tragic...and my faith in our "justice system" erodes away that much more
Barrie man killed in crash that also left several friends with serious injuries
- Thread starter unoR
- Start date
A mistake is not the same as an intentional act. While horrible i don't think you all would want to be on trial for any mistake you made while driving, he wasn't speeding or racing or driving drunk and they couldn't prove he was texting. you clowns need to take a long look in the mirror
WTF?
Sorry Sonny, maybe I'm not picking up on the sarcasim or are you serious?
Operating a vehicle distracted that causes death and injury to others should result in some kind of accountability.
M with sonny on this one,yes it should have consequences but that does not mean accidents don't happen. And any one who says they have not made the same mistake of using cell/texting is a liar and a hypocrit.... this incident should be used to learn from instead of infighting... we all know if we had killed some one while riding;forget the bloody cell phone. We will be in jail for a very long time.. so let's take a moment of silence out of respect for the lost and learn....
Yes the system should be fair in order to
Do that we have to organize like the Tamils did by blocking the 400series junctions in protest of the government's one sidedness. M not saying they where right but if you want change we have to be the change
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Yes the system should be fair in order to
Do that we have to organize like the Tamils did by blocking the 400series junctions in protest of the government's one sidedness. M not saying they where right but if you want change we have to be the change
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Not suggesting a lynch mob or viglante justice. But, to sit back and say accidents happen, we all do it and take a look in the mirror is stupid.
Take away the txt element. Take away motorcycles being involved. If a vehicle crosses the center line into the path of on coming traffic and results in a collision, it's careless, it's negligent. It's not an accident, or an oversight, or a mistake.
If the operator had a seizure or heart attack and veered into traffic, that would be an unfortunate and tragic accident.
Take away the txt element. Take away motorcycles being involved. If a vehicle crosses the center line into the path of on coming traffic and results in a collision, it's careless, it's negligent. It's not an accident, or an oversight, or a mistake.
If the operator had a seizure or heart attack and veered into traffic, that would be an unfortunate and tragic accident.
Careless is different than dangerous. One has no intent while the other does. I'm sure buddy didn't intend to drive into the motorcyclists. We don't have a wreckless (sic) or reckless driving charge, buddy definitely would have been found guilty under a careless charge. A civil suit is probably happening. I would love to see a careless resulting in death charge on the books, way easier to prove.
M
Marinoni
Guest
hopefully the victims and their families can at least sue this guy into the stone age in civil court
sid_for_speed
Well-known member
careless driving = highway traffic act = no jail time
dangerous driving = criminal code= jail time
was he being careless using his cellphone while driving or was he being dangerous using his cellphone while driving? prove the first one and he pays heavy fines for prolly 10 years.Prove the 2nd one and he's in jail for a while
Prove that he was not using his cell phone = case closed. no charges
**Some one correct me if I'm wrong please
dangerous driving = criminal code= jail time
was he being careless using his cellphone while driving or was he being dangerous using his cellphone while driving? prove the first one and he pays heavy fines for prolly 10 years.Prove the 2nd one and he's in jail for a while
Prove that he was not using his cell phone = case closed. no charges
**Some one correct me if I'm wrong please
If you can't keep a vehicle between left and right boundaries and mow somebody down it's a big tragedy for the victim. It should also be a tragedy for the perpetrator. You have to expect to own that if you sign up to drive.
If I mowed somebody down it would be sociopathic to think "how does this affect me, it was a mistake?" It may not have been intentional but when you sign your drivers licence you should be prepared to accept certain responsibilities. The roads are full of people who don't take these responsibilities seriously, quite the opposite actually.
If the victim is caught up in something not entirely of his making why shouldn't the perpetrator be caught up in it as well?
They are. It's the level of punishment people don't like, which is stupid. Again, he wasn't drunk, speeding, high or racing. Just made a mistake. There is no proof he was actually using the phone so there are no circumstances that call for criminal punishment regardless of whether someone died or not.
They didn't prove he was distracted. Look at the facts not at the facts you wish were there
The Crown didn't screw up. Unfortunately even if the accused could have been proven to have been using his phone at the time of the collision, it's unlikely that there would have been a finding of guilt. The crime is the crime, regardless of the level of harm it causes.
This is the sort of thing that would have Americans raping the accused in civil court, to try and punish him for what he's done.
Mens Rea is satisfied by distracted driving. The consequence happens to be killing someone, but he was intentionally distracted.
Not for dangerous operation of a vehicle, it isn't. That level of crime requires a much more overt act, to justify conviction.
I agree, there should be "Careless cause death" with more severe penalties.
Careless carries up to 6 months in jail. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK202
And there's no proof that he was using / looking at the phone at the time of the collision. What is known and what can be proven are 2 different things. Based on the info provided, I think that careless would have been the better charge, and it would likely have resulted in a conviction. For the criminal charge you have to prove intent, for the HTA charge the absence of any reason that the vehicle couldn't stay in its lane in itself can demonstrate a lack of "due care and attention".
They are? OK good. Please don't make me re-read the article, I thought he walked out a "free man". I can accept that it was a mistake and unintentional. Good thing I'm not a lawyer 'cause I don't understand so much. Insurance company can assess blame to the blameless but this guy mows a brother down and the courts' powerless to hold him even partially accountable.
Thanks for saving me some typing.
I know some of these people, facebook is full of hatred towards the whole situation.
And i dont like to piss off crankcall, but Ontario is the poster child for screwed up justice systems.
The cops will go to the end of the earth to harass motorcyclists, catch you speeding by 5kms hr, seize your weed etc... but they rarely stick it to the real criminals.
