[TheeBadOne]

Pleads self-defence in highway shooting

Stéphane Boucher said it was either kill or be killed.

Testifying yesterday in his trial for the first-degree murder of a Montreal police officer, he said Constable Benoît L'Écuyer shot at him first - he had no choice but to shoot back.

"Anyone else would have done the same," Boucher, 26, told the jury yesterday, with a constable standing just behind the witness stand at all times.

"He had shot at me twice. Was I supposed to wait for him to shoot at me a third time and kill me?"

Boucher's testimony follows that of eight witnesses.

All eight said they saw him gun down L'Écuyer on eastbound Highway 40 on Feb. 28, 2002. Only one of them, retired engineer Raymond Crevier, said he saw L'Écuyer fire two shots first.

The defendant testified yesterday he was on his way to commit an armed robbery that morning with the two passengers in his car - one a drug dealer, the other a prostitute. Having stopped to steal a car for the getaway, Boucher spotted police approaching him.

Despite being only 24 at the time, Boucher had a long list of convictions, mainly for armed robbery, the court heard, and he was on probation from his latest conviction in June 2001. He was sure there was an arrest warrant out for him because he hadn't respected his parole conditions, he said, so he did not want to be stopped.

The real problem, however, was the loaded revolver tucked under his belt.

At first he looked for a side street to drop off the gun, he said. But after he had lost a wheel in the ensuing car chase, and the police had forced him to the side of the road, he took off on foot, thinking he would throw the gun in the field on the other side of the highway.

He didn't expect police to run after him through rush-hour traffic, he said.

So when he heard what sounded like a first shot above the noise of traffic, he didn't pay it much mind, concentrating more on not getting hit by a car. A second shot, and the "burning sensation" in his hand that he said was caused by a grazing bullet, made him conscious of being shot at.

Boucher said he took out his gun, turned and was surprised to see L'Écuyer about eight metres away.

L'Écuyer had a gun at his side and was about to raise it, Boucher said, so Boucher fired two or three bullets. L'Écuyer bent forward, then prepared to shoot again, Boucher said, so he fired his remaining bullets, for a total of six.

Forensic evidence showed L'Écuyer was shot four or five times. The fatal bullet pierced his lung and heart.

"I thought he wanted to kill me," Boucher testified. "I didn't have time to think. I didn't want to die."

Crown prosecutor Raymond Chénier asked Boucher why he didn't just give himself up - when the police intercepted the car, for instance. "I wanted to get rid of the gun first," Boucher repeated.

And why, Chénier continued, didn't he give himself up when he heard shots, or simply drop his gun when he turned around and found L'Écuyer not far away? "If I had, I wouldn't be here today," Boucher said.

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=989F56D9-7D7C-4DB2-B910-6113E98A677E

[winstonsmith]

"If I had, I wouldn't be here today," Boucher said.


Boo friggin hoo. Poor criminal.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Stéphane Boucher couldn't have had a gun. Canada's tough gun laws forbid it.

Anyone wanna bet he is NOT being charged with the 20 or violations of the Canada Gun Control act that he must have committed? On gun charges alone he could end up in prison for well over 50 years.

Nah, just murder. Punishable by life in prison, which is really 25 years, which turns into 14 years or so....

Okay, so I am a bit bitter about the Canadian goverment's insistence on not going hard after violent offenders (who use a gun)....

[MuzzleBlast]

The wrong guy got capped.

[LiquidTension]

The wrong guy died here. On the other hand, what if what the guy is saying is true? He does have a witness to back him up. If the police start shooting at me, you'd better believe I'm gonna shoot back - criminal or no. Better judged by twelve.... Of course, I wouldn't be running around committing armed robbery, either. Hopefully this guy will get to experience a close, intimate, extremely personal relationship with a very large man in prison.

[Futo Inu]

Well, if it was in the US, it wouldn't matter whether he acted in self-defense. It's still felony-murder, as he was on his way to commit a felony, and someone got killed. That's murder, even if stipulated to be in self-defense.

