The same way people drive like they don't deserve a license, get caught,
and then get upset when the process is begun to take it away.
It's just a matter of degree.
If you deserve your license, it's time to drive like you deserve it.
Drunken Skyway Bridge Idiot To Plead Not Guilty!!
- Thread starter Skully
- Start date
The same way people drive like they don't deserve a license, get caught,
and then get upset when the process is begun to take it away.
It's just a matter of degree.
If you deserve your license, it's time to drive like you deserve it.
Guys on this very forum plead not guilty to careless, stunting charges etc etc.....mind blowing isnt it?
Lol
I'll supply the bullet, no charge. I get to fire it though.
I have a sick feeling he will get less of a fine than someone doing 50 over.
Bike Cop
Well-known member
In a lot of DUI cases, particularly of the 'over 80' variety, the defendant is factually guilty. The trial becomes entirely about the investigation. If the police breached his rights during the investigation, the charges could be stayed. But in light of the amount of damage, number of witnesses, and effect on the motoring public, a not-guilty verdict will be a tough sell. The reputation of the administration of justice will be first and foremost in this one I think. One of the few cases that s. 24 will work in our favour.
It sounds like they only charged him with two impaired related offences so if he manages to walk on those, they may well have screwed the pooch by not including a without due care and attention or dangerous operation charge as well.
If the scales of justice are balanced then it's equally a case of the defence proving innocence as the prosecution proving guilt. The tie breaker is that an agent of the prosecution levelled the charge so, if anything, there would be a heavier burden on the defence. Is it to early to talk about railroading?
Bike Cop
Well-known member
This case is hardly the first one where a dump truck put their box up and wiped out an overpass or a set of hydro wires. But it may be one of the most expensive. I would think that a dangerous driving charge would fit as well, because of the danger to the public if parts of the bridge caused injury, etc.
Justice is balanced by putting the onus of proof on the side with the most power. It isn't balanced by making both sides have an equal burden.
I said "if" the scales of justice are balanced.
The crown levels the charge if it feels there is a reasonable chance of conviction. The crown believes the accused to be guilty. The crowns position is known to the court and the public. If the accused brings no defence what will be the outcome? Found innocent? Charges dropped? Don't think so.
Drove past the one on the 403 that hit the Mississauga Rd. overpass on my way to work last year. The cops were pulling over people for taking pictures while driving. Quite the conga line.
The scales of justice are balanced; just not in the way that you detailed.
It's not unheard of, in bench trials, for the defence to move for a dismissal of charges after The Crown has presented its case, if the defence feels that the fundamental burden of proof has not been met. It's also not unheard of for a judge to grant this. All that, without the presentation of a defence.
That's a defence strategy. That requires inertia. Once you are engaged by the system you have to respond. The accused does not set the process into motion. The crown does. If the accused chooses not to engage what is the outcome. Acquittal? Found innocent? Dropped charges? No. Like I said, guilty until proven innocent.
You obviously either did not read, or did not comprehend, what I wrote in response to your comment.
Well, that's a strategy.
