Soldier gets five years for man's death

This is fair.

The fact that the victim was gay and the convicted man was a soldier are totally irrelevant to this case. A man passed out drunk and woke up being sexually assaulted. He was perfectly justified in using force or violence to defend himself. He overdid it though, resulting in the mans death (that's what you get for sexually assaulting an ex-boxer with combat training I suppose), and thus the five years for manslaughter.

Even as a gay man, if I were in that situation, I would have reacted the exact same way (not the killing part, but I would have beat the sh*t out of him).

 

Err except for the fact we only have Ouimet's word on that factor. Without any plausible facts behind it. Many have claimed he was using the "gay panic defense". So don't be claiming it's "fair" when you have no idea if he's telling the truth or not. He killed a man, and I think he should get more years than just 5.

A somewhat different take on the story:
Former Canadian soldier gets five years for killing gay man

 

I'm with Revan on this. The Gay Panic defense is used all the time to justify killing gay people.

I say, prove it. If you can't prove it happened, then we should just assume he isn't telling the truth.

 

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon and defending a guy just because he was gay, as if we are all somehow incapable of wrongdoing.

I base my opinion on this fact: "Crown prosecutor Jim Ross explained to the court that he struck a plea deal with Ouimet’s lawyers because Ouimet’s explanation of the killing was consistent with evidence in the case."

It's as simple as that. When testimony (even biased testimony), is consistent with the forensic evidence of a case, it is reasonable to assume that it is reliable testimony. Killing someone while drunk, in an altercation where the evidence points to the man having been sexually assaulted is manslaughter. Even if the alleged sexual assault did not take place, there was obviously some kind of provocation, and accidentally killing someone in a drunken fight is still usually manslaughter.

I hate when people throw this term around. If a man or a woman attempted to sexually assaulted me, I would defend myself. I would also probably beat the sh*t out of them in the process. I don't care if they are gay or straight. The only reason people specify it as a "gay" panic defence is because somehow people think that a man is incapable of being sexually assaulted by a woman. If it was renamed the "sexual assault panic defence" I'm sure people would stop making a fuss about it.

This is just my 2 cents...I expected people would disagree with me.

 

Thats a ridiculous notion.

 

No it's not. He deserved to be punished a lot harder. Given he killed the guy, I have less than zero sympathy for the fact that he was sexually assaulted (if that is indeed what happened). The force that he used was excessive, and he should be made an example of. While I agree that people have a right to repel such an attack with violent force, a person needs to judge much better than he did when deadly force is necessary. Five years for shitty judgement is low-balling the punishment.

It's quite relevant that the accused was a soldier, because it means that he has combat training. His fighting skills exceed the average person, which severely undermines his claims that deadly force was necessary. Basically, the more trained you are in combat, the less well a self-defense claim involving deadly force works.

Beating the shit out of someone goes beyond subduing the attacker and dealing with the immediate threat. That moves into the territory of retributive violence, which we do not have a right to do.

 

Alright. Let's examine the evidence we have before us.

1. We know Ouimet (the murderer) was in Lacquette's home and drinking heavily. However, it makes no mention of their friendship. So, what was Ouimet doing in Lacquette's home?

2. Lacquette was found completely naked and strangled to death as a result of Ouimet's attack. Now, stop for a moment and ask yourself... if you're going to sexually assault someone, are you going to get completely naked?

3. Ouimet claims that he awoke to find Lacquette (who was naked) performing oral sex on him. He then proceeded to strangle him to death. Now, stop for a moment and think... in order to perform this UFC-style choke-hold you have to: A) Stop Lacquette from performing oral sex on you. B) Stand up. C) Capture Lacquette from behind and wrap his arm around his throat. D) Keep Lacquette in the choke hold until he passes out then dies.

4. We don't know what Ouimet did after he murdered Lacquette, but we do know that he didn't call the police because Lacquette was found the next morning naked in his basement... alone. So after the murder Ouimet left the scene of the crime, and didn't bother calling for help when he realized Lacquette wasn't waking up.

5. All of Lacquette's family and friends are acting as character witnesses, saying that they believe Ouimet's claims are baseless.

So, let's stop and think for a moment. Rationally speaking, what is the possibility of Ouimet's story being true? He's at an openly gay mans house, I'm assuming alone, drinking so heavily that he passes out according to his testimony.

