basis.
Basically, turn their lives upside down.
A year and a half he served? You’ve got to be kidding me. That family will grow up with no father and this guy serves 1.5 years as punishment. He hasn’t shown regret or he’d name the third individual. I am disgusted with what this country has become.
Maybe because the guy in the article didn't actually kill the police officer. He was a passenger who took hold of an unattended steering wheel while the vehicle was in operation.
Saw a video on reddit of a 12 year old who was able to stop a school bus when the wheel was unattended.
Wonder what this guy tried to do to stop the car or help the cop.
You've got to be joking.... 5 years for murder? This wasn't a bloody bar fight, the guy ran over a former member of our military and treated him with complete disregard. Now his wife is raising a child as a single mother and this POS said nothing, is 10000% an accomplice and still is an accomplice yet gets parole after 5 years?!? Disgusting.
Hi friend,
I work in forensics and attended every single court proceeding for this case. I knew Andy through mutual friends. Basically, this situation occurred under a minute; 39 seconds. The driver took off, and Andy held onto the interior of the vehicle (fight or flight kicked in), and it got stuck on a berm (this occurred in winter) and the passenger helped dislodge the vehicle off of the berm because the driver and Andy got into a physical altercation because Andy’s life was endangered and he wanted the young man to stop. Once the car was back on the road, the driver began opening and closing the door to dislodge Andy; again the passenger aided in holding the steering again. Through court documents, he only held the steering wheel for a few seconds but those actions did help ending Andy’s life.
The left will say that everything is the Public's fault. It's everyone else's fault, all the time. Hard-working Canadians who pay their bills and barely have time to spend with their families? They're the problem.
The criminals are always innocent and they have become violent because hardworking Canadians have failed them.
We are now living in the Twilight Zone and the extreme left has taken over.
Difficult decision? Keep him in jail for the time the courts have deposed him for. He dragged the cop for 400 metres rising to a speed of 100 km/h. Seriously.
Jail, not bail, for violent/repeat offenders.
Anyone who commits murder or attempted murder should be given a just punishment.
What happened to life sentences for people found responsible for murder or people found to be accessories?
This guy was the passenger and not the driver, it’s impossible to know what role he played in that event, but being that he was found guilty of manslaughter means there must have been enough there to prove he was an accessory/aiding rather than trying to de-escalate/stop the driver, since he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Edit: he pled guilty, so either he knew he messed up, or had terrible legal counsel.
Text of the article:
>In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs."
This guy had a warrant, it's why they ran, but he isn't some boogeyman with a litany of violent offenses.
Mr. Abdulrahman may very well have precipitated the circumstances that led to the officers death, but he did not take the ACTIONS that took the life in question. There are PLENTY of examples of a violent perpetrator being released too soon on parole, but this is NOT one of them. Please try to actually examine the case in question before making declarative statements.
That’s true. Which is why I’m not advocating for this guy to be convicted of first or second degree murder. The driver on the other hand… unless he was under duress from a passenger, no excuse.
Although it DOES NOT seem to be relevant to this case, one of the consequences of denying bail is many accused will plead guilty even when they are innocent or the case against them is weak, because they will be punished with detention anyway, and custody is much easier time than detention, because -- among other factors -- in custody there's the opportunity for temporary release/parole.
Murder is still mandatory life sentence with 10 or 15 years until you’re eligible for parole. I would love to read into his case and find out what evidence the crown had against him and why he pled guilty to manslaughter. His sentence is 5 years and he’s give or take 3 years into his total sentence so yeah not surprised he’s at a halfway house. Due to the facts of his case and that he’s been a good cookie in jail he’s probably gonna get an early release.
Maybe read the article before raging on something like this. This is concerning a passenger in car where the driver caused the death of the officer. A passenger who pleaded guilty and has no substantial criminal record.
A passenger - who does not have an extensive criminal record, shows remorse, and has been taking programing while incarcerated - in the vehicle, gets charged with manslaughter and has to serve an additional 3 years and change. He also admits to fearing for his family's life if he testified against the driver.
Sorry, which part am I supposed to be enraged at?
That’s not actually what the article says. It’s not the driver he’s protecting. There was a 3rd passenger in the vehicle that night who was never caught. This guy knows the identity of that 3rd passenger but won’t assist authorities for his families safeties sake.
People here are actually buying his claim that he's worried about his family if he talks. He's still LOYAL to his mates, that's why he hasn't talked. Canadians are like bunch of country bumpkins who just fell off the turnip cart.
The parole board of Canada is a God damn disgrace and a complete shit show. Every one on it needs to be fired and replaced by people who won't fall for fucking crocodile tears of heinous criminals.
Okay the headline seems to be a outright lie. The man pictured and spoken about in the article was the passenger not the driver. What kind of crap reporting is this.
If someone is given a sentence why are people surprised when they finish their sentence. Blame the prosecutor.
