[Newsbot]

Title: Anti-abortion sniper won't face justice in Canada
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: wildrosegirl
Date: 2010-08-08 19:10:21
Canadian

[Bacardi4206]

Of all the money our government throws at Natives, Quebec seperatists or w/e dumbass bullshit comes there way. This is one case where they should have poneyed up the cash.

[GreenTiger]

Well, the next time money is offered the Canadian offer will not be taken at its word which is not good.

[Brenda]

Bureaucratic bullshit. Pay the man already!

[jenkins]

This is crazy. Whether or not the doctors want him prosecuted is irrelevant. The reward money was rightfully earned!

[Brenda]

jenkins jenkins:

This is crazy. Whether or not the doctors want him prosecuted is irrelevant. The reward money was rightfully earned!

Since when can victims decide whether their attackers will be prosecuted anyway??

[hurley_108]

If the shooter is serving a sentence having been convicted of murder in the US, why would we seek to remove him from that incarceration to maybe serve time here on a lesser crime? That doesn't make any sense whether or not there's a reward involved.

If the shooter's appeals were successful, then he could be broght up here and charged and maybe convicted and then the guy could get his money.

Attaching the "upon conviction" condition to the reward only makes sense so as to not be paying out massive amounts of money on potentially bad "information."

What happens the next time there's a large reward offered and information gathered that does not lead to a conviction? Do we jusy say "hey, your info wasn't enough, but here's a sack of dough anyways"?

Cases that span multiple jurisdictions are always messy and the outcome is always a compromise.

[hurley_108]

Brenda Brenda:

jenkins jenkins:

This is crazy. Whether or not the doctors want him prosecuted is irrelevant. The reward money was rightfully earned!

Since when can victims decide whether their attackers will be prosecuted anyway??

Either all crimes must be prosecuted, which is just an untenable situation that would lead to utter gridlock in the courts, or someone has to choose - victim or prosecutor. In this case, both the Canadian victims and Canadian prosecutors are satisfied.

[Brenda]

$1:

What happens the next time there's a large reward offered and information gathered that does not lead to a conviction? Do we jusy say "hey, your info wasn't enough, but here's a sack of dough anyways"?

Because an error in the court doesn't mean the guy didn't do his job...

[hurley_108]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

What happens the next time there's a large reward offered and information gathered that does not lead to a conviction? Do we jusy say "hey, your info wasn't enough, but here's a sack of dough anyways"?

Because an error in the court doesn't mean the guy didn't do his job...

Who's to say the court is or is not in error?

[Brenda]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

What happens the next time there's a large reward offered and information gathered that does not lead to a conviction? Do we jusy say "hey, your info wasn't enough, but here's a sack of dough anyways"?

Because an error in the court doesn't mean the guy didn't do his job...

Who's to say the court is or is not in error?

I don't mean necessarily this case, but when a perp is brought in, and a reward was set for doing so, and then the court dismisses the case because of an administrative error, the perp walks free, then the bountyhunter doesnt get paid.
So, basicly, in answer to your question, that is the judges call.

Another thing is, if a bounty is set on someone, and it turns out the guy was innocent (and I mean "had nothing to do with it, plain innocent"), the mistake was made by the bounty setter, but again, doesn't mean the hunter didn't do his job.

[hurley_108]

Brenda Brenda:

I don't mean necessarily this case, but when a perp is brought in, and a reward was set for doing so, and then the court dismisses the case because of an administrative error, the perp walks free, then the bountyhunter doesnt get paid.
So, basicly, in answer to your question, that is the judges call.

There are any number of reasons a conviction may not be reached.

$1:

Another thing is, if a bounty is set on someone, and it turns out the guy was innocent (and I mean "had nothing to do with it, plain innocent"), the mistake was made by the bounty setter, but again, doesn't mean the hunter didn't do his job.

His job was to produce evidence that would lead to a conviction. Is it a bit weasely that the Canadian side is exploiting a loophole, yes. But there are precedents and procedures that gude these decisions, and they are there to ensure that the interity of the system is maintained.

[Brenda]

$1:

His job was to produce evidence that would lead to a conviction.

I don't agree with that (based on this part of the story...)

$1:

The FBI and Canadian police had formed a cross-border task force -- now essentially dormant -- to hunt down Kopp. Their wanted poster identified Kopp as a "person of interest" in the shootings of the Canadians, and offered the $547,000 reward for any information that led to an arrest and conviction for those crimes.

He doesn't have to provide the evidence, but just "any information that will lead to an arrest and conviction".

*edited for messed up quoting

[hurley_108]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

His job was to produce evidence that would lead to a conviction.

I don't agree with that (based on this part of the story...)

$1:

The FBI and Canadian police had formed a cross-border task force -- now essentially dormant -- to hunt down Kopp. Their wanted poster identified Kopp as a "person of interest" in the shootings of the Canadians, and offered the $547,000 reward for any information that led to an arrest and conviction for those crimes.

He doesn't have to provide the evidence, but just "any information that will lead to an arrest and conviction".

*edited for messed up quoting

Yea, no conviction in Canada means no money from Canada.