西安殺人滅口大學生遭處決 西安市, 被告人, 死刑

Lik

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/inews/20110607/ca21315p.htm

西安殺人滅口大學生遭處決 (13:15)



經最高人民法院核准，撞車後殺人滅口的西安大學生藥家鑫，今日在陜西省西安市被依法執行死刑。

2011年4月22日，陜西省西安市中級人民法院以故意殺人罪判處被告人藥家鑫死刑，剝奪政治權利終身。

宣判後，藥家鑫提出上訴。陜西省人民檢察院認為該案事實清楚，證據充分，建議二審駁回上訴，維持原判。

陜西省高級人民法院經依法審理，於5月20日依法作出裁定，駁回藥家鑫上訴，維持原判，並依法報請最高人民法院核準。

最高人民法院經覆核認為，被告人藥家鑫開車撞倒被害人張妙後，又持刀將張妙殺死，其行為構成故意殺人罪。藥家鑫僅因交通肇事將被害人撞倒後，為逃避責任殺人滅口，持尖刀朝被害人胸、腹、背部等處連續捅刺數刀，將被害人當場殺死，其犯罪動機極其卑劣，手段特別殘忍，情節特別惡劣，後果特別嚴重，屬罪行極其嚴重。

2010年10月20日晚，西安音樂學院大三學生、21歲的藥家鑫駕駛紅色雪佛蘭小轎車行駛到西北大學長安校區西圍牆外時，撞上前方同向騎電動車的張妙，藥家鑫下車查看，發現張妙倒地呻吟，因怕張妙看到其車牌號，以後找麻煩，便產生殺人滅口的念頭，遂從隨身背包中取出一把尖刀，上前對倒地的被害人張妙連捅6刀，致張妙當場死亡。

殺人後，藥家鑫駕車逃離現場，車行至翰林路郭南村口時再次將兩行人撞傷，後交警大隊郭杜中隊將肇事車輛暫扣待處理。

法院指出，藥家鑫在作案後第四天由其父母帶領到公安機關投案，如實供述犯罪事實，構成自首，但不足以從輕處罰。

第一審判決、第二審裁定認定的事實清楚，證據確實、充分，定罪準確，量刑適當，審判程序合法，故依法作出核准死刑的裁定。

西安市中級人民法院今日上午在宣告上述裁定後，對藥家鑫執行了死刑。

rockypath

仆街，

話你唔撚識野就即係唔撚識野。

早就話咗條友係應該用條重嘅罪來告佢，但你就響度借啲易想擾亂視聽 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-6-10 00:16

仆街，

Just get your gut out to answer my question directly – what did you base on to determine 李啟銘’s action is a murder according to the Canadian criminal code - murder is a culpable homicide with SPECIFIC INTENTIONS? Don’t tell us you based on – “我爸是李剛”!   

Just remind you the moron again – it was you who told us these two cases are 同類案件. Will you admit that or not?   

If you don’t STFU, so we will continue watching you – a pitiful clown tried to entertained people but failed. Sorry for you.   


P.S.   BTW, just a little education to you the stupid moron, 量刑 and 定罪 are two different concepts. Even if the 量刑 of these cases are the same, but the 定罪 will absolutely not be the same (there is no way these two cases can be 同類案件). Get that straight first before embarrassing yourself again publically in front of LYKs.   

Be a man instead of a dog. Just answer my question directly instead of continuing to BS.

P.S. #2   I left a little tail above and let's see whether the stupid moron Lik will bite the bait or not.  

Lik

仆街，

話你唔撚識野就即係唔撚識野。

First, regardless of what the guy said or whether he was regretful for his behaviours or not, the judge can only convict according to the type of crime the guy committed and consequences caused by his action, but not by what he said!  

早就話咗條友係應該用條重嘅罪來告佢，但你就響度借啲易想擾亂視聽，將矛頭指響刑罰係 depend on 被告果條罪。正一死仆街！

Second, if you want to make a statement – these two cases are the same type and they all committed the same degree of crime and should serve the same level of punishment. Then you need to prove these two cases are both – 故意殺人和殺人滅口！

唔撚睇野就唔該你快撚啲去收嗲～ 我都廢撚事徙我時間駁啲我已經講過嘅野。

Third, can you quote from any trust worthy source by your standards that can give you any support for your claim of these two cases are the same type of crime and deserve the same level of punishment?
rockypath 發表於 2011-6-9 00:46

同上。

最後一句：去仆街死啦你，因為你真係唔死都無撚用。

-力

daimo

回復  eddie


    殺人滅口 is a first degree murder
   醉酒駕駛" + "事後逃逸  is a second degree mu ...
eddie 發表於 2011-6-9 12:32

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/id-cafa.html

Please read it yourself.

just in case you can't find it ...

"When an impaired driver kills someone, the impaired driver can be charged with impaired driving causing death. This is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment."

rockypath

回復  eddie


    殺人滅口 is a first degree murder
   醉酒駕駛" + "事後逃逸  is a second degree mu ...
eddie 發表於 2011-6-9 12:32

As defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, murder is a culpable homicide with SPECIFIC INTENTIONS.

Can you justify  "醉酒駕駛 + 事後逃逸" is a second degree murder according this definition?

eddie

回復 27# eddie


    殺人滅口 is a first degree murder
   醉酒駕駛" + "事後逃逸  is a second degree murder

eddie

回復 8# daimo

rockypath

低能兒，

量刑係要考慮好多因素，而犯人嘅 intent 同悔意絕對係需要列入考慮因素之內。條靚仔把口講得出 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-6-8 23:25

Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough, Moron Lik?

First, regardless of what the guy said or whether he was regretful for his behaviours or not, the judge can only convict according to the type of crime the guy committed and consequences caused by his action, but not by what he said!  

Second, if you want to make a statement – these two cases are the same type and they all committed the same degree of crime and should serve the same level of punishment. Then you need to prove these two cases are both – 故意殺人和殺人滅口！

Third, can you quote from any trust worthy source by your standards that can give you any support for your claim of these two cases are the same type of crime and deserve the same level of punishment?

I will wait for you moron Lik. I am sure that you will once again be a gutless coward and run away like a dog again.

To save your own face, I will suggest you – STFU.


P.S.

Moron Lik. Have you even been in a court? Do your really believe the reality is same as what you saw in TVB dramas? What a stupid moron!

mcjohnjohn

真唔真心悔過我就唔知，但當 reality sinks in 嘅時候，而你知道你真係分分鐘有機會俾人 baak 嘅話，老虎 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-6-9 15:49

或者人地已經真心悔改, 已經唔係之前既「我爸是李剛」呢~
浪子回頭金不換, 希望佢真心悔改, 將來能成為一個對社會有貢獻既人, 彌補佢年少時所犯既過錯.

Lik

會唔會「我爸是李剛」之後, 佢態度180度轉變, 變得真心悔改呢?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-6-8 23:39

真唔真心悔過我就唔知，但當 reality sinks in 嘅時候，而你知道你真係分分鐘有機會俾人 baak 嘅話，老虎都知驚啦？

但我會話，果陣先知驚喎？不如粒子彈射到埋額頭先賴尿，好唔好？

-力