Humboldt Broncos tragedy.

[Erick Estrada]

I think we all realize that the driver never intended to cause any harm to anyone but his carelessness unfortunately cost a lot of people their lives. On one hand I do sympathize somewhat with the driver as he's probably not a bad person but on the other hand I feel anyone that gets behind the wheel of a vehicle has a responsibility to ensure that they are obeying the laws and paying attention at all times as vehicles are deadly weapons in the hands of those not driving responsibly. I think this goes for anyone, including those driving around on city streets bobbing their head up and down as they read and send texts. I got no issues with people like this facing extremely stiff sentences if their carelessness with a vehicle take the lives of innocent people. Give them 20 years for all I care. They all know the laws before they get in the car and drive away.

[chubeyr1]

Personally I think the sentence is way too soft.

Guy gets into a fight in a bar and punches someone. That person dies and he gets life 10 in prison. Eligible for parole after 10 years, yet will be monitored for the rest of his/her life.

Intent was not to kill the guy.

Drunk driver, driving at 290 kph, loses control killing his passenger and a mother and daughter in the other vehicle. Gets 4 years, out walking the streets after 16 months. I know this person. He says he is not a criminal, it was just an accident. Karma came back to town when his father was hit and killed by a drunk driver. He calls this murder.

This guy killed 16 people, and injured many more. Intent was not there to kill either. I get that!

This was a really soft sentence for all the lives this guy took. He will be out of prison in 32 months. Probably deported to live as a free man in his native country. Will be driving again in 32 months.

That is 2 months per life he took. Not to mention the ones that were seriously injured that survived.

If my kid was killed and all the driver got was 2 months in prison I would be livid. A childs life is worth way way more than that.

Yet this was an accident? This was not an accident. You get behind a wheel of a vehicle, you are driving a weapon down the road. Being a bad driver is no excuse. You choose to drive. You make a choice.

Would a longer sentence help any of the victim families? I think it would. 2 months in prison for taking your child’s life? That is really soft.

Guy gets into a fight in a bar and stays in jail for 10 years before a chance at parole. One life!

If this was you or I and we got in an accident and killed 16 people and injured others. Then were sentenced like this you would hug your lawyer.
Guy had a really good lawyer.

What sentence would be fitting for this? At minimum I think 10 years before being eligible for parole. Still only 7.5 months for every life this man took. That is still a soft sentence.

Feel free to disagree. Yet the justice system is a mess. How much value is one’s life worth? 2 months in prison? If you were killed tomorrow? Would you think 2 months of prison would be worth your life?

Really soft sentence. 16 lives were lost, many more now live with disabilities for the rest of their lives.

[Flamenspiel]

I think the sentance is fair, but only if they follow up with the deportation order. Apply justice, eliminate the threat, and and minimize the cost to the system.

A good example to follow in other cases.

[Resolute 14]

Chubyer1 - you're actually wrong right off the start. Getting into a fight like that and killing a guy would be manslaughter, not murder. And the sentence would be shorter. There was a case in Edson last fall where the guy who threw the punch got three years.

Also, a fight carries an inherent intent to cause harm. Running a stop sign does not.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Also, a fight carries an inherent intent to cause harm. Running a stop sign does not.

This is a key point of distinction.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Chubyer1 - you're actually wrong right off the start. Getting into a fight like that and killing a guy would be manslaughter, not murder. And the sentence would be shorter. There was a case in Edson last fall where the guy who threw the punch got three years.

Also, a fight carries an inherent intent to cause harm. Running a stop sign does not.

I did not use this case as fluff. It happened. Guy I know has a life 10 sentence.

Should it of been manslaughter absolutely. Yet if a case is not in the media and a guy gets a legal aid lawyer this is what happens. Poor bastard.

Yes this was manslaughter.

Just saying the guy got off light compared to people I know.

You say running a stop sign is not intent to cause harm? Yet doing this caused massive harm. Do you normally drive thru stop signs and threaten peoples lives?

