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

[Dr.Manhattan]

Forum Sponsor

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.

You grabbing a gun and shooting it down the street is liable to kill someone, that is physical intent ( Mens Rea ) and you will be charged for manslaughter if anyone is hit and killed.

An automobile is not made to kill someone, and if you get in one to go to work and happen to lose control and hit another car, that is not considered manslaughter. You did not intend to lose control ( unless the prosecutor can prove otherwise ) and will get off the hook. If you are eating, smoking, or texting and you lose control and hit another car and kill someone, are you suppose to go to prison for 10 years ? You can definitely argue that fact.

As of right now he is looking at Careless Driving, Operation of a device while driving ( his cell phone, only $150 - $500 fine ), and possibly an improper lane change. That's all I can think of, but that alone will be 9 demerit points so he could lose his license, plus pay about $2000 in fines and whatever his legal fees are for avoiding the criminal charge ( probably pretty expensive ).

 

[fastar1]

So if someone slips and falls on a banana peel, hits their head and dies, the person who dropped that banana peel should go to jail?

Wait, are you saying the rider could have avoided the oncoming car, like someone stepping over a banana peel? What next, he deserved it?

 

[fastar1]

And I'm explaining why what happened, happened. The thing is that the law is frequently more fair to all, because of the detachment between emotion and legislation, than would be individual people. In this case the accused was over-charged, based on the events as laid out by The Crown. Had he been charged accordingly it's likely that he would have been found guilty, but the outcry from the riding public wouldn't likely have been any less.

To paraphrase we have a legal system, not a justice system. If you want a justice system, then you'll have to look to a higher power.

I want a better legal system. Not asking for perfection.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I want a better legal system. Not asking for perfection.

What we have is the best basic model that exists. It can be tweaked, but only by so much.

 

[caboose56]

Wait, are you saying the rider could have avoided the oncoming car, like someone stepping over a banana peel?

Possibly. I wasn't there so I can't say whether he could or not.

Answer the question please. Dropping a banana peel in a high pedestrian traffic area (whether intentional or accidental) is careless and irresponsible. Should the dropper face criminal charges?

 

[junkers]

You grabbing a gun and shooting it down the street is liable to kill someone, that is physical intent ( Mens Rea ) and you will be charged for manslaughter if anyone is hit and killed.

What if I was shooting doen the street without "intent" to kill anyone. but what if I will be throwing knife, or using machete.

An automobile is not made to kill someone, and if you get in one to go to work and happen to lose control and hit another car, that is not considered manslaughter. You did not intend to lose control ( unless the prosecutor can prove otherwise ) and will get off the hook. If you are eating, smoking, or texting and you lose control and hit another car and kill someone, are you suppose to go to prison for 10 years ? You can definitely argue that fact.

Car are not made to kill, same as kitchen knife, and both are used to kill, then why if you kill someone using kitchen knife (not matter if intentional or by accident), you are not charged with careless use of knife, but with proper criminal law.
Media are talking so much about people killed by guns, but almost sure there are more people killed and injured in car accidents, then bu guns.
we are living in car preaching society, where once you are in car you can do whatever.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

What if I was shooting doen the street without "intent" to kill anyone. but what if I will be throwing knife, or using machete.

Car are not made to kill, same as kitchen knife, and both are used to kill, then why if you kill someone using kitchen knife (not matter if intentional or by accident), you are not charged with careless use of knife, but with proper criminal law.
Media are talking so much about people killed by guns, but almost sure there are more people killed and injured in car accidents, then bu guns.
we are living in car preaching society, where once you are in car you can do whatever.

Two words in Latin explain it all.

Mens rea: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

 

[Rkt14]

I'm a little late in replying to this thread, but the first i heard of the charges being dropped, i was in a convenience store in alliston, I was outraged just hearing the charges were dropped and the kid was going to walk away scott free.

My prayers and wishes go out to the families involved in this disgusting day !

 

[fastar1]

Possibly. I wasn't there so I can't say whether he could or not.

Answer the question please. Dropping a banana peel in a high pedestrian traffic area (whether intentional or accidental) is careless and irresponsible. Should the dropper face criminal charges?

He should be held accountable in accordance with the degree of danger to others that is associated with his wilful actions. In your example, the risk is virtually zero.

If you may allow me, perhaps a better example would be someone riding around the pits with an open bucket of coolant in his lap. He spills some, and another guy comes along and crashes on it. The guy should be held responsible for causing the crash, and whatever consequences came of it.

 

[caboose56]

He should be held accountable in accordance with the degree of danger to others that is associated with his wilful actions. In your example, the risk is virtually zero.

If you may allow me, perhaps a better example would be someone riding around the pits with an open bucket of coolant in his lap. He spills some, and another guy comes along and crashes on it. The guy should be held responsible for causing the crash, and whatever consequences came of it.

To what degree?

Assault charges? With a weapon?

 

[油井緋色]

....I'll be the first in this thread to say that advanced math, calculus, and programming game engines are easier than ethics.

fastar1: there is no right answer. What you're arguing is ethics and I agree with you. What others are arguing is law. The two are getting confused together.

