Cop killer says he had to act

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheeBadOne

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,217
Location
Nemo sine vitio est
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
 
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)....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
fuzzy.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
hold the phone

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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).
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top