Punishment should fit the crime


#juan
#1
An impaired truck driver hit a car and killed a whole family. In light of how our court system extracted the last drop of blood from Robert Latimer recently, can we expect this guy to serve some serious time?
Home


document.write(dateTranslator.displayLong('Decembe r 8, 2007 12:00:00 AM MST')); Saturday, December 8, 2007
Calgary police charge cement truck driver after crash that killed five
THE CANADIAN PRESS
CALGARY - Calgary police have laid six charges against the driver of a cement truck after a horrific crash that killed two adults and three children.
"He now faces six criminal charges, five in relation to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and one charge of refusing to provide a breath sample," Insp. Guy Slater said Saturday.

adtag.display(72);


A cement truck collided with a mid-sized car that was stopped at a red light about 7 p.m. Friday, police allege. The car was lodged underneath the truck and was pushed for almost 300 metres, police said.
Temperatures were relatively warm at the time and roads were mainly dry. Excessive speed and alcohol are believed to have played a role in the crash, said Slater.
"However, the full details will be the subject of the traffic investigation which is currently under way," he said.

"(Investigators) will be assessing witness statements, as well as the survey of the crash scene, to assess how fast the vehicles were travelling at the time of impact, and what other factors may have been involved."
All five occupants of the car, a 41-year-old man, a 33-year-old woman, girls aged six and nine, and a 16-month-old boy, were pronounced dead at the scene.
http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/arti...icleID=2835159
 
gerryh
#2
5 counts of second degree murder!
 
Zan
#3
what gerry said
 
Kreskin
#4
What a horrible thing. Unless he intended to run them down and kill them, second degree is as far as it goes.
 
gerryh
#5
Unfortunately...since it was with a vehicle...it won't even be that. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as alcohol, or any other drug is involved, it should automatically be 2nd degree murder. None of this "manslaughter" ****e.
 
Nuggler
#6
...............300 metres............jesus.

WTF is wrong with people?
 
Sparrow
#7
As far as I am concerned it should be 1st degree murder if he was impaired. He decided to take a drink even if he knew it was against the law he still drank. When are we going to stop minimizing drunk driving? There is one bas**** here in town who got drunk, took is girlfriend's car with her permission (she was at work) and killed two children 8 and 10 yrs. old, they were brother and sister. He is a many time over repeat offender and all he got was 9 years. Where is the justice here?
 
iARTthere4iam
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

An impaired truck driver hit a car and killed a whole family. In light of how our court system extracted the last drop of blood from Robert Latimer recently, can we expect this guy to serve some serious time?
Home


document.write(dateTranslator.displayLong('Decembe r 8, 2007 12:00:00 AM MST')); Saturday, December 8, 2007
Calgary police charge cement truck driver after crash that killed five
THE CANADIAN PRESS
CALGARY - Calgary police have laid six charges against the driver of a cement truck after a horrific crash that killed two adults and three children.
"He now faces six criminal charges, five in relation to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and one charge of refusing to provide a breath sample," Insp. Guy Slater said Saturday.

adtag.display(72);



A cement truck collided with a mid-sized car that was stopped at a red light about 7 p.m. Friday, police allege. The car was lodged underneath the truck and was pushed for almost 300 metres, police said.
Temperatures were relatively warm at the time and roads were mainly dry. Excessive speed and alcohol are believed to have played a role in the crash, said Slater.
"However, the full details will be the subject of the traffic investigation which is currently under way," he said.

"(Investigators) will be assessing witness statements, as well as the survey of the crash scene, to assess how fast the vehicles were travelling at the time of impact, and what other factors may have been involved."
All five occupants of the car, a 41-year-old man, a 33-year-old woman, girls aged six and nine, and a 16-month-old boy, were pronounced dead at the scene.
http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/arti...icleID=2835159

From what I heard reported he refused to give a breath sample which basically results in a charge the same as an over-the-limit breathalyzer result.
 
gerryh
#9
and witnesses at the scene reported smelling alcohol.
 
Tonington
#10
I know that intersection very well. The speeds there are insane. The 2A slows down to 80 there, from 110, but it's not unusual to see vehicles traveling at 130 still as they go through that intersection.

