Sometimes is better to just ****ing let it go
wheelie vs killer
- Thread starter veno78
- Start date
Bottom line is our criminal system is based on the concept of mens rea/criminal intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea). As has been mentioned many times throughout this thread, we all have lapses of concentration, that does not equal intent. Should something bad happen during that split second, does that mean you should suffer for the rest of your life? There is no difference in intent between running a red light, and running a red light and hurting someone.
Thankfully we as a society aren't huge on vengeance, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
Thankfully we as a society aren't huge on vengeance, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
Nofear
Well-known member
Have you ever heard of involuntary manslaughter...[h=2][/h]
Have you ever heard that we have our own laws, separate from the United States?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-99.html#h-78
I would argue that failing to look when doing a left turn is operating a vehicle dangerously
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-106.html
But again, you require the intent to cause harm or put people in harms way to begin to look at dangerous drive... not just the oversight.
Not "culpable."
You'd be wrong. It's "without due care and attention", not "dangerous."
It may be dangerous, but so is excessive speeding or popping wheelies. You have to be really going to extremes to be charged criminally for any one of them.
Criminal Code dangerous driving charges requires the Crown to prove that you intended to drive beyond the pale, or that you ought to have known that your driving/riding was seriously beyond anything that could be called reasonable. A momentary lapse isn't enough to prove criminal intent or negligence to a criminal degree.
For what it's worth, while most right-of-way or running stop sign or traffic light violations result in tiuckets with set fines, a cop can choose to issue you a summons to court instead of that set fine ticket. This is often done in more serious cases where an otherwise minor offence has resulted in a serious crash resulting in death or injury, and where a cop thinks that the circumstances warrant a mandatory court hearing. When it is done, the range of potential fine amounts can go far beyond the usual set fine amounts that would apppear on an ordinary ticket.
That said, even with the summons it's still a traffic offence. The simple outcome of an act is not a determiner of whether the act was criminal or not. Either the specific driving leading to a crash was criminal, or it wasn't. Injury or death does not change that.
With respect to actual criminally dangerous or negligent operation of a vehicle, things change. Simple dangerous or impaired driving where the driver or rider is caught with or without ensuing crash, but nobody is hurt is one charge. As soon as someone is hurt, the charge changes to a more serious charge with steeper penalties. If someone dies, the charge and penalty changes again to one even more serious. However, that escalation stems from a degree that is already criminal in nature, and not from a simple mistake.
So what your saying is unless you're drunk or excessively speeding then only is it dangerous... everyone else follows under the without due care and attention catagory? What about the people that know full out what they are doing but they don't care cuase them getting their first is more important than your safety and life...Not every one that causes a collision did so cause they were day dreaming...
For your driving to be considered bad enough to warrant criminal charges, it must show a pattern of excessively dangerous or negligent operation, or it must include a specifically defined criminal element such as impaired or fleeing from police.
Those sorts of criminal charges carry a high burden of proof to obtain a conviction. Police will lay all the charges they can, but the charges should be supported by tangible evidence. The Crown can go forward with charges laid by police, but only if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.
A crash by itself, even one with severe outcome, is not sufficient evidence of criminal wrong-doing. If there is insufficient proof of criminal wrongdoing to support a possible criminal conviction, the only route left is non-criminal charges.
Careless driving is the highest non-criminal HTA charge to cover driving that falls short of provable criminally dangerous driving. The burden of proof required to secure a conviction for careless driving is much lower than that needed for criminal dangerous driving, where criminal intent or criminal degree of negligence must be shown.
That's why it gets used even for some cases of apparently deliberately bad driving, but where there isn't quite enough evidence to ensure a dangerous driving conviction. It's the fallback charge when there isn't quite enough evidence to go tougher on a driver. It's also the go-to charge for general inattention.
Last edited:
Actually technically it's not, which is why I'm making the distinction between the two.
lol according to the law there is a destinction between the two. According to common sence and just reading it out loud you will see that "dangerous" is a descriptive word for "without due care and attention".
Actually in this case the law and common sense are congruent. a descriptive word for "without due care and attention" would be something more akin to "distracted", than "dangerous."
So hitting other cars/motocycles/pedestrians/buildings would not be dangerous...sounds like fun, next drive I'm not going to pay attention cause it's not dangerous.:thumbright:
Hitting other vehicles is an effect, not a cause.
Purposely ignoring other road users is, in fact, dangerous.
