yep.... kinda funny that that guy kills 3 innocent pedestrians while drunk, and and everyone thinks he's going to get life.... ill be surprised if he gets 5 years in jail
Manslaughter for Passenger Fatality..
- Thread starter invictus43
- Start date
yep.... kinda funny that that guy kills 3 innocent pedestrians while drunk, and and everyone thinks he's going to get life.... ill be surprised if he gets 5 years in jail
The difference is that this one killed someone while trying to get away from the cops. That brings things to a whole new level of culpability.
The pathetic thing about this one is that had he managed to successfully get away, many of the people now calling him a zero would have been high-fiving him as a hero instead.
I hope you are ****ing kidding. Who the hell cares if it was because he was trying to get away from the cops or not. The lady's life was still worth the same whether or not the cops were after him. It's disgusting you would even suggest that the lady's life was more important than the pedestrians or vice versa simply because the cops wanted Soujah.
Nimbus
Member
The charge is manslaughter, not first or second degree murder, so just what exactly is your point?
You're missing the point. I wasn't commenting on the relative value of the victims' lives even if such could be quantified. This has to do with with difference of actus reus and mens rea between the two incidents.
The impaired driver is engaging in an illegal act known to pose increased risk to self and other road users. Ditto the person blasting their way at extremely high speed through traffic. Both are bad but still relatively simple transgressions.
When the red and blue roof lights comes on though, and either the impaired driver or the traffic blaster decide to run, they've entered a whole new realm of bad act and guilty mind over and above the initial bad act. The law tends to punish that sort of thing much more harshly. That's what I was referring to, and not whether the one victim's life is somehow worth more than the others'.
Go back and read the post I was replying to. That's the context of my post.
Why? Why is one act worse than the other? What makes running from the cops any worse than killing innocent bystanders while drunk driving?
AdReNaLiNe99
Active member
I will say one thing. If indeed this is indeed the perp, and there is enough evidence against him, that he gets the book.
The fact that more than 1 person has been scared before while riding with him, the fact he knew what he was doing was against the law, he knew the probability of something happening went up 10x (if not more) once he twisted that throttle like an assHat; an innocent woman is now DEAD because of decisions that were not her own.
We are bickering over some pretty dumb stuff here. Who cares who is right when it comes to speculation on the evidence? Lets just collectively hope that a resolution/conviction and jail time with a cell mate named big Jim happens. And if he gets out, no problem.
Give me a location and some $$ for some Bullets. Problem Solved.
The fact that more than 1 person has been scared before while riding with him, the fact he knew what he was doing was against the law, he knew the probability of something happening went up 10x (if not more) once he twisted that throttle like an assHat; an innocent woman is now DEAD because of decisions that were not her own.
We are bickering over some pretty dumb stuff here. Who cares who is right when it comes to speculation on the evidence? Lets just collectively hope that a resolution/conviction and jail time with a cell mate named big Jim happens. And if he gets out, no problem.
Give me a location and some $$ for some Bullets. Problem Solved.
I'm no lawyer by any stretch. I get all my understanding of the law just like anyone else......Law and Order
, but I see and understand where turbodish is coming from. I think what turbodish is saying is that drunk driver committed a crime and caused death while doing so, while the motorcycle rider committed a crime which caused him to be chased by the police at which point he decided to flee thereby committing another crime which is when the death occurred. I hope I'm stating this correctly (Correct me turbodish if I'm wrong) but simply the motorcycle rider compounded his first crime with at least one more therefore he should be sentenced harsher. Just my reading of the post.
I'm no lawyer by any stretch. I get all my understanding of the law just like anyone else......Law and Order
You understand the point perfectly.
I dont usually agree with Turbo but he is right this time.
Crown needs to prove both intent to do the crime and the actual act of doing the crime.
A drunk person, while knowing and willing breaking the law driving drunk, had no intention to kill people while driving home.
