Victim of deadly crash hated the thought of drunk driving

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The first time you drink and drive is just as stupid as the 2nd or third time you get caught. I have never done it, nor was I ever tempted.

The first time penalty should be just as harsh as the last time - immediate loss of license, upon conviction lifetime loss of license. That penalty will be on top of jail time, fines paid out monthly for the duration of a life sentence. Kill someone and it is the same as first degree murder. Don't kill someone, you are paying 150/month for 25 years. This is beyond a stupid crime and the penalty should be harsh.

Driving comes with great responsibility, if you prove to not be responsible, you shouldn't drive.

And it is the easiest to avoid commit crime in existence. You simply call a cab, or walk. You have to be a special form of stupid to even put yourself in the position to get caught.

The only thing I do have an issue with, is if you sleep it off in your car, you can still get convicted if you are in possession of the keys, that's BS in my opinion. I was super wasted at The Back Alley when I was young once, it was pouring rain, and all I had was my license with me, I'd burned through all my cash, and couldn't get a cab. So I just decided to sleep it off in my passenger seat. Cop knocks on the window at 4:00 in the morning, hauls me out of my car, and tells me he's cutting me a break, and he could charge me with DUI right there. I ended up having to walk completed plastered back to Oakridge where I was living without a coat in freezing rain. It took me close to 2 hours.

They should have a rule where if you lay your keys on the dash it's a signal you are sleeping it off or something.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by pylon

And it is the easiest to avoid commit crime in existence. You simply call a cab, or walk. You have to be a special form of stupid to even put yourself in the position to get caught.

The only thing I do have an issue with, is if you sleep it off in your car, you can still get convicted if you are in possession of the keys, that's BS in my opinion. I was super wasted at The Back Alley when I was young once, it was pouring rain, and all I had was my license with me, I'd burned through all my cash, and couldn't get a cab. So I just decided to sleep it off in my passenger seat. Cop knocks on the window at 4:00 in the morning, hauls me out of my car, and tells me he's cutting me a break, and he could charge me with DUI right there. I ended up having to walk completed plastered back to Oakridge where I was living without a coat in freezing rain. It took me close to 2 hours.

They should have a rule where if you lay your keys on the dash it's a signal you are sleeping it off or something.

It's very hard to get a conviction on care and control charges these days. If the keys aren't In the ignition and the accused states he had an alternative plan to get home, he won't be convicted. Hell, it's hard enough to get a conviction with the keys in the actual ignition as long as the accused says he was waiting for a cab, a friend to pick him up or he was just sleeping.

There's a case from the Supreme Court called Boudrealt that came out a while ago that makes it pretty near impossible to be convicted of care and control.

That cop could not charge you for sleeping in the passenger seat. Sadly, many of them don't understand impaired law.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

It's very hard to get a conviction on care and control charges these days. If the keys aren't In the ignition and the accused states he had an alternative plan to get home, he won't be convicted. Hell, it's hard enough to get a conviction with the keys in the actual ignition as long as the accused says he was waiting for a cab, a friend to pick him up or he was just sleeping.

There's a case from the Supreme Court called Boudrealt that came out a while ago that makes it pretty near impossible to be convicted of care and control.

My situation would have happened in 95 or 96, so maybe a lot has changed since then. That's a good thing. The fact a police officer made a 21 year old barely able to walk, guy, walk about 10 kms along high traffic streets, is a lot more irresponsible than that guy realizing there was no way he should be driving.

I'm glad there is a precedent now, but you shouldn't be forced to fight it in court, when you made a responsible decision in the first place.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where do you draw the line? Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease kill thousands every year. And government spending on health care to address those issues runs to the billions of dollars a year.

Should be make fast food illegal? Pop, fries, chocolate bars, chips. Sure, some people can handle those things in moderation. Some people can't. Best just to crack down and prohibit them, eh?

Originally Posted by polak

Prohibition worked great the first time around.

Yeah I do have the right to drink. I have the right to drink, I have the right to smoke, #### it, if you ask me I have the right to go shoot up heroin if I want to ruin my life. It's my body.

