Gabriel Zarate, Nunavut, Iqaluit (Nunatsiaq News) – The fate of a Nunavut man on trial for the killing of an RCMP officer more than two years ago rests on one issue — intent.
An 11-person jury sitting in Iqaluit retired mid-afternoon Monday to decide between a verdict of first-degree murder or one of manslaughter in the trial of Pingoatuk Kolola, accused of killing RCMP Const. Douglas Scott in November 2007 as the officer was responding to a drunk driving complaint in the northern town of Kimmirut.
“In Canada, any blameworthy death that is not murder is called manslaughter,” Justice Robert Kilpatrick said Monday in his instructions to the jury.
Intent has become the crux of the issue that Crown and defence lawyers have left in the hands of the jury.
Kilpatrick said if Kolola fired on Scott with the intent to kill or to hurt him, then he’s guilty of murder. The same is true, Kilpatrick explained, if Kolola fired simply knowing that death or injury could result from his actions in a moment of reckless rage.
But if Kolola fired on Scott while too drunk or confused to realize that he might kill a man, the shooting was an accident and Kolola therefore guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
And Kilpatrick said if the jury has any reasonable doubt of Kolola’s intent, such doubt must be applied to Kolola’s benefit and the lesser verdict must be applied.
With witnesses and a recorded confession as evidence, there is no doubt that Kolola fired the gun that ended Scott’s life.
But defence lawyer Andrew Mahar argued that Kolola — who was angry, drunk and suicidal at the time — had not meant to kill Scott and that the shooting was a tragic accident.
“The greatest danger to police officers doesn’t come from criminals,” Mahar told the jury. “It comes from the potential for violence in ordinary people.”
He added: “There are no monsters here.”
Kolola was the only witness in the defence’s case, saying in his evidence that the bullet he fired through Scott’s skull had been meant to scare him off, fired one-handed while drunk, with his infant son, Adam, cradled in his other arm.
For her part, Crown prosecutor Suzanne Boucher said in closing arguments that the defence’s explanation “did not make sense,” because “Mr. Kolola knew he was shooting at an on-duty police officer.”
Boucher argued that the precision of the lethal shot, combined with Kolola’s history of skilled marksmanship, shows that Kolola had meant to fire at the officer, and not just at Scott’s vehicle.
The hunter and former prize-winning marksman with the Canadian Rangers had said in court that he and his friends sometimes held one-handed shooting contests while out hunting.
Boucher characterized Kolola as consumed with rage after a night of violent confrontations with family, friends and co-workers, arguing that when Scott came after Kolola in response to the impaired driving complaint, he became an unfortunate victim of that rage.
She argued if Kolola had not meant to hurt or to kill Scott, he would have aimed his “warning shot” in a more appropriate direction, such as into the air or away from the truck.
“This so-called warning shot went right through Const. Scott’s head,” she said. “The shot could not have been anything other than intentional.”
The defence lawyer argued that Kolola was drunk and not thinking rationally to appreciate the potential lethality of pointing and firing a high-powered rifle at an occupied vehicle.
The defence also relied on evidence that Kolola had become suicidal after drunken confrontations with his common-law spouse and other family members, as he testified that he had loaded his rifle with a single bullet, intent on suicide.
Shooting Scott, according to the defence, was a spur-of-the-moment reaction to Scott’s approach.
Unplanned murder in a moment of great emotion is usually classed as second-degree murder, but when the victim is an on-duty peace officer, the Criminal Code requires it be treated as a first-degree charge.
At the start of his trial, Kolola’s guilty plea to manslaughter was rejected.
Jury deliberations carried into evening hours Monday and could continue on Tuesday if a verdict is not reached.
Recent Comments