What's wrong with this picture?

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:18 pm

CID you have some interesting thoughts.

I'm not out for revenge...just fairness.

I'm appalled mostly by the Government here. After the sentencing, I learned that this particular case was marked "Non-negotiable" by the Head Provincial Prosecutor because of the nature and irrefutable proof (pictures, and witnesses) of careless driving.

So the Prosecutor not only demonstrated dereliction of duty, but also showed an unparalleled display of incompetence. I'm told his career is coming to an end...will find out next week.

But out of curiosity, what's your idea of careless driving?

edit for sp

The Other Kind · Post by **The Other Kind** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:15 pm

The idiot should have been charged with impaired driving. Most people think that 'impaired' only means drunk. Impaired driving is just that - impaired, by any means. Drunk, tired, stoned, you name it - but not JUST drunk.

The police don't usually apply the charge to anyone other than drunks, but this would have been appropriate charge for this moron in my opinion.

Unless you think that a frosted windshield doesn't impair your ability to drive...

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:30 pm

SuperchargedRS · Post by **SuperchargedRS** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:16 pm

I vote that the court SHOULD have:

1) ordered him to pay restitutions for the book value of the car he hit

2) suspend his license for 6 months to a year

that I would say would be FAIR,

the 85 dollar fine...well if he hits someone I think the judge should also be held accountable because that that verdict was a disgrace to our legal system as he is damn near condoning his actions

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:38 pm

1) ordered him to pay restitutions for the book value of the car he hit

Isn't that why we have insurance? The insurance company can go after him if they chose to but I think they'd have to prove some sort of intent or gross negligence where he was fully aware of the possible outcome of his actions.

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:15 pm

but I think they'd have to prove some sort of intent or gross negligence

Shouldn't be too hard...deliberately driving a vehicle without being able to see out the windows seems pretty negligent to me.

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:21 pm

CID wrote:
1) ordered him to pay restitutions for the book value of the car he hit
Isn't that why we have insurance? The insurance company can go after him if they chose to but I think they'd have to prove some sort of intent or gross negligence where he was fully aware of the possible outcome of his actions.

One can argue that he was grossly negligent as he was driving with a iced up windscreen, and didn't bother to clean it before he got in the car. Any reasonable person would recognize that a iced up windscreen is a hazard to drive with, and he failed in his duty to taking precautions before getting into his vehicle.

From what I can see, the criminal suit has ended, so I would open a civil suit against the driver. You have that option if you wish to pursue. But you have to hurry, there is a statue of limitation, which is about a year if I remember. So file a suit right now if you can.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:30 pm

CID has to be a defense attorney. I can't think of any reason why someone would defend bad people all the time. Liberals or dangerous drivers he always seems to be on the wrong side.

light chop · Post by **light chop** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:44 pm

If you stand back for a second and look at the real issue, what you've got here is an absolutely irresponsible dolt who couldn't buy a clue if you let Vanna bitch-slap him. This kind of stuff goes on daily in this country and it ain't getting any better. Maybe he should've used his crack pipe to melt the frost off the window.

Talk about the "dumbing down" of society. I'm not that old yet but I see the younger generation doing really dumb ass stuff way too often.

The fact that this idiot wrecks flyincanuks girlfriends car IS a big deal - cripes, the hassle and inconvenience he caused is not covered by an insurance payout. I've experienced a similar event like this (not near as drastic) but the phone calls, the quotes, the faxes, the waiting at auto body shops is a real pain in the arse. Someones lack of attention or outright stupidity causes the innocent victim a bunch of grief.

Good thing I'm not a judge - I would've lobotomized the SOB.

Now I'm pissed off. - I'll have a drink for you flyincanuk - I would've lost it if I was in your shoes...

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:25 pm

light chop wrote:Good thing I'm not a judge - I would've lobotomized the SOB.

Now I'm pissed off. - I'll have a drink for you flyincanuk - I would've lost it if I was in your shoes...

Ahhhh see that's the thing...the JP was ready to hang him to dry. It was the Crown who blew this one b/c of the Plea Bargin.

Anyway I'm done medevacing for the night...time to self-release myself with some liquid gold...

