|
|
|
Cop kills 5-year old. No charges.
- Thread starter N3WMAN
- Start date
In Quebec law, without including manslaughter,
That would be 14 demerit points (out of total of 15) and an $800 fine.
License would be suspended for a week right on the spot as well.
Now involuntary manslaughter caused by speeding, cause obviously if a guy turns on a 50 street, even someone doing 30kph over would not have hit them like he hit them driving at 2.5 times the speed limit.
Lesson learned. We should all become cops.
That would be 14 demerit points (out of total of 15) and an $800 fine.
License would be suspended for a week right on the spot as well.
Now involuntary manslaughter caused by speeding, cause obviously if a guy turns on a 50 street, even someone doing 30kph over would not have hit them like he hit them driving at 2.5 times the speed limit.
Lesson learned. We should all become cops.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
eventually things will turn on the police. the public will just say.. enough's enough, and start taking matters into their own hands
Someday we will see a video of a Mob turning on a powertripping cop..... V
Someday we will see a video of a Mob turning on a powertripping cop..... V
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Incidents like this are why law enforcement are switching to encrypted radio systems
Imagine the outrage that would happen if the "emergency" happened to be the LEO rushing home for a nooner with his life partner js
FWIW how many GTAM members haven't almost been killed by some motorist pulling a bonehead left turn?
Imagine the outrage that would happen if the "emergency" happened to be the LEO rushing home for a nooner with his life partner js
FWIW how many GTAM members haven't almost been killed by some motorist pulling a bonehead left turn?
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
konigralph
Member
It's just sickening... 90km is pretty damn fast, but was the kid properly fastened into his seat? So many other things to look at here too.. I'm definitely not a fan of the police, but I want to know all the facts too..
News reports say kid was wearing a seatbelt, I haven't seen any mention of a car/booster seat (or lack thereof).
This....look at the Clayton Rivet thread: based on the litany of posts on that one, there was a clear consensus that the cop was to blame for turning into his path, despite the fact he was doing about as far over the limit as you could go. I wonder why all those people wearing their helmets as blinders to common sense aren't posting that the left-turner should be to blame here. Of course the cop in the 5-year old case should be held accountable 100%.
Many of those people said the rider should be charged as well. But he's dead. So there's that.
Downplayed his culpability to the extreme was mostly what I read there. .....and what is your point with the fact that he is dead? Didn't hear one syllable from anyone about the risk he put the cop through that day, or anyone else in his path, or what he put his own family through, etc. The fact that he is dead was his choice. The point in THIS thread is the lack of consistency of thought, just more anti cop mentality. Clearly the more people think that you can do any speed you want and blame left-turning vehicles is simply going to end the same way every time. It's noticeably funny that it takes a cop of being the speeder in this case to get them to see that.
My point is that it's hard to get a conviction when the guy is dead.
You can down play somebody's culpability if you determine they were purposely rammed to death. It's the investigations that leave people stunned.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
If that's the case then how is it acceptable to let an extreme speeding cop off of any culpability. This case directly contradicts the clayton case with opposing vehicles found at fault (one case is the turner, the other is the speeder), but in both cases the police were absolved on all responsibility. Sickening.
Anyway, here is the justification, if you can call it that
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ot-to-lay-charges-based-on-evidence-1.2844527
This statement is sad.
Seriously, from legal experts. Wow. So a cop can get away with driving carelessly and/or dangerously and it is okay because of their job? What a slippery slope if one starts to think that way. What about an ambulance, or a municipal employee, or even a truck driver. Then they should be able to do the same because of "their" job. This so called logic is so fallacious as to be laughable if it wasn't actually playing out in reality. I always thought that every driver on the road had a responsibility to drive with due care and attention and not carelessly or dangerously, no matter what they were doing or who they were. But some people say that is not the case.
And this is nothing new. Another recent QC case.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-run-over-by-quebec-city-police-car-1.2755251
I'm interested to see where this goes. Nothing at all so far.
Last edited:
We seem to be remembering that thread somewhat differently. Seems to me that it was pretty far from consensus.
That sort of thing is generally reserved for emergency responders. Even then they have to abide by certain protocols. That this officer was travelling at that speed in an unmarked car, without benefit of lights and siren, should make him culpable in the incident. There should be charges.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
IMO, we are saying the same thing....there are basic responsibilities by everyone to meet the intent and spirit of the HTA, and some potential mitigating circumstances to account for wrt the HTA and police officers and other emergency responders were NOT met in this case with the consideration of careless or dangerous driving.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|