Humboldt Broncos tragedy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because no one decides to be inattentive or inexperienced..

If he was drunk or on a phone I could see a deterance aspect. But this guy was inexperienced looking at his mirror. He appears that he wasn’t experienced enough.

Punishing the company that sent him out there could be a deterrence.

It's pretty obvious by this thread that people take for granted the responsibility one bears when getting behind the wheel. If the driver is not properly trained and still makes the conscious decision to drive a large truck on public roads and has to accept responsibility for any harm or damage he does in the event his lack of proper training may cause.

There is no excuse for being inattentive behind the wheel. Zero excuses ever. If you cannot stay focused behind the wheel then you should pull over. If you feel that text from your buddy or girlfriend is so important that you have to read it while behind the wheel you chose to be inattentive fully accepting responsibility for your actions. These distracted driving laws aren't enforced because they are revenue generators. They are enforced because distracted driving deaths outnumber impaired driving deaths. It's unfortunate that it takes stiff penalties to drive home the fact that it's not okay to be inattentive behind the wheel but it's pretty clear we have a long way to go here before people take this issue more seriously.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I do not appreciate your view at all, Guy killed 16 people. Vengeance would be if we killed him. I am not asking for that, no one here is. Vengeance? Are you that obtuse in this thread? I dont think any person here had mentioned vengeance at all.

I just think if you kill sixteen people you should get more than two months per life taken.

Guy will be deported and driving again in 32 months. 16 people are dead, others injured for life.

I can not give you a sentence this guy should of got. Vengeance? No one here is talking about that.

If this was vengeance we would be asking for the death penalty or life 25.

Guy got charged with 2 months per death. Really lite sentence.

He should of been instructed better as a driver?

I can agree with this. Yet he made a choice. Many people died. He is liable for that choice.

This is an argument I can not win, nor can you.

This is all bad no matter your beliefs.

16 people are dead today. This driver is responsible for this.

I have been driving on the road in Canada for 35 years. No one has died because of my driving.

I dont take chances when I drive.

This guy took a chance. 16 people are dead.

He made a choice!

Hey Rick Bell, vengeance.

Vengeance.

Vengeance. Vengeance. Vengeance.

Vengeance!!!1!!!11!1!!one11

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Hey Rick Bell, vengeance.

Vengeance.

Vengeance. Vengeance. Vengeance.

Vengeance!!!1!!!11!1!!one11

Uhhh..i would be careful about attributing things said by someone without backing it up...this site can get in big trouble for such.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's pretty obvious by this thread that people take for granted the responsibility one bears when getting behind the wheel. If the driver is not properly trained and still makes the conscious decision to drive a large truck on public roads and has to accept responsibility for any harm or damage he does in the event his lack of proper training may cause.

There is no excuse for being inattentive behind the wheel. Zero excuses ever. If you cannot stay focused behind the wheel then you should pull over. If you feel that text from your buddy or girlfriend is so important that you have to read it while behind the wheel you chose to be inattentive fully accepting responsibility for your actions. These distracted driving laws aren't enforced because they are revenue generators. They are enforced because distracted driving deaths outnumber impaired driving deaths. It's unfortunate that it takes stiff penalties to drive home the fact that it's not okay to be inattentive behind the wheel but it's pretty clear we have a long way to go here before people take this issue more seriously.

How do you know you are not qualified to drive a super B if your employer and the state have given you the certification required. A large part of this is a failure the employer to meet their requirements under OHS to provide proper training and ensure the employee understood the risk of the work they were carrying out.

This guy didn’t answer a text. He was performing a safety check on his vehicle. It’s fundementally different than a DUI or phone use. I fully agree with you that phone use in a vehicle should be treated like impaired driving. That is not relevant to the case here.

My point above was that there is no deterrent affect to this punishment as a choice wasn’t made in the moment. The choice was made when he decided to be a truck driver. Therefore the purpose of this punishment is Vengeance/Justice/Punishment rather than deterance, protection of society or rehabilitation.

The deportation end is pretty severe, I just don’t see the value in deporting this guy.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because no one decides to be inattentive or inexperienced..

If he was drunk or on a phone I could see a deterance aspect. But this guy was inexperienced looking at his mirror. He appears that he wasn’t experienced enough.

Punishing the company that sent him out there could be a deterrence.

He was careless. Extremely, extremely careless while operating a highly dangerous piece of equipment. So IMO deterrence is certainly a factor here.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GGG

My point above was that there is no deterrent affect to this punishment as a choice wasn’t made in the moment. The choice was made when he decided to be a truck driver. Therefore the purpose of this punishment is Vengeance/Justice/Punishment rather than deterance, protection of society or rehabilitation.

Blowing through a stop sign in a big rig is a mistake that can be avoided so there is a deterrent effect.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uhhh..i would be careful about attributing things said by someone without backing it up...this site can get in big trouble for such.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do you know you are not qualified to drive a super B if your employer and the state have given you the certification required. A large part of this is a failure the employer to meet their requirements under OHS to provide proper training and ensure the employee understood the risk of the work they were carrying out.

This guy didn’t answer a text. He was performing a safety check on his vehicle. It’s fundementally different than a DUI or phone use. I fully agree with you that phone use in a vehicle should be treated like impaired driving. That is not relevant to the case here.

My point above was that there is no deterrent affect to this punishment as a choice wasn’t made in the moment. The choice was made when he decided to be a truck driver. Therefore the purpose of this punishment is Vengeance/Justice/Punishment rather than deterance, protection of society or rehabilitation.

The deportation end is pretty severe, I just don’t see the value in deporting this guy.

