5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

Originally Posted by moeman

How about from now on when we renew our license we have to sign a waiver that we will not refuse a breathalizer if stopped? You don't sign, no license to drive. In 5 years, everyone will have signed the waiver and nobody can say they have the right to refuse. Driving's not a right, it's a priviledge. So if you want the priviledge to drive, you have to be willing to forgo your right to refuse a breathalizer.

May not save lives, but it will take one of the legal avenues away that folks use to get away with a DUI.

Because obtaining someones breath has been deemed a 'search' and is thus subject to section 8 of the CCRF.

Originally Posted by fredr123

There's a separate charge under the Criminal Code for failing or refusing to provide a sample and it's punished under the same section as 253(a)/253(b).

254 (5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.

Punishment

255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,

(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,

(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and

(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;

(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Impaired driving causing death

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

But refusal is not the same as impaired driving.

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

But refusal is not the same as impaired driving.

True, but if your not drunk why would you refuse

[Cowperson]

The hot line operator for the company owning the cement truck was on the phone with a driver calling to complain about the driver when she heard the crash and the caller said:

Call-taker Jina Wilkie said a man phoned C&J's driver hotline about 7 p.m. to complain about the erratic driving of one of the company's vehicles, saying it was frightening him.

"The caller was getting more and more panicky, screaming for me to get someone because the driver was going all over the road and off to the side," Wilkie told the Herald through tears.

"Then the man screamed, 'Oh my God, he's gone through a red light. He just T-boned someone. He's killed them.' " By that time Wilkie said she already knew there had been a crash because she heard a horrifying crunch through the phone -- indicating how close her caller was to the collision.

The story in the Herald today:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...d244f8&k=71703

Retracing my own steps, it occurred to me yesterday I was sitting at that same stoplight, on my way into the south end of the city for a Christmas party, only 15-20 minutes before the crash.

There but for the Fickle Finger Of Fate go I.

Cowperson

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by SteveToms

True, but if your not drunk why would you refuse

These quotes scare me!
If I have nothing to hide, why not let the police do periodical checks through my home, make sure I'm not up to anything. Why stop there, videocamera with microphone in every room!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

These quotes scare me!
If I have nothing to hide, why not let the police do periodical checks through my home, make sure I'm not up to anything. Why stop there, videocamera with microphone in every room!

Strawman argument, and you know it.

We're not talking about random checks without cause or suspicion. But police already knew there was an accident, they knew who was very likely at fault, and they very likely knew about the erratic driving comlpaints, especially from witnesses such as the one who was on that call.

Police, in this case, had enough probable cause to request a breath sample. If the killer was sober, he'd have wanted to clear that up right then and there.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Strawman argument, and you know it.

We're not talking about random checks without cause or suspicion. But police already knew there was an accident, they knew who was very likely at fault, and they very likely knew about the erratic driving comlpaints, especially from witnesses such as the one who was on that call.

Police, in this case, had enough probable cause to request a breath sample. If the killer was sober, he'd have wanted to clear that up right then and there.

Just to be clear, the breath sample requested was most likely a roadside test not a breathalyzer. You need to be arrested for impaired driving before a breathalyzer test can be requested and/or refused.

[Eddie Bronze]

Well I look at it from a personal perspective. Fortunately I'm not stupid enough to do something like this, but let's say I was in an accident and the police requested a breath sample. I'd be more than happy to give it to them to prove I wasn't drinking regardless of if the accident was even my fault or not. I just look at it like that and then think, what was this guy hiding? Because that's what it looks like when you refuse to try to clear your own name, like your hiding something. Although he already killed five people so...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

But refusal is not the same as impaired driving.

True, but they have the same maximum punishment. From my experience, it is a lot harder to win a defence case for refusal to provide over an actual one where someone provided a breath sample.

[Flames_Gimp]

man, i wish the guy that witnessed the crashed pulled the piece of garbage out of the truck and beat him.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

True, but they have the same maximum punishment. From my experience, it is a lot harder to win a defence case for refusal to provide over an actual one where someone provided a breath sample.

