5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[flames85]

Originally Posted by Eddie Bronze

But what I'm saying is society knows they'll get that second chance so there's nothing to really be scared of. Have to start taking it away or this will continue to happen.

i think i understand you better now.... they should have to really earn their second chance.

[Eddie Bronze]

Originally Posted by flames85

your right, but i think they need to start from the top and hand out real punishments to the criminals that are out there with the intent to kill/steal...etc.

Yes, but you and I both know that's an entirely different debate.

[Got Miikka?]

Originally Posted by flames85

your right, but i think they need to start from the top and hand out real punishments to the criminals that are out there with the intent to kill/steal...etc.

I don't think it would matter much to the survivors of this family whether they were killed by an axe-wielding maniac or a drunk dumbass in a cement truck.

This is just so tragic.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

What is going to change it is when we start taking the licenses away from drunk drivers. Not for the 5th offense for a 6 month period or some crap either. First offense, you lose your license for 2 years. Second offense, you're done. Enjoy riding the C-train from now on.

Those of use who don't drink and drive will all get a little safer as there will be virtually no repeat offenders.

We aren't talking about a trivial inconvenience here. We are talking about people dying. That entire family just got wiped out because this guy figured he was "ok" to have a couple wobbly pops and get behind the wheel. I am betting it wasn't the first time.

you make good points, minus the assumption at the end. your right it needs to be more preventative measures. but how long until it changes.... how many more people are gonna have to die before actually change where we don't see people drinking and driving. like i said go to a bar and just see how many people drink and drive, its shocking... we are along way away.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't see the difference. If I took a gun and randomly shot it in any direction and killed someone, that wouldn't make it an accident... even if I was hoping that no one would get hit. It might not be the same as pointing it at somone and killing them, but it is just as bad.

This whole story makes me sick.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by Got Miikka?

I don't think it would matter much to the survivors of this family whether they were killed by an axe-wielding maniac or a drunk dumbass in a cement truck.

This is just so tragic.

to a certain degree i think your wrong, sure either way they are gone but to know that someone had the intent to kill your family does make a difference. that could just be my opinion?

[REDVAN]

This whole thing makes me sad.

Hopefully more details come out about the state of the driver of the concrete truck, and any changes to the justice system are quickly enacted (if required).

It is just so sad that people always have to die before we try to stop people from doing this sort of thing. It also scares me: just because I don't drive after drinking doesn't mean other people are smart enough. A whole family died as a result of one man making what he thought would be a minor choice. It wasn't so insignificant, and you have to know that!

Drinking and driving has got to stop.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't see the difference. If I took a gun and randomly shot it in any direction and killed someone, that wouldn't make it an accident... even if I was hoping that no one would get hit. It might not be the same as pointing it at somone and killing them, but it is just as bad.

This whole story makes me sick.

your missing the point of intent. if you indend to kill someone... i know your gonna say he got in the truck and drove drunk... but thats where the fine line is. he wasn't trying to kill someone he was trying to get wherever he was going. its the same as someone speeding and killing someone. its the sad truth.. but its not the same as walking into a mall with a gun and deliberately killing people.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flames85

your missing the point of intent. if you indend to kill someone... i know your gonna say he got in the truck and drove drunk... but thats where the fine line is. he wasn't trying to kill someone he was trying to get wherever he was going. its the same as someone speeding and killing someone. its the sad truth.. but its not the same as walking into a mall with a gun and deliberately killing people.

I don't think it matters. Intent to kill and disregard for human lives leading to people being killed are equally as bad in my books.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think it matters. Intent to kill and disregard for human lives leading to people being killed are equally as bad in my books.

If I may try to clear up Flames85's ideas (F85 feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting what I think you're trying to say). I tend to agree with the point he's bringing up.

Some of you are saying deliberate murder = drinking and driving causing death. But I think if you take the emotion out of just learning of this tragedy, then it should be agreed that dilberate murder does not = drinking and driving causing death.


I think what's happening is when that poster points out that they're not the same, people assume that the poster is implying that drinking and driving shouldn't be punished as harshly as possible, when in fact he is really just pointing out the difference between intending to kill people and doing something that has a chance to kill people. Obviously it's beyond stupid, no one is debating that issue, but you simply can't say that people who drink and drive are on the same level as people who dilberatly kill other people. If that were the case then would getting a DUI be considered attempted murder?

[CaptainCrunch]

This to me is a strong argument for consecutive sentences instead of the current concurrent sentences.

This guy got drunk and got into a cement truck and drove fast enough and carelessly enough to drag a car with 5 people in it over 300 meters. To me, Drunk driving and killing someone = manslaughter at the least.

Give him 5 consecutive sentences of 5 years each and let him out in 10 with no chance of driving again.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This to me is a strong argument for consecutive sentences instead of the current concurrent sentences.