That is quite the spin.

You know how you "perform safety checks"?

You pull over and physically do it...you dont do so looking in mirrors travelling 80KM an hour.

In fact...this is why he is going to prison. He screwed up. He admitted as much. He plead guilty to committing these crimes.

Just think of it this way. Had he pulled over to address the loose tarp issue instead of staring at it in a side mirror, we aren't having this conversation.

I get that some feel 8 years for this is too much which is why i asked...what is the right sentence then?

As for the deportation aspect, I was under the impression its automatic for non-residents if sentenced to more than a year...though I may be completely wrong on that. Either way if i was in another country and my negligence/mistake led to the death of a bunch of their citizens, I wouldn't expect to be allowed to stay there.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Call it whatever you like...that doesn't absolve the website from possible legal action.

Legal action that has been threatened before.

Just giving some friendly advice is all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Blowing through a stop sign in a big rig is a mistake that can be avoided so there is a deterrent effect.

Are you less likely to drive through a stop sign as a result of this sentence?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That is quite the spin.

You know how you "perform safety checks"?

You pull over and physically do it...you dont do so looking in mirrors travelling 80KM an hour.

In fact...this is why he is going to prison. He screwed up. He admitted as much. He plead guilty to committing these crimes.

Just think of it this way. Had he pulled over to address the loose tarp issue instead of staring at it in a side mirror, we aren't having this conversation.

I get that some feel 8 years for this is too much which is why i asked...what is the right sentence then?

As for the deportation aspect, I was under the impression its automatic for non-residents if sentenced to more than a year...though I may be completely wrong on that. Either way if i was in another country and my negligence/mistake led to the death of a bunch of their citizens, I wouldn't expect to be allowed to stay there.

I don’t have an issue with 8 years. Part of the system is to punish people. I just disagree that there is any deterance in this sentence. It purely is retribution.

[Hackey]

Few posts read...

*Grandpa Simpson gif*

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t have an issue with 8 years. Part of the system is to punish people. I just disagree that there is any deterance in this sentence. It purely is retribution.

I see it as purely punishment, and not that severe at that.

The changes to the laws that came about because of this incident (that he was not subject to) are the deterrence.

I don't see any "retribution" at all considering the prison time could have been a LOT longer.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Call it whatever you like...that doesn't absolve the website from possible legal action.

Legal action that has been threatened before.

Just giving some friendly advice is all.

Except for the part where hyperoble and obvious opinion is not actionable. So Rick Bell would have no cause for legal action. Even if Bicycle Repairman once threatened a SLAPP suit.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I'm willing to bet no one here has blown a stop sign in an 60 tonne super bee doing 100 km/h

For sure but I think in some ways that is why I am more sympathetic to him than I might otherwise be. If he slowed to 35 and rolled through because he was lazy or couldn’t shift or just thought it was ok I would support an even harsher sentence. But for whatever reason and the driver himself may not even know, he simply didn’t see the signs. I am not excusing, it is just so sad. I think it would be easier if he was more of a villain. I remember blowing through a stop sign at full speed maybe 20 years ago on a rural road in southern Alberta. I knew the roads in the area and thought that I was on a road one mile east of where I was. That road had no stops signs for quite a while, but the road I was actually on had one just a mile past where I turned on. So I was moving along and as I went through intersection I saw the back side of the octagon on the other side of the road. I have thought of that a lot since the humboldt tragedy. Obviously a pickup truck wouldn’t do the damage a semi did, but if I had killed one child is that really any different? Certainly not to those parents. What is justice there. I guess if nothing else a good reminder how we need to stay focused and eliminate distractions when driving.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you less likely to drive through a stop sign as a result of this sentence?

Yeah.

Do other sentences for other crimes have an impact on you personally and your future behavior? Sounds like you’re arguing against deterrence in general, as you really haven’t provided any arguments as to why this crime is so different. A crime doesn’t need to be premeditated for deterrence to have an impact.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yeah.

Do other sentences for other crimes have an impact on you personally and your future behavior? Sounds like you’re arguing against deterrence in general, as you really haven’t provided any arguments as to why this crime is so different. A crime doesn’t need to be premeditated for deterrence to have an impact.

How does this sentence make you less likely to be distracted behind the wheel? Are you going to think about it and then think, "oh I would take extra risks, but Sindu received eight years in prison, so I better pay more attention"?

Putting someone in prison as a means of deterring others from committing crimes is an awful means of preventing crimes, especially when it occurred as a result of an accident.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

This guy either had an awful lawyer (unlikely) or didn't listen to his lawyer.

I guess I am particularly sensitive to this but what makes people think they can attribute outcomes directly to the ability of the lawyer without having any idea what the lawyer did on the file?

Equally, how is it that you can discern what the lawyer advised and whether the accused listened?

I can assure you from personal knowledge that the two lawyers he had are highly accomplished and two of the best he could possibly have had.

While I must concede I don’t know for absolute certainty you were not in the room when lawyer-client consultations were happening, I would be prepared to make a sizeable bet you were not.

As far as the sentence, my understanding is that none of the Crown, defence or Court could identify a sufficiently similar case for guidance. So this was extremely difficult work for all involved. One of the main criticisms is whether adequate credit was given by the judge for the guilty pleas and obvious demonstration of genuine remorse.

For those asking about deportation that is an automatic default for any sentence of 6 months or more as he is not a citizen.

[Flamenspiel]

^^so your saying the system worked, and that’s it. Good to have one of those. People need to recognize that, even when it works out they all complain.

[ericschand]

Owner of the trucking company pleads guilty.


Receives a $5,000 fine.