5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but maybe he drank the Vodka at the scene so that later on he could use the defence that he wasn't drunk while he was driving, but became drunk after the accident because he drank a bottle of vodka.

Is there any chance that cockamamie idea would actually fly? I don't know, but I doubt it.

[T@T]

He must be two people with a defense like this...one person can't be that stupid.

He's soooo screwed

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by fredr123

It was of limited applicability in my example because all this talk about whether he was impaired or not probably won't affect whether he is found guilty or not. At best, it may affect the length of his sentence.

I was wondering this---how much of a factor is the drinking anyway? Whether intoxicated or not he made some serious errors. Is the difference that if he was drinking it exhibited criminal negligence as opposed to merely making a mistake while driving? What about the potential impact on his sentence?

Honestly I do feel bad for him, I don't think he wanted for any of this to happen. And people all make mistakes, and we are all surprised at times about how stupid those mistakes can be. Most of the time it doesn't involve driving a cement truck and not noticing 2 sets of warning lights and a stopped car until we hit it, but all to often 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

It is just kind of sad for him to be trying to tell ridiculous stories to absolve himself of some responsibility. At this point to me you apologize, take it like a man, and home for some leniency.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is there any chance that cockamamie idea would actually fly? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Jolinar is, I think, getting at a defence to impaired driving based on evidence to the contrary. In short, there are all sorts of technical assumptions and averages employed by the breathalyzer to obtain a BAC. It assumes, for example, that the accused has an average alcohol elimination rate. These rates actually vary from person to person and can vary from time to time in the same person.

Evidence to the contrary is usually evidence an accused would lead through an alcohol elimination expert. The expert would test the accused's elimination rate under laboratory conditions and attempt to determine what a person's real BAC would have been at the time of the offence. Usually, the expert will come up with a range of possible values (e.g., .06 to .09).

As far as Jolinar's hypthesis goes, doing that will probably make getting an accurate reading problematic. However, because of a couple of assumptions in the Criminal Code, if the breath sample is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Code, then an accused drinking a bunch of alcohol after the alleged driving offence is by itself not considered evidence to the contrary: CC 258(1)(d.1)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc...003abpc26.html

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I was wondering this---how much of a factor is the drinking anyway? Whether intoxicated or not he made some serious errors. Is the difference that if he was drinking it exhibited criminal negligence as opposed to merely making a mistake while driving? What about the potential impact on his sentence?

Honestly I do feel bad for him, I don't think he wanted for any of this to happen. And people all make mistakes, and we are all surprised at times about how stupid those mistakes can be. Most of the time it doesn't involve driving a cement truck and not noticing 2 sets of warning lights and a stopped car until we hit it, but all to often 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

It is just kind of sad for him to be trying to tell ridiculous stories to absolve himself of some responsibility. At this point to me you apologize, take it like a man, and home for some leniency.

I think whether he was impaired or not will only affect the length of his sentence. Tschetter's defence counsel was interviewed after yesterday's proceedings and he stated that one of the goals of having Tschetter testify was to show that he was a human being. There was a perception that he was a monster; some drunk driver that murdered a family of five and then tried to cover his tracks. It was counsel's hope that hearing the accused's side of the story in his own words would humanize him, I suppose, and show that he's just an average family man who had a bad day, wasn't paying attention and got into a horrible accident that he will regret until the end of his days.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is there any chance that cockamamie idea would actually fly? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Yes, if a drunk driver causes an accident, then runs into the pub on the corner and downs a shooter before the fuzz arrives, he will get off, in fact the cops probably won't even bother charging him. I've seen a quite a few cases, where a drunk causes an accident, flees the scene, and by the time the cops catch up with him, he has a drink in hand. He gets charged with leaving the scene, but not DUI.

[mykalberta]

I still cannot believe that being drunk is a defence for a crime.

Our justice system is in more trouble than I thought.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm not making excuses for his defense or anything (I hope they throw the book at him), but I am willing to bet that 99% of the people here would be trying to get off as easily as possible too. Especially those of us with families who depend on us.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I still cannot believe that being drunk is a defence for a crime.

Our justice system is in more trouble than I thought.

You can use any defense you like... until he get's off scot free, then I wouldn't say the justice system is in trouble quite yet.

[Fobulous]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not making excuses for his defense or anything (I hope they throw the book at him), but I am willing to bet that 99% of the people here would be trying to get off as easily as possible too. Especially those of us with families who depend on us.

I hope no family ever has to depend on a dumb a$$ that is drunk and driving a cement truck 40 km/h above the posted speed limit.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not making excuses for his defense or anything (I hope they throw the book at him), but I am willing to bet that 99% of the people here would be trying to get off as easily as possible too. Especially those of us with families who depend on us.

Last time I checked its a crime to fabricate a story.... If he had any guts he would plead gulity... I would assume he could plead to a lower charge.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

You can use any defense you like... until he get's off scot free, then I wouldn't say the justice system is in trouble quite yet.

