5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Dion

Instead of feeling sorry for these people, we should be looking to make the sentences for these crimes a lot stiffer. Clearly the message of don't drink and drive isn't hitting home.

The victims of those drivers don't get a second chance.

Exactly this. Drinking and driving deaths are so preventable and yet we still hear of them far more often that we should. I'm not advocating the death penalty, but I think sentences should be a lot tougher.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I also read the testimony. He claimed the car had no lights on when it was stopped at the intersection. I still fail to see how you wouldnt see them considering the brake lights would/should be on.

Not to mention the traffic light was red as well.

[flambers]

Not to mention there were other cars at the intersection facing South bound with their lights on and going North bound (as per the various articles)....

He was driving around ~140 Km in a 80 zone (as per the articles)...

Passed a vehicle on the shoulder lane (as per the articles)...

Refused to take a breath test (as per the articles)....

Obviously was going to run the red light.....

This guys testimony is crap.... As other have said he is trying to plead to a lower offense and I hope the courts reject his efforts.

[burn_baby_burn]

To me it doesn't matter if he was drunk or not. If he was drunk at least it is somewhat of an explanation for his dangerous driving. If he seriously expects us to believe that he was sober and driving like that? I think it is worse than drunk driving. The man is obviously a menace to society if he was driving so recklessly with such a large vehicle in heavy traffic. He deserves the same sentence drunk or sober in my books.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

Regardless of whether or not the deceased were good parents, and regardless of whether or not the kids would have grown up to be Nobel Prize Winners or gangbangers, all 5 at least deserved the chance to make it to the next day. They were robbed of that chance because Tschetter made an @sshole, stupid, selfish decision.

You make some good points with your post. I would like to disagree on this point though, because I don't think everyone "deserves" to live just because they are alive. That's like saying abortion should be illegal because a fetus deserves to live. It's an ethical issue that is probably beyond the scope of this thread, and a lot of people won't like it, but: it was a random, preventable death. So are random gun shootings, house fires, regular car accidents. Sorry to sound insensitive, but people die everyday in ways that they absolutely should not. And yet they still do die. It doesn't make this case any worse, IMO, that the agent of death is known afterward to be a person. If this were weather related or something, then we would not be talking about it like weather is the sum of society...just everyone please relax, because this guy'll be going to jail for a while.

[pylon]

I have 0 "ZERO" sempathy for drunk drivers as I lost a family member to one. I personally believe the penalty for DUI should be a permanent lifetime ban from driving....period, no exceptions. If you are so irresponsible, selfish and or stupid that you can not understand the danger an impared driver is subjecting the public to, driving should be least of your concerns, and you do not have the right to risk the lives of people that are responsible citizens.

But...... (and this is not going to make me a lot of friends on this website) studies are starting to show that talking on cell phones while driving are causing more fatalaties than drunk driving. So all the people chastising DR. Drunk here need to take a look at there own driving habits in relation to texting and talking on the phone while driving. Especially now that cell phone logs are becoming more and more prevelant in accident investigations.

I was nearly wiped off the face of the earth by some twit on a cell phone while I was on my motorcycle a couple years ago. Had the car in the oncoming lane been even half a second sooner I would be dead. I caught up to the car that forced me into oncoming traffic and she was just laughing away on her phone after she had nearly caused a near fatal collision because of her obliviousness. I stayed with her until the next light and gave her the window roll down signal. When she roled down the window I said "do you realise you nearly killed me back there?" I swear she actually said this...."Do you realise I how little I care."

In a moment I am not proud of, I decided to do something I saw another motorcyclist do years ago. I fell back from her a couple car lengths sped up and took the mirror off her Corrolla with my boot. I always wondered why the dude I saw do that 10 or 12 years did the same thing. Maybe he had a similar experience.

[burn_this_city]

I would have done the same.. Maybe smashed the side windows too. Beach justice bitch.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

You make some good points with your post. I would like to disagree on this point though, because I don't think everyone "deserves" to live just because they are alive. That's like saying abortion should be illegal because a fetus deserves to live. It's an ethical issue that is probably beyond the scope of this thread, and a lot of people won't like it, but: it was a random, preventable death. So are random gun shootings, house fires, regular car accidents. Sorry to sound insensitive, but people die everyday in ways that they absolutely should not. And yet they still do die. It doesn't make this case any worse, IMO, that the agent of death is known afterward to be a person. If this were weather related or something, then we would not be talking about it like weather is the sum of society...just everyone please relax, because this guy'll be going to jail for a while.

