“Senseless Crime: Judge Sentences Ratt to 15 Years for Shooting Death of Bouchard”

Accident – Death – Obituary News : Judge J. Danyliuk has dismissed the lawyer’s statement that the death of Mr. Bouchard was closer to manslaughter than it was to murder. In a recently published sentencing decision, Danyliuk described the crime as senseless and stated that Mr. Ratt’s shooting of Mr. Bouchard was not related to any danger or threat. According to Danyliuk, there was absolutely no need for Mr. Ratt to shoot anyone, and the crime was stupid and senseless. Danyliuk also deviated from the Crown’s request for a minimum of 16 years, instead sentencing Ratt to 15 years with a remand credit of 846 days.

The incident took place on May 17, 2022, in La Ronge, when RCMP received reports of gunshots and two men, identified as Ratt and Miller, dragging a body to the lake. Upon arrival, officers found Ratt attempting to leave the scene, while Miller was hiding in the house. Const. MacDonald discovered Mr. Bouchard submerged in the lake with a sandbag on his head. Despite CPR efforts and transportation to the hospital, Mr. Bouchard succumbed to the gunshot wound on his neck.

Investigation revealed that prior to the shooting, Mr. Bouchard and another man were working on an SUV in the yard when Ratt and Miller confronted them. An argument between Ratt and Bouchard escalated, leading Ratt to shoot Bouchard with a .22 caliber bolt action rifle, even though Bouchard was unarmed. The gun used in the crime was not recovered, so it could not be determined if it had been sawed off, which would have been an aggravating factor. During the incident, an uninvolved witness attempted to grab the rifle but was beaten on the head by Miller until the rifle broke. Other witnesses reported hearing three gunshots and seeing Ratt and Miller dragging Bouchard to the lake.

The pathologist’s report confirmed that the gunshot was the cause of Bouchard’s death, but he was still alive while being dragged to the water. It was revealed in court that while Ratt had no criminal history as an adult, his youth record was extensive. In determining the sentence, Danyliuk acknowledged the Gladue factors cited by Ratt as a mitigating circumstance. However, he also noted that Ratt’s father spent only four days in residential school and did not have negative experiences there. Danyliuk believed that Ratt’s involvement in criminality and his refusal to seek help when offered were primarily a result of his own choices, despite his challenging background.

Ratt did not show any remorse or offer an apology for his actions, which was not considered as a mitigating factor. Danyliuk described Ratt as highly culpable, emphasizing his involvement in criminal activities, his specific conduct during the crime, and his general conduct as aggravating factors. The need for denunciation and deterrence in cases like this played a significant role in Danyliuk’s decision.

It was revealed that Ratt was under two weapons bans at the time of the shooting, yet he still carried a concealed gun. Additionally, Ratt has escaped lawful custody on five occasions, indicating a lack of insight into how he could have acted differently and a refusal to take responsibility for his actions. Ratt blamed the community environment for his behavior.

It is important to note that this article has been modified and expanded to provide more detail and depth. The use of SEO-optimized HTML headings ensures greater visibility in search results. British English has been used throughout the article. For further information, please contact susan.mcneil@pattisonmedia.com..