Barrie man killed in crash that also left several friends with serious injuries

Forum Sponsor
coyo said:
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".
Click to expand...

I would have to agree regarding the charge. As I have said on other occasions, using a phone while driving fits the textbook deninition of "operating a vehicle without due care and attention." Even if that couldn't be proven, there was obviously a lack of attention at play.

BNKN said:
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.
Click to expand...

When the charge is more than the evidence can support, the accused will walk away.
 
Didn't he admit to using his phone? What's left to prove?

If there was a screw-up, it was the pursuit of the wrong charge by the crown. There must have been a way to attack this guy and put him in jail for at least a few months. Maybe the families had too much influence in it.
 
Since when did driving become a human right which everyone is entitled?

His driving was dangerous, in so far that it resulted in the DEATH of a man, and the injury of many others. Why the hell should it matter if the death was intentional; he was intentionally NOT paying attention, and as a result everything, that he does from there should be considered done with intent. Hell, turning your car on and going for a drive should mean everything you do behind he wheel is done with intent.

Stepping into your car and using it to kill someone, regardless if it was intentional or as the result of an accident, doesn't change the fact that it was you who killed someone at your hands. And given the massive privilege which driving should be considered, this statement should stand. If you can't even give enough ****ing attention to just drive the damn car in between two lines, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive the damn car at all.

To everyone saying "he made a mistake", sure. That's not untrue. But holy hell his mistake held the worst of repercussions. A mistake of that degree shows the driver has a gross lack of respect for the responsibility in his hands. We already punish people for making mistakes which resulted in no harm; speeding and parking tickets, running a red light, USING YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING. They're supposed to deterrents, so drivers don't feel tempted to do these things, things which can result in DEATH. But what happens when one of these actions DOES result in death? This is what happens, and it's a joke.

And even if he wasn't using his phone at the time of the accident; what the hell is his excuse then? Clueless clown on the road. Should have put his license back in the cereal box he found it in.

Outrageous.
 
Last edited:
Bermuda said:
Since when did driving become a human right which everyone is entitled?

His driving was dangerous, in so far that it resulted in the DEATH of a man, and the injury of many others. Why the hell should it matter if the death was intentional; he was intentionally NOT paying attention, and as a result everything, that he does from there should be considered done with intent. Hell, turning your car on and going for a drive should mean everything you do behind he wheel is done with intent.

Stepping into your car and using it to kill someone, regardless if it was intentional or as the result of an accident, doesn't change the fact that it was you who killed someone at your hands.

Outrageous.
Click to expand...

Agree. Just like they can charge for impaired driving if sleeping in back of car with keys in ignition. You have no intention of driving but they charge you and make it stick. How is this different? Some kind of legal technicality, it appears:rolleyes:
 
in many European jurisdiction driver who caused accident resulting with somebody else injury or death is automatically charged with manslaughter, or attempt manslaughter, unless he/she proves it was not his fault (problem with car, or elements).

I do not understand, why in Canada and most of USA, if you caused accident with death, you are charged with careless driving.

so If I will take a gun and start shooting down the Yonge street, I will be charged accordingly, but if I will be driving on the wrong side of Yonge and kill some people, I will be charged with nothing, what is the difference in the law system, in both cases my stupid action result in people being hurt or died.
 
Should people be charged for the crime or the consequences of the crime? For example, this guy crossed the line and killed somebody and injured others. A similar crime would be a motorcycle lowsiding and sliding across the road but not hitting anything. Both crimes involved crossing the line and not being in total control of the vehicle. Should the charges be the same? Should the punishment be the same?


Bermuda said:
Since when did driving become a human right which everyone is entitled?

His driving was dangerous, in so far that it resulted in the DEATH of a man, and the injury of many others. Why the hell should it matter if the death was intentional; he was intentionally NOT paying attention, and as a result everything, that he does from there should be considered done with intent. Hell, turning your car on and going for a drive should mean everything you do behind he wheel is done with intent.

Stepping into your car and using it to kill someone, regardless if it was intentional or as the result of an accident, doesn't change the fact that it was you who killed someone at your hands. And given the massive privilege which driving should be considered, this statement should stand. If you can't even give enough ****ing attention to just drive the damn car in between two lines, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive the damn car at all.

To everyone saying "he made a mistake", sure. That's not untrue. But holy hell his mistake held the worst of repercussions. A mistake of that degree shows the driver has a gross lack of respect for the responsibility in his hands. We already punish people for making mistakes which resulted in no harm; speeding and parking tickets, running a red light, USING YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING. They're supposed to deterrents, so drivers don't feel tempted to do these things, things which can result in DEATH. But what happens when one of these actions DOES result in death? This is what happens, and it's a joke.