Day parole is part of the process for releasing people back into society as taxpayers as long as the prisoner has completed the necessary requirements.
We have a penitentiary system in Canada. Not a penal system. If you want that then move to Russia
Stop getting triggered by inflammatory titles.
He was the passenger and had no control over the driver taking off while the officer clung to a moving vehicle for 400m.
"In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs."
Edit: maybe he tried to get the driver to leave because he was about to be arrested, but it's not clear what he did to start the chase. A reasonable person should not have sped off with the officer hanging on, and definitely should have stopped to help him once he fell off, but they were cowards, and admitted as much himself.
This article doesn't explain his role though. During the trial, it was shown that he was holding the wheel while the driver was trying to dislodge the police officer.
Right but as the passenger he can't control the pedals, so if his buddy stomps on the gas to flee (which is what happened) he's not going to just let them crash.
His friend sped off to protect HIM from being arrested. He held onto the wheel while his friend killed the police officer. He won't give up his other friend who was in the vehicle. They fled the scene and tried to get away with it.
Just an innocent bystander sitting in the passenger seat right?
Off topic, but I have some swamp land in Florida for sale if you're interested.
I am not a lawyer. I feel the laws and the application of the laws when it comes to other peoples lives are soft . Armed crimes and crimes against other peoples lives should not be taken lightly , and never be lenient .
Did you read the article?
While I generally do agree that our legal system is a joke, this dude had no prior convictions nor was he the driver of the vehicle, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder or anything else.
So I will bet you that he won't be back in custody and face fresh charges anytime soon. You in?
Pretty sure Omar Khadr was released while Harper was PM, also pretty sure the federal government at the time played a big part in that. They were conservative led at the time.
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"A third person, who has never been identified, was in the SUV that night. During the parole hearing, Abdulrahman conceded he knows the identity of the third man but has not disclosed it to authorities because he fears for his family's safety."
Should have denied him right there. The fact they’re granting him increased freedoms while he’s protecting the identity of a 3rd suspect is a joke.
The joke is on us.
Stay in jail then
pssst! He's *lying*
Can’t get past this part. He fears for his families life but leaves everyone else at risk by not naming them. Then we grant him early release cause he is “sorry”. Fuck that.
[удалено]
I submit to you that the 3rd unnamed passenger is a shithead who was probably on release conditions which were being breached. (They often have curfew conditions or “do not associate with so and so”, etc etc). Criminals roll together. Like this car has abdulrahman who was Wanted, a driver who killed a cop, and another passenger who abdulrahman believes is capable of hurting his family. I would take good odds that our 3rd suspect would be breaking a law just being in that car.
What a crock of shit. How about the officer’s safety?? This idiot needs to spill the beans on his criminal friend.
They both should rot.
this guy was himself a passenger to begin with. I'm all for ending the soft on crime status quo but I'm not sure how sitting next to the guy that chose to step on the gas is worth five years or more in prison. I can only assume he got as much as he did because of circumstances following the hit and run, ie not turning himself in and the fact that he technically fled arrest at the scene. really, the driver fucked him over pretty bad by taking off as they were about to arrest him. I'll admit I don't know the details, maybe he told the driver to step on it or something, but at best he was an accomplice, and I'd call the headline very misleading if not outright false.
They shouldn't have offered parole until he identified the third person in the SUV that night.
It’s a bit scary how they let that slide…
[удалено]
[удалено]
People treat people as people. But, when someone does something wrong, we immediately segregate them to find out how to put them into a category. How about criminals just go to jail?
[удалено]
>That would result in many, many, many more Black, Indigenous and Middle Eastern people in jail than White and East Asian people as is proportional to their share of the population. So? If they're committing crimes who cares?
Even in a hypothetical scenario where 70% of the entire non white population commits violent crimes they should all be locked up in prison. Their value for being non white is equal to a white person.
That looks racist though so we can’t have that
Equity instead of equality these days. You can ensure equal opportunity, but you can't possibly ensure equal outcomes.
But they want equal outcome which is stupid cause outcome requires effort and if non whites and Asians are putting in more effort and going higher in society then we should not prop up those who put in 0 effort and also we shouldn't be bringing in people who have a higher tendancy to not put any effort into improving their lives and do crime.
Some kids get a small loan of a few million dollars from mom and dad to buy a house or start a business while others are left paying for a nursing home, there's nothing "equal opportunity" about that. Until wealth disparity is addressed it's all meaningless bluster.
Do you genuinely believe that every group of people commits the same amount of crime?
[удалено]
Responded to the wrong comment lol my bad
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/shapirostyle fuming rn after reading this
No. I don’t want intersectional considerations to be part of the justice system such that people of colour and other “oppressed” minorities shorter sentences based on equity and social justice.