You know some people would agree with that statement regardless of whether or not you were having a 'bad day' and forgot to wear a rubber!

On another note, the real reason why we dont' have tougher sentancing and consequences for drunk driving is because the silent majority doesn't deem it necessary to do so. Already we have DUI laws that violate the Charter (Blowing between 0.05 and 0.08, though still technically legal they still unconstitutionally impound your vehicle). With regards to tougher sentancing: not until aggrivated sexual assualt, Manslaughter, Second Degree Murder, and First Degree Murder charges have severly tougher sentances that get better enforced as well. The public will find it hard to believe that the Karla Homolka's of the world are somehow on par with someone who gets smashed behind the wheel.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

You make some good points with your post. I would like to disagree on this point though, because I don't think everyone "deserves" to live just because they are alive. That's like saying abortion should be illegal because a fetus deserves to live. It's an ethical issue that is probably beyond the scope of this thread, and a lot of people won't like it, but: it was a random, preventable death. So are random gun shootings, house fires, regular car accidents. Sorry to sound insensitive, but people die everyday in ways that they absolutely should not. And yet they still do die. It doesn't make this case any worse, IMO, that the agent of death is known afterward to be a person. If this were weather related or something, then we would not be talking about it like weather is the sum of society...just everyone please relax, because this guy'll be going to jail for a while.

Everyone at least deserves the benefit of the doubt. The default position should be that everyone who is alive right now deserves not to have another person take their life until proven otherwise.

Saying that maybe the people who died weren't good people is no defense for what happened.

What a truely awful perspective you have.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by pylon

But...... (and this is not going to make me a lot of friends on this website) studies are starting to show that talking on cell phones while driving are causing more fatalaties than drunk driving. So all the people chastising DR. Drunk here need to take a look at there own driving habits in relation to texting and talking on the phone while driving. Especially now that cell phone logs are becoming more and more prevelant in accident investigations.

I was nearly wiped off the face of the earth by some twit on a cell phone while I was on my motorcycle a couple years ago.

Don't want to derail the thread too much, but I'm starting to agree with this. Well, maybe not that it's more dangerous, but certainly that it's equally dangerous.
It amazes me how terrible some people are at driving while talking on the phone. It has become a major pet peeve of mine to see people with their damn phone mashed against their face while driving.
It's almost inevitable... I'll be driving along and I'll see someone do something stupid, like cut someone off, or see someone poking along 20k under the limit, and sure as shiz, they're on the phone. Big smile on their face, off in la la land, yapping away, no idea that they almost hit someone, totally oblivious to the fact that they're holding up traffic.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

On another note, the real reason why we dont' have tougher sentancing and consequences for drunk driving is because the silent majority doesn't deem it necessary to do so. Already we have DUI laws that violate the Charter (Blowing between 0.05 and 0.08, though still technically legal they still unconstitutionally impound your vehicle). With regards to tougher sentancing: not until aggrivated sexual assualt, Manslaughter, Second Degree Murder, and First Degree Murder charges have severly tougher sentances that get better enforced as well. The public will find it hard to believe that the Karla Homolka's of the world are somehow on par with someone who gets smashed behind the wheel.

I personally think its a symptom of a sick and troubled society when tax evasion can carry a higher sentence than rape. The fact that the theory of rehabilitation takes precedence over protection of society and the rights of victims is concerning too, which is why we have such pathetic sentencing on the crimes you have listed.

I also think its truly sick that the police can call "speed on green" fundraising a safety measure, when they cut corners on enforcing actual traffic infractions, gang violence and property crime enforcement. Speed is always a factor in collisions, whether its above or below a posted speed limit. Going 90 on Deerfoot can easily kill just as much as going 100 or more. Yes, the faster you go, the greater the momentum and more devastating the impact, but once we're talking any high speed, the velocity and momentum are deadly. There's also the braking time/reaction time argument, but there's such a deviation between vehicle braking ability as well as driver reaction time, any high speed, even a "legal" one, can be dangerous. There is a clear distinction though between speeding and excessive speeding. Joe Blow doing 120 on Deerfoot is clearly speeding, but its hardly excessive. Buddy ######bag doing 180 on Deerfoot is excessive, and that is dangerous. Essentially, anything that carries a required court appearance.