Leads me to an old story. A police officer is beating a suspect with his baton. Officer says do you want me to slow down, or stop!

Sign says stop! This is not a debate.

[Resolute 14]

If you are incapable of differentiating between intent and outcome, then there is no actual purpose in engaging with you.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

You say running a stop sign is not intent to cause harm? Yet doing this caused massive harm.

It's not intent to cause harm.

There's a ton of things that cause harm that don't have intent to.
I broke my hand mountain biking this summer. I didn't hop on my bike with the intention of breaking my hand. By your example because I was hurt I had intention.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This is a key point of distinction.

What key point are you talking about?

You run a stop sign and 16 people die. Others screwed up for life.

Do you stop at stop signs or are you to good for them.

Are you telling me this was an accident? You are ok with this.

So when you run a stop sign and kill many people this will be ok too?

Sign says stop! You have a choice to be made here. This driver chose poorly. Yet it was a choice. Guy in a fight at a bar had a choice too. 16 people are dead now.

People think their vehicles are not weapons. 4000 pounds of steel on the road doing 110 kph is a weapon.

[GioforPM]

FWIW I know of at least e where a fight happened, a guy was killed and there were not even any charges, because when both sides consent it's not assault (and you need an underlying criminal act for manslaughter).

But on topic, criminal negligence causing death or dangerous driving causing death are among the very very rare cases where intent to cause the harm is not required, though you need recklessness or extreme lack of care about the consequences.

The issue people rightly have is that almost all of us have missed a sign or two I. Our driving careers, just luckily without a bad result. So a lot of us can empathize that it could have happened to us (obviously with the difference that we are not driving semis).

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

What key point are you talking about?

You run a stop sign and 16 people die. Others screwed up for life.

Do you stop at stop signs or are you to good for them.

Are you telling me this was an accident? You are ok with this.

So when you run a stop sign and kill many people this will be ok too?

Sign says stop! You have a choice to be made here. This driver chose poorly. Yet it was a choice. Guy in a fight at a bar had a choice too. 16 people are dead now.

People think their vehicles are not weapons. 4000 pounds of steel on the road doing 110 kph is a weapon.

Vehicles are tools by design, like a kitchen knife. Both can become weapons if used intentionally to inflict harm. A carelessly used tool can inflict harm but that doesn’t make it a weapon.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by DownhillGoat

It's not intent to cause harm.

There's a ton of things that cause harm that don't have intent to.
I broke my hand mountain biking this summer. I didn't hop on my bike with the intention of breaking my hand. By your example because I was hurt I had intention.

So you are saying running a stop sign is ok? 16 people are dead because of this.

Sorry you broke your hand. Again, you made a choice. Sucks for you. Yet this driver made a choice too. Cost 16 people their lives. You broke your hand for being stupid. How does this compare?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

So you are saying running a stop sign is ok?

No one is saying this.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

People think their vehicles are not weapons. 4000 pounds of steel on the road doing 110 kph is a weapon.

Ignoring the rest of that post, but this one really grinds my gears...

weap·on
/ˈwepən/
noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

A semi is not DESIGNED to inflict bodily harm. It can be used as such, yes, but that is not it's design.

Henry Ford didn't design the Model T as a weapon, he designed it as a mode of transportation. When I hop into my car at 5am to drive to work, I'm not hoping into a weapon. If I hop into an M1 Abrams, that's a different story.

If someone jumps off a bridge, would you start calling the bridge a "suicide device"? No, it's a bridge that someone used for something other than its designed purpose.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

So you are saying running a stop sign is ok? 16 people are dead because of this.

Please tell me exactly where I said running a stop sign is okay?

I should have taken resolute's example. You can't differentiate intent from outcome, or a conscious choice with unintended results vs an accident which makes this a pointless exercise.

I'm not comparing breaking one's hand to killing anyone. I'm relaying an example in which the outcome was not related to the intent. And regardless of the outcome I fail to see how me mountain biking is me being stupid? Just like someone who screws up behind the wheel (not saying in this case) means they were being stupid.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by DownhillGoat

Ignoring the rest of that post, but this one really grinds my gears...