What the law is pretty much saying is "if you do not intend to kill someone and kill them, it is okay". What your ethics are screaming is that it's flat out stupid and wrong and I wholeheartedly agree. The difficulty behind what you are arguing is the reason why lawyers exist: to find loop holes in the system and exploit them.

What law essentially tries to do is create a rule that has to be equally applied to everyone. However, in my opinion, this rule needs to be examined.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it's "OK." I certainly am not. What I'm arguing is that being careless and being willfully dangerous are different degrees of culpability. Change the accused's actions from drifting across the line to swerving back and forth across the road, and you raise the level of action to 'dangerous.'

 

[油井緋色]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it's "OK." I certainly am not. What I'm arguing is that being careless and being willfully dangerous are different degrees of culpability. Change the accused's actions from drifting across the line to swerving back and forth across the road, and you raise the level of action to 'dangerous.'

Agreed and noted.

However, I still think they need to make finer adjustments to the law AND the licensing system if they wanted to root out this problem.

I haven't been riding very long but of the 3 years I have been all near accidents involving another car was the result of inattentive driving with a handheld device. This isn't cool. Every time a speeder ends up killing themselves in the event of a solo accident, it gets plastered all over the damn news. Hell, where I live there was a sign that said "avoid the use of engine retardation brakes" when some idiot downshifted too early and slammed into a pole.

This just doesn't settle very well with me; perhaps I'm just living under false logic but I think the target sign should be painted at inattentive drivers. Not people doing 160 on the highway (which I know a bunch of us did before the HTA172).

 

[caboose56]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it's "OK." I certainly am not. What I'm arguing is that being careless and being willfully dangerous are different degrees of culpability. Change the accused's actions from drifting across the line to swerving back and forth across the road, and you raise the level of action to 'dangerous.'

To paraphrase...

NOPE!! HANG HIM!!

 

[Low rider]

This is a classic case of the justice system failing.
This is absolutely ridiculous.

I would be willing to bet, that if it was a motorcyclist texting and killed a car driver, we would see him in jail.

 

[matt220]

And any one who says they have not made the same mistake of using cell/texting is a liar and a hypocrit....

I can safely say that I have not made the same "mistake", because I'm not a f***ing retard and I know that I can check the text I got in 10 mins when I arrive at my destination.

 

[mmmnaked]

^ that, or a more honest reply in saying that I can check a text without taking my 4000lbs vehicle into oncoming traffic... there was a time when it wasn't explicitly illegal, after all.

 

[fastar1]

To what degree?

Assault charges? With a weapon?

Sure, or not. Maybe the appropriate charge doesn't exist in the books. Maybe that's the problem with our current legal system . I'm just saying there's a problem and both you and Rob are looking at the law and saying "but this is how it works". Doesn't change the fact that there is a problem!

....I'll be the first in this thread to say that advanced math, calculus, and programming game engines are easier than ethics.

fastar1: there is no right answer. What you're arguing is ethics and I agree with you. What others are arguing is law. The two are getting confused together.

What the law is pretty much saying is "if you do not intend to kill someone and kill them, it is okay". What your ethics are screaming is that it's flat out stupid and wrong and I wholeheartedly agree. The difficulty behind what you are arguing is the reason why lawyers exist: to find loop holes in the system and exploit them.

What law essentially tries to do is create a rule that has to be equally applied to everyone. However, in my opinion, this rule needs to be examined.

That sums it up nicely, thanks. There are problems getting equal access to the law, there are problems with simple errors getting serious criminals off the hook, there are problems with punishing people who have done no harm, there are problems with interminable trials, there are problems with inconsistency in punishment, especially for white collar crimes. Laws and practices are so convoluted and complex, it seems as if they don't have anything to do with morals any more.

Why can't the law just try and hold people accountable for their share of responsibility when harm is done? It should be so simple.

 

[caboose56]

Sure, or not. Maybe the appropriate charge doesn't exist in the books. Maybe that's the problem with our current legal system . I'm just saying there's a problem and both you and Rob are looking at the law and saying "but this is how it works". Doesn't change the fact that there is a problem!

Who determines what is an appropriate charge? And what happens if an inappropriate charge is laid and subsequently defeated? Would there be a thread just like this saying that our system is ****ed? Or would anyone concede that the CP shot too high and missed?

FWIW if we had a charge like 'Careless Driving Causing Death' I think that would have been appropriate in this case. If you really want to DO something, why not write your MPP and suggest something to that effect? Or start a petition and collect a few thousand signatures then suggest it?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Sure, or not. Maybe the appropriate charge doesn't exist in the books. Maybe that's the problem with our current legal system . I'm just saying there's a problem and both you and Rob are looking at the law and saying "but this is how it works". Doesn't change the fact that there is a problem!


That sums it up nicely, thanks. There are problems getting equal access to the law, there are problems with simple errors getting serious criminals off the hook, there are problems with punishing people who have done no harm, there are problems with interminable trials, there are problems with inconsistency in punishment, especially for white collar crimes. Laws and practices are so convoluted and complex, it seems as if they don't have anything to do with morals any more.

Why can't the law just try and hold people accountable for their share of responsibility when harm is done? It should be so simple.

Why? Because we charge and convict for the crime, not the repercussions. The outcome of the crime goes to sentencing.

Forum Sponsor