[TheeBadOne]

Boucher's testimony follows that of eight witnesses.

All eight said they saw him gun down L'Écuyer on eastbound Highway 40 on Feb. 28, 2002. Only one of them, retired engineer Raymond Crevier, said he saw L'Écuyer fire two shots first.

[Daniel T]

Well, if it was in the US, it wouldn't matter whether he acted in self-defense. It's still felony-murder, as he was on his way to commit a felony, and someone got killed. That's murder, even if stipulated to be in self-defense.

Well, probably. However, some states, like Texas, have laws that allow you to defend yourself against excessive force by peace officers. I doubt it would apply in this situation, and would be hellishly hard to prove even if it did.

[Quartus]

Hmm. 6 DIDN'T see it, which does not mean it didn't happen - it means they didn't see it. Don't know where they were. One witness DID see it.


Conclusion?


The officer probably fired first. Don't know what Canada's laws are on that, so can't say if he acted legally. Be that as it may...


L'Écuyer had a gun at his side

Oops. Fatal mistake.



I don't have a problem hanging this scumbag for being a scumbag, and I don't have a problem with hanging him for shooting this cop, but I DO have a problem with changing the meaning of words to suit the political need to get tough convictions. This garbage has been brougt on as a response to lenient judges letting criminals have a free ride for too long. It's certainly true that things needed to be changed, but I think this cure is worse than the disease. (And it doesn't cure the real problem!)

Premeditated murder is just that - premeditated. Just because someone is in the process of (or on their way to) committing a felony doesn't make any deaths that result premeditated. (Yes, I know - LEGALLY it does in many places.) It may be criminal negligence, and it may be second degree murder, but it's not premeditated murder.


But I don't buy self defense, either. He knew it was a cop - all he had to do was stop.

[TheeBadOne]

Hmm. 6 DIDN'T see it, which does not mean it didn't happen - it means they didn't see it. Don't know where they were. One witness DID see it. (don't know where he was either...)


Conclusion?


The officer probably fired first. Don't know what Canada's laws are on that, so can't say if he acted legally. Be that as it may...

http://www.teccentral.de/reviews/mainboard/msi/kt3_ultra-aru/fuzzy.jpg

[chevrofreak]

I have often thought about something similar happening. What if a cop sees that I am armed? What if he over-reacts and tries to shoot me? What am I supposed to do then? I think I would probably shoot back.

I understand that this situation is different.

[cordex]

Not sure what inspired the officer to fire first if he did. Did he know that Boucher was armed? He claims not to have drawn until after the officer fired first, but who knows what really went down.
Might have been trigger happy officer. They aren't perfect. Regardless, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for Boucher.

TheeBadOne,
We don't know what the other witnesses said they saw. All we know is that one witness says that he saw the officer shoot first which agrees with the story the killer is telling. The others may have contradicted him, or may not have seen it in the first place (which I find more likely, because I tend to believe that they'd report if most people had claimed the shooter was lying). Need more information, but it isn't to silly to consider that the Constable might have fired first.

[Henry Bowman]

I'm not cheering for the BG, but I question the LEO's observation of Rule #4.

[Don Galt]

Right guy got capped.

There is no moral justification for shooting at someone who is running away. How is he presenting a threat?

Its a sad state of affairs that moral relativism has taken hold of this country to the point that people on this forum assume cops are above the law and should be free to murder while the people they murder have no rights.

This guy defended himself from murder just as anybody else would... and he is in the moral right here.

Whether he defended himself against a cop, or a criminal, whether he is a cop or a criminal, self defense is a moral right.

The fact that it was cop shooting him is irrelevant... the fact that he'd committed acrime in the past is irrelevant. And to the person saying he should be prosecuted for having a gun-- how can you oppose the RKBA and post to this forum??? All gun laws are immoral. All of them.

That cop attempted murder and was stopped.

[Standing Wolf]

The defendant testified yesterday he was on his way to commit an armed robbery that morning with the two passengers in his car - one a drug dealer, the other a prostitute. Having stopped to steal a car for the getaway, Boucher spotted police approaching him.

