5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

I agree with what you're saying. Doesn't help the fact that the whole thing still makes me really angry and sad.

Speaking of his lawyer... isn't Balfour Der basically "the" defence lawyer in Calgary? I don't really know anything about lawyers in Calgary, but he seems to be the guy on all the higher-profile cases that make the news.

Probably pretty expensive for Tschetter to try and get off as lightly as possible. So maybe he's not really helping out his kids and family in that regard. Who knows.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I agree with what you're saying. Doesn't help the fact that the whole thing still makes me really angry and sad.

Speaking of his lawyer... isn't Balfour Der basically "the" defence lawyer in Calgary? I don't really know anything about lawyers in Calgary, but he seems to be the guy on all the higher-profile cases that make the news.

Probably pretty expensive for Tschetter to try and get off as lightly as possible. So maybe he's not really helping out his kids and family in that regard. Who knows.

Der is one of "the" major criminal lawyers in the City - certainly gets a large share of the most serious cases. Usually that happens because the individual in question is considered to be the best. Here is his bio:

About Balfour DER

Balfour Der as has been described by the Calgary Herald as “arguably Calgary’s top defence counsel.”
Mr. Der has been called upon by professional and amateur athletes, police officers, firefighters, lawyers and many others whose livelihood and reputations depended on the positive outcome of the case. Balfour Der’s clients know they can rely on him to represent their interests without exception. When he takes on a case, he does so to achieve the best results regardless of the seriousness of the charge or the circumstances of the client.
Mr. Der was a senior trial prosecutor for the Crown Prosecutor’s Office in Calgary from 1981 to 1990. During that time he honed his skills by handling hundreds of criminal prosecutions. In 1988 Balfour Der was asked to join the appellate division of the Crown’s Office where he handled appeal cases before the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
In 1990 Balfour Der left the Crown Prosecutor’s Office to go into private practice where he has continued to practice exclusively in criminal law. He has successfully defended people who have been charged with the most minor of charges to the most serious. There is no area of criminal law that Mr. Der has not been involved. He has defended people charged in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. His experience extends to areas outside of strict criminal offences including Tax Evasion, Customs Act offences and Traffic offences.
While his main work is in the trial courts, Mr. Der regularly argues appeals for not only persons he has defended, but also accuseds that have been defended at trial by other lawyers. As counsel, Balfour Der has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on precedent setting cases involving reasonable doubt and jury instructions, lost evidence, and double jeopardy.
In addition to his active practice, Balfour Der teaches criminal law and is the author of two criminal law text books as well as numerous papers and articles for seminars and lectures. He is on the faculty of the Canadian Police College in Ottawa, Ontario and the Bar Admission Course of Alberta. As he says, “I eat, drink and sleep criminal law.”
Balfour Der is a former Junior A hockey player. Now he spends his spare time coaching lacrosse and hockey, and running marathons.

[fredr123]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...7/8782271.html

Kevin Martin's latest report from this morning. Some of the closing arguments from Der:

Canadian motorists who kill without using their vehicles as a weapons can't be convicted of manslaughter, the lawyer for Cochrane trucker Daniel Tschetter said today.


Defence counsel Balfour Der said Parliament has created other offences, such as dangerous driving causing death, in place of vehicular manslaughter.


Der said legislators specifically eliminated motor manslaughter and created new crimes -- which include criminal negligence and impaired driving causing death.



But Der said Fraser will have to determine whether Tschetter's driving was a marked departure from the norm such that it was dangerous, or negligent.


"It is the manner of driving that is the issue here as opposed to the consequences," Der said, of the tragic result of the crash.


He said at most his client is guilty of dangerous driving, since the evidence fell short of showing Tschetter had a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others.


Der said manslaughter would require a greater moral culpability than a motorist who drives dangerously or negligently.

[pepper24]

I often eat lunch at the same restaurant as Mr. Der. Next time I have water with my meal I'll have to make sure it's not vodka. I would hate to work the rest of the afternoon drunk then do something awful.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

It's one thing to try and get off lightly, it's another completely to not take responsibility for your actions. He shows no remorse, no empathy, nothing. If, God forbid, I ever killed 5 people in a vehicle, I would cry non-stop until my eyes bled. I would plead guilty, and yeah, I'd try to plead guilty to a lesser charge, but I wouldn't say, 'sorry 'bout that. I was having a bad day.'

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I often eat lunch at the same restaurant as Mr. Der. Next time I have water with my meal I'll have to make sure it's not vodka. I would hate to work the rest of the afternoon drunk then do something awful.

What? Are you blaming the lawyer for Tschetter's actions and/or for doing his job?