A semi is not DESIGNED to inflict bodily harm. It can be used as such, yes, but that is not it's design.

Henry Ford didn't design the Model T as a weapon, he designed it as a mode of transportation. When I hop into my car at 5am to drive to work, I'm not hoping into a weapon. If I hop into an M1 Abrams, that's a different story.

If someone jumps off a bridge, would you start calling the bridge a "suicide device"? No, it's a bridge that someone used for something other than its designed purpose.

You are right. Just transportation.

Until some one uses it as a weapon. It is a really good weapon too.

Now we have bridge jumpers in the conversation? The driver never killed himself. He did not jump off a bridge.

What is your point?

Guy killed 16 people while driving. Dont speak to me when you reply, speak to the family's of the victims. This wont go well!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by DownhillGoat

A semi is not DESIGNED to inflict bodily harm. It can be used as such, yes, but that is not it's design.

Your own definition says "designed OR used". Something doesn't have to be designed to be a weapon in order to be used as one.

A baseball bat isn't designed to be a weapon, but if someone hits another person over the head with a baseball bat, it certainly has become a weapon.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by getbak

A baseball bat isn't designed to be a weapon, but if someone hits another person over the head with a baseball bat, it certainly has become a weapon.

I don't disagree with you, but at that point it boils down to intent then, does it not?

Someone who uses a vehicle to run down civilians on purpose? By all means call it a weapon. The blanket statement that vehicles = weapons is absurd IMO.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Personally I think the sentence is way too soft.

Guy gets into a fight in a bar and punches someone. That person dies and he gets life 10 in prison. Eligible for parole after 10 years, yet will be monitored for the rest of his/her life.

Intent was not to kill the guy.

Drunk driver, driving at 290 kph, loses control killing his passenger and a mother and daughter in the other vehicle. Gets 4 years, out walking the streets after 16 months. I know this person. He says he is not a criminal, it was just an accident. Karma came back to town when his father was hit and killed by a drunk driver. He calls this murder.

This guy killed 16 people, and injured many more. Intent was not there to kill either. I get that!

This was a really soft sentence for all the lives this guy took. He will be out of prison in 32 months. Probably deported to live as a free man in his native country. Will be driving again in 32 months.

That is 2 months per life he took. Not to mention the ones that were seriously injured that survived.

If my kid was killed and all the driver got was 2 months in prison I would be livid. A childs life is worth way way more than that.

Yet this was an accident? This was not an accident. You get behind a wheel of a vehicle, you are driving a weapon down the road. Being a bad driver is no excuse. You choose to drive. You make a choice.

Would a longer sentence help any of the victim families? I think it would. 2 months in prison for taking your child’s life? That is really soft.

Guy gets into a fight in a bar and stays in jail for 10 years before a chance at parole. One life!

If this was you or I and we got in an accident and killed 16 people and injured others. Then were sentenced like this you would hug your lawyer.
Guy had a really good lawyer.

What sentence would be fitting for this? At minimum I think 10 years before being eligible for parole. Still only 7.5 months for every life this man took. That is still a soft sentence.

Feel free to disagree. Yet the justice system is a mess. How much value is one’s life worth? 2 months in prison? If you were killed tomorrow? Would you think 2 months of prison would be worth your life?

Really soft sentence. 16 lives were lost, many more now live with disabilities for the rest of their lives.

Sorry trying to follow along here on your logic but why would he be out in 32 months? Wasn’t the sentence 8 years? Are you talking about parole?

But if you are there’s no guarantee for out on parole is there? Also is there a set timeline for parole?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sorry trying to follow along here on your logic but why would he be out in 32 months? Wasn’t the sentence 8 years? Are you talking about parole?

But if you are there’s no guarantee for out on parole is there? Also is there a set timeline for parole?

Because in Canada doing 1/3rd sentence is common place if you're a good boy.