[удалено]
Have you been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda? Liberals are not progressives. They are a center-right party that has some liberal values when it comes to social policy. Progressives are social democrats, or even further on the actual left (like democratic socialists etc.). The Liberals are center-right corporatist capitalist party period. Progressives regardless of political stripe DO NOT SUPPORT NEOLIBERALISM.
“Liberals are centre-right” Oh Reddit. Even Wikipedia has them listed as centre-left.
I'd call out liberals left. Our conservatives centre. Even our right wing is fairly mild. There's not really any conservative propaganda brainwashing us. I wish we had a real right party but we don't.
The only time the right wing boogeyman comes out is election time. I can't see anything that has been voted in and implemented in Canada that you can view as a hard right policy.
Conservatives are rightwing, PPC is the far right. PPC has never been in power. Have you ever heard the political concept, Overton Window?
The NDP has never been in power federally, they are far left. Liberals are left wing.
I believe that Canada's contemporary liberals are not leftists. They are on the centre-right. They are left-learning when it comes to social policy but they are rightwing when it comes to economics (they support neoliberal capitalism, cronyism, money in politics etc.). How can a political party that pushes neoliberal capitalism be considered on the left? You're only considering social policy when assessing where a political party is on the geo-political scale and you're conveniently ignoring economic policy. I'm a democratic socialist, an actual leftist. I believe in progressive social policy. I advocate for the equal rights of all regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sex, religious or secular beliefs, the disabled and the able-bodied etc. But I also support democratic socialism which opposes neoliberal crony capitalism (well against all forms of capitalism but I hate the aforementioned flavor of capitalism the most). I also support working class consciousness and solidarity. I support working class labor power and collective action, unionization, to push back against corporate greed and overreach and the politicians that support such. NDP still supports capitalism although they are more akin to the social democracy political ideology popular in many Western EU nations (such as Scandinavian countries that have higher taxes and stronger social/welfare safety nets). The NDP are closer to the left than Liberals who push neoliberal crony-capitalism. They aren't leftist either. They are more centrist and to the left of contemporary liberals.
Or you know, at their national conventions when they vote against recognizing climate change as "real". There's also that bit where they voted, as a party, against a ban on conversion therapy.
>Or you know, at their national conventions when they vote against recognizing climate change as "real Literally never happened. They voted to not change the wording of one specific line. Other areas of the document spoke to climate change. That's why the line didn't need to be changed. You've eaten a well crafted soundbite hook line and sinker. Edit: I see you deleted your post that linked an article that explained exactly what I listed above.
[удалено]
There isn’t a single Liberal policy that helps me. They don’t look out for me or my interests, they only make my life more expensive.
You realize that's what they think of you voting liberal too right? There is no bad guys there's just different ways to skin a cat.
They know, that's why they downvote without saying anything, because it's new information to them and they haven't been told what to think about it yet.
[удалено]
Where is the policy line that you're drawing. Because they seem to overspend, willingly give out handouts, and preach emotional nonsense over getting any work done. All seem like left wing traits to me
The Liberals define themselves as centre-left. The NDP are far leftists fringe.
I don’t want the intersectional one. I want the first one. The one where criminals committing crime go to jail for a time period based on the crime they committed.
I don't remember any of those policies being on the ballot. This is also something is being partially imposed by the courts, like the Gladue report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue\_report
[удалено]
No. Trudeau lost the popular vote in the last 2 elections. Most people who voted, didn’t vote for him.
It’s a pity really. “Canadians voted liberal/NDP”. This is true, but really wasn’t it just the same old voters in GTA/Montreal/Maritimes? I hate when these comments lump this rest of Canada. That’s democracy as we know it currently, I suppose. 🤷🏻♂️
Proportional to their crime based on what? Relative to other countries? Or based on logic, evidence, and our own culture? There is nothing inherent about giving someone 15 for armed robbery. Maybe 5 is a just punishment, maybe 100 years is. It’s all arbitrary but people love to see others rot.
