Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Aquittal of Basil Parasiril and Wife in Shooting of Officer


Recommended Posts

Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying

He was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Const. Daniel Tessier, who died after being shot three times last spring after he entered Parasiris's Brossard home with a battering ram during a botched drug raid.

Indeed - one which the warrants were invalid, one in which there was bad blood already between officer Tessier - all around a BS situation.

I don't know about the rest of you here, but if someone were to break down my front door at 5 am, not announce they were cops, I too would come out swinging (and if I had a gun - shooting).

Good on the jury! Good on the court!

Justice was served!

The cops should learn a lesson here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Beyond the verdict, it is useful to remember that Mr. Parasiris had four firearms in his home and only one was legally registered," Gariepy told a news conference Friday night. "We found a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in the home."

I'll buy the mistaken identity plea, he obviously thought he was being attacked by other gangsters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying

Indeed - one which the warrants were invalid, one in which there was bad blood already between officer Tessier - all around a BS situation.

I don't know about the rest of you here, but if someone were to break down my front door at 5 am, not announce they were cops, I too would come out swinging (and if I had a gun - shooting).

Good on the jury! Good on the court!

Justice was served!

The cops should learn a lesson here.

Why am I not surprised that Buffy's heros are cop-killing drug dealers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
And of course that was why he kept four firearms in his home. :ph34r:

And according to the article, only one gun was legally registered, so I have to wonder whether he faced charges over that.

As for the verdict, the charge was first degree murder. I'm having a difficult time understanding why they charged him with "first degree," unless that doesn't mean pre-meditated in Canada (?). Obviously he wouldn't have pre-meditated killing the officer under the circumstances, so it stands to reason he'd have to have been found not guilty of first degree murder, but I wonder if a charge of manslaughter would have brought a guilty verdict; and I also wonder if the officer was killed with the one legally registered gun or if he was shot with one of the other three.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
I don't know about the rest of you here, but if someone were to break down my front door at 5 am, not announce they were cops, I too would come out swinging (and if I had a gun - shooting).

I don't know about you, but if I had "a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in [my] home," I might wonder if that "someone" were a cop. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the circumstances I also have to question if first degree murder was an appropriate charge but one police officer is shot dead and another injured by a drug dealing low life and Buffy is having an orgasm. Nuff said.

Edited by Wilber
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Considering the circumstances I also have to question if first degree murder was an appropriate charge but one police officer is shot dead and another injured by a drug dealing low life and Buffy is having an orgasm. Nuff said.

I sure don't understand why this would be a case for cheering that the 'system works;' I think it's one of those 'too bad the system got in the way of justice' situations. I agree with the verdict as I can't see how Parasiril could possibly be convicted of first degree murder, but I sure am not happy that it had to go down that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering the circumstances I also have to question if first degree murder was an appropriate charge but one police officer is shot dead and another injured by a drug dealing low life and Buffy is having an orgasm. Nuff said.

That's pretty ignorant.

I would like to see the dealer brought up on drug and gun related charges and the book thrown at him. He should have been charged with manslaughter but the jury could have found him guilty of that even though charged with first degree (am I right about this?). I don't want to see a gun society here like they have in other countries but I don't like to see the cops get away with illegalities that one equates with undemocratic countries either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
He should have been charged with manslaughter but the jury could have found him guilty of that even though charged with first degree (am I right about this?).

Yes, I see that you are right about that. link

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's pretty ignorant.

I would like to see the dealer brought up on drug and gun related charges and the book thrown at him. He should have been charged with manslaughter but the jury could have found him guilty of that even though charged with first degree (am I right about this?). I don't want to see a gun society here like they have in other countries but I don't like to see the cops get away with illegalities that one equates with undemocratic countries either.

Your opinion but I stand by mine. There is a dead police officer here, shot by a drug dealer. Do you think that is appropriate? Buffy seems to think so. You may question the procedure used in this case but they were entering the residence of a known drug dealer who was known to have at least one firearm on the premises. Turns out there were three more. Officers run the same kind of risk every time they go to a residence on a domestic dispute or approach a car for a traffic violation. They don't really know who or what is waiting for them.

I don't believe prosecutors are allowed first, second and third choices when they charge someone and juries can only rule on what is put in front of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe prosecutors are allowed first, second and third choices when they charge someone and juries can only rule on what is put in front of them.

Yes they are and, yes, juries can rule a lesser conviction.

As for the rest of it, Buffy doesn't seem to be cheering a police officer's death. She is cheering that police aren't allowed to rampage regardless of who the person is. There have been instances in the past where the police enter an innocent house and deaths, injuries and trauma have resulted. Police have too much power as it is and when they use that power illegally, well, there just is a problem. If all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, fine but that is not the case here.

I'm sorry for the policeman's death. I'm sorry for the Mayerthorpe policemen's deaths. There is a price to be paid I guess for stupidity, bad judgement and lack of procedure regardless of who you are and what you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does no one think it is significant that the man's wife and children were also in the house during the raid? Can you say that a criminal does not have an equal right to protect his family as everyone else? Furthermore, do you think it is likely you are going to turn a bust into a firefight if that means your family could be harmed?