Deadly collisions are primarily caused by excessive speed, alcohol abuse, driver distraction/failure and dangerous road conditions, not a sober and alert driver doing 81 on 14th St. SW in ideal conditions. Yet, I see the police/city/province doing very little about cracking down on those issues and outright lying to the public about what they are doing.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I personally think its a symptom of a sick and troubled society when tax evasion carries a higher sentence than rape. The fact that the theory of rehabilitation takes precedence over protection of society and the rights of victims is concerning too, which is why we have such pathetic sentencing on the crimes you have listed.

Source?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Source?

Sorry, it was supposed to say "can carry a higher sentence" not does. Of course, this is based on whether parole, suspension of sentence or any other special circumstances are employed, plus including the high penalty of asset seizure as a punishment.

[Dion]

[A city police officer testified on Thursday how he recovered a partially-full 750 millilitre Red Tassel vodka bottle from the concrete mixer of a cement truck involved in a muliple-fatal crash on Dec. 7, 2007

Millman told Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak that he could only see the outline of an object under a thin layer of concrete, so he dug down and pulled it out.

"It was a plastic bottle. It had the lid on it," said Millman. "The liquid in the bottle was clear, and it was approximately one-fifth full, four-fifths empty.

"I opened the lid and smelled the contents. It appeared to be alcohol

Millman said he was uncertain before he went into the drum whether any evidence could be recovered, as it was more than 3 1/2 hours since the crash. So he said he first called his father, who had driven cement trucks for 15 years, and was told the concrete still should be soft enough to do so, but time was of the essence.

Thus, he had to forego obtaining a search warrant or the evidence could be lost.

"Exigent circumstances existed," said Millman. "If I didn't go in now, whatever evidence was in the drum was potentially lost and not recoverable."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Of...912/story.html

[ken0042]

Thanks for that link Dion. The spin the defense was putting on yesterday seemed to indicate that he just happened to have been given a bottle of booze, wasn't drinking it, and disposed of it in a moment of panic. Looks more like he had 20 ounces of Vodka in his system.

I'd like to see in a case like this- failing to provide a breath sample now means the burden of proof is now on his shoulders; he has to prove that his blood alcohol was below .08 because there is now proof of excessive alcohol consumption. Sure- he could have drank that days or weeks before. Too bad he blew his chance to prove his BAC. (pun intended.)

[Azure]

His reckless driving says two things. Either he was drunk, which directly explains why he was so careless. Or he was, and should be charged with 2nd degree murder.

I wonder why the defense would try to argue that because no 'test' was taken to see what his blood alcohol content was, he wasn't drunk, or over the legal limit.

Couldn't the Crown go after him for 2nd degree murder, given that he wasn't intoxicated, and ran that car with a clear mind?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Thanks for that link Dion. The spin the defense was putting on yesterday seemed to indicate that he just happened to have been given a bottle of booze, wasn't drinking it, and disposed of it in a moment of panic. Looks more like he had 20 ounces of Vodka in his system.

I'd like to see in a case like this- failing to provide a breath sample now means the burden of proof is now on his shoulders; he has to prove that his blood alcohol was below .08 because there is now proof of excessive alcohol consumption. Sure- he could have drank that days or weeks before. Too bad he blew his chance to prove his BAC. (pun intended.)

Tossing the bottle in the hopper does make him look guilty. Was probably drinking from that bottle on his way home from Nanton.

My concern is that the bottle of vodka might be tossed as evidence since the officer didn't get a search warrant. Will be interesting to see how the judge rules. Cement driver probably figured the cement would be dry by the time someone tried to extract the vodka bottle.

I like the sinerio you present also. I'd take it a step further and say that someone who refuses to blow is automaticly guilty of driving impaired.

[Azure]

Uhhh, unless I'm mistaken, everything at the scene of the crime can be used as evidence. Including the vodka bottle.

The police didn't need a search warrant.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wonder why the defense would try to argue that because no 'test' was taken to see what his blood alcohol content was, he wasn't drunk, or over the legal limit.

I think the defence is suggesting that since they have no concrete proof you can't say he was drunk. The prosecution seems to be trying to prove he was drink by presenting witnesses at the scene who said they smelled alcohol on his breath and the testimony of the offcer that retrieved the vodka bottle from the hopper.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

I think the defence is suggesting that since they have no concrete proof you can't say he was drunk. The prosecution seems to be trying to prove he was drink by presenting witnesses at the scene who said they smelled alcohol on his breath and the testimony of the offcer that retrieved the vodka bottle from the hopper.

Well, if he wasn't drunk, charge him with 2nd degree murder.

Simple.