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:49 pm

CID has to be a defense attorney. I can't think of any reason why someone would defend bad people all the time. Liberals or dangerous drivers he always seems to be on the wrong side.

That's an interesting thought. If "bad" people aren't represented properly in court, who determines if they're "bad"?

We need people like defense attorneys not only to provide proper presentation but to test the system. The system won't improve otherwise.

With respect to the "civil suit" I don't think it will go anywhere. Unless you can present evidence that there is still an un-restored loss. It would be tough in my opinion to prove that the "victim" remains harmed by the incident.

Having said all that, I need to keep in mind that I haven't heard the whole story. It would be interesting to get the accused perspective. We need to keep in mind that we haven't heard the whole story. It would be interesting to get the accused perspective.

Dust Devil, it's quite telling when you put dangerous drivers and "Liberals" in the same category. I'm certainly no champion of either cause. I just offer my opinions. Its up to the reader to determine who's "side" I'm on I guess but I don't think I've demonstrated any such prejudice here.

Based on the information available I agree that the guy should be responsible for his actions within the provisions of the law and it appears he has been. I just don't look upon this case as one to base the need for system wide reform of the justice system. It's just a car accident with no resulting injury.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:05 pm

CID wrote:
CID has to be a defense attorney. I can't think of any reason why someone would defend bad people all the time. Liberals or dangerous drivers he always seems to be on the wrong side.
That's an interesting thought. If "bad" people aren't represented properly in court, who determines if they're "bad"?

We need people like defense attorneys not only to provide proper presentation but to test the system. The system won't improve otherwise.

With respect to the "civil suit" I don't think it will go anywhere. Unless you can present evidence that there is still an un-restored loss. It would be tough in my opinion to prove that the "victim" remains harmed by the incident.

Having said all that, I need to keep in mind that I haven't heard the whole story. It would be interesting to get the accused perspective. We need to keep in mind that we haven't heard the whole story. It would be interesting to get the accused perspective.

Dust Devil, it's quite telling when you put dangerous drivers and "Liberals" in the same category. I'm certainly no champion of either cause. I just offer my opinions. Its up to the reader to determine who's "side" I'm on I guess but I don't think I've demonstrated any such prejudice here.

Based on the information available I agree that the guy should be responsible for his actions within the provisions of the law and it appears he has been. I just don't look upon this case as one to base the need for system wide reform of the justice system. It's just a car accident with no resulting injury.

So because no injury took place an $85 fine is acceptable? How about if someone walked into a school and started firing shots in a hallway but didn't hit anyone. Would an $85 fine be appropriate there? It's sad that you feel people need to be hurt before action is taken.

jetmech · Post by **jetmech** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:07 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:Jetmech stated:

God, I am so emberassed to be quoting judge judy as a reference but the principle carries...

The point of litigation is to make the litigant whole or equal to the position they were in before the accident whatever. The girlfriend in this case would have already obtained use and enjoyment from the vehicle, and while she owned the vehicle the vehicle depreciated... so the defendant would only be liable for the remaining depreciated value on the vehicle... that is not to say that in this case, due to obvious stupidity and avoidable circumstances, in a civil lawsuit punitive damages can be sought... but the litigant is only entitled to the basic depreciated value of the car as it was at the time of the 'accident'

The intent of litigation isn't to give people a freebie or winfall, just to restore the space time continuum to the way it was before the accident.

If we started passing out 'free' cars whenever this happens we would have the same mess as the USA. (not to say our mess is any better we're just used to it)

That being said the fine was a complete joke, a complete and utter poor taste joke.

Boosted

I agree with you completely.......if she was the one that wrote her own car off because of her own stupidity. This is where I find a problem with our insurance companies. Why should she be forced to take a deprciated payout and have to buy a second rate car because of some other asshole? If I own an older mint condition car that is problem free and maintained why should I settle for what the insurance company determines as a black book value? There has to be different rules for different situations.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:29 pm

For $85.00 I would gladly run into CID's car and wreck it beyond repair, maybe the asshole would come here looking for sympathy and we all could tell him to fu.k off.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:45 pm

I'm with CID on this.

He was charged and convicted with the appropriate offense and that is what the law allows. You don't like it write your MLA. Should you get jail-time for being dumb? Most offenses under the MVA/TSA-whatever are quasi-criminal for a reason. If they weren't 99% of people would get off - you can't have it both ways.