[SteveToms]

Didn't Der once try to claim it wasn't his client who killed the victim but the kerb he fell on?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It's one thing to try and get off lightly, it's another completely to not take responsibility for your actions. He shows no remorse, no empathy, nothing. If, God forbid, I ever killed 5 people in a vehicle, I would cry non-stop until my eyes bled. I would plead guilty, and yeah, I'd try to plead guilty to a lesser charge, but I wouldn't say, 'sorry 'bout that. I was having a bad day.'

What if Tschetter approached the Crown and said he would plead guilty right away but to a lesser charge? Maybe dangerous driving causing death, but the Crown declined and decided to go after him for a greater charge. Would you still fault him for taking his chances in court?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What? Are you blaming the lawyer for Tschetter's actions and/or for doing his job?

Not at all, Mr. Der is just doing his job which is representing his client.

I am no big time lawyer (pulls at my suspenders) but I don't think the judge is going to believe that a recovering alcoholic accidentally drank vodka mistaking it for water. The judge isn't an idiot.

As this clowns lawyer I probably would have advised him against making up some dumb lie that's going to hurt his case and dig him a deeper hole than he already is in. I'd advise my client to tell the truth that as a recovering alcoholic he had relapsed and that that helped towards his bad decisions. Heck, maybe he is telling the truth but it seems like a far fetched story.

I'm no judge either but I'd be more lenient to someone who told the truth no matter how bad the decision than someone who stretches the truth and continues to dig themselves a deeper hole. The judge doesn't want to be embarrassed.

[Vulcan]

Once I wanted to ask Der, if when he sold his soul to the devil, if it happened all at once or if it was just a gradual thing. Now I don't ever think about him until something like this comes up.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by fredr123

What Tschetter approached the Crown and said he would plead guilty right away but to a lesser charge? Maybe dangerous driving causing death, but the Crown declined and decided to go after him for a greater charge. Would you still fault him for taking his chances in court?

I think you're missing a few words there, or some punctuation. Are you asking me what IF Tschetter had done that? Or are you saying thats' what actually happened? Would certainly change my perspective a little, however he's still shown no remorse for his actions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Once I wanted to ask Der, if when he sold his soul to the devil, if it happened all at once or if it was just a gradual thing. Now I don't ever think about him until something like this comes up.

As wrong as it may seem to us, in order for our country to function properly as a democracy, we need to let the accused defend themselves.

Don't blame the lawyers....they're just doing their jobs.

[burn_this_city]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ce...838/story.html

Verdict coming May 7th..

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

As wrong as it may seem to us, in order for our country to function properly as a democracy, we need to let the accused defend themselves.

Don't blame the lawyers....they're just doing their jobs.

dont' talk about something you know nothing about.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think you're missing a few words there, or some punctuation. Are you asking me what IF Tschetter had done that? Or are you saying thats' what actually happened? Would certainly change my perspective a little, however he's still shown no remorse for his actions.

Should have said "What if". I have no idea how the talk between the defence and Crown went before trial, of course. I was asking hypothetically. If he did go to the Crown looking for a guilty plea in return for some leniency, we might never know.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Should have said "What if". I have no idea how the talk between the defence and Crown went before trial, of course. I was asking hypothetically. If he did go to the Crown looking for a guilty plea in return for some leniency, we might never know.

As far as I know, unless you can get a lowering of the charge there is no longer any benefit to pleading guilty as far as sentencing goes. So defendants are going to court and pleading not guilty as a guilty plea gets them nothing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

dont' talk about something you know nothing about.

Meaning what?

That nobody should defend the accused? Round 'em up, hang them from a tree without proving them guilty?

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty.'

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Meaning what?

That nobody should defend the accused? Round 'em up, hang them from a tree without proving them guilty?

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty.'

meaning it's personal experience with Derr that has nothing to do with hang em high etc. I don't believe in capital punishment or circumventing the law.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Once I wanted to ask Der, if when he sold his soul to the devil, if it happened all at once or if it was just a gradual thing. Now I don't ever think about him until something like this comes up.

I just don't get comments like this.

The man spent nearly a decade as a prosecutor making a relatively meager wage. How does going into private practice and earning a living that fits his skill level equate to selling his soul? As someone else pointed out, should the accused not be entitled to a competent defense?

The man does his job and he does it extremely well. The court does not allow him to simply walk in and wave a wand to obtain a verdict. He presents a considerable challenge to any opposing prosecutor, but he can't change the evidence. If the proof is there to convict he means nothing.

The man is simply doing his job, attacking his personal character for it is pathetic.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Verdict coming May 7th..

Why so long?