I'd agree with what gerry said, 5 counts of second degree.
 
iARTthere4iam
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

As far as I am concerned it should be 1st degree murder if he was impaired. He decided to take a drink even if he knew it was against the law he still drank. When are we going to stop minimizing drunk driving? There is one bas**** here in town who got drunk, took is girlfriend's car with her permission (she was at work) and killed two children 8 and 10 yrs. old, they were brother and sister. He is a many time over repeat offender and all he got was 9 years. Where is the justice here?

Canadian justice is generally quite light. Consider that the jury in the Picton case is currently deciding on sentencing and that their decision is when to allow parole (sometime after ten years and before twenty-five years). Picton may have killed as many as 50 people deliberately and could potentially be out on parole in ten years.

How are we minimizing drunk driving? Police spot checks (RIDE programs) pop up unnexpectedly and I even saw on this morning at 7:15 AM apparently to catch people driving home after a night of drinking. I don't think there has ever been a time when drunk driving was as serious an offence as it is now.
 
lone wolf
#12
Considering even a cement truck driver makes his living on the road, he should have more respect than average Joe Steering Wheel. I say this as a former heavy hauler with over a million miles logged safely under my butt. Murder in the second degree times five.

Woof!
Last edited by lone wolf; Dec 9th, 2007 at 10:02 PM..
 
#juan
#13
Another bit I heard tonight was that this jerk was seen by a female witness. Apparently there is one of those signs on the back of the cement truck that says something like, "If this vehicle is being driven irresponsibly, call this number", or words to that effect. The witness dutifully called the number and was in the process of telling whoever answered that the driver of the truck was driving erratically and speeding when she suddenly reported that the truck had just gone through a red light and smashed into a car. This witness called 911.

His *** is toast with any luck......
 
L Gilbert
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I know that intersection very well. The speeds there are insane. The 2A slows down to 80 there, from 110, but it's not unusual to see vehicles traveling at 130 still as they go through that intersection.

I'd agree with what gerry said, 5 counts of second degree.

Bump!
 
Tonington
#15
What do you think Les? Should we run him over with a bigger truck?
 
L Gilbert
#16
Nah. Just use him as a tire on a concrete truck.
Mounted on one side of the truck and put Pickton on the other.
 
Tonington
#17
Or the modern day equivalent of hung, drawn and quartered.
 
Pangloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

As far as I am concerned it should be 1st degree murder if he was impaired. He decided to take a drink even if he knew it was against the law he still drank. When are we going to stop minimizing drunk driving? There is one bas**** here in town who got drunk, took is girlfriend's car with her permission (she was at work) and killed two children 8 and 10 yrs. old, they were brother and sister. He is a many time over repeat offender and all he got was 9 years. Where is the justice here?

Sparrow:

1st degree is for those who plan to murder, and usually to murder a particular person. Second degree also has a measure of intent behind it; it is manslaughter when there was no plan or intent to kill.

It does not mean, however, that this idiot might not spend the next quarter century behind bars.

Personally, I think killed is killed, and find the argument for "state of mind" not terribly persuasive. This bozo, if he was drinking or stoned or otherwise impaired while driving a cement truck, made the decision to be careless with a cement truck - surely a deadly choice.

Forfeit all his belongings and work the next 25 years on a prison farm - hard labour and for no pay.

Pangloss
 
Pangloss
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iamView Post

Canadian justice is generally quite light. Consider that the jury in the Picton case is currently deciding on sentencing and that their decision is when to allow parole (sometime after ten years and before twenty-five years). Picton may have killed as many as 50 people deliberately and could potentially be out on parole in ten years.

How are we minimizing drunk driving? Police spot checks (RIDE programs) pop up unnexpectedly and I even saw on this morning at 7:15 AM apparently to catch people driving home after a night of drinking. I don't think there has ever been a time when drunk driving was as serious an offence as it is now.

Dude:

I want what you're smoking if you think Pickton (not Picton, as you wrote) will ever see the light of day or breathe free air ever again.

Pangloss
 
Nuggler
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iamView Post

y be out on parole in ten years.

How are we minimizing drunk driving? Police spot checks (RIDE programs) pop up unnexpectedly and I even saw on this morning at 7:15 AM apparently to catch people driving home after a night of drinking. I don't think there has ever been a time when drunk driving was as serious an offence as it is now.

