|
CLAM DOWN posted:No one is overblowing it or getting outraged, it was just worth a mention because it's an actual problem here. I didn't really mean it in that anyone here was getting outraged over it, mostly meant drivers at large. Although now that you mention it, it annoys me that whenever this poo poo comes up everyone has to point out "pedestrians and cyclists aren't blameless either!!" yeah we get it.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Was phone posting... oddly enough it was in the edmonton journal. http://www.scribd.com/doc/293561648/R-v-Suter-2015-ABPC-269 I think it's interesting that someone could admit to having had alcohol but claim that they were not impaired, given how little alcohol is required to meet that 0.8 threshold. I can blow over and still be anything but impaired in terms of how other people perceive my actions... Suter admitted to drinking, but the judge decided that the alcohol was not enough to cause impairment. Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:I didn't really mean it in that anyone here was getting outraged over it, mostly meant drivers at large. You mean they were no angels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
This bit cracked me up. I really want to see this in an appeal decision some day. poo poo, I can't stop giggling. Good job. Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Can the crown not proceed with a case against him simply for reckless driving causing death or similar? From the undisputed facts he admits to stepping on the wrong pedal in a moment of lapsed judgment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
I wondered if the vigilantism might have impacted the sentence (even if it was to a small degree).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Hilarious that the crown didn't or couldn't bring both charges forward like in the case of murder. For this specific instance I doubt it matters he will be killed by the family shortly by the seems of it. 1 and a half thumbs down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Hilarious that the crown didn't or couldn't bring both charges forward like in the case of murder. For this specific instance I doubt it matters he will be killed by the family shortly by the seems of it. 1 and a half thumbs down. Proving once again that your AV is well earned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
So if someone committed a crime that would normally carry say a 5 year sentence, but before the guy was even arrested or charged some vigilantes decided to lock him away in a terrible dungeon for 5 years with even worse conditions than a government prison. He eventually gets out or the police find him and finally charge him for the crime. Would the court say he's basically already served his sentence, give him a reduced sentence, or full sentence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So if someone committed a crime that would normally carry say a 5 year sentence, but before the guy was even arrested or charged some vigilantes decided to lock him away in a terrible dungeon for 5 years with even worse conditions than a government prison. He eventually gets out or the police find him and finally charge him for the crime. Would the court say he's basically already served his sentence, give him a reduced sentence, or full sentence? I think it had more to do with the fact that suffering from having recently had the poo poo kicked out of you is kinda hard to distinguish from suffering from drunkenness that keeps you from being able to drive, and without the breath sample or credible evidence of impairment they can't prove he was impaired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Shut the gently caress up dude. If you respect the rule of law in this country, then advocating for vigilantism is a really cowardly thing to do. You're doing wonders for people's perceptions of lawyers being pedestal standing shitheads. I was asking honest questions and got back quite a response. I'm not advocating anything I'm extrapolating the future based on what has already happened, and seems quite plausible. Try not to read between the lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
This is why I intend to one day run on a platform of bringing back gladiatorial fighting pits as a replacement for the criminal justice system. You need to fight this bear, or pack of beavers or something, and if you live, you're innocent. That, or we get two criminals to fight each other. Either way, we sell tickets, make a bit of extra revenue for the government that can go into something good, like building bigger coliseums. The Hate Party: Rights are a Privilege.  (This is not a serious post)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:I wouldn't bring it up if you didn't keep mentioning "man, someone is going to take that guy out," as you furiously rub one out to the thought of extra-judicial sanctions which have no place in civilized society. Anyhow, I decide to try and see your side of the argument, which happens to basically be Judge Dredd a judges ruling is absolute and final (it's not, and will be appealed surely). You fail to even acknowledge that perhaps the crown brought the wrong charges forward or accepted a plea deal with the assumption the accused would actually be sentenced to more than 4 months for gross negligence in a vehicle given the fact the guy admits to running them over by pushing the wrong pedal in some sort of heightened emotional state. This ruling, if it stands, seems to reinforce the notion that when people die by cars its never the drivers fault regardless of their actions. If you think I'm somehow hurt by your disagreement with me, or that I'm upset by this new avatar (thanks btw) you are clearly delusional. I previously was gifted a brony avatar for 3 years and don't even care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Anyhow, I decide to try and see your side of the argument, which happens to basically be Judge Dredd a judges ruling is absolute and final (it's not, and will be appealed surely). You fail to even acknowledge that perhaps the crown brought the wrong charges forward or accepted a plea deal with the assumption the accused would actually be sentenced to more than 4 months for gross negligence in a vehicle given the fact the guy admits to running them over by pushing the wrong pedal in some sort of heightened emotional state. This ruling, if it stands, seems to reinforce the notion that when people die by cars its never the drivers fault regardless of their actions. I'm very impressed at your poor reading comprehension and slow uptake on your current AV
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
jm20 posted:This ruling, if it stands, seems to reinforce the notion that when people die by cars its never the drivers fault regardless of their actions. You don't seem to understand the decision. What parts confused you most? The court found no clear evidence of impaired driving. The lawyer seems to have told him to refuse the test. He pled guilty. He's going to jail - not for being impaired, but for doing what his lawyer told him to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
What's with you dumb motherfuckers who have a hard on for martial authority? Did you play too much paintball as a kid
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Two questions: 1) Why the hell would you contract out the legal aid hotline to out-of-jurisdiction lawyers? Yes, there's some commonality between provincial legal systems, but enough is different that it would only really be appropriate to get legal advice from an in-province lawyer; 2) Buddy drove his late-model Acura SUV into the restaurant. Legal Aid, at least in Alberta, is generally for people who cannot afford any lawyer. Why was he calling Legal Aid? Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:2) Buddy drove his late-model Acura SUV into the restaurant. Legal Aid, at least in Alberta, is generally for people who cannot afford any lawyer. Why was he calling Legal Aid? In this zirp economy you're not rich until your SUV cost at least 100 grand
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
I do have a lawyer I could call, but that's only because I have one for general purpose legal stuff (professional services, wills, real estate, etc.)*. So your point's taken; not everyone would know who to call. However, I found part of the legal decision which touches on that: Suter tried to call his lawyer and wasn't able to get through, so the cops directed him to the Worst Lawyer Ever Hotline. *my lawyer would almost certainly put me in touch with a criminal defense lawyer were I to call in these circumstances, but I trust him in the moment not to give me retarded advice like 'refuse a breath sample.' Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
The court thing said he couldn't get a hold of his lawyer and the cops kept telling him to call for a lawyer, going so far as to dial for him.Rust Martialis posted:You don't seem to understand the decision. What parts confused you most? I don't think it's confusion, it's a disagreement over what is acceptable behaviour. It's a complaint about the laws on the books not about the way the judge chose to enforce them. I think it's hosed that someone drove their vehicle into a restaurant patio, injuring a number of people and killing someone, and will still be allowed to drive three years from now. I also think it's hosed that it's only worth a four month jail sentence (and only that because he got bad legal advice). I don't care if it's "an accident". Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I think it's hosed that someone drove their vehicle into a restaurant patio, injuring a number of people and killing someone, and will still be allowed to drive three years from now. I also think it's hosed that it's only worth a four month jail sentence (and only that because he got bad legal advice). I don't care if it's "an accident". It's also hosed what happend to the guy while the trial was progressing. If he had actually received competent legal advice he quite possibly would be in jail for longer, so I'm not sure about that point. Do you not understand what accident means? It's poo poo like this that makes me think everyone should study ethics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:I didn't really mean it in that anyone here was getting outraged over it, mostly meant drivers at large. Heh. This came up in my Facebook feed in the meanwhile: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study It's a study put out by a cycling advocacy group, a few years old, and done in the UK rather than Canada, but it seems pertinent. I also took a glance at the pedestrian injuries map for Vancouver, and they seem to be pretty concentrated around major intersections, which suggests to me more drivers speeding through turns without looking than jaywalking. And yeah, victim blaming is kinda lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
