About that Matthew Raymond verdict
There’s a constant in communications – emotion beats facts ten times out of ten. In other words, if you are arguing facts and the other side is arguing emotion, you will not win. There’s that. Then there is social media, which, for too many people means no measure of restraint or decency. It’s a combination that all too often results in abusive online comments, even threats.
So while it is disappointing, I am not a bit surprised to see on the front page of the Daily Gleaner that the defense lawyer for Matthew Raymond, the man found not criminally responsible in the shooting deaths of four people including two police officers on Fredericton’s northside, has been subjected to verbal abuse on social media.
Fredericton Daily Gleaner, Wednesday, November 25, 2020
Understandably, the trial brought back emotions we all felt that tragic mid-summer day two years ago, the shock of what had befallen our normally tranquil city and the empathy we felt for the families left behind.
With those emotions running high going into the third day of jury deliberations, social media was flooded on news of the verdict, with the overall sentiment being anger and the accusation that the jury got it wrong.
That was the emotion and for many it carried the day. The facts though, suggest the jury did not get it wrong. The shooter, as became crystal clear through the testimony throughout the nine-week trial, was mentally deranged. He was not in his right mind and he did not know what he was doing. He did not appreciate he was killing innocent people. This was not a cold-blooded Allan Legere type crime.
I weighed in on two or three of these Facebook threads to make that point. I felt it was unfair to tell the jury they got it wrong when by every indication they took their responsibilities seriously and did their job properly. And it wasn’t fair that they be condemned for that. I also pointed out that people were wrong to see the verdict as meaning the shooter was getting off easy, or had “gotten away with it” as some suggested, and that the not criminally responsible verdict is in fact as close to a life sentence as exists under Canadian law.
These were valid points to make but it mattered not. No one wanted to hear it. Back to the adage – it’s a fool’s game to try to counter emotion with facts.
But here’s the thing - I don’t mind people disagreeing, in fact I thrive on that. But it was disappointing when some accused me of not caring about the victims. This because I stated the obvious – that the shooter was out of his mind, and that the verdict reflected that and was in no way a slight against the victims or their loved ones. But such is the power of emotion that for some it over-rides rational thought. For many, it’s temporary and I suspect many who came out immediately critical of the verdict on sober reflection will agree that justice was done here. Not all, but those who choose to objectively think it through.
But the heartfelt but misplaced criticisms and cheap shots aside, there was one response that did resonate with me. I can’t recall the exact point and the thread has since been removed so I can’t look it up, but the gist of it was that my timing was insensitive. Given the emotion was running so raw, in the wake of the verdict being delivered, that’s a valid point. And it did give me pause.
So maybe so. The facts could and probably should have waited. That was a choice. So have at me. But it is unfair to go after the defense lawyer or the jury. They were doing their jobs and to condemn them for that is simply unfair. Even emotion-driven responses should have limits.