You see, it's very convenient to accuse Lacquette of sexual assault when he's dead and can't defend himself. So, based on the facts we have, let me pose an alternative situation.

Ouimet and Lacquette were having a consensual sexual relationship. Lacquette had invited him over for drinks, which is something they've probably done together in the past. They clearly knew each other. Ouimet drank a considerable amount, and Lacquette performed consensual oral sex on Ouimet. It may or may not have been returned. Something happened, a disagreement broke out between them, and Ouimet in a drunken rage attacked Lacquette and killed him. Panicked, he put the naked body of Lacquette in his basement and left.

When he was ultimately caught, he had to make up a lie, or else reveal their sexual relationship. So, he said that he was sexually assaulted by Lacquette, who is now conveniently dead and can't defend himself.

This is actually a more rational explanation than the one Ouimet gives for the crime.

Here is all that we know for certain: Lacquette was gay. He was found in his basement the next day naked and dead. Ouimet was drinking heavily. Lacquette was murdered by Ouimet. That's it. Everything else has to be proven.

So, if I accuse you of sexual assault against me I shouldn't be forced to prove the claim? That's all I'm saying. You're innocent until proven guilty. Why would we immediately assume that Ouimet's story is true, considering he has motive to lie? He murdered him, for crying out loud, and could have faced a much harsher penalty. You don't get a larger motive than that. Also, according to the article as evidence has come out doubts are being cast on Ouimet's claims. Which would explain why he accepted the plea deal because he and his lawyers knew his claims couldn't hold up in court.

 

This.

For how justified the act of self defense might have been, proceeding to murder the man is stepping over the line. Instead, he should have pressed charges against him, and he would be rotting in jail now instead of him.

 

It was after a house party, where Ouimet had passed out drunk.

Sure, you might.

Or, as the autopsy and testimony suggests, he punched him in the side of the neck upon looking down, then simply jumped on him and strangled him.

He testified that he left immediately after the incident, probably in a panic after what had just happened. I'm sure he didn't stop to check if the guy was ok or breathing, he just got the hell out of there.

Sounds all fine and dandy until alcohol enters the picture. He was drunk, in a panic, and overreacted. That's why he plead to manslaughter and didn't try and claim innocence because of self defence.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but it's what I would do.

The point I am trying to make is that people are jumping to conclusions about this case because of the fact that the victim was gay and the convicted was a soldier. Gays have been serving openly in Canada for over 20 years, and there simply is not the same level of homophobia within the Canadian military as in the US military.

I'm playing devils advocate here; I don't know the truth, and neither does anybody here, but as a rational and reasonable person, I find his story plausible, believable and relateable (I would have had a violent reaction under the same alleged circumstances). When you add that all the evidence is consistent with his story, for now I believe this guy.

The question of the sentence depends on your views on crime and punishment, and whether the justice system should exist for revenge or rehabilitation. That's a debate for another day I think though.

Attack away!

 

I don't think anyone is attacking you, just disagreeing.

I don't think jumping to conclusions is the right way to put things, because that's not how I consider it. Yes, I am defending Lacquette because he was gay, and that makes me suspect that his sexual orientation might somehow be involved. In fact, that's the direct assertion of Ouimet.

I consider the reverse of your statement to be true. Lacquette, who is dead, has been accused of a crime. I'm saying that in order for Lacquette to be guilty of the crime the accuser - Ouimet in this case - has to prove it. That's the way justice works. You're innocent until proven guilty.

I'm also pointing out that Ouimet has motive to lie and not tell the truth.

What upsets me is that there is a default assumption of Ouimet's innocence, and therefore he's being painted as if he were a victim defending himself. It's hard to imagine him as a victim, considering the other guy is dead, and not only is he dead he's being accused of a crime by the guy who murdered him.

As for the additional details you've provided, I wasn't aware of those. They weren't mentioned in the original article.

I'm not saying Ouimet is a liar per-say, I'm saying he has to prove his claims, and that I'd carefully criticize them against the evidence looking for holes in his testimony. Of course, that's never going to happen since it's not going to trial.

 

I'm really curious what forensic evidence you're talking about. Did they find Lacquette's saliva on Ouimet's dick?

