Woman died in arms of injured husband after alleged drunk driving crash

[Bigtime]

I'm pretty sure a friend of a friend on facebook was part of this, driving home from watching the meteor shower. The cross-posted update said they were just a little slower going through the lights than the truck that got hit, the person seemed incredibly shaken up by what he/she witnessed.

Yup, I just re-read the post, definitely the same accident. Including this person bringing the husband over to his wife.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I agree that it's a dirty job and somebody has to do it but it takes a special person to make a career of defending people that he/she knows are guilty of careless acts have led to innocent victims being injured and/or losing their lives. A good day for Der is a victim & family of victim's worst nightmare.

You're right, how dare they defend legal rights to the fullest extent of the law guaranteed to our citizens from birth. What terrible people they are for helping those who can't help themselves.

What an asinine, ignorant statement to make.

[AR_Six]

It's pretty appalling how many people share that viewpoint on defense attorneys. Failing to give a client the best possible representation in order to spare victims' families from feeling worse than they already do is ludicrous. As is "his best day is the victim's family's worst". We don't imprison people to make others feel better. The fact that defense lawyers are occasionally successful is evidence that the system is working, not the other way around.

Sentencing standards and the system itself are a whole other discussion, obviously, but that has nothing to do with what lawyers do.

[red sky]

Back on topic. It is a very sad story. At least she got to say goodbye. I can't imagine the pain that the husband must be in. He is alive but his life is ruined.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

It's pretty appalling how many people share that viewpoint on defense attorneys. Failing to give a client the best possible representation in order to spare victims' families from feeling worse than they already do is ludicrous. As is "his best day is the victim's family's worst". We don't imprison people to make others feel better. The fact that defense lawyers are occasionally successful is evidence that the system is working, not the other way around.

Sentencing standards and the system itself are a whole other discussion, obviously, but that has nothing to do with what lawyers do.

I think the sentiment isn't so much that people hate defence lawyers. It's that the people accused of the worst crimes in Calgary always, ALWAYS go to Der, and he's pretty damn good at minimizing the punishment. Sometimes he gets them off completely.
I know this is going to soud bad, but whenever I hear that someone is using Der, I pretty much figure he's guilty.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Where is this 180 km/h speculation coming from? The only place I've seen it is in those (as usual) idiotic comments on the Herald page.

For what it's worth, Global ran a story with the husband this morning and was reporting the 180 km/h thing.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

It's pretty appalling how many people share that viewpoint on defense attorneys. Failing to give a client the best possible representation in order to spare victims' families from feeling worse than they already do is ludicrous. As is "his best day is the victim's family's worst". We don't imprison people to make others feel better. The fact that defense lawyers are occasionally successful is evidence that the system is working, not the other way around.

Sentencing standards and the system itself are a whole other discussion, obviously, but that has nothing to do with what lawyers do.

Exactly, these lawyers aren't rubbing their hands together gleefully, licking the tears of the victim. The second you start labelling people as anything but complex human beings, and into categories, the ability to talk intelligently decreases exponentially.

I was in heaps of trouble a few years ago, and I was 100% in the wrong according to the law. By the letter of the law, I could have gone to jail for a long ass time. I'm not a monster, a bad person, or a scumbag. And I had a great lawyer to defend me who was able to clear all the charges because the circumstances surrounding the event didn't warrant having my life ruined.

If I didn't have someone defending me, (no matter how ridiculous the situation was) my life would have been ruined. And some people do deserve to go to jail, and some people are what we consider "bad people". But that doesn't mean they're not people, and they don't have the right to the same defence as anyone else.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think the sentiment isn't so much that people hate defence lawyers. It's that the people accused of the worst crimes in Calgary always, ALWAYS go to Der, and he's pretty damn good at minimizing the punishment. Sometimes he gets them off completely.

Good.

The people accused of the worst crimes are the ones we absolutely need to get right. If those people receive anything less than the best possible defense, the chances of getting it right are decreased significantly. If Balfour Der is as good as people seem to think he is, then he is exactly who these guys should be using.

Ideally we should have the best possible prosecution and best possible judge and a system that functions flawlessly, too, but that's out of the defense lawyer's hands - all he can do is give his client the best representation possible in the circumstances.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Why is Der a tool? I'm guessing it's because he defends successfully accused clients. I have no problem with that. Our legal system depends on a system that includes a good defense for everyone. Maybe the tools are the prosecutors who are unable to get a conviction.