I wasn't debating punishments only that, in this case, there was no impaired driving charge thus the driver may not have been drunk.

But you are correct, the elements of the offense for a refusal are a lot easier to prove then impaired driving. Keep in mind, I think he was charged for the refusal of the roadside which would be even more difficult to defend IMO.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I wasn't debating punishments only that, in this case, there was no impaired driving charge thus the driver may not have been drunk.

But you are correct, the elements of the offense for a refusal are a lot easier to prove then impaired driving. Keep in mind, I think he was charged for the refusal of the roadside which would be even more difficult to defend IMO.

True, true.

[Engine09]

A few people have stated that along with jail time, this guy should lose his license for a long time.

I was thinking about this today, I don't think losing your license is much of a deterent. People adapt and get along just fine without driving, you save money on gas and insurance plus get more exercise from walking. It's not really a big deal.

[MelBridgeman]

since the death penalty isnt available...lock him up and throw away the key

[Temporary_User]

Somehow this thread became a drinking and driving thread. While I do see how everyone got to this point. We should all be aware that this guy was not drunk. He was not convicted of drinking and driving, thus he is innocent of that.
This while may or may not be true, is the evidence that we have to look at/through if were are going to be playing the jurors.

That said, reckless driving is a serious charge that will effect his whole life, knowing that he is a truck driver. He will more than likely lose his license for a long time, as well as go to high risk insurance making getting a job driving very hard once he gets his license back. I don't know how refusing a breathalyzer will effect him, but this guy is not going to be walking away scott free from any of this.
He may not get jail time, but his world has been turned upside down, and he also has to live with the fact that his actions led to the death of 5 people.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Somehow this thread became a drinking and driving thread. While I do see how everyone got to this point. We should all be aware that this guy was not drunk. He was not convicted of drinking and driving, thus he is innocent of that.
This while may or may not be true, is the evidence that we have to look at/through if were are going to be playing the jurors.

That said, reckless driving is a serious charge that will effect his whole life, knowing that he is a truck driver. He will more than likely lose his license for a long time, as well as go to high risk insurance making getting a job driving very hard once he gets his license back. I don't know how refusing a breathalyzer will effect him, but this guy is not going to be walking away scott free from any of this.
He may not get jail time, but his world has been turned upside down, and he also has to live with the fact that his actions led to the death of 5 people.

who cares.artificial natural selection is required here.

[Eddie Bronze]

Originally Posted by Kryzsky

I was thinking about this today, I don't think losing your license is much of a deterent. People adapt and get along just fine without driving, you save money on gas and insurance plus get more exercise from walking. It's not really a big deal.

Unless you drive for a living and considering he was in a cement truck, you would have to assume that he drove this truck for a living. If he's got no license, no one can hire him. He'd be forced to find a different type of job alltogether.

[SeeGeeWhy]

^^^ Yep, and at 50 it is not exactly easy to get into a new career.

It seems to me like anyone who has had a DUI type offense before will refuse to blow any time in the future.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Kryzsky

A few people have stated that along with jail time, this guy should lose his license for a long time.

I was thinking about this today, I don't think losing your license is much of a deterent. People adapt and get along just fine without driving, you save money on gas and insurance plus get more exercise from walking. It's not really a big deal.

I've known people who lost their license for a year. It is a pretty big deal. Yeah, they adapt, but it is never easy.

However, every so often you hear about people who get busted even though they don't have a license. Sometime multiple times. So they lose their license, it doesn't stop them. An while I would love to throw them in jail and throw away the key, that is expensive and I don't want to pay for that, or have a murderer or rapist released to make space. I'm not sure the best way to keep them out of a car.

[metallicat]

This is just so incredibly sad. I just can't imagine the level of grief that the extended family is feeling right now. I mean, five people from the same family dead. Unbelievable.

A number of years ago, some cousins of my mom were killed in a plane crash. They were from Calgary, so I somewhat have an idea of what this family must be going through, but it just isn't the same. I'm at a loss for words.