 

No one's painting him as the victim. If he were a victim he wouldn't be getting 5 years in jail. This incident happened when no one else was present, which means you only have the autotopsy to go on as evidence. If it is inconclusive then you only have the survivors testimony to go on. There's plenty of reasonable doubt to prevent a jury from sentencing the guy for murder. No one knows what really happened.

 

He should have got up and left. No need to beat, choke, or any other form of violence. He could then press charges of sexual assault if he was so upset about it. Instead, idiots of the world take the law into their own hands and this is what happens. The punishment is way too lenient.

 

The above is exactly my point. :dry:

So, we (as far as I know) only have his word to go on that he was sexually assaulted. This guy has every reason to lie about his motives, because if he told the truth he'd get a much worse sentence.

It simply makes sense to doubt a person who has a very strong motive to lie about what happened. Why would we believe him?

Reasonable doubt? What reasonable doubt? He's clearly guilty of the murder. It's on his shoulders to prove whether or not he was sexually assaulted.

Again, if I accuse you of sexually assaulting me, wouldn't you want the burden of proof to be on me to prove my claims? Or would you want the burden of proof to be on you to prove that you didn't sexually assault me? That's the whole point of innocent until proven guilty.

Ouimet is accusing Lacquette (the guy he murdered) of a crime. It is therefore on the shoulders of Ouimet to prove that the crime happened. I will point out the following paragraph from the original article:

Not only would Ouimet have to prove that he was sexually assaulted, he would have to prove that it wasn't consensual. So, if there is actual evidence for sexual activity, then I would expect the police to issue a warrant to search Ouimet's place of residence and seize his computer and other electronic devices. If you find something like a gay hook-up app on his smart phone, or gay porn on his computer, I'd say you have pretty good evidence that it was probably a sexual encounter with a guy in the closet that went wrong.

The fact of the matter is, we don't know that. The assumption is that if any sexual activity took place (which as far as I know - we don't even have proof of that aside from the fact Lacquette was found naked - which I pointed out seems suspicious to me), then the sexual activity (if any occurred) must have been non-consensual. I say look for proof to the contrary.

I've actually sat on a jury several years ago that dealt with a case regarding sexual assault. The victim claimed it happened to her when she was a little girl. She was accusing her uncle. She said it happened, he said it didn't, and there was no evidence to back up her claims. That left room for reasonable doubt that he might be innocent, and despite the fact that all of us in the jury room believed that she was probably telling the truth - we still found him not guilty. Why? Reasonable doubt. There was no evidence to back up her claims, and therefore we didn't feel we could convict him of a crime.

Ouimet may have been a victim of sexual assault. He could be telling the truth, but we don't know that and he has very strong motive to lie. Had he not committed murder, then it would be Lacquette sitting in the defense seat trying to defend himself against the accusations of sexual assault. Instead, he is dead. He's never going to get the chance to clear his name, and I find it wrong to even assume that he is guilty because it sullies his reputation.

Whether or not Ouimet is telling the truth, I don't feel any sympathy for him. His life wasn't in any immediate danger, and he was more than capable of subduing Lacquette without killing him. "Ah, but he was drunk!" Being drunk is not an excuse. Just as driving drunk is not an excuse if you cause an accident. People are equally responsible for their actions whether or not they're intoxicated or completely sober. If someone can't drink responsibly (and I consider drinking to the point you pass out rather irresponsible), then they probably shouldn't drink at all.

Change the genders around and tell me if you feel the same way: Lacquette is a straight woman instead of a gay man. All other facts are the same. She is found naked and dead in her basement. Ouimet claims that he was passed out drunk, and he woke up to find her performing oral sex on him. So he attacked her, killing her in the process, and then left the scene of the crime.

Does his claim sound more or less believable? If it sounds less believable, then why does it sound more believable when you insert a gay man into the same position? Simple. It sounds more believable because of anti-gay stereotypes. It plays right into the stereotype that gay men are sexual predators, or are just extremely horny sluts that will take advantage of any sexual opportunity presented. That might not be the CONSCIOUS line of thought, but it is the SUBCONSCIOUS thought that makes it feel more believable.