Not to put too fine a point one it, but, we are minimizing it, because: People who have got caught drinking and driving, sooner or later, get their license back and drink and drive again. In my world, they would not. Moreover it they refused the mandatory counseling and alcohol withdrawl asssistance my government would demand they take,(and provide free of charge), they would do at least 5 years.

But; they would never again drive. Sorry. "You're an *******, and someday you're going to kill someone, and no more license for you!! "...........You get caught driving after these conditions have been imposed you do 10 years, and Bubba, the smelly 300 lb. pervert is your cellmate.

WE ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT IT. THE FREAKIN BOOZE COMPANIES MUST HAVE THE POLITICOS BY THE BALLS SOMEHOW.

anyway, just thought I'd run that by ya, FWIW.


 
shadowshiv
#21
Just a couple of weeks ago, four elderly widows were killed by a piece of **** drunk driver, at around 7pm. Swerved suddenly and hit them head on. This happened only a few streets from where my parents live. I hope this turd gets a long sentence, but that rarely seems to happen in these cases.

A person should get at least 15 years(with no possibility of parole) for each person he/she murders.
 
Niflmir
#22
Very few in this world see the irony in the indifference with which we take the life of the inhuman and the brutality with which we confront the unnecessary deaths close to home.

Five lives are sadly missing from this earth and we call out for retribution more times than we seek to prevent future misfortunes like these.
 
Zzarchov
#23
Side note:

This is involuntary manslaughter, not first degree murder, nor should it be. Their is no pleasant way to maim and kill a whole family.

But this definately deserves a lesser penalty than say a psychopath who stalked a family and murdered them all.

If you think the current sentancing is too light for involuntary manslaughter, then it should be bumped up on all involuntary manslaughter charges (also known as criminally negligent homicide or culpable homicide depending on where you go).

Is someone who throws a paintcan over an overpass thinking its funny, deserving of less time than a drunk driver if they both cause the same thing?

Dying to a drunk driver isn't really any worse than dying
 
iARTthere4iam
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

Dude:

I want what you're smoking if you think Pickton (not Picton, as you wrote) will ever see the light of day or breathe free air ever again.

Pangloss

You can't handle what I'm smoking.

The jury has been sent back by the judge to recommend his sentencing. As I understand it their options are to decide when he will be eligable for parole- after 10 years, before 25 years. I am not saying he will get parole, he most likely will not. We will have to wait on what the jury says and what happens at his parole hearings.

I was a truck driver for a couple of years and have no sympathy for someone drunk and killing people. There is just no excuse for it. I have sympathy, however, for truck drivers that are unjustly demonized, this guy is not one of those. I suspect this guy is going to spend serious time in prison.

Please accept my humblest apologies for my incorrect spelling of that butcher's name. I did not realize the high degree of accuracy in spelling required of me.
 
iARTthere4iam
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Not to put too fine a point one it, but, we are minimizing it, because: People who have got caught drinking and driving, sooner or later, get their license back and drink and drive again. In my world, they would not. Moreover it they refused the mandatory counseling and alcohol withdrawl asssistance my government would demand they take,(and provide free of charge), they would do at least 5 years.

But; they would never again drive. Sorry. "You're an *******, and someday you're going to kill someone, and no more license for you!! "...........You get caught driving after these conditions have been imposed you do 10 years, and Bubba, the smelly 300 lb. pervert is your cellmate.

WE ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT IT. THE FREAKIN BOOZE COMPANIES MUST HAVE THE POLITICOS BY THE BALLS SOMEHOW.

anyway, just thought I'd run that by ya, FWIW.

Five years? For what? What if I have one glass of wine beyond my limit? Five years? What if I blow .081? Five years? Should killing a family of five while drunk driving a cement truck be the same as me returning home with my wife after going out to dinner and sharing a bottle of wine? There are degrees.
 
MikeyDB
#26
It's peculiar my word..my opinion...that we seem to embrace one set of moral 'values' on one occasion or with respect to one circumstance but hold a different one when it comes to war and militarism....

If an "enemy combatant" is killed...that's OK but if an innocent child is killed that's not OK...

