Riceburner
Well-known member
5/5....won't be anyone on the roads.
|
|
|
Marco Muzzo
- Thread starter TO Bandit
- Start date
Let's start doing it with group hooligan rides where one messes up and hurts someone. All for one, one for all, right?
-D-
Banned
not the same, the rider is of sound mine and in control of bike
now if you see the rider unfit or you gave him drugs/drinks or you saw rider consume it then yea, you should shoulder some blame because now it's on you to protect the village from the idiot...never know, it could be your family member they take out...funny how life works sometimes.
-D-
Banned
My intention was to link the facility and the people around the person as a point of prevention.
It's the same logic they use to hold a bar accountable.
The civil system already allows for this, at least to a degree, right? Bartenders can be sued for over-serving obviously-loaded patrons who subsequently get into their cars and drive into a daycare playground.
If a suit was brought by the family here it wouldn't surprise me if a whole lot of people were named, from the pilot of the private aircraft to the gas station attendant where Drunko gassed-up his Jeep before killing four people. Lawsuits tend to cast wide nets to see what gets caught. Culpability is determined thereafter in the courts.
I don't know if his drinking buddies should be on the hook. The problem is that some here don't think even Drunko should be on the hook.
If a suit was brought by the family here it wouldn't surprise me if a whole lot of people were named, from the pilot of the private aircraft to the gas station attendant where Drunko gassed-up his Jeep before killing four people. Lawsuits tend to cast wide nets to see what gets caught. Culpability is determined thereafter in the courts.
I don't know if his drinking buddies should be on the hook. The problem is that some here don't think even Drunko should be on the hook.
Last edited:
The car of every driver ever convicted of impaired driving should be equipped with a sensor from these guys:
http://sobersteering.com/
Hell, maybe every car made should be so equipped from the factory.
Can't do much for drugs, emotions for competency but cell phones might have secure features such as forcing the screen off and/or forcing call disconnect etc when GPS senses velocity is >10kph. My car's OE navigation touchscreen disables a number of buttons and features when the car is in motion to prevent the driver doing stupid **** behind the wheel of a moving car. How hard can it be to implement something similar regarding phones in cars and trucks?
If we can deal with drunk driving and cell phone use we've likely dealt with upwards of half the causes of accidents right there.
Since I don't do rides it wouldn't affect me. This started with the point that MM's friends should have intervened. If a bunch got together for a ride and one idiot started stunting how many others would intervene? The old line about good men doing nothing.
Instead we whine and complain about insurance rates, road restrictions and biker targeting.
It's a moot point as the legalities are too onerous. On second thought HTA 172 is pretty fascist.
Last edited:
MM friends probably didn't intervene in my opinion, since they were in Vegas, on the plane, in the bar after and possibly not in much better shape than him. There may have been a few drunks headed home, the other guys made it.
The idea of charging friends that were at the party is retarded. It leans heavily toward paranoid cultures were you rat out your neighbor to the secret police. Fits a 172 act, where the police invent a charge and you fight to save yourself at your expense.
People being responsible for their own actions please, or paying for the crime as MM is now.
The idea of charging friends that were at the party is retarded. It leans heavily toward paranoid cultures were you rat out your neighbor to the secret police. Fits a 172 act, where the police invent a charge and you fight to save yourself at your expense.
People being responsible for their own actions please, or paying for the crime as MM is now.
I agree fully except consider this. If one of Muzzos' friends had jumped into his car and gotten gravely injured would Muzzo be 100% to blame? No, the injured friend would bear some, or a lot, of blame for his predicament. So that suggests friends do have a responsibility for a known impaired driver. I've only had 2 sips of coffee, will revisit later to see if this makes sense. Or you tell me.
Ratting out is subjective. Do you rat out a fiend that's DUI?
Cheating on his/her spouse? What if it's only BF/GF?
Cheating on their income taxes by working under the table?
Robs banks?
Does child porn?
Doesn't get a building permit?