I certainly think it is wrong to cheer about someone being acquitted of killing a police officer under questionable circumstances, but there is something else here to address:

I am rather uncomfortable with the notion that when someone becomes a police officer, that their life is suddenly more valuable than others from some perspectives. I think you have to make a distinction a between people who deliberately murder police officers because they are police officers, and people who murder people for reasons that are unrelated to their job, and people who kill police officers without the intent. Cop-killer has a very strong connotation, and it should be reserved for people in the first category, those who are guilty of first degree murder (guilty in the sense that they actually did it, not guilty in the convicted sense). Absolutely people who fit that description should have the book thrown at them, because they are to some extent commiting two crimes: murdering the uniform and murdering the person who wears it. But a justice system that is harder on people who commit the latter two types or crimes than they would be on people who commit them against people who do not happen to be police officers is no system of justice at all.

Maybe this guy is a cop-killer who got off. But maybe that he got off (of first degree murder) means he is not a cop-killer. I realize that some people are going to always assume the worst about criminals in every single aspect of what they do, but I think that there is a very strong chance that either he thought it was someone coming to kill him and his family, or that his reaction is do to that in the heat of the moment he was unwilling to take a chance (a life or death chance) that it was not.

Absolutely he should be (or should have been) hammered on the drug and weapons related offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
....Buffy doesn't seem to be cheering a police officer's death. She is cheering that police aren't allowed to rampage regardless of who the person is.

I'm not so sure about that, and this is the reason why:

I don't know about the rest of you here, but if someone were to break down my front door at 5 am, not announce they were cops, I too would come out swinging (and if I had a gun - shooting).

Buffy is comparing Parasiril to "the rest of [us] here" as if he is completely innocent and would have no more reason than the rest of us to consider that the someone breaking into his house could be the police. Again, if I had "a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in [my] home," I would wonder if that "someone" breaking into my house were a cop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Maybe this guy is a cop-killer who got off. But maybe that he got off (of first degree murder) means he is not a cop-killer.

It should be made clear that he not only got off of first degree murder, but he also got off on second degree murder and manslaughter.

He did, as you mentioned, have his wife and children in the home; which means he had his wife and children in the home with "a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers" along with one registered and three unregistered guns. Do you think he wasn't endangering their lives by his activities/choices?

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a war-hawk who cannot brook any criticism of your reason d etre.

You don't know what a war hawk is, and I can't imagine what that has to do with this thread anyway.

Are you on drugs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does no one think it is significant that the man's wife and children were also in the house during the raid? Can you say that a criminal does not have an equal right to protect his family as everyone else? Furthermore, do you think it is likely you are going to turn a bust into a firefight if that means your family could be harmed?

Sure. Happens all the time, all over the world. Drug dealers are scum, vermin. They will put anyone at risk at the drop of a hat.

I am rather uncomfortable with the notion that when someone becomes a police officer, that their life is suddenly more valuable than others from some perspectives.

It's certainly more valuable than that of a drug dealer, or whatever crack whore lives with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, if I had "a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in [my] home," I would wonder if that "someone" breaking into my house were a cop.

Probably not. In Canada we have built a system where drug dealers fear each other far more than the police. That is why so many of them are armed to the teeth. Their chances of getting shot by a cop are minuscule in comparison. It would be interesting to see what kind of verdict might have come down if this guy had shot another drug dealer instead of a police officer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am rather uncomfortable with the notion that when someone becomes a police officer, that their life is suddenly more valuable than others from some perspectives.

Because they are, without them you would have to fight off the scum of the earth by yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't know what a war hawk is, and I can't imagine what that has to do with this thread anyway.

You do support prohibition don't you, the elephant in this story and thread?

Are you on drugs?

No, I'm on beer. Legally purchased through the government's dealer. I didn't see any guns anywhere, presumably the liquor store folks don't need to worry about home invasions or turf wars with gangs of beer and wine store clerks, bootleggers or police. Not like they might have in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you not read the rest of my post, Wilber? If someone kills a cop in a bar fight, why is it worse than if someone killed your father in a bar fight?

If someone kills a cop in a bar fight when he is in the process of carrrying out his duty, that is not the same as someone who gets in a bar fight and gets himself killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came back to add " off-duty " , but I see you got here first. So, are you agreeing that there is no difference between a drunk off-duty cop who gets himself killed in a bar fight and any other drunk who gets himself killed in a bar fight? That was the whole point I was trying to argue before.

But I am sure some would treat it as if there were a difference, even if logically there is not.

Edited by Remiel
Link to post
Share on other sites
I just came back to add " off-duty " , but I see you got here first. So, are you agreeing that there is no difference between a drunk off-duty cop who gets himself killed in a bar fight and any other drunk who gets himself killed in a bar fight? That was the whole point I was trying to argue before.

But I am sure some would treat it as if there were a difference, even if logically there is not.

Yes I would agree. There is a lot of information missing in this link. Was the officer killed responsible for getting the warrant and planning the raid or was he just a cop doing his job? This is a question the cop haters don't bother to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...