Why was he in court? Was he disputing it? Why were you in court? To ensure justice was served? Don't you have anything better to do? Move on with your life and lose the rage - let the insurance adjusters sort it out...

That said I agree our insurance industry is a joke. They rip us off for premiums and then try not to pay out what we're due.

For that matter the whole enforcement strategy is a joke too. monetary fines won't deter people who can afford to pay.

Here's some other ideas:
http://www.sense.bc.ca/goals.htm

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:36 pm

Why do you feel the charge was appropriate? It's not a legislative problem it's an enforcement problem. The charge laid should have been impaired driving

ottawa,kan · Post by **ottawa,kan** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:42 pm

I've got a real good friend that lives in Finland. Speeding tickets there are paid on a scale relating to your income. Some super rich yuppie actually had to pay a $100,000 speeding ticket. Makes a little sense. If some poor starving unemployed float swamper has to pay a $300 ticket, shouldn't some investment banker have to make an equally painful contribution??? Socialism at it's best

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:52 pm

Dust Devil wrote:The charge laid should have been impaired driving

How do you figure that? Maybe the law regarding impairment in SK has something about frosty windshields? Don't see it here in the BC MVA? I doubt it's in the SK equivalent...

215 (1) In this section:

"approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section;

"driver" includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.

(2) A peace officer may, at any time or place on a highway or industrial road if the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol,

(a) request the driver to drive the motor vehicle, under the direction of the peace officer, to the nearest place off the travelled portion of the highway or industrial road,

(b) serve the driver with a notice of driving prohibition, and

(c) if the driver is in possession of a driver's licence, request the driver to surrender that licence.

(3) A peace officer may, at any time or place on a highway or industrial road if the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected by a drug, other than alcohol,

(a) request the driver to drive the motor vehicle, under the direction of the peace officer, to the nearest place off the travelled portion of the highway or industrial road,

(b) serve the driver with a notice of driving prohibition, and

(c) if the driver is in possession of a driver's licence, request the driver to surrender that licence.

(4) If a peace officer requests a driver to surrender his or her driver's licence under this section, the driver must forthwith surrender to the peace officer his or her driver's licence issued under this Act or any document issued in another jurisdiction that allows him or her to drive or operate a motor vehicle.

(5) Unless the prohibition from driving a motor vehicle is terminated under subsection (6) or (8 ), the driver is automatically prohibited from driving a motor vehicle for a period of 24 hours from the time the peace officer served the driver with a notice of driving prohibition under subsection (2) or (3).

(6) If a driver, who is served with a notice of driving prohibition under subsection (2), forthwith requests a peace officer to administer and does undergo as soon as practicable a test that indicates that his or her blood alcohol level does not exceed 50 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, the prohibition from driving is terminated.

(6.1) A test referred to in subsection (6) may be performed with an approved screening device.

(6.2) Despite subsection (6), a driver who is served with a notice of driving prohibition does not have a right to request or undergo a test under subsection (6) if

(a) the peace officer who served the notice first performed a test of the driver's blood alcohol level with an approved screening device,

(b) the test indicated that the driver's blood alcohol level exceeded 50 mg of alcohol in 100mL of blood, and

(c) the peace officer used the results of the test as part of the basis on which the peace officer formed reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle was affected by alcohol

(7) [Repealed 2004-68-18.]

(8 ) If a driver, who is served with a notice of driving prohibition under subsection (3), satisfies a peace officer having charge of the matter that his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle is not affected by a drug, other than alcohol, the prohibition from driving is terminated.

(9) A peace officer acting under subsection (2) need not hold the opinion that the blood alcohol level of the driver exceeds 50 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

(10) If a peace officer prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle under this section, the peace officer must cause a report of the prohibition to be delivered to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia unless the prohibition from driving a motor vehicle is terminated under subsection (6).

(11) The report referred to in subsection (10) must be in a form established by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

(12) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe an approved screening device for the purposes of this section.

224 Everyone who, on a highway or industrial road, drives a motor vehicle or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion of alcohol in his or her blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not less than 7 days and not more than 6 months, or to both.