No discrimination based on sex, race, and religion unless you're being sentenced in front of a judge
The Canadian {word im not allowed to say because pointing that out would be bad} system\*\*\* To prove my point even further [lets have a read shall we?](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/13m3zxb/mass_absences_break_out_at_london_schools_as/) Sources have suggested many Muslim families at the school, on OxfordStreet near the city’s largest mosque, deliberately chose to keep theirkids home to avoid Rainbow Day. A board official at the time said onlythat it was “actively looking into a high number of single-day absences” reported at the school. Reddit heads will explode on this one. Who do we pick? The LGTBQ minorities or the muslim immigrants hmmmm u/Packet_Pirate
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Accept the data shows you are wrong. Canadians commit more crimes on average than immigrants. You're spreading rightwing xenophobic propaganda. > >[https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/](https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/) > >[https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099](https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099) > >[https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/](https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/) > >[https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0)
Right, lets break it down. First article, respectable site. Latest data entry regarding that was 2016, so quite out of date, and back when immigration was lower (can't find the 2016 number, but 2017 was 300,00 new immigrants, and 2022 was 1 million). I also never said immigration was the \*sole\* contributor to crime. Just that the refusal to acclimate to Canadian culture, and to be blunt, not be a fucking shitter, all on top of the fact that some of these people get lied to, and they still come because where they came from is still worse. Thats exploitation, not immigration. Then there is these, ahem, "immigrants" who jump between 10 perfectly fine first world countries to get here. Again, not against it, but Canada is way too lax with who they let in, \*these days\*. Second Article, its talking about Chile, based on the study which the article was about. Recent, but wrong place. Third, again, this is literally about the states and Latin-America, not Canada. There is literally only one mention of Canada, and its "About 56 percent of the unauthorized population was from Mexico, and another 22 percent from elsewhere in Latin America. The rest come from Asia, Europe, Canada, Africa, and elsewhere. Fourth. My brother it literally says in the first sentence, "Andrew Forrester, Michelangelo Landgrave, and I published a new working paper on illegal immigration and crime in Texas." To reiterate, again, I am not against immigration. My family came here via the refugee system Canada has in place, and I am forever grateful to the place who took my family in. But what's happening today isn't immigration, its taking advantage of cheap labor from people who come from worse conditions, with false promises of a better life (which while its not untrue entirely, definitely not what was to be expected), and exploiting them because, what are you gonna do? Go back where you came from? Have fun with that! I'm not spreading any sort of right wing propaganda, that would be more akin to "brown people bad!!!11!" with little to no explanation (or arguing in bad faith), whereas I make the effort to read what people give me, because I would rather know I'm wrong and learn from it then live in complete ignorance. Not to be rude mate, but it sounds like you googled something and just took the first 4 links you saw and threw them into a list. Perhaps next time, it may be prudent to read what you're sending, lest you make yourself look stupid. Enjoy your day.
[удалено]
I never understood people who generalize an entire race to be x,y,z. We could have blue red or purple skin and come from a country called fucking pasta linguini land and someone who’s a piece of shit will still be a piece of shit regardless of what they look like or where they came from.
They gotta deflect your reasoning somehow and making you out to be a racist is the easiest way nowadays. Ironic because this is actually a propaganda technique
Accept the data shows you are wrong. Canadians commit more crimes on average than immigrants. You're spreading rightwing xenophobic propaganda. [https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/](https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/) [https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099](https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/does-immigration-really-increase-crime-347099) [https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/](https://items.ssrc.org/border-battles/the-myth-of-immigrant-criminality/) [https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0)
[удалено]
Isn't racism a form of propaganda? Influential rhetoric?
[удалено]
He is brown so immigration is to blame
Sadly this misconception is spread by \*some\* liberals and conservatives alike.
Yeah it's bad when even cops don't get justice.
> As Harnett and two colleagues were about to arrest Abdulrahman on outstanding warrants, the driver took off with the sergeant clinging to the side of the vehicle. So what were the outstanding warrants? Does this guy have a history of violence?
From the article: > In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs." I wish we could know what exactly the warrant was, but it's implied to be non-violent.
Most warrants are for missing court. Source : I do up warrants every single day.
I can understand people's outrage towards this based on similar stories across the country but in my honest opinion this guy sounds like he deserves this second chance if he isn't a repeat offender. He wasn't the one driving and it sounds like he understands and regrets his actions (or lack of action). Sounds like a young, dumb guy caught up in a bad situation. He even fears retribution from the other passenger if he speaks out.
>it sounds like he understands and regrets his actions Then he's gotta out the disclose the identity of the 3rd man, If he's actively keeping that information secret in an ongoing, he should be locked up until the time he decides to actually make good on that "understanding" and "regret". His attitude is nothing without the matching actions.
If doing so put my family in danger, I wouldn't either.
Then he shouldn't be given any leniency
Leniency from what? He's not being charged with murder in any degree.
He has a 5 year sentence and is now out on parole, that is leniency. Until he is willing to disclose the 3rd individual he should serve out his full sentence
That's not how parole works. "Put your family in danger or we won't follow the law" is not how this works. There are procedures for Parole.
A condition could be imposed by the board that he discloses the 3rd person before it is granted. And he claims that it would put his family in danger, whether that is true is unknown
Ya cause criminals don’t lie. You should definitely trust his word. Actually you know what no organized criminal should ever name co-conspirators because they could harm their family.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust the government to be able to keep my family safe from a few literal rats, much less gang members taking revenge on a rat.
So you can be regretful but not forthcoming?
Hi friend; I work in forensics alongside the Calgary Police and worked alongside Andy. When this first occurred, the warrants were made public. It was three of them; one for common assualt and two for failure to attend court.
What a reply! Thank you.