So, in closing - once again - since Lacquette is not alive to defend himself, I don't think we should assume that he is guilty. Ouimet has a very good motive to lie about what happened, and it is up to him to prove that it happened the way he said it happened. Since Ouimet accepted the plea, we're never going to figure out what really happened, so in my view it's best just to view anything Ouimet says as suspect unless there is clear and obvious proof to the contrary.

 

We don't convict people based on hunches or hearsay. Imprisoning an innocent man is FAR worse than a guilty man getting off easy. Even though he had motive to lie, his testimony is consistent with the evidence, and therefore a judgment had to be made based on what info was available.

Do I think he got off easy? Yes.

Do I think he should have been given a harsher sentence based on the evidence and testimony that exists? Absolutely not!

This, my friend, is the reason people call it the "gay panic defence", because of this totally absurd notion that a man cannot be sexually assaulted by a woman (because he obviously would have enjoyed it right?). The situation is no different; unwanted sexual contact is still sexual assault, and a drunken overreaction is still a drunken overreaction.

Your assertion that it would be somehow less inappropriate if it were a woman that sexually assaulted him is as absurd as someone blaming a female rape victim for the rape because of the way she dressed.

 

Exactly my point. We don't convict people based on hunches or hearsay. That is all Ouimet's claims of sexual assault amount too. Ouimet admitted to murdering Lacquette, so this fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not Ouimet was sexually assaulted - in other words - what is in dispute is his motive for the murder.

My opinion is that claims of his motive, which are unproven, were factored into his sentencing. I think that is wrong because they are unproven. To factor them into his sentencing we are in fact - acting on hunches and hearsay - the belief that Lacquette sexually assaulted Ouimet.

These two statements do not line up. There are basically three choices. You think he should have a harsher sentence, you think his sentence is just and fair, or you think his sentence is too harsh.

You are saying that you think he got off too easy, but you don't think he should have been given a harsher sentence. These two views are incompatible with one another.

That's not my assertion at all. That is also not the gay panic defense. The gay panic defense is basically a plea that you went temporarily insane and brutally assaulted or murdered someone who is gay because that gay person did something that offended you. For example, a straight guy is walking down the street and overhears a gay man telling another gay man that he finds said straight guy attractive. The straight guy experiences "gay panic" and then proceeds to assault the gay guy ultimately killing him in the process.

That's the gay panic defense. In 99.999999% of cases in which gay panic is attempted as the plea it's completely false. It's generally a hate based attack, and often they will say very similar things to the charges leveled at Mr. Lacquette - that they were sexually assaulted.

Of course, sexual assault on a straight man by a gay man CAN happen. However, I am ALWAYS skeptical when that is the core of the plea when a gay man lays brutally injured or dead as a result.

How can I put it? Hm. It reminds me of how things were in the South (and still are to an unfortunate degree), when in the past a white man was put on trial for the murder of a black man. The white man (the murderer) would frequently say something like, "That black man attempted to sexually assault my wife!" He would say this to a white judge, a white prosecutor, and an all white jury. Nine times out of ten he'd walk out of court a free man.

The very same circumstances are presented here. A (presumably) straight man is claiming to have been sexually assaulted by some evil gay man while he was at his most vulnerable. He's telling this to a straight judge, a straight prosecutor, and had it gone to trial, he would have told it to (presumably) an all straight jury.

Just like in the case of the white man, in most cases - it's not true. That's why it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen.

That may not be "fair" - especially if it is true - but it is the most just system that I can imagine. Otherwise, we assume someone is guilty without proof or evidence and then force them to prove their innocence. In my opinion, that is far worse. I'd rather allow some criminals to walk away free, than have an untold number of innocent people imprisoned - perhaps even executed - for crimes they didn't commit.

---------

To address your underlying point about sexual assault against men from women; absolutely it happens. All. The. Time. It is also under reported for the reasons you stated. Boys grow up and are told that they should want sex from a woman, and if they receive unwanted sexual advances from a woman then some guys feel ashamed to refuse those advances. After all... it might make them... GASP! Gay! At least in the eyes of their friends.

There is a huge pressure on guys - especially young teenage boys - to have sex. Having sex is equated, in our society, with being a "man." Our society mocks men who are older adults and are still virgins. Being an adult man and a virgin is often an embarrassing thing to admit.

When sexual advances come from an adult woman to a teenage boy, often it is enough for her to say, "What's the matter, don't you like girls?" To get him to give into to her desires.