Eureka! I believe I've located the source of the problem.

[Matt G]

That cop attempted murder and was stopped.

And we know this because..... how?

Oh, that's right-- we're taking the word of a convicted criminal who admits that he was stealing a car and was on his way to commit an armed robbery, and was on trial for MURDER. That's a good source.

He's got another witness stating the cop fired twice first. Could it be, that the cop fired two shots upon seeing the fleeing criminal drawing a gun? Possibly?

But no, we'll take the word of the admitted armed robber. That makes sense.

:rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

We know this because all the witnesses testify the guy was running away.

Someone shooting at a person running away is attempting to commit murder.

Even if he had gun in hand (Which according to the article, he didn't) he was running away.... not posing a threat.

ITs unfortunate that you ignore the facts, and all you hear is that the guy getting shot was a cop. Well, the cop was the criminal in this situation.

[cordex]

Even if he had gun in hand (Which according to the article, he didn't) he was running away.... not posing a threat.
Not posing a direct threat to the officer, perhaps. Any chance maybe he could pose a threat to the drivers on the road? Maybe shoot someone and take their car? Cop may well have been shooting to protect others. I don't know.

And neither do you.

[Don Galt]

Speculation on your part does not justify murder.

And, while I wasn't there, I'm basing my opinions on the article that was posted.

Its unfortunate how desperate people will try to justify a cop killing an innocent person.

Hell, in my city it happens about once a month. Guy thinking of killing himself? Murdered by cops to stop him??!!?

Guy walking down the street with a sword? Murdered by cops. Hmmm he wasn't waving the sword or anything, yet he was a threat?

Two cops even got in a shoot out because one thought the other was an imposter. Somethign like 20 shots fired, but both came away uninjured.

Well, I wonder how much concern they were showing for the public in that crowded street when they decided to shoot it out? Fortunately incompetance saved life and limb that day.

Guy running away with a gun tucked in his belt? Oh yeah, the cop had to shoot him because the gun might have jumped out and shot somebody all by itself!

:rolleyes:

[TheeBadOne]

origonally posted by: Don Galt

ITs unfortunate that you ignore the facts......
Hold the horses! What "facts"? This info is from a NEWSPAPER article. If you want facts read the official police/court reports and talk to everyone involved.

Also, it's kind of convenient how you believe the one witness who said they think the cop fired 1st and ignore the vast majority who said the perp fired 1st. Even the perp Boucher's story has a funny smell when he gets to this part..."Boucher said he took out his gun, turned and was surprised to see L'Écuyer about eight metres away.

L'Écuyer had a gun at his side and was about to raise it, Boucher said, so Boucher fired two or three bullets. L'Écuyer bent forward, then prepared to shoot again, Boucher said, so he fired his remaining bullets, for a total of six." .................The aledged shooting cop had his hand down by his side.

[Don Galt]

The witnesses did not say the cop didn't fire first... they said they didn't see it. We have two people who say the cop fired first, and nobody saying he didn't.

That's the facts.

And of course, you ignore the fact that this guy was running away when he was fired at.

How is it justifiable for the cop to fire at him when he's running away?

Come on, cops murder people all the time. Once a month in my town, and they get away with it-- even the most blatent of murders "Well, he had a gun to his head and were were afraid he was going to kill himself, so we shot him".

Even if the cop hadn't fired his gun, pulling it on someone is a clear threat.

[TheeBadOne]

How is it justifiable for the cop to fire at him when he's running away?
Totally justifiable if the perp represents a danger to the community if not apprehended immediately. It's clear by the rest of your last post you think that all shootings done by Law Enforcement are bad.
You must really live in hell on earth of the cops are killing someone (or "murdering, as you call it) once a month! Where pray tell is this?

1st off the cop can have his gun out and can point it the bad guy due to what transpired.

2nd, even the perp himself said the cops gun was down by his side.

3rd, you are apparently too biased to reason with.