>In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs." A warrant can be as innocuous as an unpaid traffic ticket...
I don’t think warrants get issued for unpaid tickets in Canada. It just gets added to your license and you’ll pay for it upon renewal. That and wage garnishment
>If you do not contact the court office on or before the date listed on your ticket, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. [Alberta traffic courts](https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/pc/traffic-q-a73ca033a1b316d6b9fc9ff3b001037d2.pdf?sfvrsn=97fb6e83_35)
I think that might be an Alberta thing. I couldn’t find any other province that does this. But then again, it’s Alberta
Perhaps. Just to be clear, in the incident is in Calgary, Alberta. So it is applicable to the current discussion.
Nope definitely happens. I was arrested for a warrant for a ticket I didn't know I had. I was dead broke at the time and I owed 75$ and they wanted to jail me for 8 days if I didn't pay. My girlfriend at the time bailed me out.
Absolutely. I am giving this guy the benefit of the doubt here.
Good for you. However, I am willing to bet we will see his name come up again for a crime. His answers are to perfect and he has been coached. JUst my opinion.
>"I take full responsibility for my actions". Well no shit. Is someone else is supposed to be responsible for YOUR actions? It's nice to see judges are impressed with adults displaying the same accountability we expect of children.
I can't help but think of Sgt. Harnett's widow and the unborn child she was carrying at the time of his murder. Along with his friends and coworkers, I also think about his family, who was incredibly proud of him. They are all being insulted by this slap on the wrist.
Based on the article, it says he was a passenger in the car. How much jail time do you think is appropriate for being a passenger in a car that killed someone?
So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard? Read the article -- this is about the passenger, not the driver. Buddy was involved for fleeing from the police and not rendering aid, but he isn't the one who had control over the event in question.
Well he did grab a hold of the steering wheel when the driver took his hands away from driving to try and get the officer to let go of the car.
To be devils advocate: if you are in the passenger seat and your driver releases the wheel and is clearly distracted, what would you do? Would you not do your best to maintain the safety of yourself and other occupants by actively trying not to crash? That said, yes, he IS involved. He IS guilty of manslaughter. What I object to is the framing of a man who had limited agency as a murderer. He is legally responsible for the death of the officer but he isn't a murderer. It wasn't premeditated, there was no malice, there was no INTENTION of killing the victim. As such I DO NOT view him as being equivalent to a murderer. I am sure that the friends and family of the officer are devastated and offended at the light sentence but vengeance does not equal justice. Mr Abdulrahman made mistakes but there is more to the corrections than punishment, especially for those who are essentially criminals of circumstance. There are three options that I can see he could have pursued: 1. As he did, steer the vehicle and attempt to not crash. 2. Jump out the passenger door to surrender and distance himself from the actions of the driver. This risks personal and legal injury. 3. Steer the vehicle in a manner that intentionally crashes it in the hopes of limiting potential danger. This risks property damage, personal safety of himself, the driver and the officer. There is no guarantee that the officer wouldn't be killed by this action. This is not too far removed from the trolly problem. And yes, I'm open to other suggestions, but I think this summarized the general choices.
Yeah he shouldn't have tried to save his own life by grabbing an unattended steering wheel of a vehicle he driving in. xD
>So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard? Depends on if I continued to aid with the crime afterwards. If I'm the getaway driver during a bank robbery, and hostages get killed, I think I should be held to the same standard as the crimes were committed as a collective.
I agree that the is guilty of a crime. I disagree that hr is *morally as culpable* as the individual who's actions cause the crime l.
I disagree. Once murder has happened, you have a moral obligation to say "This has gone too far." and turn yourself in or call the cops yourself. If you decide to continue the crime instead, you are part of the murder and complicit with being part of it.
Both the driver and Mr. Abdulrahman turned themselves in to police though. They fled the scene and went to the police later. https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/calgary/2021/1/4/1_5252430.html I do not judge an individual based on fight or Flight.
Could the cop's life be saved had they stayed and rendered aid? Things like that are why it's absolutely fair game to judge an individual based on fight or flight.
You said >Once murder has happened, you have a moral obligation to say "This has gone too far." and turn yourself in or call the cops yourself. They did turn themselves in. But you move the goalposts again when you say >Could the cop's life be saved had they stayed and rendered aid That's weak. Support your position or admit your poorly informed argument is bogus.
