5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[Wookie]

nm

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

how do you get convicted of drunk driving if you don't provide a sample? how can it be proved you were drunk? it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so how do you prove it? I am not saying it's right, I am just wondering how it works.

The charge of refusal to submit is can be equally as severe, and in the light of the accident, there's enough under the dangerous driving to in theory ignore the lack of drunk driving.

Based on witnesses that say that they saw this guy driving at high rates of speed and erratically, I'm hoping that any judge will not have sympathy for his refusal to blow.

Its actually worse for him if they decide that the wasn't drunk.

Besides, if he was drunk, there's still physical evidence that can be called. ie he reeked of cheap booze, couldn't stand on his own. Pupils facing in different directions.

Also if I'm not mistaken, when they booked him and charged him under suspicion, they're probably allowed to take a blood sample.

[V]

Originally Posted by flames85

why do all topics have to turn into a debate?
i think we are all intelligent enough to realize who was in the wrong, and that this is a terrible tragedy. no matter how you slice it, the intent to kill isn't there. it was an accident. hopefully he is remorseful and hopefully he is punished appropriately. but to say this is a deliberate murder is wrong, walking into a mall and killing 8 people is.

Accident, my a$$. I have been absolutely hammered in my time, and never, ever have I ever thought I was fine to drive. It's pretty simple, really. If you want to get liquored up and get in your car you have already done enough to remove the 'accident' part of the equation.

Originally Posted by REDVAN

how do you get convicted of drunk driving if you don't provide a sample? how can it be proved you were drunk? it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so how do you prove it? I am not saying it's right, I am just wondering how it works.

Typically the ole standard DUI, is actually 2 charges: 253(a) and 253(b). Part a is based solely on operating a motor vehicle when your ability is impaired by alcohol (or drug) and part b is based soley on the breath test- over .08 mg%. Part a is thus based on observations made by police about the persons indictia of impairment. ie slurred speach, smell of booze, etc. AND can include a roadside test. You can be convicted of part a and the refusal (different charge 254). There are different refusals though. A refusal of a roadside and a refusal of a breathalyzer- with the roadside, you won't be charged with 253(a) only with the refusal. If you refuse the breathalyzer, you will be charged with 253(a) and the refusal.

In this case there was no 253(a) thus I would think police simply did not have the necessary evidence to lay the charge. Without part a, there can be no part b.

In terms of severity, as people have mention, the severity is the same. Keep in mind, that the vast majority of impaired drivings never to jail time.

[OracleOfCalgary]

So, hypothetically speaking... guy goes to deliver his concrete to the jobsite for Mega Homes of Calgary. The guys from BB cement contractors have made an early start on their drinking in anticipation of Friday night's company Christmas party. Guy with cement truck is offered a few drinks and he accepts. Later we end up with an awful tragedy like yesterday's. Could Mega Homes be found liable in a civil court for damages?

Edit: I ask this because I know that an awful lot of drinking does happen on job sites.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by fotze

So would that mean this guy may not have been drunk/sauced?

This is what I was getting at... which scares me even more.

Originally Posted by fotze

So would that mean this guy may not have been drunk/sauced?

I guess that's a possibility. However, there has to be a reason to administer the roadside test- admitting to drinking, slight smell of alcohol, etc. Key is, although there might have been some evidence of alcohol consumption, there probably wasn't enough for an impaired charge. So while he might not have been 'drunk' or 'sauced' in the typical sense, I would say, based on the reports, he had consumed alcohol at one time or another, just not enough to warrant a charge.

As far as civil liability goes, it will be interesting to see what role, if any, the company played in it. I do know there is case law making establishments (bars, pubs, etc) partly responsible in cases such as this. This even extends to house parties and small intimate gatherings. So, you have some family over for xmas and your brother-in-law gets liquored up using your booze that you may or may not have served him. He decides to drive home and kills someone. Yes, you could be held civilly responsible.

[Eddie Bronze]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why is that dink Quinn Risdon (chaparall president) getting interviewed about this accident. he's the guy who tomahawked Jared Aulin in a rec hockey game.

I don't know who this guy is but what did he say about it?

Originally Posted by fotze

Why is that dink Quinn Risdon (chaparall president) getting interviewed about this accident. he's the guy who tomahawked Jared Aulin in a rec hockey game.

Thats this guy: Quinn Risdon

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Also if I'm not mistaken, when they booked him and charged him under suspicion, they're probably allowed to take a blood sample.

