Male Wanted in Relation to a Fail to Remain Accident

[Bandit Bill]

Forum Sponsor

the vehicle did not hit him, he hit the vehicle. he drove into the passenger side of the car which my sister was sitting it, chris went to check on the motorcyclist, came back to tell my sister to crawl out the driver side, went to check on the motorcyclist, got scared and left.

Love this statement. Even though this is a second hand, uninvolved party (to the accident) the inference is that the motorcyclist was at fault, for "driving into the passenger side" of the car, even though the car violated the motorcyclists right of way with a failure to yield left turn. Just classic.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Love this statement. Even though this is a second hand, uninvolved party (to the accident) the inference is that the motorcyclist was at fault, for "driving into the passenger side" of the car, even though the car violated the motorcyclists right of way with a failure to yield left turn. Just classic.

Along the lines of "She was head-butting my fist, officer!"

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Along the lines of "She was head-butting my fist, officer!"

Don't laugh. A friend of mine was once considered to have been in mutual combat because his assailant pointed to the damage to his hand, claiming that it had been caused by him. Yes, that's right. He was charged for repeatedly striking his assailant in the fist, with his face.

Of course the concept of someone violating the right-of-way of another driver and then claiming to be the aggrieved party is patently ridiculous. It's called right-of-way for a reason. I hope that when they catch him they first jail him for the breach of recognizance, then hit him with every other applicable charge.

 

[Lorgayle]

Do we know if the caught the guy yet, or how the rider is?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

No reports so far, on whether or not they caught him.

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

He was released from jail several months ago under conditions. His family members put money and property up for him to be released. The minute he hit the motorcycle his family members money and property were at stake. He ran to avoid having his family members lose their houses, not because he was drunk or scared.

And one of the conditions was that he not drive? If so, then his family's property was at risk the moment that he got behind the wheel. Some people simply don't consider the ramifications of their actions.

 

[caboose56]

And one of the conditions was that he not drive? If so, then his family's property was at risk the moment that he got behind the wheel. Some people simply don't consider the ramifications of their actions.

Accountability?? No, that's clearly wrong. Running away was the best choice.

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

no, one of the conditions was that he not be INVOLVED in anything illegal, like being involved in an accident. he ran to give his family time to pull their bail.

I sincerely doubt that they would be able to pull their surety. After all, it was put up as a condition against this sort of eventuality. Is there anywhere that I can read the conditions of his release? Oddly enough it's likely that their money wasn't in any danger, until he ran from the scene.

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[REDBALLS]

Honestly, you do not know what you're talking about. You do not know Chris, and you do not know the situation, so please don't chime in. The conditions of his release are none of your business.

Hopefully when he gets caught again the judge will hold him in custody until trial and not let him off with some bs house arrest that he probably won't comply with.

 

[DOHC1]

What a ****ing idiot. GWS Rider.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Honestly, you do not know what you're talking about. You do not know Chris, and you do not know the situation, so please don't chime in. The conditions of his release are none of your business.

I don't have to know anything more than "breach of recognizance" and "fled the scene", in order to make a judgment. We all have a vested interest in how our justice system operates and, actually, the terms of his release are likely public knowledge. It's quite rare that such things are sealed.

 

[short stop]

no, one of the conditions was that he not be INVOLVED in anything illegal, like being involved in an accident. he ran to give his family time to pull their bail.

Being involved in an accident is not "illegal". Fleeing the scene is.

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

violating someones right of way is illegal, and enough for courts to revoke his bail

Actually no, it likely isn't. Special conditions may have been placed on his release but generally only serious infractions would result in breach of recognizance. For example being in a collision is a fact of everyday life, whereas fleeing the scene of a collision would likely be enough to have his release revoked.

 

[qwertyuiop]

...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

There is no point arguing with me, I know all the facts of Chris' release, his previous jail time, and the conditions that were placed on him at the time of his bail hearing. You do not. You also do not know what his lawyers have said about his situation.

And as you are not willing to disclose this information, there is no point in you making claims as to what those conditions were. I am privy to what 'standard' bail and release conditions entail and simply being in a vehicular collision does not breach those conditions.

As I stated there may have been a prohibition against operating a vehicle, in which case simply driving was reason for breach. This is often done in cases in which the offender, for example, was found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated or doing so while already under suspension, for having previously been found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He could have been operating the vehicle while intoxicated or while in possession of a controlled substance, either of which could have resulted in breach. He could have been operating the vehicle while in the presence of a (I'll use the American term) 'convicted felon, which could result in breach. Given the level of responsible behaviour displayed by his passenger, I find that difficult to believe. In short, there must be far more to this situation than has been stated here.

I maintain that the only obvious issue here, that would result in breach of recognizance, is the fact that he fled the scene of a collision in which his actions resulted in the injury of another driver.

Forum Sponsor