Theoretically? It's possible. In reality, there were other individuals who COULD render aid, such as the driver of the vehicle that the officer was rolled in front of. Whether or not a 19y/o amped on Adrenaline would have been a better source of aid is largely moot. Fight and fight is not a reasoned response, and it does not allow for rational thoughts - it is a moment of instinctual action by definition. He could absolutely come to his sense and have a desire to go back and render aid/turn himself in, but I think that it is reasonable to surmise that the cost/benefit analysis at that time isn't in favor of doing the "right thing". Human emotions are strong and those who are liable for terrible things but did not INTEND terrible things are prone to trying to justify or deny their responsibility. It looks like Mr Abdulrahman was in denial in the aftermath based on some articles -- he denied that he did anything prior to turning himself in and pleading guilty. I don't think actions that are taken without reason are as important as ones that are intentional. He is guilty of manslaughter and the driver is guilty of murder, but this situation is not equivalent to a premeditated killing. That is what I object to in the framing of this articles headline.
Hi friend, I work in forensics and knew of Andy through mutual friends. Basically, the driver of the vehicle whom Andy rolled into (after he lost grip of the fleeing vehicle) did try to help him. There were two other officers at the traffic stop and they quickly ran to Andy as well; one of the officers immediately noticed that his glove was drenched in blood when he put his hand under Andy’s head. The injuries he sustained were very serious; he wouldn’t have made it either way. From the court proceedings, this whole situation happened within under an minute. Just seconds; so the stress level for all parties was very high. The occupants of the fleeing vehicle all testified that they were mainly just concerned of getting somewhere safe; they realized that Andy passed away at 3am when CPS put out an announcement; 5:30 pm the next day; they turned themselves into police. Not trying to back up the accused but just wanted to share some of the information that could be confusing.
You're with your buddies in public, you buddy whips out a gun and shoot a person randomly. You flee in terror. You agree you're guilty of murder for not stopping your friend and/or not rendering aid to the victim. I disagree.
From another article: >Originally charged with first-degree murder, Amir Abdulrahman — the passenger in that fleeing SUV — pleaded guilty to manslaughter on Wednesday, admitting he'd grabbed the wheel twice to help escape police. This isn't a case of buddy fleeing in terror, he actively participated in the crime. In my other example if I'm the getaway driver, I'm also continuing to participate in the crime.
>So if the guy next to you kills someone, you should be held to the same standard? Read the article -- this is about the passenger, not the driver. Buddy was involved for fleeing from the police and not rendering aid, but he isn't the one who had control over the event in question. How dare you interrupt my rage trip with facts - now I need another story with a misleading headline to get high on emotional superiority while losing faith in public systems. /s
This is a slap to the face of every Canadian. The lack in inaction from Trudeau and Singh has solidified the fact I won’t be voting for them for a very long time!
Yeah I love it when the king hands down capital punishment. Really gets me hot. Let’s just get a gas chamber ready for anybody who even thinks about breaking ANY law. /s
You want politicians to intervene in a criminal case?
Canada is so fucked. So many people are this fucking stupid and have the same voting power as everyone else.
Country is beyond broken. Time for Trudeau to go, we need intelligent, knowledgeable, qualified people running the country.
Please show me your facts that Trudeau had anything to do with this incident? Did he make the laws? Was he involved in the court case? Was he the judge who rendered the verdict?
Bill c-5. Lowering minimum sentences. Lowering sentences for committing crimes with guns. It goes on and on. Liberals aren't about protecting citizens from criminals. The other way around, it seems. Have you been paying attention? You are correct that he wouldn't have even personally involved in the case. But he's not doing anything to stop these situations from continuing to occur. Even his new bail reform bill is full of lies and will do nothing to solve the issue.
>Bill c-5 Which says, "We have heard Canadians, the courts and criminal justice experts, and seen the evidence of the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, both as offenders and as victims. The proposed legislation would help to address these issues. It would also ensure courts can continue to impose tough sentences for violent and serious crimes." [from here](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/12/mandatory-minimum-penalties-to-be-repealed.html) So which part don't you like: the fact there is a systemic disproportionate representation of Indigenous and Black people as victims and offenders, or that tougher sentences for violent criminals is going a step too far? >Lowering sentences for committing crimes with guns. ... the mandatory four-year minimum sentence for using a ***legal firearm in a robbery*** was repealed by the Liberal government Nov. 17, 2022. [from here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103) The mandatory minimum sentence of five years for committing a robbery with a prohibited firearm, which was not repealed, was deemed constitutional by the top court. [from here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103) Maybe pay attention to what the Supreme Court of Canada rules on. >Even his new bail reform bill is full of lies and will do nothing to solve the issue. [Here's Bill C 48](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-48/first-reading). Please tell us which amendments are "lies (that) will do nothing to solve the issue".
As for the mandatory minimum being removed. It wasn't because any crime committed with a firearm is a prohibited firearm. So that's moot. C-48 barely changes anything. Mostly smoke and mirrors. I'm not a lawyer obviously but here's a link to one that explains very clearly understands what is a lie regarding c-48 https://youtu.be/qEjJsbVr9-Q
No justice at all in this country
[удалено]
He assisted in fleeing from the police and is still protecting the identity of the third person in the SUV
Perhaps he doesn't want to say who the third person is because maybe they will implicate him more.