All the best

TBO

[Don Galt]

Ah, by that logic, if I think you are a danger to the community, I have the right to pull a gun on you?

You are apparently too worshipful of authority to recognize that all humans have basic rights, including the right to self defense.

You pull a gun on me, when I've done nothing-- it doesn't matter what clothes you are wearing-- you are the criminal.

No bias needed. Just straight logic.

[TheeBadOne]

No, the dangerous label is created by ACTIONS that a REASONABLE person would agree to.
Ah, by that logic, if I think you are a danger to the community, I have the right to pull a gun on you?
No, because you are not a reasonable person (no criteria mentioned for coming to that conclusion).

[LawDog]

Don Galt,

Waht city do you live in?

If you won't give me the city name, give me link to the local newspaper.

I want to take a look at these cases you cite.

LawDog

[Matt G]

We know this because all the witnesses testify the guy was running away.And of course, you ignore the fact that this guy was running away when he was fired at.All the witnesses?
From the article: Boucher's testimony follows that of eight witnesses.

All eight said they saw him gun down L'Écuyer on eastbound Highway 40 on Feb. 28, 2002. Only one of them, retired engineer Raymond Crevier, said he saw L'Écuyer fire two shots first.
Perhaps you're referring to sources that I've not seen or heard? Or perhaps, just maybe, you're inferring things NOT stated, due to your own personal presuppositions? ["Come on, cops murder people all the time. Once a month in my town, and they get away with it-- even the most blatent of murders 'Well, he had a gun to his head and were were afraid he was going to kill himself, so we shot him'." ]

Look, I don't always fall in lockstep with TheeBadOne-- he'll tell you. But I certainly do find the word of an admitted armed robber to be far more suspect than the cop he killed. Consider what this man is admitting: that, for money or drugs or whatever gain he can get, he points a loaded gun at a person and threatens them with murder unless they give him what he's after. That's the part he admits to. Do you really believe a little light-runnin' perjury is beneath him?!? :confused:

[Tamara]

You pull a gun on me, when I've done nothing--

...nothing, that is, other than try to steal a car for this afternoon's armed robbery, then display or go for a gun when confronted over it. :uhoh:

[tyme]

Of course the guy's not a saint. But the way I read the article, he hadn't stolen a car yet. He merely got in his car and fled when police approached (for some unknown reason). Fleeing in a vehicle might be a bad idea and may endanger people. He should have just run on foot.

Why are all the LEO apologists ignoring the presumably upstanding retired engineer? Or do retired engineers like defending carjackers who commit armed robbery? There are other issues here. Just because the cop fired first doesn't mean it wasn't a good shoot, and saying the cop didn't shoot first seems rather weak given the uninvolved witness saying he did.

[rock jock]

Apparently, Don's criteria for a justified shoot to protect yourself or the lives of others is having the barrel of a gun in your ear with the hammer/striker in forward motion. Anything less than that is pure assumption on your part. Afterall, you can't be sure the BG is going to pull the trigger until he actually has, right Don?

[TheeBadOne]

To be fair I just don't think Don really understands about legal aspects such as "Justifiable Use of Force", "Deadly Force", "Use of Force", etc, and thus comes across as he does. Each state varies but heres some general definitions. I've provided these examples to hopefully enlighten him.

All the best

TBO

Authorized use of force.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public
officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public
officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting
another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and
delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the
other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another
to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or
personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful
possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful
interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to
retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a
charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other
lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful
authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in
the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil,
or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger
who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of
passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the
passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or
mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when
used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with
reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or
treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing
custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to
compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control,
conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have
announced their presence and are performing official duties at a
location where a person is committing a crime or an act that
would be a crime if committed by an adult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justifiable taking of life.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not
authorized by section, except when necessary in resisting
or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes
exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or
preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of
abode.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers.

Subdivision 1. Deadly force defined. For the
purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the
actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor
should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a
firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions
and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties,
in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which
another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.
"Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to
stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to
a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in sections.