I have achieved results by threatening to rat out on a safety issue but that wasn't friend, just a business contact.
If someone had ratted out MM as he walked / staggered to his SUV the Neville-Lake family would be in one piece. MM might have beaten the charge and be driving again. He would be free to devastate someone else's family six months or six years later. Ratting out is a crap shoot. Damned if you do or you don't.
Cheating on his/her spouse? What if it's only BF/GF?
Cheating on their income taxes by working under the table?
Robs banks?
Does child porn?
Doesn't get a building permit?
I have achieved results by threatening to rat out on a safety issue but that wasn't friend, just a business contact.
If someone had ratted out MM as he walked / staggered to his SUV the Neville-Lake family would be in one piece. MM might have beaten the charge and be driving again. He would be free to devastate someone else's family six months or six years later. Ratting out is a crap shoot. Damned if you do or you don't.
Nope, if you jump into buddies car and he puts you into the hospital , his insurance foots the bill. You get no blame (officially) . Now the fine print where he may not be insured once the DUI kicks in and now your left sueing him personally. If you have medical insurance of your own they will champion the cause with sueing on your behalf, because its all about who gets left with the bar tab, so to speak.
No, NO, no, no, YES, no , PUSSY, we just don't know do we.
Once again a classic example of "the law" being applied preferentially for the those in upper financial brackets. This guy will be out in about 2-3 years going about his business (not driving in Canada, but free to go anywhere he pleases). I doubt a regular Joe with this guy's priors would be able to pull this off after killing 4 people. What a joke!
Feels more like a banana country than Canada.
Feels more like a banana country than Canada.
There are similar precedent cases where drunk drivers have killed people. Some have been posted in the thread.
Among first-time convicted impaired drivers causing multiple deaths, Muzzo's sentence is among if not the harshest, so his money didn't help him there.
Parole is available to any first-time criminal offender after 1/3 of sentence is served, and unless you have really screwed up while inside or have demonstrated that you may be at risk of reoffending or that society may be at undue risk if you are released on parole, you will most likely receive that parole along with associated restrictions and reporting requirements.
Muzzo won't be getting anything that anyone else with similar offence and conviction circumstances wouldn't get.
Last edited:
It does seem retarded at first viewing but consider people being charged for murder while sitting in the getaway car or just being there. IE, not pulling the trigger themselves. If the investigation shows, for instance, 4 guys getting hammered at the bar and one guy pulls out his keys and announces "gotta go" maybe there is some culpability to his buddies or maybe not. If somebody jumps in the car with the drunk driver and is hurt in the subsequent wreck he unofficially should blame himself for his misery. Then it might stand to reason the he bears some responsibility for a subsequent wreck even if he isn't in the car. In both scenarios the buddy allowed the drunk to drive or at the very least didn't discourage him. Like the getaway driver who let the robber go into the store with a loaded gun. I think there's a parallel there.
I don't know the legaleze , I think there is a charge that exists for being a 'found in' , your in the wrong spot at the wrong time ie; Bordelo. And there is a charge for being an accessory to a crime, you can be charged as get away driver and accessory if the robber shoots somebody.
Now if we start with the accessory to drunk driving because buddy left the table first and you didn't stop him? Well, I see your point but holy crap, don't suggest this to the current crop in control of the province. They'd love that shiiit.
My buddy that just had a heart attack at 56 from smoking and poutine, I'm probably an accessory to his heart attack, I bring him cigars from the south.
Now if we start with the accessory to drunk driving because buddy left the table first and you didn't stop him? Well, I see your point but holy crap, don't suggest this to the current crop in control of the province. They'd love that shiiit.
My buddy that just had a heart attack at 56 from smoking and poutine, I'm probably an accessory to his heart attack, I bring him cigars from the south.
I wouldn't want to go down that road and if our government floated such an idea you bet I'd be here in romper room screaming myself hoarse as I am want to do. But if you look at the criminality of DUI I have to admit that the idea has some merit worth exploring.
|
|
|
|
|