"While in custody on this charge, Mr. Scott attempted an intentional overdose which resulted in him being in an induced coma for some weeks in hospital. In his statement to the family of Mr. Hartl and the court, he described his shame and guilt over the offence which contributed to his intentional overdose, and inability to live with himself over what he had done." Very sad.
Vancouver is Awesome is reporting that "A B.C. Supreme Court judge has sentenced a man to eight years in prison for manslaughter in the 2022 shooting death of a Surrey man. Darren Scott, 42, pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a firearm Feb. 1 in the death of Christopher Hartl. With credit for 1,121 day in custody, Scott has a further four years and 340 days in jail." Statutory release is after 2/3 of the sentence has been served. He has just over two years left.
"In passing sentence April 17, Justice Barbara Norell said Hartl was 48 and had suffered from a disability. He used mobility aids to walk any significant distance. Norell said Hartl lived with his girlfriend and that both were dependant on narcotics. 'Mr. Hartl and Mr. Scott knew each other because Mr. Scott sold drugs to Mr. Hartl,' Norell said." They guy was disabled.
He shot him in the chest for a drug debt and gets 8 years. That is f*cked up. He said he was going to shoot him in the leg but shot him in the chest. He lied about his intent. This is yet another example of the predatory nature of drug dealers. Who do you think he was working for? Who do you think owned the bag of guns? Remember the Surrey House of Horrors? This guy has a long history of firearm offenses. I guess criminals don't obey firearm bans.
8 years for 1st degree murder is a joke.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. It was a plea deal for manslaughter but he shot him in the chest.
DeleteCrown Counsel and the Judge both must be brain dead to offer or accept manslaughter for murder one.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It's not like Crown was going to have a hard time proving their case. He shot the guy in the chest. That was part of the Agreed Statement of Facts.
DeleteI hear what you’re saying, but the defence argument would be yes, he shot him In the chest. However, he didn’t mean to kill him. Think if the victim had survived it wouldn’t be attempted murder charge, it would be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
ReplyDeleteIf he didn't mean to kill him he wouldn't have shot him in the chest.
DeleteDebatable. After reading the article the accused had consumed drugs, and only fired one shot. Had he fired more than one shot then I’d agree with you. As he could have shot him in the head, he also could have shot him in the leg and the victim still may have died. Either way though it’s a senseless killing.
DeleteI agree the intent is arguable and that the defense would have presented an argument that may or may not have been accepted by the court. If he shot him in the leg then the non lethal claim would have been more believable. The IRA used to kneecap people as a form of discipline all the time.
DeleteIf the victim really did curl up into the fetal position that would have made shooting him in the leg difficult but shooting someone once in the chest IMO carries a lethal intent. That is the argument I would present and the judge may or may not accept that argument.
8 years for murder less statutory release is shameful. Yet there are other cases where the crown didn't even lay charges simply because the judge might have ruled self defense. Jamie Kehoe and Kyle Yellowbird are two examples. IMO not even laying charges in those cases because the judge may or may not have accepted the argument is shameful. Especially when you see how much time and money the crown spends on gang murder investigations. No one cares when a drug dealer gets shot.
I'm not keen on long prison sentences but 8 years for killing a disabled person by shooting them. There needs to be a bit more time to think about his actions or at least keep him off the streets. As I understand it people are given credit for time awaiting trial if they're in jail and they serve only a portion of their sentence before statatory release. 15 years might have been more appropriate. The victim certainly could not be said to be a threat to the murderer.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter where he shot him, he killed him, can't see this as a manslaughter case oh, well such is the lack of a justice system. Don't know what we can refer to it as, but a justice system, wrong name.
He should have been hanged.
ReplyDeleteI've never been comfortable with anyone's life's value being measured in years. To steal that from them and only have to spend a few years in prison, then to be released, what justice is there truly in that? This was first degree murder, deserving of the death penalty. You take a life, you forfeit your own. Very simple.
ReplyDeleteYeah I don't know. It's a sensitive and passionate subject. All I know is 8 years less statutory release for murder isn't right.
Delete