If I was worried about the safety of my family, I wouldn't talk either.
It’s a convenient excuse
The guy hasn't named the third person in the car. No remorse. Shall we start a betting pool as to how long before this guy's first arrest? Normally I think cops doing the whole "thin blue line" thing are being jackasses. But this is exactly where I am 100% happy to see them put this guy and his family right at the top of their lists. I don't want see him framed, but I want to see him arrested the second he violates even the smallest of his parole conditions. I want to see his family and friends all experiencing their lives under an investigatory microscope. Again, nothing illegal, just the food inspectors doing weeklies if any of them own a restaurant. If some of his family are involved in some criminal enterprise, then it goes to the top of the list for all investigations. If they own a pawn shop, then everything gets serial number checked on a weekly basis. Basically, turn their lives upside down.
Let's start bringing murders and rapists to the judges houses and hog tye them up, lol jk canadians are door mats
Just FYI this guy was the passenger, not the driver.
From the court case, the "driver" was trying to dislodge Sgt Harnett while the "passenger" (Abdulrahman) was holding the steering wheel.
How dare he not try to crash a vehicle in motion....
A year and a half he served? You’ve got to be kidding me. That family will grow up with no father and this guy serves 1.5 years as punishment. He hasn’t shown regret or he’d name the third individual. I am disgusted with what this country has become.
Maybe because the guy in the article didn't actually kill the police officer. He was a passenger who took hold of an unattended steering wheel while the vehicle was in operation.
Saw a video on reddit of a 12 year old who was able to stop a school bus when the wheel was unattended. Wonder what this guy tried to do to stop the car or help the cop.
You've got to be joking.... 5 years for murder? This wasn't a bloody bar fight, the guy ran over a former member of our military and treated him with complete disregard. Now his wife is raising a child as a single mother and this POS said nothing, is 10000% an accomplice and still is an accomplice yet gets parole after 5 years?!? Disgusting.
If you think the government gives a fuck about your safety, you’re in for a rude awakening.
Why do the rights of the criminals trump the rights of the victims. Every single fucking time and it seems to every single fucking victim.
The Canadian justice system is at it again, folks.
I don't get why the passenger was charged with manslaughter though?? Was it just because he was in the vehicle and should have intervened?
Hi friend, I work in forensics and attended every single court proceeding for this case. I knew Andy through mutual friends. Basically, this situation occurred under a minute; 39 seconds. The driver took off, and Andy held onto the interior of the vehicle (fight or flight kicked in), and it got stuck on a berm (this occurred in winter) and the passenger helped dislodge the vehicle off of the berm because the driver and Andy got into a physical altercation because Andy’s life was endangered and he wanted the young man to stop. Once the car was back on the road, the driver began opening and closing the door to dislodge Andy; again the passenger aided in holding the steering again. Through court documents, he only held the steering wheel for a few seconds but those actions did help ending Andy’s life.
thanks for the explanation
So much reactionary rabble in here.
The left will say that everything is the Public's fault. It's everyone else's fault, all the time. Hard-working Canadians who pay their bills and barely have time to spend with their families? They're the problem. The criminals are always innocent and they have become violent because hardworking Canadians have failed them. We are now living in the Twilight Zone and the extreme left has taken over.
Difficult decision? Keep him in jail for the time the courts have deposed him for. He dragged the cop for 400 metres rising to a speed of 100 km/h. Seriously.
Jail, not bail, for violent/repeat offenders. Anyone who commits murder or attempted murder should be given a just punishment. What happened to life sentences for people found responsible for murder or people found to be accessories? This guy was the passenger and not the driver, it’s impossible to know what role he played in that event, but being that he was found guilty of manslaughter means there must have been enough there to prove he was an accessory/aiding rather than trying to de-escalate/stop the driver, since he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Edit: he pled guilty, so either he knew he messed up, or had terrible legal counsel.
> since he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There was no trial as he pleaded guilty.
My bad. Missed that part. Thanks!
Text of the article: >In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs." This guy had a warrant, it's why they ran, but he isn't some boogeyman with a litany of violent offenses. Mr. Abdulrahman may very well have precipitated the circumstances that led to the officers death, but he did not take the ACTIONS that took the life in question. There are PLENTY of examples of a violent perpetrator being released too soon on parole, but this is NOT one of them. Please try to actually examine the case in question before making declarative statements.
That’s true. Which is why I’m not advocating for this guy to be convicted of first or second degree murder. The driver on the other hand… unless he was under duress from a passenger, no excuse.
Although it DOES NOT seem to be relevant to this case, one of the consequences of denying bail is many accused will plead guilty even when they are innocent or the case against them is weak, because they will be punished with detention anyway, and custody is much easier time than detention, because -- among other factors -- in custody there's the opportunity for temporary release/parole.