We choose to regard one form of murder as acceptable and appropriate but demonize those who fail to live-up to our 'standard' when the contributing elements are somehow different. You have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones with lethal force only in the circumstance that you or your loved one is being harmed by someone else, but you can lob high explosives and supersonic bits of lead at a house where you think the "bad-guy" might be hiding....

I've read a bunch of the comments in this thread and it's become clear to me that some see this situation as a black and white issue while others may entertain some shade of gray....

Curious
 
Zzarchov
#27
In my mind I would say yes.

One thing I hate about the legal system is it focuses too much on the consequences and not enough on the action.

If you get drunk and manage to not hit anyone through luck, after blowing 0.081 you think you should be fine. If however you hit and killed someone in another car as could happen even if you are perfectly sober, you should be sent to 25 years?

Drinking and driving has been pretty clearly stated by the populace as never ok. That means if you go out to dinner, you don't share a bottle of wine. That is the definition of drunk driving, drinking and thikning you can get away with it.

What do you think other drunk drivers do, sit in the front seat and say "Fug it! Im driving drunk!" whip out a bottle of whiskey and do shots from their dashboard before roaring out at full speed onto the road?

Its people who have "a beer or two with friends" or "A glass of wine with the wife" or "A toast to the boss", usually at some birthday or going away party, and just think "Its a short ride home and Im fine". And sometimes they are fine, sometimes they are not.

But they took the risk as soon as they had that drink and thought "I can make it home'. If you are driving, you really shouldn't drink ANYTHING.
 
MikeyDB
#28
Zzarchov...

I'm with you on this one. Life is fragile and there are more than enough dangers posed by everything from governments that lie about protecting the "consumer" to nut-bar lunatics who take firearms to school and serial killers...

If we reduce the potential not just the probability of dire circumstances unfolding out of someone's poor judgment in attempting to drive after having a drink....that makes perfect sense to me.
 
karrie
#29
I can't help but feel frustrated that this family seems to illicit more outrage and frustration, more desire for vengance, than a typical crash. Drunk drivers kill people every day. Why would a drunk driver who hits and kills one person deserve less penalty than a drunk driver who hits and kills an entire family. It's the same action, same result, just sheer bad luck that he happened to hit the most sacred thing in our society....a family. But the wreckage of one person's death is just as important.

Now, if he'd set out to kill five people, and didn't stop until he had his total, then fine. Hit him with five times the charges of other drunks. Or charge him with five, but sentence accordingly... I don't know. It just seems a bit unbalanced to me. Like rewarding the other drunks for being lucky enough to hit emptier vehicles.
 
MikeyDB
#30
Karrie

Hi kiddo!

I'm not familiar with the legal system as it pertains to automobile insurance in the rest of Canada, but I'm familiar with Ontario.

In Ontario the government has declared a monopoly for the Automobile Insurance companies by requiring that drivers be insured. One doesn't have to report a collision to the police at the time of the accident but the accident must be reported to the "Reporting Center" within 24 hrs.

I was recently involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the car I was a passenger in...being written off. The driver who caused the accident wasn't charged by the police for unsafe driving or unsignalled turn or failure to avoid a collision, the police weren't concerned with whose "fault" it was ...since of course we have "no-fault" insurance in Ontario....

We have a lousy driver who failed to approach an inersection with care, proceeded out into the flow of traffic on the main thouroughfare and resulted in causing an accident that the insurance companies will settle....

Justice in Ontario my ***!

We're toast.... It's all about protecting the money and the "system" and by the "system" I mean building a farcical "justice-system" that is about lawyers making money...nothing to do with "justice"....

Punishment fitting the crime...?

We should focus on the criminals who sit behind Ontarios court benches, focus on a system of government that's corrupt and a judiciary that's in the pocke of the ambulance chasers....

Baa Baa Baa
 

Similar Threads

2
Crime and Punishment in War Zone
by earth_as_one | May 12th, 2007
0
On Crime & Punishment
by sanctus | Feb 25th, 2007
55
Capital Punishment
by JonB2004 | Apr 4th, 2006
35
I am SUPRISED canucks don't have capital punishment
by Giraldi_Theirrey | Dec 16th, 2004
no new posts