Still annoyed that you get four years for killing someone while drunk, at triple the speed limit and on your phone but you probably get similar time for carrying but not using a gun.
Any ideas why they made her submit a dna sample?
That's why. Thanks.Criminal Code DNA Provisions - DNA Data Bank Legislation - Consultation Paper 2002
Department of Justice Canada's Internet sitewww.justice.gc.ca
Seems reasonable. If you drinking is directly related to someone dying, just cut up the license and you are permanently ineligible (in Ontario). Driving is a privilege (so they like to say anyway), removing the possibility of driving again seems entirely measured and reasonable.It's costing the government $100K per year to hotel her. No question cronic alcoholism and drug use is often tied to a history of abuse or some kind of trauma (ie. drinking to forget). (I'm not talking about the party drinker who deserve no sympathy at all.) My guess she will get out in 18 months if there is good behaviour and rehabilitation found. Living with this will be even harder and the drinking will likely resume. Feel empathy but also ban her for life from ever driving again.
I've often wondered if proportional road fines might not be the best way to go. At least then it would be about equitable punishment under the law rather than ruinous to the poor, and just a road tax to the rich.Not in Canada but a cool idea will shortly be law in Tennessee. If you kill a parent and get convicted of DUI, you are responsible for childcare payments for their minor children. Nothing like a monthly court-ordered bill to remind you what an idiot you were.
Basing compensation on the standard the kid was used to seems unwise. If a poor person kills a rich person, they can never keep up. If a rich person kills a poor person, the penalty barely matters to them. I understand why they did it, but imo, it probably makes more sense to base it on the impaired drivers income. Take something painful (20 or 30%?) based on their average income over the past three years. That avoids them working underground to dodge liability. If they can't afford to retire, too bad so sad, keep working to pay for your bad decisions.
New law requiring drunk drivers to pay child support if a parent is killed passes in Tennessee
Cecilia Williams, who came up with the idea, lost her son, daughter-in-law-to-be and 4-month-old grandson to drunken driving.scoop.upworthy.com
A new law passed in Tennessee will require drunk drivers to pay child support in cases where the parent is killed in the accident they caused. The bill was unanimously passed in the Tennessee House. It states that a person convicted of killing a parent, as a result of intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide, will be required to pay child support for the surviving children until they’re 18 and graduate from high school.
This bill requires the court to determine an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the maintenance of the victim's child after considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:Tennessee General Assembly Legislation
wapp.capitol.tn.gov
(1) The financial needs and resources of the child;
(2) The financial resources and needs of the surviving parent or guardian of the child, including the state if the child is in the custody of the department of children's services; and
(3) The standard of living to which the child is accustomed.
If a defendant who is ordered to pay child maintenance pursuant to this bill is incarcerated and unable to pay the required maintenance, then the defendant will have up to one year after release from incarceration to begin payment. If a defendant's child maintenance payments are set to terminate but the defendant's obligation is not paid in full, the payments will continue until paid in full.
This bill requires that no child maintenance be ordered if the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments. If the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment after child maintenance payments have been ordered, then the child maintenance order will be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.
That they watched walk into the shop with a customer prior to launching a raid. I struggle to understand police tactics/training when they choose to force dangerous situations and then assassinate people. There were 100 ways to do this that were far safer and it's hard to think of a single way that is more dangerous.To paraphrase Lawyer - The police killed the owner of a gun store because he was holding a gun in his gun shop
Yes but again police have intentionally triggered a very dangerous situation that could have been avoided. Probably entirely justifiable for subject officer but should cost the planning officer dearly for such a dangerous and crap plan.If it's true that he pointed the gun in their direction and refused to put it down, then the use of lethal force was justified. The statement of the customer in question supported the police reports. There isn't much to be said after that.
I dont see it as a bad plan. Im guessing it was opportunity. Customer comes (not expected?), distraction and perfect time to go in. If he is alone he has the opportunity to see you coming, arm himself accordingly (no idea who is approaching?)Yes but again police have intentionally triggered a very dangerous situation that could have been avoided. Probably entirely justifiable for subject officer but should cost the planning officer dearly for such a dangerous and crap plan.
Traffic stop? Walking from his car to his house/shop? They literally attacked him in a store full of guns.I dont see it as a bad plan. Im guessing it was opportunity. Customer comes (not expected?), distraction and perfect time to go in. If he is alone he has the opportunity to see you coming, arm himself accordingly (no idea who is approaching?)
If the "store full of guns" was the purpose of the action, then nothing else would really suffice.Traffic stop? Walking from his car to his house/shop? They literally attacked him in a store full of guns.
Attacked?They literally attacked him....
I dont see it as a bad plan. Im guessing it was opportunity. Customer comes (not expected?), distraction and perfect time to go in. If he is alone he has the opportunity to see you coming, arm himself accordingly (no idea who is approaching?)