^Of course it's not the job of the prosecution to simply get convictions....however because DA's are voted in, not getting convictions will likely see them lose their job (i.e. be voted out)
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
To think that this is an intentional act is the first error in judgement here. There is a huge difference thankfully between intentional cause and negligence.
To think that this is an intentional act is the first error in judgement here. There is a huge difference thankfully between intentional cause and negligence.
"Negligence" seems far too benign a word to associate with the actions of someone who drives 180 km/h after drinking. With all the knowledge available on the dangers of drinking and driving, he chose to drive, and recklessly. Just can't get past negligent.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aeneas For This Useful Post:
To think that this is an intentional act is the first error in judgement here. There is a huge difference thankfully between intentional cause and negligence.
Sure. But regardless of someone saying this was an "error in judgement", this person was drunk, behind the wheel, knowing full well that it was "illegal" and could possibly cause problems and they killed someone. There are no "do overs" for this woman who died. It's done for her. Her family will ever be changed and affected by this. Again, here is some more pure emotion, but you can't tell me the guy who was "allegedly" drunk didn't know getting behind the wheel was wrong and then to go along with that, was "allegedly" driving at a extremely high rate of speed. Life isn't a video game. There should be serious consequences for actions that cause something to happen, such as loss of life, that cannot be reversed.
To think that this is an intentional act is the first error in judgement here. There is a huge difference thankfully between intentional cause and negligence.
Alright pie, I'm going to start chomping like this, and if you happen to go into my mouth I didn't mean to eat you I'm just negligent.
"Negligence" seems far too benign a word to associate with the actions of someone who drives 180 km/h after drinking. With all the knowledge available on the dangers of drinking and driving, he chose to drive, and recklessly. Just can't get past negligent.
So he chose to do something despite legitimate warnings and reasons, this is by definition negligence. I'm simply playing devils advocate here to all the pitchfork wielders.
Negligence - is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.
So we know it to be a dumbass idea to get loaded and speed like you are invincible, this clown obviously thought he was immune. Still doesn't condone spitting vitriol like murderer.
So he chose to do something despite legitimate warnings and reasons, this is by definition negligence. I'm simply playing devils advocate here to all the pitchfork wielders.
Negligence - is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.
So we know it to be a dumbass idea to get loaded and speed like you are invincible, this clown obviously thought he was immune. Still doesn't condone spitting vitriol like murderer.
Indeed -- negligence is a term of art. It is a state of mind of a person engaging in certain behavior which we assign a certain amount of blame to. It is not a value judgment of their actions. What counts as "negligence" can be as diverse as failing to shovel your sidewalk to smoking at a gas station to firing bullets into the air in a crowd.
And if we want to get technical , the definition you gave applies to private law (i.e. lawsuits between private citizens) and not negligence in the criminal law, which is quite a bit different.
So he chose to do something despite legitimate warnings and reasons, this is by definition negligence. I'm simply playing devils advocate here to all the pitchfork wielders.
Negligence - is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.
So we know it to be a dumbass idea to get loaded and speed like you are invincible, this clown obviously thought he was immune. Still doesn't condone spitting vitriol like murderer.
I have spit no vitriol. I just think neglect doesn't work for me. Letting my plants go a week without water and they wither...to me that is neglect. Not taking care of my automobile's body or engine...to me that is neglect. I am no lawyer, just giving my opinion on a word.
As to the other word that some have taken offense to, murderer. I think were I in the situation the accused finds himself, that through my incredibly stupid and selfish actions, I had taken away somone's life. I would consider myself a murderer. Would I want to go to jail for 20 years? No, of course not.
This man must have known that drinking and driving could very well lead to the death of innocent people. He still made the choice to do so. So he is not a murderer according to the law, but I don't think it is hyperbolic or vitriolic for the average person to label him as such.
Isn't the proper term not Negligence but Manslaughter?
I think it's actually negligent driving causing death but can't be bothered to look up the definition in the Crim Code. Regardless, drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone - they would much rather NOT kill anyone. They are nonetheless culpable for being reckless. They aren't trying to kill anyone, but they know their behaviour very well could lead to death and do it anyway. That is what "negligent" means. Basically, in this context, it's the same thing as "reckless" or "without regard to the consequences".
So we know it to be a dumbass idea to get loaded and speed like you are invincible, this clown obviously thought he was immune. Still doesn't condone spitting vitriol like murderer.
I believe the definitions are different in Canada, but in the U.S., committing an act that demonstrates a callous disregard for human life is "depraved indifference murder" if the act results in death. That definition at least arguably fits a drunk driver who kills someone.
I have spit no vitriol. I just think neglect doesn't work for me. Letting my plants go a week without water and they wither...to me that is neglect. Not taking care of my automobile's body or engine...to me that is neglect. I am no lawyer, just giving my opinion on a word.
