Because that cant result in kickbacks?
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Video evidence clearly shows Linda O’Leary, not Kevin, piloted boat in deadly Muskoka crash, defence says
Linda O’Leary was the designated driver that night, as she often was, Lake Joseph cottage owner Leah Smith testified Wednesday.
www.thestar.com
Police re-enacted fatal boat crash involving Linda O'Leary — and this is what they found
Dr. Richard Ruh, who drove the large boat that was hit, was cited for not having its lights on at night, and Linda O’Leary was cited with careless operation of a ve…
nationalpost.com
Video in this article shows the other boat leaving dock with lights on... and then the lights going out.
It also shows the crash... but you can't really see much.
If the video evidence clearly shows that the lights were off on the other boat, after dark, then there's a pretty steep climb to show that O'Leary is guilty of "careless operation."
Why? Its the same as a car. If I out drive what I can see, I am being careless. Slow down or send more light forward if you want to go faster. Animals dont have lights on them, swimmers dont have lights on them, floating docks dont have lights on them. It is the drivers responsibility to be able to see and avoid unlit objects in the water. Lighted objects help the avoidance happen with more buffer room.
Because the operator of the other vehicle had a duty to make himself visible, but failed to do so. Sure, you can "outdrive" your vision, after dark, but a rock or swimmer isn't going to potentially be approaching you at your speed. How much does that reduce what would otherwise be your reaction time?
Afaik the unlit boat was not moving at the time of the crash.
Pretty sure a boat has to display nav lights after dark, by law, so if they were out there without lights they were negligent.
Docks and rocks and shoals don't have lights cuz they don't move and it's on the operator to be aware of them.
... swimmers after dark are on their own.
Docks and rocks and shoals don't have lights cuz they don't move and it's on the operator to be aware of them.
... swimmers after dark are on their own.
The boat that got hit sure sounds like it was negligent. That doesn't absolve the operator of a boat blasting around in the dark and hoping for the best. The boat going fast may not be 100% responsible but they are a hell of a long way from 0% responsible. If you crash into a vehicle with no lights with your car, is that situation any different?
If that car is sitting in the middle of an unlit country road well after dark, probably not. But cars to boats is largely an apples to manhole covers comparison.
What's her face is CHARGED with "careless operation of a boat"
She is either 100% guilty or 100% not guilty. These are the only choices.
When the civil tort cases are heard they will speak of diminished responsibilities by reasons of speed, weather or that what's HIS name is a dick and everybody hates him and thinks he was probably driving the boat and let his wife cop the charge cuz he was FACED at the time... but I digress....
If, in Ontario, you hit a parked car (with or without lights on) liability of the PHYSICAL damage would be decided with the "fault chart". Only the physical or property damages.
If there was someone IN that parked car when you hit it and got hurt and sued you for TORT damages, you could claim diminished liability for torts.
Welcome to Ontario's "MODIFIED" No Fault.
... if the person in the car you hit in the above case is the DRIVER, which makes them "second party", they only get to sue for tort in VERY limited circumstance, cuz they were the driver so they are covered by our crappy no fault pay out scheme.
A passenger is "third party" and can sue till their heart's content... unless they have an Ontario auto policy... then they go through THEIR policy till the max payout THEN sue you.
I think we got a weird system.
She is either 100% guilty or 100% not guilty. These are the only choices.
When the civil tort cases are heard they will speak of diminished responsibilities by reasons of speed, weather or that what's HIS name is a dick and everybody hates him and thinks he was probably driving the boat and let his wife cop the charge cuz he was FACED at the time... but I digress....
If, in Ontario, you hit a parked car (with or without lights on) liability of the PHYSICAL damage would be decided with the "fault chart". Only the physical or property damages.
If there was someone IN that parked car when you hit it and got hurt and sued you for TORT damages, you could claim diminished liability for torts.
Welcome to Ontario's "MODIFIED" No Fault.
... if the person in the car you hit in the above case is the DRIVER, which makes them "second party", they only get to sue for tort in VERY limited circumstance, cuz they were the driver so they are covered by our crappy no fault pay out scheme.