The person in this case- the rider, knew that he was breaking the law and tried to flee from police, in that process or pursuit, he lost a passenger. He may not have wanted that to happen but it was hid descion to run from the police that lead to this young ladys death. The fact that he was of sound mind when this occured will only work against him.
Its all about what a '"reasonable" person would do in the eyes of the law.
My only worry is that this guy has in fact lawyered up, and because police lost sight of him during the pursuit, he will get off. Unless that GSXR was customized, there are a thousand 03 gsxr 1000's out there. The evidence is all circumstancial at the moment unless this guy admits guilt-- the fact he did not turn himself in (probely on the advice of his lawyer-- does not want to admit guilt) means that this is going to be a tough trial.
BUT, the good news is that it took three weeks to arrest him, which means the cops did a lot of investigating and have some good grounds to lay charges and have them stick.
Hooray for LAW AND ORDER!!!!!!
All those hours watching Bravo weren't wasted .:laughing8:
All those hours watching Bravo weren't wasted .:laughing8:
You understand the point perfectly.
Last edited:
insert
Well-known member
intoxication, although may be considered, and i stress the maybe, is not in itself a defense in canada.
I don't believe anyone's saying that it is.
In Turbodishes example a drunk driver would be under the same rule of thumb if the cops chased him, and then he hit and killed a pedestrian.
If he had immediately stopped when the women fell off it might of looked a bit better. Right now, not only did he kill an innocent person, but he doesn't even give a **** about it, and that will not go good in court.
If he had immediately stopped when the women fell off it might of looked a bit better. Right now, not only did he kill an innocent person, but he doesn't even give a **** about it, and that will not go good in court.
insert
Well-known member
sorry i was looking at twinn's post. i thought he was saying there would be leniency if intoxicated due to lack of "intent". i may have misread it. it is sunday night. a weekend of partying has just finished. and i havent yet caught my sleep back.
on that note, i dont like to hang hte guy before he's found guilty. but if the cops have picked up the right guy, i hope they f*&$%ng throw everything they have at him. and may they smash out his teeth on day 1 in prison and toss him around like the house toy. to be responsible for the death of someone you know, posssibly a girlfriend, and act like this. its downright shameful.
Last edited:
Sorry but I really dont see any difference. Both were breaking the law when the killed people. The drunk driver was of sound mind when he made the choice to get drunk, what he did after that is a direct result of him being drunk. Its no different from the guy making the choice to run and then the subsequent results of his actions. We have no clue what either of the accused intentions when it comes to the victims. The only difference was his choice was to run from cops. I dont see how one crime is worse than the other in this situation.
The investigating officer from the OPP asked to meet me, knowing I ride a Sport Bike and frequent spots that Sport bikes gather in the Whitby area.
It was at that point I learned the make and model of the bike and name of the person that they were looking for.
The Officer wanted to know if I had ever met or seen him in this area, the answer was "no, he does not hang out any place I frequent" which is too bad because I would have loved nothing more than help the police find him!
I asked whether the Officer wanted me to mention who they were looking for and what he rode, but he said that he would rather I did not, they were having problems locating him and he felt there was a higher risk of him leaving the Country if the news got out that they were looking for him.
That's why I was not sharing anymore info on this board then I felt I could.
It was at that point I learned the make and model of the bike and name of the person that they were looking for.
The Officer wanted to know if I had ever met or seen him in this area, the answer was "no, he does not hang out any place I frequent" which is too bad because I would have loved nothing more than help the police find him!
I asked whether the Officer wanted me to mention who they were looking for and what he rode, but he said that he would rather I did not, they were having problems locating him and he felt there was a higher risk of him leaving the Country if the news got out that they were looking for him.
That's why I was not sharing anymore info on this board then I felt I could.
nesobriquet
Well-known member
Really? You want to be reimbursed for a bit of brass and lead?
Your offer doesn't exactly suggest much conviction.
Plus there's this; bullet(s) plural? So you are also a poor shot. I'd say our chances of finding someone better qualified for the task are better than excellent.
