Yosef Gopaul in court over slaying of B.C. hockey mom Julie Paskall

Maybe his non-halal chocolate set him off.

He must be misunderstood or something.

He should only get 60 days plus 2 years probation. After all I'm sure he didn't to kill Julie Paskall

Oh, God, another idiot who can't see the difference between a couple of slaps that don't leave a mark and beating somebody to a bloody pulp with a rock. Sure is good we don't elect our judges here.

Yeah some idiots feel it's okay to slap a 13 year old girl hard enough that with two slaps you kill her. Those idiots think a slap on the wrist sentence is okay. You can slap a woman/girl around just don't leave marks on her and it's just fine by them.

Oh God, another idiot who can't see there's no difference. Dead is dead and assault is a crime, period.
The simple fact is, genius, both of these deaths resulted from the committing of a crime. Unless you're going to argue that a full grown man slapping his 13 yr. old daughter around isn't assault.

Let's put things in perspective here. Impaired driving causing death has a 14 yr maximum sentence. Rarely is there intent to cause harm, it's just stupidity on the driver's part. Accidentally discharging a weapon and killing someone has a MINIMUM sentence of 4 years. No intent to cause harm there either. But assaulting someone and accidentally killing them merely deserves a slap on the wrist in your messed up little world.

And rarely does anybody get the maximum for impaired driving.

Manslaughter, as I've already so patiently explained to stratos, has a sentencing range of probation to life in prison. That's because it's recognized that there can be very different levels of culpability for the same charge. So judges, not being idiots, sentence on that range. Beat your wife to a bloody pulp, you'll get a stiffer sentence than if you slapped your daughter twice, not hard enough to leave a mark. Judges understand the difference, idiots don't.

Don't agree with the minimum sentence for accidentally discharging a weapon. Probably be ignored by judges, just as the 3 year min for illegal gun possession was recently. All depends on culpability.

And for drinking and driving, the person may not have intent, but it's entirely foreseeable that they might kill somebody. It's reckless disregard for the other's safety. Not the case in the slapping incident. Neither foreseeable nor intentional.

Ah but AndyT you missed, as normal the point, and once again you feel the need to lecture someone far more knowledgeable on the matter then you. Least you forget I have worked in the legal community for over 25yrs. The point you missed and still are missing is a facet of many things. One everyone condemned the actions of the slapper and any one who beats their wife and or kills. Yet you, even with prodding's, never condemned the man for slapping his daughter. You even agreed that he probably grew up in such an environment so knew what the slap could do. You have had number of chances to condemn the slapper just as much as you condemned the guy that beat his wife to death. You failed to do so and hide behind the there was no marks left.

Yet here you are once again saying there is a difference. Now please explain the difference between the victims. Because all are dead by the actions of others. Seems your big issue is with blood and or marks. I say this in all earnestness any one can kill someone with out leaving a mark. I've seen it a number of times. The marks left are under the skin where no one sees till an autopsy is done.

I'm so glad you feel that just because no marks are left this proves no intent to harm and or kill was meant. Every death by suffocation then shall be deemed as a non intent to kill and 60days in jail should be what the sentence is in such cases. All poisonings shall fall under the same category. Don't forget beating to death with an object that leaves no visible marks (to numerous to list). Oh and if you use the brachial(SP?) stun at the wrong angle and or to much force and kill the person the same ruling will be given because as you feel that only by leaving marks is it provable the intent to harm.

Ah but AndyT you missed, as normal the point, and once again you feel the need to lecture someone far more knowledgeable on the matter then you. Least you forget I have worked in the legal community for over 25yrs. The point you missed and still are missing is a facet of many things. One everyone condemned the actions of the slapper and any one who beats their wife and or kills. Yet you, even with prodding's, never condemned the man for slapping his daughter. You even agreed that he probably grew up in such an environment so knew what the slap could do. You have had number of chances to condemn the slapper just as much as you condemned the guy that beat his wife to death. You failed to do so and hide behind the there was no marks left.

Yet here you are once again saying there is a difference. Now please explain the difference between the victims. Because all are dead by the actions of others. Seems your big issue is with blood and or marks. I say this in all earnestness any one can kill someone with out leaving a mark. I've seen it a number of times. The marks left are under the skin where no one sees till an autopsy is done.

I'm so glad you feel that just because no marks are left this proves no intent to harm and or kill was meant. Every death by suffocation then shall be deemed as a non intent to kill and 60days in jail should be what the sentence is in such cases. All poisonings shall fall under the same category. Don't forget beating to death with an object that leaves no visible marks (to numerous to list). Oh and if you use the brachial(SP?) stun at the wrong angle and or to much force and kill the person the same ruling will be given because as you feel that only by leaving marks is it provable the intent to harm.

He still won't get it.

No, you don't get it. The issue is with intent and what can reasonably foreseen. And both Canada's and the US's laws reflect that. It's why we have manslaughter and first deg and second deg murder.

As for condemning these people, one is deserving of much more condemnation than the other. One made a mistake, the other caused serious harm intentionally. So you can try to lump these two as being equivalent, but they're not, and the law recognizes that. Well, maybe not US law that would give 30 years to a woman for having sex with a 16yr old, so I don't know about the US. Canada, anyway. Good for us.

You can claim to be in law enforcement, but thank God they don't let you anywhere near the sentencing part.

Agreeing with the sentence is my condemnation. Somebody who deserves no condemnation deserves to be found innocent. The judge also, specifically gave the man some jail time to condemn what he did.