The problem is that the money is in defense and the top talent follows the money. The legal system is going to come down to money as it's highly unlikely the victim is going to be afford a top prosecution attorney considering he's driving a 2001 pick-up. That puts him at a huge disadvantage right away. The legal system is very far from perfect.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by JayP

The problem is that the money is in defense and the top talent follows the money. The legal system is going to come down to money as it's highly unlikely the victim is going to be afford a top prosecution attorney considering he's driving a 2001 pick-up. That puts him at a huge disadvantage right away. The legal system is very far from perfect.

What in the absolute f### are you talking about??

EDIT: Oh I see. You seem to be under the insane impression that victims of crime hire lawyers to prosecute the offenders. I honestly cannot believe there are people out there who are so completely unaware of how society works that they actually think this.

[Misterpants]

Originally Posted by JayP

The problem is that the money is in defense and the top talent follows the money. The legal system is going to come down to money as it's highly unlikely the victim is going to be afford a top prosecution attorney considering he's driving a 2001 pick-up. That puts him at a huge disadvantage right away. The legal system is very far from perfect.

The victim doesn't hire the prosecutor for criminal charges. That is up to the crown. If the victim is suing the drunk driver civilly, then yes the are hiring a lawyer.

[AR_Six]

... Who I would think would be working largely on a contingency basis, i.e. they get a portion of the ultimate settlement. In which case he would be wrong anyway, because the money is on the plaintiff side in PI.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

What in the absolute f### are you talking about??

EDIT: Oh I see. You seem to be under the insane impression that victims of crime hire lawyers to prosecute the offenders. I honestly cannot believe there are people out there who are so completely unaware of how society works that they actually think this.

Thanks for your posts in this thread.

His post also seems to be wholly ignorant of the fact that the majority of defendants in criminal trials can't afford ANY lawyer in the first place, let alone a high profile lawyer like Der. There's money in defending DUIs because it's the rare case where serious punishment and lack of serious intent coincide and the defendants are just as likely to be wealthy as they are destitute, but criminal defense is generally not a cash cow.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

For what it's worth, Global ran a story with the husband this morning and was reporting the 180 km/h thing.

**** me. I haven't seen Sean for a few years...to see him so beat up in that video...I didn't know his wife unfortunately but to hear him talk about her being gone now...terrible. Sean is a good guy and I'm sure his wife was a lovely person. Her daughter is without a mother now...brutal.

[gargamel]

I have a lot of respect for defense attorneys in general and public defenders in particular, but DUI defense specialists are pretty much the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I have a lot of respect for defense attorneys in general and public defenders in particular, but DUI defense specialists are pretty much the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.

The problem isn't the defense attorney, it's the law. These DUI-murder cases are always clear cut, yet too many seem to escape serious punishment. Remember, we live in the province that gave Daniel Tschetter 5.5 years for murdering 5 people, a rate of 1.1years/life destroyed. It is understandable that people hate defense attorneys for helping scumbags escape punishment, but they are not the problem.

[Bertuzzied]

So what needs to change for this law to get changed? does it need to get a family member of a judge or high ranking politician to get smoked before we lock these dbags up for life?

What a joke the law is. and Daniel Tschetter is the biggest piece of crap to ever live in Calgary.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So what needs to change for this law to get changed? does it need to get a family member of a judge or high ranking politician to get smoked before we lock these dbags up for life?

What a joke the law is. and Daniel Tschetter is the biggest piece of crap to ever live in Calgary.

Your frontier, knee-jerk emotional idea of what the law should be will never happen, and thank god for that. So don't hold your breath.

Or better yet, do.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Your frontier, knee-jerk emotional idea of what the law should be will never happen, and thank god for that. So don't hold your breath.

Or better yet, do.

You don't think the 18 month average for DUI killers is too low?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So what needs to change for this law to get changed? does it need to get a family member of a judge or high ranking politician to get smoked before we lock these dbags up for life?

What a joke the law is. and Daniel Tschetter is the biggest piece of crap to ever live in Calgary.

What are you talking about? Alberta just cracked down on drunk drivers, if this guy had been between .05-.079 he'd be having a real think about what hes done.

But now in Alberta its actually more advantageous to drive drunker because if you're way over that .08 you get your day in court represented by fierce defence lawyers. This guy is going to get practically nothing.