but my intention has not changed
If you think this film is one-sided sentiment I Please take a look at the title of this documentary, a letter to a son about his father. This film is dedicated to that innocent child who died! Please see clearly what this documentary really wants to talk about is actually about this poor family losing their only son and grandson one after another. Innocent children are working hard for Canada’s legislation so that more children will not be similarly harmed.
Update: (Some words extracted from dearzachary.com are garbled but for the sake of originality I chose not to change anything)
"December 16, 2010:
ZACHARY'S BILL (BILL C-464) BECOMES LAW IN CANADA
(Click HERE to read a letter to viewers from David & Kate Bagby.)
On December 15, 2010, Governor General David Johnston gave Royal Assent to Bill C-464: An Act To Amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), making it law in Canada. The private member's bill was introduced by MP Scott Andrews of Newfoundland last fall after he saw "Dear Zachary" at a March 2009 screening in Ottawa and decided to do something about what he saw. The bill has added an amendment to Canada's criminal code giving courts the right to refuse bail to someone charged with a serious crime who is deemed a potential danger to children under the age of 18.
Bill C-464 was introduced in the House of Commons on October 22, 2009, passed the House of Commons unanimously on March 22nd of this year and passed the Senate of Canada last Thursday, December 9th, where it was sponsored by Senator Tommy Banks of Alberta. This marks the first time in history an MP from Newfoundland has been able to get a private member's bill through Parliament; since 2001, 2,510 Private Member's Bills have been introduced in the House of Commons, but only 23-less than 1 %-have received Royal Assent.
I extend my deepest thanks and greatest respect to MP Scott Andrews, his associate Ken Carter, Senator Tommy Banks, his executive assistant Th r se Gauthier, MP Peter Stoffer, Senator Anne Cools, Gord McIntosh and everyone in Parliament who saw across party lines to support this bill's passage into law. Amending Canada's bail code was my goal in releasing "Dear Zachary" publicly; it is my pleasure to announce that goal is now a reality."
This bill can protect children from people who are Charged with serious crime!!!
You told me that this film is overwhelmingly emotional?! I’m sorry I don’t think you understand the ultimate purpose of this film. Without the experience of this family, I don’t think Canada would have this bill to protect young people with similar experiences. children
throughout the film is not subjective but stated facts about Andrew's life.
an innocent child because of this crazy woman lost the opportunity to see the world, he did not even get to see their dad in the end is a kind of person whether it is a bad person or a good Doctor, it's not for us to decide
We will never know what happened that day. We don’t know what questions Andrew himself had in his relationship. These can’t be answered by us. But no matter what Andrew did wrong, he is the dead and Shirley survived. Then please tell. What do I mean by objectiveness in this matter? You tell a group of people who have lost their sons, friends, brothers, and lovers not to be angry. What are you thinking about? I don’t think the people in the film are extreme. I think they are very objective in stating the facts with laughter and tears. When speaking andrew more often, it’s the feeling of losing a loved one from the bottom of my heart rather than hating me as a killer. now we must go and kill the woman
I really hope you can read what I wrote because if you read you will really understand what is called objective
---------------- ---Boundary Line--------------------
I was watching the diagram and didn't watch the whole film. I have the opportunity to watch
it. So many people say that this documentary is one-sided is there a mood from the killer's point of view to look at this matter, let me tell you that Andrew is not the victim but the victim of the murder of passion murder
when you go to analyze why a man killed when a lot of background info will Provide her/him with a lot of people who seem to be emotionally upset will make such choices, but it's not the case. It's as if the reason you went to steal from a thief and defended a rapist was because the victim was dressed in exposed clothes. The perpetrator was led to commit the crime as if you were defending Ma Jiajue that the people he killed were the ones who hurt him. After many years, it turned out that everything he killed was good for him, just like a poisoner killed a student and you wrote for him. letter to parents moved to tears
this case in the same way the director only in the choice of interviewees appear in front of the camera are victims of family and friends but why he did over and over again then contact the prosecutor's psychiatrist to provide bail and so on but Are they brave enough to face the camera for an interview? Are they guilty in their hearts, so they are afraid to face the public?
When it comes to the question of whether it is a passion homicide or a murder, some people say that Andrew was also a problematic when S called him because he found a new girlfriend, so this is the reason why he deserve to die? The problem is everywhere. The documentary is really just focus on S. It may be really crazy and continue to harasse Andrew's thing, but no one knows why it happened, but it’s still the problem, so I’m going to kill him? Raise the gun and give him a shot. I can still say okay. So you are emotionally impulsive to kill, but let’s see what the wiki says
"The following morning, Bagby's body was found in a day-use parking lot at... . He had been shot five times in the face, the chest, the buttocks, and the back of the head with......"