As to the other word that some have taken offense to, murderer. I think were I in the situation the accused finds himself, that through my incredibly stupid and selfish actions, I had taken away somone's life. I would consider myself a murderer. Would I want to go to jail for 20 years? No, of course not.
This man must have known that drinking and driving could very well lead to the death of innocent people. He still made the choice to do so. So he is not a murderer according to the law, but I don't think it is hyperbolic or vitriolic for the average person to label him as such.
Sorry, certainly wasn't an accusation directed at you. I can see how the average person sees it as murder, but that is simply because they don't really know what murder is.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flacker For This Useful Post:
I believe the definitions are different in Canada, but in the U.S., committing an act that demonstrates a callous disregard for human life is "depraved indifference murder" if the act results in death. That definition at least arguably fits a drunk driver who kills someone.
I believe the definitions are different in Canada, but in the U.S., committing an act that demonstrates a callous disregard for human life is "depraved indifference murder" if the act results in death. That definition at least arguably fits a drunk driver who kills someone.
That's more of a common law standard, the definitions in US States and Canada will differ (sometimes drastically) by statute.
There is a point where negligence ceases to be the correct term, both legally and in general usage. Where the acts are so egregious the law often elevates the charge into a sort of grey area between intent and negligence.
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertGQ
Yes, both victims were wearing seatbelts but the accused ran a red light going 180km/hour
Both were ejected
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger
Something doesn't add up. How do you get ejected from a vehicle while wearing a seat belt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper
You don't.
Sorry Reaper , you are WRONG .... When my late wife and I had our automobile accident she was wearing her seatbelt and was ejected. We were T-boned on her side and in all the damage her safety belt was sliced in half. This allowed her to be ejected and sustain her fatal injuries.
How would you know a 20 year sentence wouldn't work? Well we know one is for sure. these 12 to 16 month sentences don't work. If ramdeep doesn't want to be ramdeeped for 20 years maybe he wouldn't have executed those 2 people with his car.
Because statistics show that increasing deterrence does not decrease the rate of illegal acts. Tough on crime doesn't work, as well as we hope it will, it just makes us feel better about things.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
This poor man lost his wife because someone got drunk, got behind the wheel of a bullet and killed someone.
The thing that drives me nuts most about drunk driving is that all the killer could have gotten home for how much to get home? $20-50 by taxi? And not sure if Calgary has the the service but a few bucks more he gets his home as well. When I find out friends drive drunk I get so mad, there are too many options out there than to drive drunk. It is one of the most cowardly things to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
Personally, I don't get why the mandatory breathalyzer device in every car isn't a thing... An ounce of prevention and all that. I'm sure the automotive industry would hate it, it would drive car costs up, and those things have to be kept calibrated so regular maintenance costs would go up, and etc. etc. etc... but still, it seems to me that it would make a huge, huge difference. Even if it was only mandatory for people who had been caught over 0.06, it would probably make at least some sort of dent.
Again, I'm proposing some sort of radical solution that someone has probably already thought through in great depth and published some article about why it is or isn't a good idea.
If Mercedez Benz can put a thing in my car that wakes me up if I'm tired or turns on my wipers when it rains I'm sure the cost of doing that on a manufacturing level would not be all that bad.
The only problem is knowing some people who have had that installed in their vehicles is drunks will always find a way. I know a guy who would leave work sober, drive to the pub, leave his car running, get drunk and then drive home. He would seriously go through a quarter tank while it's sitting in the parking lot. It seems the cops have caught on to this and are patrolling parking lots but I'm sure there is some new loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
It's hard to take emotion out of something like this, but I do think the basic jist of the drunk driving laws being way too lax are justified no matter how someone feels about this particular case. Personally, I would love to see something like this:
First DUI - license suspended for 3 years. Put on public drunk drivers list. 6 months community service (ideally in some sort of trauma/paramedic related unit).
Second DUI - License suspended for 10 years. 2 years in jail....no early-release.
Third DUI - License suspended for life. 5 years in jail....no early-release.
Kill someone in a DUI-related accident - License suspended for life. 15 years jail for every person you kill.
Everyone makes mistakes, but this is one of those stupid irresponsible ones that no one should ever have an excuse for. Make the first one one really harsh so people have a chance to correct their behavior. My guess is that if someone has multiple DUI's, there's really no turning back for them as they just don't give a crap.
Out of thanks but love the tiered idea of punishment for something like this. I don't know if I agree with the punishments you propose but like the format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
Because statistics show that increasing deterrence does not decrease the rate of illegal acts. Tough on crime doesn't work, as well as we hope it will, it just makes us feel better about things.
Look no further than the War on Drugs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
, the definition you gave applies to private law (i.e. lawsuits between private citizens) and not negligence in the criminal law, which is quite a bit different.