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the
provisions of sections, the use of deadly force
by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when
necessary:

(1) To protect the peace officer or another from apparent
death or great bodily harm;

(2) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable
grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to
believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the
officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or
great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dangerous weapon. "Dangerous weapon" means
any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed
as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm,
any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or
instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be
used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily
harm, or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily
harm.

As used in this subdivision, "flammable liquid" means any
liquid having a flash point below 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch
(absolute) at 100 degrees Fahrenheit but does not include
intoxicating liquor as defined in sections. As used in
this subdivision, "combustible liquid" is a liquid having a
flash point at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bodily harm. "Bodily harm" means physical
pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial
bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but
substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but
substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm"
means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death,
or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes
a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Assault. "Assault" is:

(1) An act done with intent to cause fear in another of
immediate bodily harm or death; or

(2) The intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict
bodily harm upon another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

[BluesBear]

Lawdog,

Don is from somehere in the Seattle area (almost makes me ashamed to live here too). :(

KOMO (ABC)
KING (NBC)
KIRO (CBS)
are the local TV stations.

Seattle Times
Post Intelligencer
are the local newspapers.

He has some of the facts straight in his rant.. er, um, posts but not nearly all.
:rolleyes:

[TheeBadOne]

....and upon further reflection I think the biggest problem is his taking things out of context, not looking at the totality of the circimstances, but freezing and picking pieces appart. Look at the ENTIRE situation.

TBO

[Orthonym]

I almost, but not quite, wish we had had some of those nasty surveillance cameras watching the whole thing.

[Matt G]

Boucher said he took out his gun, turned and was surprised to see L'Écuyer about eight metres away.

Every bit of this hinges on whether we believe that the gun was only removed from his belt after he was shot at, and that L'Écuyer had not seen the gun prior to that. Recall that Boucher was running through traffic. Did L'Écuyer believe that Boucher was about to highjack a car? (certainly it would have been within Boucher's capacity. He was, after all, an admitted armed robber and car thief.)

Consider that the witnesses would likely have more focused their attention on the uniformed police officer running through traffic than the punk in street clothes darting through traffic. It would hardly have been surprising that they might have missed Boucher pulling a gun prior to the uniformed officer firing his own.

We haven't seen the first bit of testimony (other than the armed robber's) that Boucher had not drawn his gun until after being shot at. Indeed, the way the story is written, it's really kind of vague as to exactly when that pistol got drawn.

Getting off the first shot does not necessarily make you the bad guy. If so, Marshal Dillon would have been one of the worst villains in the the old cow operas. Shooting at a felon who draws a gun is not attempted murder-- it's good policework. Unfortunately, Constable L'Écuyer missed.

Claiming self defense when the State has a murderer dead to rights (so to speak) is hardly a new defense. Mr. Boucher has been caught murdering an officer that was attempting to bring him to justice. He is looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, and is making a desperate attempt to get out of this. He is admitting to conspiracy to to commit major felonies, in an attempt to throw off the most egregious one that he is accused of. Why does ANYONE trust his word on any of this? :confused:


All this said, and from the scant details of the article, is it possible that L'Écuyer, over-excited in chasing a bad guy, shot before he should have...? Yep. I doubt it, but it's possible. Certainly. But you're taking the reported word of Boucher to that point.

I don't know the first thing about Constable L'Écuyer. He could have been a pillar of his community, or he may have been a first-class weasal. I don't know. And neither, do I suspect, does anyone else here. All we know about him is that he was held accountable as a Constable, carrying a warrant card and a shield. We do, however, know a little sumpin' about Mr. Boucher. Mr. Boucher, we know, will steal, and threaten with murder to get what he wants. We know there was a dirty deed done here. Occum's Razor shows that Mr. Boucher is the one who did it.

[TheeBadOne]

Well thought out, well balanced, well reasoned post.

(of course now you've set the bar higher, it'll be harder for the rest of us to get over.... ;)