Even in relationships in which sex is desired there can often be issues with some guys when it comes to women. I once counseled a straight guy who had an issue with his girlfriend. She was an exhibitionist. She kept trying to masturbate him in public, but he had trouble getting an erection. He was terrified of someone seeing him, and he spent all his time focused on what other people were doing - hence his trouble getting an erection. He was seeking advice on how to overcome this problem.

My advice? I told him to tell her to stop. That he was clearly uncomfortable with what she was doing, and that it was perfectly okay for him to set boundaries. If she didn't respect those boundaries then she doesn't respect him, and that he should dump her and move on.

That's what he needed to hear, and he was extremely thankful to hear it. He didn't need to hear, "Oh, well you just need to relax and try to enjoy it." No. He needed someone to tell him that it was okay to say no, to tell her that he was uncomfortable, and that he didn't want it to happen anymore. He needed someone to tell him that it was okay to set boundaries.

Of course, there are other cases as well. Cases in which men are sexually assaulted by women, but if men try to report it the woman might claim to be the victim instead - and people will believe her over him. Simply because she is a woman, and the stereotype of women is that they are victims. The opposing stereotype for men of course, is that men aren't victims - because being a victim is "weak" - and men aren't supposed to be "weak." (Which in turn, for the stereotype of women - is that women are weak.)

As a result of this stereotype of both men and women; men and boys will rarely report sexual assault because they fear that others will perceive them as being weak.

On top of that layer, you can add the whole other layer in which a guy who reports sexual assault from a woman... well, obviously if he had sex with a woman, he must either be gay or have enjoyed it, right? No. But that is how most people will react to it, which is both disgusting and disturbing.

This extends into domestic violence and abuse as well. If a woman is assaulting or abusing a man, then he is either "weak" because he's not defending himself, or alternatively - he's done something to deserve it. The latter is the equivalent of the old view when it came to abuse of women - that she must have done something to displease her husband, and therefore she deserved the "punishment."

It's a sick and disgusting mindset that must be challenged whenever it rears its ugly head.

This is how sexism (against both men and women) and anti-gay bigotry hurts everyone. It doesn't just hurt their intended targets, it hurts society as a whole.

 

It's called reverse onus, where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defendant in order to defend an undisputed event. The evidence of this case supports sexual activity between the two, followed by a sudden attack. There were suction marks on Ouimets penis, the victim was naked, and the victim's injuries are consistent with his head being "down there" when he received the initial three blows to the head.

To dismiss these facts, then dismiss the testimony (which was consistent with the evidence), just to pass a harsher judgment would be unjust in my opinion.

I think considering the evidence we know, he got a light sentence (the minimum in fact) for manslaughter. There is simply no evidence though to support a second degree murder charge, which is what some people are calling for.

As for the "gay panic defence" remark. I still stand by my opinion that the gay panic defence is a sexist concept that implies that a homosexual sexual assault is somehow more inappropriate than a heterosexual one. I do believe however, that panic in response to a sexual assault, no matter who does it, is a reasonable defence. It's when people try and use it to defend killing a guy who looked at him wrong that it is inappropriate.

 

I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying.

I'm not saying, nor am I trying to imply that sexual assault from someone of the same-sex is less worse (or worse) than someone of the opposite sex.

I'm saying the complete opposite of both, in fact. I'm saying that they are equally bad and equally wrong. That was my point of having people mentally swap the gender and orientation of the victim.

As to your assertions of evidence, can you provide links to where you got that information? It isn't mentioned in either of the two articles posted in this thread.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood the whole idea of swapping a gay male for a woman as implying that somehow he should had a different reaction...almost implying that he should have enjoyed it or something. Why would he be less justified to react violently to a woman sexually assaulting him than a man?

My point was that the gay panic defence, when used to defend a reaction to a sexual assault, is valid, as panicked violence is a reasonable response to being sexually assaulted. The fact that it is called the "gay panic defence" however, implies that one type of sexual assault is less acceptable than the other, which is untrue. The "gay panic defence" when used for non sexual assault cases, such as a proposition, staring or remark, remains totally unacceptable.

Some of it is here, I will try and find the other articles I was reading and post them too. UPDATE: Ouimet sentenced to five years for Lacquette killing - Brandon Sun