Reminds me of that scummy bastard ex Surrey RCMP prick that killed a guy I think in a motorcycle in Tswasswen, then fled the scene like a chicken coward went home and then when busted he said he wasn’t drinking while driving he was drinking at home , not sure what that verdict was fucking criminal cowards. don’t worry this prick will get his in Karma
12 month conditional.
He is the reason we now have the law that police can test you for DUI up to 2 hours after you were driving. He said he got drunk after the accident and police couldn’t prove otherwise.
Cop friend told me to Leave my ID on the seat and go home and say you drank to calm your nerves. He said something to the effect of its not fleeing if You leave ID.
I’d ask your lawyer friend to confirm what your cop friend said. The key issue is the two hour window after driving. Here are the offences under the [2018 law](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C46E):
- Dangerous operation of a conveyance (section 320.13);
- Operating a conveyance while impaired (paragraph 320.14(1)(a));
- Having a BAC of 80 or more within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(b));
- Having a blood drug concentration (BDC) over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(c));
- Having a combined BAC and BDC over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14 (1)(d));
- Having a BDC over a prescribed limit that is lower than the BDC set under paragraph 320.14(1)(c) within two hours of operating a conveyance (subsection 320.14(4));
- Refusing to comply with a demand (section 320.15);
-Failure to stop after an accident (section 320.16);
- Flight from peace officer (section 320.17); and
- Driving a conveyance while prohibited (section 320.18).
The whole scheme for killing someone with a car is stupid beyond belief.
If I kill a family either a gun, poison or edged weapon I can get 25+ years in prison. If I do 90 through a red light, go up a curb and wipe out a family and stay around I will just get a driving suspension. If I do the same, totally hammered and take off I will get the same and maybe a year jail time.
How does this even come close to being reasonable?
Because intent matters rofl….what a stupid comment, if you deliberately run someone over with a car you get the same penalty as any other form of murder. It’s much harder to prove intent with a vehicle because it’s a normal part of everyone’s day unlike gunning someone down…
Funny how murder and attempted murder don’t get the same penalty when the intent was the same.
You could have negligence with poison and you’ll definitely get a tougher sentence than most people will get with negligence with a car.
Everyone has an incentive to try not to get caught committing crimes.
Does the Crown honestly think most people: 1) know what sentencing ranges are for specific offences, and 2) are making that calculation while drunk and having caused an accident?
No doubt lol.
I’m pretty sure the question that is farthest from the mind of someone who thought it was an okay choice to drive while intoxicated in the first place is “ok but what if I hit someone and they die?”
I think it’s that whole lack of playing the consequences tape all the way through that might just be the foundation of those people’s problem. 🤣
No. That isn't true. DUI is a typically a summary offence. But, it depends on the circumstances. First offence is maximum 18 months in prison.
Leaving the scene is not a summary offence, it shows intent to evade and is punishable more severely. As usual, it depends on the circumstances. Maximum sentence is much greater than what I DUI will get you. Ten years.
It really depends on the circumstances. Most of the situations that I’ve personally witnessed have been accidents involving a single vehicle. Not a collision with multiple vehicles.
Reminds me of that scummy bastard ex Surrey RCMP prick that killed a guy I think in a motorcycle in Tswasswen, then fled the scene like a chicken coward went home and then when busted he said he wasn’t drinking while driving he was drinking at home , not sure what that verdict was fucking criminal cowards. don’t worry this prick will get his in Karma
12 month conditional. He is the reason we now have the law that police can test you for DUI up to 2 hours after you were driving. He said he got drunk after the accident and police couldn’t prove otherwise.
Another fucking prick who successfully did this was the former president of the Law Society, Howard Berge.
Monty fucking Robinson
Robinson was also convicted in the 2007 YVR taser death of immigrant Robert Dziekankski. I believe he got just under 2 years for that, too.
A true waste of skin. The RCMP should have hung him out to dry for tarnishing the general image of police officers in this country.
I came here to repeat his name. MONTY ROBINSON killed two people.
The fact people remember this gives me hope for the future.
Monty?
That guy got off because he was a cop. They have a 007
Cop friend told me to Leave my ID on the seat and go home and say you drank to calm your nerves. He said something to the effect of its not fleeing if You leave ID.
I’d ask your lawyer friend to confirm what your cop friend said. The key issue is the two hour window after driving. Here are the offences under the [2018 law](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C46E): - Dangerous operation of a conveyance (section 320.13); - Operating a conveyance while impaired (paragraph 320.14(1)(a)); - Having a BAC of 80 or more within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(b)); - Having a blood drug concentration (BDC) over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(c)); - Having a combined BAC and BDC over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14 (1)(d)); - Having a BDC over a prescribed limit that is lower than the BDC set under paragraph 320.14(1)(c) within two hours of operating a conveyance (subsection 320.14(4)); - Refusing to comply with a demand (section 320.15); -Failure to stop after an accident (section 320.16); - Flight from peace officer (section 320.17); and - Driving a conveyance while prohibited (section 320.18).
The whole scheme for killing someone with a car is stupid beyond belief. If I kill a family either a gun, poison or edged weapon I can get 25+ years in prison. If I do 90 through a red light, go up a curb and wipe out a family and stay around I will just get a driving suspension. If I do the same, totally hammered and take off I will get the same and maybe a year jail time. How does this even come close to being reasonable?
And if you were police officer, you would walk free.
With several months of stress leave and then early retirement with a full pension.
Don't forget the possible rehab. You have a problem you know, and it isn't your fault!
Because intent matters rofl….what a stupid comment, if you deliberately run someone over with a car you get the same penalty as any other form of murder. It’s much harder to prove intent with a vehicle because it’s a normal part of everyone’s day unlike gunning someone down…
Funny how murder and attempted murder don’t get the same penalty when the intent was the same. You could have negligence with poison and you’ll definitely get a tougher sentence than most people will get with negligence with a car.
And that is why the punishment can be so wildly different. So basically your comment had no point.
when was the last time someone got 25 yrs for murder in Canada?
Kills someone, flees the scene, and he gets 2yrs. How does this make any sense??
Yes that’s the scums name I think he got into that crash while his kids were in the car
Dashcams. Cant prove intoxication but if the driving is irrational you have that.
Everyone has an incentive to try not to get caught committing crimes. Does the Crown honestly think most people: 1) know what sentencing ranges are for specific offences, and 2) are making that calculation while drunk and having caused an accident?
No doubt lol. I’m pretty sure the question that is farthest from the mind of someone who thought it was an okay choice to drive while intoxicated in the first place is “ok but what if I hit someone and they die?” I think it’s that whole lack of playing the consequences tape all the way through that might just be the foundation of those people’s problem. 🤣
People have been doing this for years. It’s known that leaving the scene of a crime is a lesser crime than DUI.
No. That isn't true. DUI is a typically a summary offence. But, it depends on the circumstances. First offence is maximum 18 months in prison. Leaving the scene is not a summary offence, it shows intent to evade and is punishable more severely. As usual, it depends on the circumstances. Maximum sentence is much greater than what I DUI will get you. Ten years.
It really depends on the circumstances. Most of the situations that I’ve personally witnessed have been accidents involving a single vehicle. Not a collision with multiple vehicles.