A passenger is "third party" and can sue till their heart's content... unless they have an Ontario auto policy... then they go through THEIR policy till the max payout THEN sue you.
I think we got a weird system.
At O’Leary trial, officer describes ‘nerve-wracking’ reconstruction of deadly Muskoka boat crash
“It basically falls on the operator’s responsibility to conduct that vessel in a safe manner,” OPP Const. David Hogue testified, adding that means having “enough time and distance to avoid a collision, or see any dangers that may be there or not there.”
www.thestar.com
Not related to the O'leary crash... But...
Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24
Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com
At O’Leary trial, officer describes ‘nerve-wracking’ reconstruction of deadly Muskoka boat crash
“It basically falls on the operator’s responsibility to conduct that vessel in a safe manner,” OPP Const. David Hogue testified, adding that means having “enough time and distance to avoid a collision, or see any dangers that may be there or not there.”
Not related to the O'leary crash... But...
Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24
Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
Didn't realize the first article was pay to read... So...
'My heart still races': Police nearly collided during simulation of fatal O'Leary boat crash
Investigators were out on Lake Joseph, a picturesque waterway surrounded by large and expensive cottages, aboard two boats during an investigation of the crash
nationalpost.com
justride
Well-known member
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/08/03/female-officers-accuse-senior-peel-cop-of-sexual-harassment-claim-service-ignored-poisoned-sexist-work-culture/_1_whidden.jpg)
Female officers accuse senior Peel cop of sexual harassment, claim service ignored ‘poisoned,’ sexist work culture
Retired Insp. Daniel Johnstone denies the claims filed at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, saying he is “particularly concerned about the nature of the allegations levelled against him and how they have evolved.”
What the everloving . . . How much did this stupidity cost us?
www.cp24.com
A plane has major damage after a York Regional Police (YRP) drone struck the aircraft at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport earlier this month.
EDIT:
It gets better. The cops violated controlled air space without permission. So we as taxpayers are probably looking at five figure bill to fix the plane (prop strike normally means the engine has to come completely apart for inspection) and five to six figures for the drone. That is assuming that the school doesn't sue for diminished value as now there is a collision registered on the aircraft. That could push the taxpayers bill to mid six figures. Last I heard, many municipalities self-insured for the first few million.
www.680news.com
"In the report to Transport Canada, which was submitted eight days after the incident on August 18, it said the drone had unauthorized entry to a “controlled airspace."
Plane damaged after being hit by York police drone at Buttonville Airport: Transport Canada
A plane has major damage after a York Regional Police (YRP) drone struck the aircraft at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport earlier this month.
www.cp24.com
A plane has major damage after a York Regional Police (YRP) drone struck the aircraft at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport earlier this month.
EDIT:
It gets better. The cops violated controlled air space without permission. So we as taxpayers are probably looking at five figure bill to fix the plane (prop strike normally means the engine has to come completely apart for inspection) and five to six figures for the drone. That is assuming that the school doesn't sue for diminished value as now there is a collision registered on the aircraft. That could push the taxpayers bill to mid six figures. Last I heard, many municipalities self-insured for the first few million.
York police drone collides with plane approaching Buttonville Airport, TSB investigating
The Transportation Safety Board is investigating after a York regional police drone collided with an airplane approaching Buttonville Airport in Markham last week. Police confirmed to CityNews they had deployed a Remote Piloted Vehicle (RPV), known more commonly as a drone, as part of an...
www.680news.com
Last edited:
I'm more of a Lawful Masses viewer, but Lehto does good stuff.
justride
Well-known member
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/localcommunities/brampton_guardian/news/2021/08/24/complicated-process-peel-regional-police-not-mandating-members-to-be-vaccinated-yet/10463421_Peelpolicestock16.JPG)
'Complicated process': Peel Regional Police not mandating members to be vaccinated yet
Force consulting with "various sources" before creating policy
justride
Well-known member
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/08/29/toronto-police-officer-arrested-criminally-charged-with-breach-of-trust/toronto_police_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Toronto police officer criminally charged with breach of trust, suspended with pay
The officer allegedly used a messaging app to provide information acquired using police computer systems.
potentially putting the lives of police officers at risk. holy smokes!
|
|
|
|
|