Sounds more like this. It's the law you don't like it write your MLA.

144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:20 pm

not less than $100 yet he got $85. Must be B.C economics at work

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:37 am

2 women were killed in early October here in Ontario. Both women's husbands work at Bombardier in Toronto. First link is for the accident when it happened and the second link is for the follow up after the bail hearings.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... ml?ref=rss

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/266498

I can understand the rage that goes through a person's mind when their car is destroyed and all that could have happened but....

[/quote]"They're pleased," their lawyer Peter Brauti said in an interview outside the courthouse. "Their parents are very pleased. It was the right thing to do. They have no criminal records. They should be granted bail."[quote]

They got bail.....they are at home......WTF??? Oh ya rage is high.....

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:12 am

So because no injury took place an $85 fine is acceptable? How about if someone walked into a school and started firing shots in a hallway but didn't hit anyone. Would an $85 fine be appropriate there? It's sad that you feel people need to be hurt before action is taken.

Dust Devil, let me explain to you, the difference between apples and oranges.

Assault with a deadly weapon probably won't get you an $85 fine. Car accidents are usually caused by a mistake and unless you're a pathetic crybaby like Cat Driver who threatens people, there usually isn't intent to do damage or bodily harm, again unlike a guy who sprays a school with bullets.

When a car accident occurs, typically damage is assessed and the responsible person is tasked with restoration. If there was no injury, its simple metal replacement. Insurance companies pay up front and go after the person responsible if warranted.

You can keep trying to make more of this than it is but you're just going to become bitter and twisted like Cat Driver. And none of us want that do we?

They got bail.....they are at home......WTF??? Oh ya rage is high.....

Dashx, you do understand what "bail" is don't you? It's when you secure the release of someone with some sort of bond. It's usually granted to relieve people from incarceration pending a hearing. It's not usually granted to persons deemed to be a danger to the public and the bond is usually a monetary amount that is commensurate with the type of crime.

No matter what the outcome and the evidence, people in this country are still innocent until proven guilty.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:38 am

I can think of worse people to be like than Cat Driver. People who tolerate people who should be criminals would likely be near the top of the list. If I'm not mistaken a car can be a pretty deadly weapon. I would argue that operating a car carelessly while sober should warrant a stiffer penalty than a drunk driver. The drunk driver likely is suffering from impaired judgement. Where as the sober guy has full control over his actions. This isn't an argument about what the law says the guy should get. It's simply an argument of what he should get. Stop being a champion of the status quo. Obviously he can't get punished for more than the law allows but that doesn't diffuse the argument that he still deserved more.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:49 am

From Ontario's highway traffic act.

Windows to afford clear view

74. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,

(a) unless the windshield and the windows on either side of the compartment containing the steering wheel are in such a condition as to afford the driver a clear view to the front and side of the motor vehicle; and

(b) unless the rear window is in such a condition as to afford the driver a clear view to the rear of the motor vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8,

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:17 pm

Listen guys my beef if with the Crown, not the defendant. I would have gladly taken the plea if I was in his shoes...who wouldn't?

CID, you're right...someone has to represent the accused for a proper trial. But read my last posts...i'm angered with how it went down. There's no way a plea should have been negotiated given the circumstantial evidence.

altiplano wrote:You don't like it write your MLA.

done and done, thx...

altiplano wrote:Why was he in court? Was he disputing it?

yah...he hired a paralegal (x-copper)

altiplano wrote:Why were you in court? To ensure justice was served?

subpoenaed as a witness

altiplano wrote:Don't you have anything better to do?

as a matter of fact i did.

altiplano wrote: Move on with your life and lose the rage

i'm normally not one to get caught up in life's trivial moments. we've moved on - but that doesn't mean i can't voice my opinion.

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:50 pm

"Rage is high" is how the original post ended. That is why I ended my comment the same way. But for competely different reasons. CID.

Oh yes. CID. I know the meaning of "bail". We do have a wonderful system of justice in Canada. Here's a link to show exactly how wonderful it can be:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... _mostrecom

It all comes down to cost. So maybe in the longer run making a deal served a purpose. No? Please let me know.

And as far as the 2 brothers are concerned I am sure they won't be going away for life. After all justice is all about making deals.