"Despite her claim to have been in bed sick on 5 Nov, cell phone and internet records showed that she had made cross-country calls both to and from Latrobe, accessed eBay and Hotmail from Bagby's home computer, and used his home phone to call in sick."
Let’s analyze the second paragraph first, what’s the first reaction after a person kills someone? Let’s run! The sisters think they are quite smart. Do you dare to go to that person’s house? Go to play on his computer? Go to eBay, Hotmail? Then you may be at least a more successful murderer than these sisters. My understanding is that she has already prepared the evidence. wiki October said she was finished the test certificate to the gun immediately bought a gun (that is, the murder weapon) results No. 5 November this thing happened with peace of mind really is a timely examination of the ah
let's analyze the first paragraph of American TV Some things may still make sense to be shot 5 times on the face, chest, butt, and the back of the head. If we assume that two people are not face-to-face, it is even more difficult to explain (the specifics are too lazy to think about it and you can figure it out. The documentary also has images that clearly prove that it is impossible to attack from behind.) So we assume that at the beginning, the two people are facing each other, so the shooting holes in the chest can explain the buttocks and back of the head? It is obvious that the victim fell face to the ground because of a frontal injury. Lower S and shoot obvious Overkill in the back of the head and ass, or to make sure that he is dead
. Irrelevant things. When you think about it, you will find that the director of this documentary really does not have very one-sided emotions. The director’s title is a letter to the most innocent child about his father. Since he was a child, he has not avoided his father. When I was a bear child, I didn’t enter the medical school for the first time in college to break up with my fiancée. These private things are completely uncovered. I just want to tell the child that your real father is like this and your father died like this. The personal director except Nostalgia for old friends did not express too much hatred for the murderer. He just recorded the true feelings of the victim’s relatives and friends. Why does a white-clothed angel who save lives by a medical worker deserve to die? A talent who violates the law deserve that
Seeing so many people saying that this film is too one-sided, do I want to say it? Really? Isn’t the director trying to promote the implementation of that motion? Isn’t it trying to tell a lot of people that a loophole in a country’s policy leads to a very innocent person? Did your baby lose the source of his life? There are so many evidences that S is so unsuitable to be a mother and a murder suspect. If she killed a husband who beat her for many years, insulted her or even bullied her child But after all, she has received so much abuse. When this kind of person says she loves her child, I believe it, but S hasn’t been divorced many times. 3 children. Does she take good care of her? When this kind of person says she loves children, I choose bullshit to say the
worst It's still the innocent baby. I can understand Andrew's father's thoughts. If I knew it was like this, it would be better to use lynching so that the child would not die tragically. A person who can kill even his own child. What do you think she has a murder worth discussing? The inner world of the criminal? Did the childhood shadow that led to her murder? I remember watching a movie (8mm). Finally, when the main male murderer took off the leather hood, the murderer said, "What are you expecting? ?Perhaps you have already known how this kind of face can do that kind of thing, so I like to wear a mask so that I can play my instinct. This instinct is born. I have not been abused. I have no terrible childhood." I watched this It’s only then that I discovered so much criminal psychology. Sometimes it feels like making excuses for crime. Perhaps more murderers are really psychopaths caused by abuse, but there are always people who are abnormal for no reason. You can only analyze her inner heart. Feeling fucked, do you expect to analyze the criminal mind and the same year as in criminal minds to analyze the methods? You will only find that the one sentence that you can summarize is that they are abnormal. From the parents to the forced to be abnormal, in short, they are abnormal ( But everyone is more or less perverted) To understand a perverted idea may not be as simple as we think
What I said is also very unorganized. It is normal that the interviewer has emotional bias. Your relatives and friends are murdered, the murderer is still at large. After killing a cute child, you may not only be emotional, but may be nervous. After all The longing for justice eventually led to the fact that it is better not to believe you, the idea of killing a thousand knives. The director stood for a statement of facts and did not tend to be a very good case. There should be doubts about the case. There is evidence and it is also there at the end of the film, which also leads to the law. There is no doubt that the questioning of the system has a certain impetus. After all, there are many things that can be avoided. The government mistakes have also admitted that the people who asked me to say that this film is really not extreme will choose to lynch at the beginning. things disappointed but want to save people
at least they say they dare to dare to do better than we are disappointed at the same time they are not giving up is not破罐子破摔but still choose to believe that to look forward to change the things we did not do at least do not bury them credit
only to lose too will know their pain had not lost person how you can feel the pain of lost son + face killing their child's murderer could only demanding only surviving grandson of humble to the end, however, white hair People give a black-haired guy a pervert/lunatic is not a virgin you can save. Bitch isn’t that it’s so good to be,
but it depends on what you think of it.
View more about Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father reviews