This guy got drunk and got into a cement truck and drove fast enough and carelessly enough to drag a car with 5 people in it over 300 meters. To me, Drunk driving and killing someone = manslaughter at the least.

Give him 5 consecutive sentences of 5 years each and let him out in 10 with no chance of driving again.

That's why Canada should adopt the "vehicular homicide/manslaughter" charges that they have in the states. But we would never have that in Canada, because here in Canada we're all about be nice and polite, and we wouldn't want to offend those poor criminals now would we?

Just to be clear, he WAS NOT charged with impaired driving (253a of the Crim Code) but was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. I would suggest, since there is an absence of the 253(a) charge, he probably refused to provide a sample on a roadside test (those little contraptions that police can administer at the time of a traffic stop). Not sure what bearing that has other then it's not an impaired driving charge. Just thought I would clear that up.

My thoughts go out the the family.

[moeman]

Pretty scary ad about the possible effects of speeding:


http://www.top10virals.com/viralvide...eding-psa.html

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Just to be clear, he WAS NOT charged with impaired driving (253a of the Crim Code) but was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. I would suggest, since there is an absence of the 253(a) charge, he probably refused to provide a sample on a roadside test (those little contraptions that police can administer at the time of a traffic stop). Not sure what bearing that has other then it's not an impaired driving charge. Just thought I would clear that up.

My thoughts go out the the family.

Still just as serious though. CCC234.1 or CCC238(5) or CCC235

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Just to be clear, he WAS NOT charged with impaired driving (253a of the Crim Code) but was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. I would suggest, since there is an absence of the 253(a) charge, he probably refused to provide a sample on a roadside test (those little contraptions that police can administer at the time of a traffic stop). Not sure what bearing that has other then it's not an impaired driving charge. Just thought I would clear that up.

My thoughts go out the the family.

It's been awhile since I cracked open a crim law textbook, but I'm pretty sure the legal consequences (i.e. penalties) are the same under either section of the Code... I'm sure someone on here will know for sure.

[urban1]

In Winnipeg, a drunk cop rear-ended a car and killed the woman driving the car. He refused a breathalyzer and eventually plead down the charges and got no jail time. Essentially he killed a woman and got a community sentence.

Breathalyser skips rising

Fallout from Taman case


By CHRIS KITCHING, SUN MEDIA

van in St. Boniface. (Jason Halstead, Sun Media)


Winnipeg police have noticed more suspected drunk drivers are refusing to provide breath samples in light of a recent, well-publicized court case.

Police arrested four people during the first two days of the holiday Checkstop campaign, and all four are charged with refusing a breathalyser. There were two fatal collisions in Winnipeg recently where the drivers refused to provide a breath or blood sample.

Some drivers may believe they may improve their chances of escaping a court conviction by refusing.

Patrol Sgt. Rob Riffel said police are not concerned about the trend.
"There's nothing to be gained by refusing," Riffel said.

Legally, a person is allowed to refuse a breath or blood sample request. If convicted, the penalty for refusing is the same for having a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit.

The subject of breathalysers was in the news recently during a case involving former Winnipeg police officer Derek Harvey-Zenk.

He was charged with impaired driving causing death and refusing a breathalyser in the death of Crystal Taman, who was killed in February 2005 when Harvey-Zenk's pickup truck crashed into her car. The former police officer took a plea bargain, taking those charges off the table.

LOBBYING
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is lobbying the federal government to make blood tests mandatory for drivers involved in crashes where a person is injured or killed.

Meanwhile, two Winnipeg men were charged with impaired driving and refusing a breathalyser Thursday night.

The men were not arrested at Checkstops but the arrests will be included in the checkstop statistics, Riffel said. Police said an eastbound vehicle on Templeton Avenue drove into the back of a parked vehicle about 10 p.m. Thursday. A 60-year-old man has been charged. About 30 minutes later, a vehicle knocked over a fence and hit a tree in the area of a parking lot in the 800-block of Allegheny Drive. A 46-year-old man has been charged.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I think what's happening is when that poster points out that they're not the same, people assume that the poster is implying that drinking and driving shouldn't be punished as harshly as possible, when in fact he is really just pointing out the difference between intending to kill people and doing something that has a chance to kill people. Obviously it's beyond stupid, no one is debating that issue, but you simply can't say that people who drink and drive are on the same level as people who dilberatly kill other people. If that were the case then would getting a DUI be considered attempted murder?

I agree that they are not the same, but I am just saying that they are equally as bad and should be treated equally.

[REDVAN]

how do you get convicted of drunk driving if you don't provide a sample? how can it be proved you were drunk? it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so how do you prove it? I am not saying it's right, I am just wondering how it works.

[Dion]

nm