If you have an issue with covering the health care costs for people like that then go start lobbying for private health care but as a whole Canada has agreed that we're okay footing the bill for people doing stupid things that land them in the hospital. Whether it's speeding or drugs or trying to learn Parkour.

Both of your points are moot.

You are citing bad decisions that are self destructive to yourself. Drinking and driving kills other people. You want to live on a diet of bacon, gravy, and twinkles? I don't give a crap, it's your life your gambling with, not mine. You drink too much, and wipe out two responsible innocent people, like happened in this scenario, your bad decisions have directly, and traumatically impacted not only those you killed, but their families as well.

And polak, where the hell did the health care argument come from? I didn't even remotely go anywhere near that, nor suggest it.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

1st offense DUI causing death, death penalty.

let's see you drive drunk now.

1st offense murder in the first degree, death penalty.

let's see you commit first-degree murder now.



.................................................. ...................

logic defeated.

Increasing penalties doesn't do crap. Stupid people are going to drink and drive no matter what.

"States without death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates."

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dete...r-murder-rates

[malcolmk14]

I witnessed a drunk driving incident a couple of years ago and called 9-1-1 to report an impaired driver.

The police were waiting at this guy's house and arrested him and charged him with a DUI when he arrived home.

I was summoned to court four times as a witness. The first three times I showed up and they had moved the date without letting me know.

The fourth time, I showed up, and the guy got off because of disclosure issues. Wasted four days of my time and this guy had zero penalty for his actions.

I spoke with the arresting officer afterward and he said unfortunately, this is how most drunk driving cases go. Pretty much impossible to get a criminal conviction.

[polak]

Originally Posted by pylon

Both of your points are moot.

You are citing bad decisions that are self destructive to yourself. Drinking and driving kills other people. You want to live on a diet of bacon, gravy, and twinkles? I don't give a crap, it's your life your gambling with, not mine. You drink too much, and wipe out two responsible innocent people, like happened in this scenario, your bad decisions have directly, and traumatically impacted not only those you killed, but their families as well.

And polak, where the hell did the health care argument come from? I didn't even remotely go anywhere near that, nor suggest it.

Cause what you're implying is basically prohibition in Canada.

Good luck.

[nik-]

The problem with drunk driving is that a stiffer penalty doesn't really prevent anything because a stiffer penalty appeals to rational thought. Drunk driving isn't a rational act because the person isn't in a rational state when they make that choice.

I'm fine with stiffer penalties, but I'm not under the illusion that it's going to prevent more drunk driving. The answer is more options, more taxis, more transit options.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally I think that drunk drivers can be fixed without expensive jail time.

Here's my plan

First time DUI, no accident
- insurance rate triples automatically for 5 years, if your under the age of 18, You cannot be insured
Drivers license suspension for 6 months
- Car is seized for 6 months, and you pay the costs of storage
- You have to make 5 public service messages, and 5 public speaking appearances
- you have 52 public services (sweeping streets, cleaning camp toilets, etc) all while wearing a shirt that states that you are a drunk driver

...

I think you are onto something here, especially with the visible community service. 1st offence nets you 160 hours of public service, wearing neon green shirts saying "i'm a drunk driver" would be a very efficient way to educate all drivers on the consequences of DUI.

Perhaps this punishment for 1st time offenders would see less people getting off on technicalities, and sentenced to this type of service. I would think after 20 days of manual unpaid labour may convince the offender not to repeat.

[T@T]

I have to say a lot of these new punishment ideas would drive me to drink!

[chemgear]

Out on bail . . . gotta be able to drive to work you know!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nger-1.3099137

A 20-year-old man charged with the impaired-driving deaths of a taxi driver and his passenger has been granted bail.

Ali Montoya was in court Wednesday, where a judge granted him bail with conditions including 24-hour house arrest, except for medical emergencies and work.

[polak]

It is innocent until proven guilty...

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Out on bail . . . gotta be able to drive to work you know!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nger-1.3099137

A 20-year-old man charged with the impaired-driving deaths of a taxi driver and his passenger has been granted bail.