Also, your lawyer may not answer the phone at 2 am; counsel with Legal Aid that are on call will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In the military the people who kill people and are trained to kill people are a tiny minority. Most are like trades types jobs or computer stuff or loving web developers. They all exist to support the people who kill people, and fix and maintain the infrastructure needed to support said killers. These people with day jobs in the military, they still had to go through basic right? Where they learn how to use guns? If no they did not then I withdraw my comment. My point is that if you skip the violence training (and related security checks) you become open to a much wider swath of the population. And if the goal is to form an emergency service then you don't lose anything anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I think it's hosed that someone drove their vehicle into a restaurant patio, injuring a number of people and killing someone, and will still be allowed to drive three years from now. I also think it's hosed that it's only worth a four month jail sentence (and only that because he got bad legal advice). I don't care if it's "an accident". From reading the decision, where his only charge was Refusing to Provide etc., the judge said that the evidence didn't suggest he was actually impaired, and that given the 100% wrong legal advice, it would be wrong to sentence him as if he were impaired, which was the purpose of the 'life imprisonment max' aspect. Given that, what *is* a typical prison term for motor vehicle manslaughter in similar circumstances? Accused pled guilty, skip the assaults, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Digging a bit, I see the Crown's best options were showing impairment. For non-impaired drivers, you're looking at 'criminal negligence' or 'dangerous driving' as criminal charges, the former seems the tougher charge. Lots of options if he was impaired. Dangerous driving seems to require 'more than a moment' - if you were driving normally then suddenly swerved into oncoming traffic and hit someone, the courts seem to have said this does not qualify. It may be a Traffic Act offense of Careless Driving; but that doesn't apply unless you're on a public highway. And thus was in a parking lot. (I'm citing Ontario law here, not Alberta -phoneposting) On the face of it the Crown went for their biggest penalty option. If they tried for Dangerous Driving he'd probably have been acquitted? He might get resentenced to a year, but given the assaults, lack of manifest impairment, bad legal advice... it was an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
International emergencies like torturing starving Somalis Good job good old Canadian Boys
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:IMO "reckless pedestrian" is just hugely overblown by motorists at large. Just another thing motorists get unduly outraged. Is it okay for me to be outraged about them as a fellow pedestrian? Yes, there are absolutely a lot of lovely drivers, but there are tons of complete morons walking around too. When I'm a pedestrian, I treat every cyclist and motorist as an unpredictable retard who will hit me if I don't take the utmost responsibility for my own safety. When I'm a motorist, I treat every pedestrian and cyclist as an unpredictable moron who will, at any given moment, be likely to act in direct opposition to the law and any regard for their own personal safety. The trick is to realize that people are all idiots, and they have such limited mental capacity that they will not look out for you or for their own safety. As a responsible, functional person, the burden falls to you to keep yourself safe and to not kill idiots, even when they do stupid and illegal things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, whomever bought that avatar for Swagger. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I also took a glance at the pedestrian injuries map for Vancouver, and they seem to be pretty concentrated around major intersections, which suggests to me more drivers speeding through turns without looking than jaywalking. Not necessarily, as people typically cross at or near intersections for the most part anyways. However, that just makes determining blame-worthiness of involved more difficult. I often find that people seem to confuse things one ought to do (clothing visibility, looking both ways) with what one needs to do by law (stop at a stop sign, cross when walk sign is on, etc), and try to shift blame from those who have failed to uphold the former to those who ought to have done the latter. Jordan7hm posted:I don't think it's confusion, it's a disagreement over what is acceptable behaviour. It's a complaint about the laws on the books not about the way the judge chose to enforce them. How long would be sufficient here? His entire life? Would your assessment here change if alcohol was not even potentially a factor? That you air quote accident implies to me that you believe it was not, do you believe this was deliberate? If so, what is an accident, then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 21:19
|
|