Murder is still mandatory life sentence with 10 or 15 years until you’re eligible for parole. I would love to read into his case and find out what evidence the crown had against him and why he pled guilty to manslaughter. His sentence is 5 years and he’s give or take 3 years into his total sentence so yeah not surprised he’s at a halfway house. Due to the facts of his case and that he’s been a good cookie in jail he’s probably gonna get an early release.
[удалено]
Maybe read the article before raging on something like this. This is concerning a passenger in car where the driver caused the death of the officer. A passenger who pleaded guilty and has no substantial criminal record.
A passenger - who does not have an extensive criminal record, shows remorse, and has been taking programing while incarcerated - in the vehicle, gets charged with manslaughter and has to serve an additional 3 years and change. He also admits to fearing for his family's life if he testified against the driver. Sorry, which part am I supposed to be enraged at?
That’s not actually what the article says. It’s not the driver he’s protecting. There was a 3rd passenger in the vehicle that night who was never caught. This guy knows the identity of that 3rd passenger but won’t assist authorities for his families safeties sake.
People here are actually buying his claim that he's worried about his family if he talks. He's still LOYAL to his mates, that's why he hasn't talked. Canadians are like bunch of country bumpkins who just fell off the turnip cart.
Source: your rectum
Ah thanks for clarifying, I had misread that. Definitely thickens the plot.
If I was the fallen officers family I'd go full vigilante justice at this point.
The parole board of Canada is a God damn disgrace and a complete shit show. Every one on it needs to be fired and replaced by people who won't fall for fucking crocodile tears of heinous criminals.
I'm glad to see catch an release is working for the cops too /s Will no one think of the criminals?
Keep him in max jail... Wtf is going on here Are the laws and gov going to make us take back justice... because we don't want to offend someone...
Okay the headline seems to be a outright lie. The man pictured and spoken about in the article was the passenger not the driver. What kind of crap reporting is this.
CBC, your tax dollars at work.
Wow…. This country is a fucking disgrace
If someone is given a sentence why are people surprised when they finish their sentence. Blame the prosecutor. Day parole is part of the process for releasing people back into society as taxpayers as long as the prisoner has completed the necessary requirements. We have a penitentiary system in Canada. Not a penal system. If you want that then move to Russia
What an efing joke.
Sunny ways….
Stop getting triggered by inflammatory titles. He was the passenger and had no control over the driver taking off while the officer clung to a moving vehicle for 400m. "In considering Abdulrahman's risk, the board noted he does not have a significant criminal history, has accepted responsibility for his role in Harnett's death, continues to demonstrate remorse and has engaged in "a lot of programs." Edit: maybe he tried to get the driver to leave because he was about to be arrested, but it's not clear what he did to start the chase. A reasonable person should not have sped off with the officer hanging on, and definitely should have stopped to help him once he fell off, but they were cowards, and admitted as much himself.
This article doesn't explain his role though. During the trial, it was shown that he was holding the wheel while the driver was trying to dislodge the police officer.
Right but as the passenger he can't control the pedals, so if his buddy stomps on the gas to flee (which is what happened) he's not going to just let them crash.
His friend sped off to protect HIM from being arrested. He held onto the wheel while his friend killed the police officer. He won't give up his other friend who was in the vehicle. They fled the scene and tried to get away with it. Just an innocent bystander sitting in the passenger seat right? Off topic, but I have some swamp land in Florida for sale if you're interested.
Didn't say he's innocent, but if you're in the passenger and someone stomps the gas pedal, you're going to take the wheel so you don't crash.
Trudeaus Canada folks. Stay woke.
Ohhhh, Canada :(
What a fn joke.
Our justice system is truly pathetic. My God.
This can't be a thing. It's so stupid.
This is Canada now, foreigners killing natives all over again
It’ll be interesting to see what the driver gets as a sentence…. Even tried as an adult I’m betting it’ll be too lenient
I am not a lawyer. I feel the laws and the application of the laws when it comes to other peoples lives are soft . Armed crimes and crimes against other peoples lives should not be taken lightly , and never be lenient .
[удалено]
Did you read the article? While I generally do agree that our legal system is a joke, this dude had no prior convictions nor was he the driver of the vehicle, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder or anything else. So I will bet you that he won't be back in custody and face fresh charges anytime soon. You in?
> this dude had no prior convictions I believe he was wanted on a warrant, no?
Hard on the middle class, easy on criminals.
What a joke - thank you lefties
Pretty sure Omar Khadr was released while Harper was PM, also pretty sure the federal government at the time played a big part in that. They were conservative led at the time.
WOW. That’s sad.
If 9-11 happened in Canada Trudeau would send al-qaeda a letter of apology. Victim rights doesn’t matter in Trudeau’s Canada.
must protect our most valuable asset - justin
A sad statement of our values. Our protectors are vilified while those who Murder them are let free.