Ali Montoya was in court Wednesday, where a judge granted him bail with conditions including 24-hour house arrest, except for medical emergencies and work.

I may be out to lunch here, but isn't bail in this type of situation pretty much automatic when waiting for trial?

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Out on bail . . . gotta be able to drive to work you know!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nger-1.3099137

A 20-year-old man charged with the impaired-driving deaths of a taxi driver and his passenger has been granted bail.

Ali Montoya was in court Wednesday, where a judge granted him bail with conditions including 24-hour house arrest, except for medical emergencies and work.

With no previous criminal record in Canada, you're going to get bail in just about every single situation other than terrorism or 1st degree murder.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I witnessed a drunk driving incident a couple of years ago and called 9-1-1 to report an impaired driver.

The police were waiting at this guy's house and arrested him and charged him with a DUI when he arrived home.

I was summoned to court four times as a witness. The first three times I showed up and they had moved the date without letting me know.

The fourth time, I showed up, and the guy got off because of disclosure issues. Wasted four days of my time and this guy had zero penalty for his actions.

I spoke with the arresting officer afterward and he said unfortunately, this is how most drunk driving cases go. Pretty much impossible to get a criminal conviction.

I was golfing with a lawyer a few years back and he said he could get anyone off a DUI as long as there wasn't an accident involved, for the right money he would guarantee it.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by T@T

I was golfing with a lawyer a few years back and he said he could get anyone off a DUI as long as there wasn't an accident involved, for the right money he would guarantee it.

He definitely shouldn't be saying that as he could get in a great deal of professional trouble. There are some lawyers who specialize in impaired law that are good, but guaranteeing a win? Nope, not possible. Too many variables.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

He definitely shouldn't be saying that as he could get in a great deal of professional trouble. There are some lawyers who specialize in impaired law that are good, but guaranteeing a win? Nope, not possible. Too many variables.

He never said it but I think what he was saying was he shakes hands with a few judges.

[Johnny199r]

There are lots of defence lawyers who are good at making promises in order to separate people from their money. It's part of the business, unfortunately. Many feel the need to talk themselves up to command a big fee. Some lawyers have a reputation of "innocent until insolvent."

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I witnessed a drunk driving incident a couple of years ago and called 9-1-1 to report an impaired driver.

The police were waiting at this guy's house and arrested him and charged him with a DUI when he arrived home.

I was summoned to court four times as a witness. The first three times I showed up and they had moved the date without letting me know.

The fourth time, I showed up, and the guy got off because of disclosure issues. Wasted four days of my time and this guy had zero penalty for his actions.

I spoke with the arresting officer afterward and he said unfortunately, this is how most drunk driving cases go. Pretty much impossible to get a criminal conviction.

I was a witness at a double fatality accident not long ago, I had to go to a preliminary trial and then the actual trial. At the preliminary hearing the defence lawyer was acting like I was the criminal, then at the trial she said she had no questions for me when it was her turn to cross examine me.

Honestly I get that everyone deserves to have a fair trial, but I'm not sure how some lawyers can actually defend people sometimes.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by nik-

The problem with drunk driving is that a stiffer penalty doesn't really prevent anything because a stiffer penalty appeals to rational thought. Drunk driving isn't a rational act because the person isn't in a rational state when they make that choice.

I'm fine with stiffer penalties, but I'm not under the illusion that it's going to prevent more drunk driving. The answer is more options, more taxis, more transit options.

I dunno about the rational act argument. I've been irrationally drunk many a-time, and I've never driven drunk.

If I can uphold my care for myself and others while plastered, why can't other people? I'd argue it's because they don't think they'll get caught or they don't think anything bad will happen to them. And if nothing else, stiffer penalties can't possibly result in increased incidents of drunk driving, can it?

The two road bikers who were killed outside Pemberton last week were hit by a thrice-convicted drunk driver who was driving on a suspended license. Just so tragic.

Ugh. Sometimes I wonder if I should get a job working for MADD or something. I really, really hate that drunk driving happens.