Its not just this one case. He will likely get something trivial like 5-10yrs in minimum security. Nothing close to what he deserves.

[greyshep]

This whole situation disgusts me. The selfishness portrayed by the accused from the start of this ordeal has continued to this day.

He took the stand trying to humanize himself? In my opinion the only reason he is sad or upset is that he got caught and is now being held accountable. I dont see any real regret for the lives he has taken. This is abhorrent.

The weak excuses and stories that we are being told are a disappointing statement into the way society is and has become "me first". No willingness to stand up and recognize your mistakes and take responsibility for your own actions.

If I ever see a concrete truck passing me in the shoulder I will surely believe the driver is just having a bad week and will do my best to give him a wave to cheer him up. After all if he is to have an accident as a result of this behaviour, surely he is not impaired and its not his fault.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by greyshep

This whole situation disgusts me. The selfishness portrayed by the accused from the start of this ordeal has continued to this day.

He took the stand trying to humanize himself? In my opinion the only reason he is sad or upset is that he got caught and is now being held accountable. I dont see any real regret for the lives he has taken. This is abhorrent.

The weak excuses and stories that we are being told are a disappointing statement into the way society is and has become "me first". No willingness to stand up and recognize your mistakes and take responsibility for your own actions.

If I ever see a concrete truck passing me in the shoulder I will surely believe the driver is just having a bad week and will do my best to give him a wave to cheer him up. After all if he is to have an accident as a result of this behaviour, surely he is not impaired and its not his fault.

Well said. I was about to type the same points but you have expressed exactly what and how I also feel.

The suspect has been selfish and dishonest from day 1. I hope the judge throws the book at him.

I really feel for the victim's family who have had to go through this ordeal again particularly with these far fetched stories. I hope for their sake this guy serves the time he deserves which unfortunately even a stiff sentence isn't even enough.

I feel no sympathy for the suspect and his family. It sucks that it has broken up their family as well but you have to pay for the consequences. Also, tough to feel for a guy who's been selfish and trying to pass on the blame for something he's 100% responsible for.

[Burninator]

Frankly I am embarrassed for him and his laundry list of pathetic excuses are insulting to the family. He doesn't have a real excuse for him not hitting the car. They sound more like day to day frustrations of life, not something that would impair his driving.

[fredr123]

For those looking for more reasons to pile on Tschetter, I give you: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ce...524/story.html

Under cross-examination, Tschetter admitted to Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak he had passed a semi on the right shoulder, had been weaving in and out of traffic and was speeding that day.

"Do you consider yourself a good driver?"Hak asked.

"At the time, yes," he said. When asked about his traffic tickets, five for speeding, three for failing to obey traffic signals, one for not yielding in a crosswalk and one for not staying in the centre of his lane, Tschetter said in his industry "it's a bad trap to fall into."

However, Hak pointed out, all but one of his infractions were in his personal vehicle. He also agreed with Hak that a good driver would not speed, would signal for lane changes, travel within his lane, not pass a truck on the right and watch for signs ahead of him, including the overhead warning lights, reduction of speed limit, and the red light.

"A good driver wouldn't kill five people, would he?" Hak asked.

"No he wouldn't," said Tschetter.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not making excuses for his defense or anything (I hope they throw the book at him), but I am willing to bet that 99% of the people here would be trying to get off as easily as possible too. Especially those of us with families who depend on us.

I think the point is that, whether you have a family depending on you or not, you shouldn't drive a huge cement truck like it's friggin Gran Turismo while you're (I'm assuming) also impaired.

Yes we all make mistakes, but some mistakes, such as those that are a result of drunk driving, are avoidable.

[Madman]

"A good driver wouldn't kill five people, would he?" Hak asked.

"No he wouldn't," said Tschetter.

[Balfour Der]



[/Balfour Der]

[Dion]

"Do you consider yourself a good driver?"Hak asked.

"At the time, yes," he said.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Lock this Tschetter dude up and throw away the key!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I think the point is that, whether you have a family depending on you or not, you shouldn't drive a huge cement truck like it's friggin Gran Turismo while you're (I'm assuming) also impaired.

Yes we all make mistakes, but some mistakes, such as those that are a result of drunk driving, are avoidable.

No doubt, it should not have ever happened, but I still think most of everybody posting on this thread would still try to get off as easily as possible. I'm not saying that someone deserves to be let off because they have people depending on them, but who wouldn't personally try to get off easier if they knew their own children were going to have to suffer for something they did? Self preservation is natural instinct. Most people will struggle for every bit of life they can and to be able to be around and protect their families, regardless of whether they are guilty of something. If humans just gave up every time they were trapped, evolution would have made us extinct a long time ago.

Obviously his lawyers have convinced him that pleading not guilty is the best choice for him.