I strongly doubt this. It know that it's very difficult, and in some provinces impossible, for paramedics to get a blood sample taken from a patient they treat if they are exposed to probable/possible HIV infection from that patient. This also applies to police officers, firefighters and Good Samaritans who are exposed to HIV while assisting someone. Legislation has just started to emerge in some provinces to make it possible to take blood samples in these situations, but it's been slow in coming because it might be an infringement on some junkie's rights. So I suspect they probably can't take blood samples for DUI cases.

You're right about being able to use other circumstantial evidence to convict, but it has to be pretty strong. They guy will get nailed for failing to blow for sure, but he might avoid the DUI and subsequent civil claims, which is no doubt why he refused to blow. I'm basing that opinion on cases I've heard of over the years. Maybe things have changed ... I'm not that up to date on how cases like this turn out. Pretty low if that's the situation ... I hope they can nail him if he's guilty of DUI and vehicular homicide, which seems likely.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Also if I'm not mistaken, when they booked him and charged him under suspicion, they're probably allowed to take a blood sample.

You can't even arrest someone for suspicion (although investigative detention does allow detention based on suspicion however it is quite limited) muhc less charge them. Blood samples can be taken but only in the event the person can't consent to a breath test (injury accident) AND a physician agrees to take the samples. This can only be done via warrant. It is seen as a huge breach of section 8 rights.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You can't even arrest someone for suspicion (although investigative detention does allow detention based on suspicion however it is quite limited) muhc less charge them. Blood samples can be taken but only in the event the person can't consent to a breath test (injury accident) AND a physician agrees to take the samples. This can only be done via warrant. It is seen as a huge breach of section 8 rights.

I'm the bigger man here, and I can admit I'm wrong . At this point with 4 charges of dangerous driving causing death, they probably don't need the breath test. Witness statement that he was driving fast and erratically, combined with the refusal to take the breath test will hopefully damn this guy.

[moeman]

How about from now on when we renew our license we have to sign a waiver that we will not refuse a breathalizer if stopped? You don't sign, no license to drive. In 5 years, everyone will have signed the waiver and nobody can say they have the right to refuse. Driving's not a right, it's a priviledge. So if you want the priviledge to drive, you have to be willing to forgo your right to refuse a breathalizer.

May not save lives, but it will take one of the legal avenues away that folks use to get away with a DUI.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm the bigger man here, and I can admit I'm wrong . At this point with 4 charges of dangerous driving causing death, they probably don't need the breath test. Witness statement that he was driving fast and erratically, combined with the refusal to take the breath test will hopefully damn this guy.

what is society going to gain by locking this guy up forever? your going to say keep him from driving impaired... yes he should have his licence taken away for a very long time / possibly ever. he should be made an example of and forced to earn a second crack at living a normal life.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by moeman

How about from now on when we renew our license we have to sign a waiver that we will not refuse a breathalizer if stopped? You don't sign, no license to drive. In 5 years, everyone will have signed the waiver and nobody can say they have the right to refuse. Driving's not a right, it's a priviledge. So if you want the priviledge to drive, you have to be willing to forgo your right to refuse a breathalizer.

May not save lives, but it will take one of the legal avenues away that folks use to get away with a DUI.

agreed. why do we even have the choice to refuse a breathalizer?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by flames85

agreed. why do we even have the choice to refuse a breathalizer?

+1

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by moeman

How about from now on when we renew our license we have to sign a waiver that we will not refuse a breathalizer if stopped? You don't sign, no license to drive. In 5 years, everyone will have signed the waiver and nobody can say they have the right to refuse. Driving's not a right, it's a priviledge. So if you want the priviledge to drive, you have to be willing to forgo your right to refuse a breathalizer.

May not save lives, but it will take one of the legal avenues away that folks use to get away with a DUI.

I've got a better idea ... why not shove a cattle prod up a guy's whazoo if he doesn't want to give a breath sample and leave it up there while he reconsiders his options.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flames85

what is society going to gain by locking this guy up forever?

Hopefully a severe punishment would deter a few others who might have otherwise made the same decision. That would be a big gain.

[fredr123]

There's a separate charge under the Criminal Code for failing or refusing to provide a sample and it's punished under the same section as 253(a)/253(b).

254 (5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.

Punishment

255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,

(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,

(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and

(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;

(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Impaired driving causing death

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flames85

what is society going to gain by locking this guy up forever? your going to say keep him from driving impaired... yes he should have his licence taken away for a very long time / possibly ever. he should be made an example of and forced to earn a second crack at living a normal life.

Hate to disagree and be harsh, but if this guy was drinking and driving then a large consideration of the sentence has to be based around public image.

There are too many instances of drinking and driving out there, and people don't seem to learn because it keeps happening.

Plus, I can't think of anything more callous, then someone who tanks some back, gets into a company cement mixer and destroys a family.

I have no sympathy for this guy, I have no interest in the concept of mercy for him.