Oakville woman charged in 2014 motorcycle death

[inreb]

I think both are to be expected, probably the latter, then the former.

It really does effect people. My coworker in question still struggles with the memories and images in his head. There is no escaping it.

I get it, PTSD is real. Not everybody suffers PTSD. We will have to agree to agree and just move on.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

I equate making a dangerous move with out looking properly to be the same as shooting off a firearm without making sure it was safe to do so, yet there are dire consequences if you do that.

 

[griff2]

I equate making a dangerous move with out looking properly to be the same as shooting off a firearm without making sure it was safe to do so, yet there are dire consequences if you do that.

Name the charges that can be applied to reckless spraying of rounds resulting in injury or death as opposed to the charges (if any) that would apply to someone who makes reasonable efforts to ensure a clear field of fire but still ends up hitting that person unexpected standing out there in camouflage gear.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Name the charges that can be applied to reckless spraying of rounds resulting in injury or death as opposed to the charges (if any) that would apply to someone who makes reasonable efforts to ensure a clear field of fire but still ends up hitting that person unexpected standing out there in camouflage gear.

There are a few. This is recent, the charges were dropped due to extenuating circumstances but you can see where things could lead in hunting accidents. How often are riders wearing neon gear and they still have some one left turn into/in front of them?

Three days later, Stan is charged with criminal negligence causing death. A conviction would come with a sentence of four years to life in prison. Later, he is additionally charged with careless use of a firearm, which could bring a fine up to $25,000 or up to two years in prison, or both. The charge includes every person who uses a firearm "in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-star-stan-jonathan-kill-peter-kosid-in-2012/

 

[bakaboy]

If I crossed the dividing line and crossed into an upcoming car's path and killed someone, the question would arise of dangerous versus careless driving. So why would the same careless driving charge not apply when the same occurrence happens at an intersection?

Name the charges that can be applied to reckless spraying of rounds resulting in injury or death as opposed to the charges (if any) that would apply to someone who makes reasonable efforts to ensure a clear field of fire but still ends up hitting that person unexpected standing out there in camouflage gear.

 

[griff2]

There are a few. This is recent, the charges were dropped due to extenuating circumstances but you can see where things could lead in hunting accidents. How often are riders wearing neon gear and they still have some one left turn into/in front of them?



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-star-stan-jonathan-kill-peter-kosid-in-2012/

Charges were dropped because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because there was no evidence of reckless firearms usage. The question then arises if criminal or regulatory charges should have been laid at all given the circumstances. Even the presence of a dead body does not infer it got that way due to criminally negligent act, and the Crown's submission in withdrawing charges appears to recognize that fact.

"I've since reviewed the case law," he now tells the court. "I've spoken with the family of Mr. Kosid and in the circumstances, it is the Crown's position there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, leaving aside the issue of civil negligence. This is not a case in which, in my respectful view, there is sufficient evidence to meet the test of reasonable prospect of conviction for criminal negligence. And it is with that in mind, as well I might add, with the consent of the family of Mr. Kosid, that the Crown is ultimately not going to be proceeding with this matter and we ask that it be marked 'withdrawn.'"

Neon gear on the highway may be just as hard to see as camouflage gear is in woodlands. Neon colours on a rider can blend in easily enough against background colours in an urban setting, even the background colours of other traffic. Unlike the woodlands, a motorcycle can also be hidden behind other vehicles, and can easily become visible only too late especially if that motorcycle is engaging in high speed slalom riding using other vehicles as pylons to skirt around.

It happens, sometimes because of carelessness, sometimes because of recklessness, and sometimes because despite taking all reasonable precautions short of sending out a spotter, people can miss seeing things. Someone who is otherwise driving safely and within the law and who makes reasonable efforts to operate safely should not be overly penalized by the justice system for a simple mistake even if it results in a death. As for someone who is driving recklessly or overly aggressively, throw the book at them.

 

[griff2]

If I crossed the dividing line and crossed into an upcoming car's path and killed someone, the question would arise of dangerous versus careless driving. So why would the same careless driving charge not apply when the same occurrence happens at an intersection?

It really comes down to how you were driving pre-crash whether on a straight or at an intersection. Excessive speed, improper passing, distracted driving, poor vehicle condition, yeah you could find yourself facing hefty charges. A simple drift over, maybe, maybe not, as there are lesser charges that could apply in absence of evidence of more serious driving behaviours.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Charges were dropped because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because there was no evidence of reckless firearms usage. The question then arises if criminal or regulatory charges should have been laid at all given the circumstances. Even the presence of a dead body does not infer it got that way due to criminally negligent act, and the Crown's submission in withdrawing charges appears to recognize that fact.

"I've since reviewed the case law," he now tells the court. "I've spoken with the family of Mr. Kosid and in the circumstances, it is the Crown's position there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, leaving aside the issue of civil negligence. This is not a case in which, in my respectful view, there is sufficient evidence to meet the test of reasonable prospect of conviction for criminal negligence. And it is with that in mind, as well I might add, with the consent of the family of Mr. Kosid, that the Crown is ultimately not going to be proceeding with this matter and we ask that it be marked 'withdrawn.'"

Neon gear on the highway may be just as hard to see as camouflage gear is in woodlands. Neon colours on a rider can blend in easily enough against background colours in an urban setting, even the background colours of other traffic. Unlike the woodlands, a motorcycle can also be hidden behind other vehicles, and can easily become visible only too late especially if that motorcycle is engaging in high speed slalom riding using other vehicles as pylons to skirt around.

It happens, sometimes because of carelessness, sometimes because of recklessness, and sometimes because despite taking all reasonable precautions short of sending out a spotter, people can miss seeing things. Someone who is otherwise driving safely and within the law and who makes reasonable efforts to operate safely should not be overly penalized by the justice system for a simple mistake even if it results in a death. As for someone who is driving recklessly or overly aggressively, throw the book at them.

If the "victim" (i'm not sure what to call him as the shooter didn't even know he was there) had been wearing an orange vest and the shooter still shot him i think things may have played out differently

if high vis blends into the urban environment why isn't it incorporated into urban camouflage? Why do traffic cops, construction workers and various others wear it? You would think if it worked as camouflage it would be verboten for use by those that were working with any form of traffic.

 

[Baggsy]

If the "victim" (i'm not sure what to call him as the shooter didn't even know he was there) had been wearing an orange vest and the shooter still shot him i think things may have played out differently

if high vis blends into the urban environment why isn't it incorporated into urban camouflage? Why do traffic cops, construction workers and various others wear it? You would think if it worked as camouflage it would be verboten for use by those that were working with any form of traffic.

How many years did Dick Cheney get exactly?

 

[CruisnGrrl]

How many years did Dick Cheney get exactly?

He's a special case

 

[Lyndsay]

I say decimation. Execute every tenth murderous driver. Actually decimation is an interesting percentage for things like desertion. If you killed all deserters you'd lose your whole army. One in ten scares the crap out of them.

Thank you for using decimation properly. Many people seem t think its a big deal when something is decimated, when in reality it is often normal variations.