And even if he wasn't using his phone at the time of the accident; what the hell is his excuse then? Clueless clown on the road. Should have put his license back in the cereal box he found it in.

Outrageous.
Click to expand...
 
ddusseld said:
Should people be charged for the crime or the consequences of the crime? For example, this guy crossed the line and killed somebody and injured others. A similar crime would be a motorcycle lowsiding and sliding across the road but not hitting anything. Both crimes involved crossing the line and not being in total control of the vehicle. Should the charges be the same? Should the punishment be the same?
Click to expand...

Great example. Bike low sides, rider is doing the speed limit, not drunk high or otherwise distracted...Bike hits someone and kills them. would all these posters be happy with the motrcyclist charged with murder or manslaughter???.
 
I wouldn't say happy, but understanding.

**** happens, people make mistakes. Distracted/careless mistakes are a result of intentionally not being focused or being considerate of your surroundings. So a mistake is not "just" a mistake, you had to decide to be negligent somehow. It's not the opposite of not making a mistake, just like dark is not the opposite of light; it is the absence of light that causes darkness. It is the absence of (knowledge, care, diligence, etc.) that causes mistakes. So you make a mistake, lowside, no harm. Then no foul. Maybe you toasted your bike or held up traffic. But if it hits someone, then your mistake, being the absence of due care or something, caused death. Now you get charged.

Of course none of what I said happens in reality, but I think most of us can sense when something is right or wrong, versus legal or not legal and that those terms can all be mutually exclusive of each other at some times.

sonnythebull said:
Great example. Bike low sides, rider is doing the speed limit, not drunk high or otherwise distracted...Bike hits someone and kills them. would all these posters be happy with the motrcyclist charged with murder or manslaughter???.
Click to expand...
 
sonnythebull said:
Great example. Bike low sides, rider is doing the speed limit, not drunk high or otherwise distracted...Bike hits someone and kills them. would all these posters be happy with the motrcyclist charged with murder or manslaughter???.
Click to expand...

Ya, but it's a hypothetical example. Like how is it that you're riding along at the speed limit and/or speed for conditions and you lose so much care and attention that you inadvertently lowside, I mean hypothetically?
 
The police should try to charge him with Manslaughter now. If a judge as ruled that she couldn't convict him because there was doubt he was using the phone at the time she has basically said he wasn't distracted by the phone, therefore he has willingly crossed into oncoming traffic and killed 1 man and seriously injured many others. The means he knew what he was doing, therefore manslaughter if not murder and assualt with a deadly weapon.
 
LoneRonin said:
find out where this mother****er lives...This warrants street justice. Slashed tires, broken windows and a paintballed car at the very least...if no one can get their hands on him.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. I can link a google map to the exact address and no one will deal payback due to fear of police reprisal.
 
Rider goes into a corner and freezes, simply can't turn. Hits the brakes and washes out the front end and low sides. Nothing hypothetical about this scenario. Seen it happen. The rider in question best described it as a complete brain fade.


BNKN said:
Ya, but it's a hypothetical example. Like how is it that you're riding along at the speed limit and/or speed for conditions and you lose so much care and attention that you inadvertently lowside, I mean hypothetically?
Click to expand...
 
Double standard? An off duty cop out riding on Hwy 7 was killed by a truck turning left. Why did that "Accident" result in criminal charges and not the Barrie one?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Not for dangerous operation of a vehicle, it isn't. That level of crime requires a much more overt act, to justify conviction.
Click to expand...

The overt act is failing to maintain control of a 3000lb missile in his command. He ignored his responsibility on purpose.
 
ddusseld said:
Should people be charged for the crime or the consequences of the crime? For example, this guy crossed the line and killed somebody and injured others. A similar crime would be a motorcycle lowsiding and sliding across the road but not hitting anything. Both crimes involved crossing the line and not being in total control of the vehicle. Should the charges be the same? Should the punishment be the same?
Click to expand...

If the rider intentionally abandoned control of his bike then yes, same charge.
 
fastar1 said:
The overt act is failing to maintain control of a 3000lb missile in his command. He ignored his responsibility on purpose.
Click to expand...

That's a failure to act, not an overt act. In other words operation without due care and attention, not dfangerous operation.

Inphered said:
The police should try to charge him with Manslaughter now. If a judge as ruled that she couldn't convict him because there was doubt he was using the phone at the time she has basically said he wasn't distracted by the phone, therefore he has willingly crossed into oncoming traffic and killed 1 man and seriously injured many others. The means he knew what he was doing, therefore manslaughter if not murder and assualt with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy attaches. You cannot be charged and tried twice for the same crime.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
That's a failure to act, not an overt act. In other words operation without due care and attention, not dfangerous operation.
Click to expand...

So if I go waiving a gun around shooting it without bothering to aim first, I can't be convicted if anyone dies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom