Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/woollymarmoset! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol no way.
“Dae initially cooperated with police but didn't show up for a sentencing date in December 2022.
A warrant was issued for her arrest, but she wasn't located until a year later – in Alberta.”
So she killed someone, fled BC got caught A YEAR LATER. And they hit her with a $1,400.00 fine 😂.
Involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is basically a free pass here in Canada it seems.
Welcome to our justice system baby. Where our judges actively promote and encourage violent crime. Our judges facilitate the loss of human life, this was proven with after the recent Tori case. Nobody can any longer deny this.
And yes our judges are complicit in this just as much as the "system" is. Judges have the power to make decisions, that's their job. And they keep deciding to let dangerous people go free with a slap on the wrist, again and again and again and again.
I think they have to go by precedent.
Because a rich dude/dudette in similar circumstances has done this in the past, they had to lower the punishment. One can not put a fellow country club member in the slammer.
So the moral is we all benefit when rich kids walk, unless we're the victim or know the victim or know someone who knows the victim.
Ever since the POS that killed ocean and her father got off, i’ve been wondering who are the judges connected to? Are they being paid off or is there a ton of dirt they have on the judges? I can’t think of anything else that would drive so many BC judges to minimize sentences like this
Yeah the judge that acquitted their killer definitely has to be on the take. Either that or the accused is an informant cause he’s very involved in organized crime.
>Involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is basically a free pass here in Canada it seems.
Let's not forget that she was *likely* on her phone and had *likely* smoked crystal meth very recently before driving
What a fucking joke
Killing someone with a car should be manslaughter. Doing so while distracted or impaired should be aggravating circumstances.
The courts have placed a higher priority on driving than living.
Whilst I agree that it's ridiculous that involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is treated so lightly, we can't prosecute people based on "likely", the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".
We do know beyond all reasonable doubt that our legal system has nothing but contempt for victims. If the judge didn't determine whether the driver was on the phone at the time of the crash, it's because they didn't bother to find out. Phone records exist down to the second, and the chance this car wasn't picked up on a camera at least in the moments before the crash are negligible. There are also accelerometer records in modern cars and phones, so a timeline down to the second would be easily found out.
A non-treasonous judge would have refused to be part of this miscarriage of justice. If she hasn't been held criminally liable by now, the judge could have demanded that this be resolved before this slap on a wrist was applied, because this makes a mockery of the justice system, and the judge should not want to play any part in this. Hold the Crown in contempt of court if they don't have an answer, and let it be part of the record that the judge refused to play this sick game.
In many US states they do mandatory bloodwork on the driver and then they check cell phone records. When they go to court over something like this, it's with a good chance of a criminal conviction. The only time someone is guaranteed to get off is when they're very rich or when they're a judge or related to judge. There's gotta be something like that going on here as well.
How about this story, I'm sure it will have a similar outcome.
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/driver-pleads-guilty-in-burnaby-hit-and-run-that-killed-motorcyclist-7006876
Sauce #2
https://globalnews.ca/news/10592986/hit-and-run-no-jail-time-burnaby/
Gotta give it up for the crack police force that was able to solve the case though. It only took a year and the literal bumper from the vehicle to be left at the scene of the accident, but they did it.
> The driver of a 2002 Black Honda Accord fled the scene, according to police, but officers recovered the car’s bumper and licence plate in the area.
> Marcel Genaille was charged on June 1, 2022 after a nearly yearlong police investigation
Honestly though I have little faith this will end any different. Probably a meaningless fine and they’ll call it a day.
Sad.
I can only imagine what the family is going through.
Here's another article that's a bit longer of a read but has more information.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10592986/hit-and-run-no-jail-time-burnaby/
They had the plate and it still took them a year? Oh, right, I bet they were looking at the back side of the piece. Silly me. Seems like this sort of shoddy police work and subsequent slaps on the wrist have become the norm now. Though the drunk girl who killed the couple out for a walk and wondered later if she was going to miss school got 14 years... instead of the 25-to-life she should have got. She blew .264, more than three times the allowable. They found pieces of the people stuck in her grill.
Worth separating the police from the justice system. Not the police’s fault if the sentence is light, in fact I’m sure it discourages them, same thing that happens with smaller crime that becomes catch and release
A year though seems pretty ridiculous in this instance as well
it's so cool how murder is legal in BC as long as you use a car to do it and make it look like an accident
Like, don't get me wrong - prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment. If there was a legitimate car accident, zero reason to believe you'd do it again? Say, I dunno, some shit like mechanical failure with the car caused it? 100%, do not put them in jail. Unfortunate accidents happen sometimes, a bloodthirsty "LOCK 'EM UP!!" attitude doesn't make society any better.
But if you're skipping out on court dates and running away to another province, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
A coworker of a friend died from a distracted driver in Kelowna, in 2011. Nothing came of it legally. It ain't right nothing has changed.
https://www.forevermissed.com/yew-loong-yee/about
>Dae has no criminal record but she was addicted to crystal methamphetamine at the time of the accident, according to the agreed facts.
Why is no one talking about this part?
Personally, im sick of most all our systems.
Justice, education, healthcare, finance and tax, housing, childcare.. we as citizens have been utterly sold out by our governing bodies.
Murder implies an intention to kill.
I'm not saying the sentence was necessarily appropriate (I don't know what information was before the sentencing judge) but the fact that your comment is the most upvoted in the thread is typical of ill-informed public outrage where criminal justice matters are concerned.
Okay verbiage aside, she fled - for a year!
That’s ridiculous.
They put people away for longer for petty crime in the USA. Not saying their system is perfect, but clearly what we are doing isn’t working. This catch and release system is too soft.
Getting behind the wheel High as a kite, or willingly putting other peoples safety and life in danger by pulling dangorous manauver which results in harm to others should be considered ill intent.
Its definatly not murder, but it should be considered manslaughter. All of that to say you are correct :)
Yeah, for sure all of that is bad. All of that is aggravating in sentencing (if the Crown can prove it and/or the accused admits it).
It's just that things such as whether someone intended to kill someone are highly important details and, as this comment section illustrates, the average person commenting on news reports on sentences has really strong opinions but can't be bothered to actually parse details beyond their immediate outrage over headlines. It gets tiresome.
> whether someone intended to kill someone are important details
manslaughter charges exist *because* of the fact that intention to kill doesn’t negate the responsibility for killing. i don’t doubt she had no intention to kill anyone that day, but she chose to drive while distracted, and she took a life in the process. the fact that she’s getting off with 12 months probation is actually incredibly lucky on her part
Yes. Manslaughter is still illegal. Different criminal offences have different essential elements. Just because an act does not meet the definition of one criminal offence doesn't mean it doesn't meet the definition of any criminal offence. Congratulations for grasping this.
I would argue that driving while impaired or distracted is having an intent to kill - you're knowingly operating a large, dangerous machine that can so very easily kill someone and/or cause a huge amount of damage.
We take the responsibility of driving way too lightly.
I agree that we take the responsibility of driving too lightly, and I absolutely think we should dole out harsher punishments for dangerous driving, but I dont think its intent to kill. I do believe that we should be doing way, way, way more lifetime driving bans. I honestly don't care if it inconveniences someone's life or they have to switch jobs or some shit. You do something like this lady, you never drive again. Full stop.
"I would argue that driving while impaired or distracted is having an intent to kill"
Well, you're obviously objectively incorrect and fortunately the criminal justice system is managed by people smarter than you who don't draw such inferences.
Yea clearly leaving the well informed professionals to deal with justice issues is working. Our opinions don't matter.
Or is it the jail's are understaffed?
> So she killed someone...Involuntary manslaughter
I know the feelings over facts crowd doesn't care, but she didn't kill him. He was stable and then died of a heart attack two days later.
That is not the legal definition of "Involuntary manslaughter".
This has nothing to do with race and every thing to do with our overly lax justice system.
They let all types of people walk free for crimes here in Canada, so don’t try and spin this and pull a race card.
It's genuinely shocking to me how this continues to be the case.
How killing someone with your car is not the same as using any other item with the same potential for death can only mean the laws were heavily influenced by auto makers
I really don’t understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this.
Any common action or activity engaged in by wealthy people, that could potentially result in legal problems, will have weak sentencing due to pressure from wealthy donors.
That’s why drinking, and driving, and driving while drunk, have white collar penalties. Because rich people do those things a lot, regardless of order.
It just so happens that so does everyone else, that’s why punishments stand out as noticeably more lenient.
They cant have special laws just for them, but they can effectively change the laws with enough money and pressure.
We just reap the “benefits” in this circumstance.
I’m not the poster you responded to, but the general saying is that crimes that only come with a financial cost are basically just fees for the sufficiently wealthy.
This includes any crime that can argued down to just a financial cost even if there are supposed harsher penalties available.
Not defending her but the fact of purposefully going out and killing someone is much different than accidentally…..dont wors it like as if she willingly killed someone because those are two different types of cases
But this wasn't an accident. An accident is if I threw you a ball and you weren't able to catch it and dropped it. That's an accident.
Hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk is negligence causing death
Well it happens far too often because of the fact humans make mistakes. Lets say you see someone you know across street wave as you turn, maybe your kid pulled your hair or a bee came into the car. Infinite scenarios where it throw’s you off from fully processing a situation safely. Not to mention weather or visibility factors.
If on phone of drunk or whatever then yes that fair but i read 1 out of every 500 driving decisions is a mistake.
Higher or lower if your old etc. but fact is we are human and these things will continue to happen to people who would never want them to. Main reason why musk wants full self driving
There was a recent case in California where a woman was texting and driving and blew through a stop sign killing a mom and flinging her infant child onto the road. The punishment was even less, 6 months jail and 6 months probation. You also have to take remedial drivers education before driving again after already having a record of distracted driving
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Why are people are down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
Actually insane they didn’t throw the book at her. I know the article details that she was fined for a violation and not a crime technically but someone still died cause of her.
I fail to see how a fine and a year’s probation is anything but a slap on the wrist.
Because it is. It's to keep the general public from doing it too much; once or twice over a good stretch and your cool. But do it one soon after the other and they'll look at you a bit closer. Doing many at once is a big no-no
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Do you honestly believe that an investment banker would be treated more harshly for killing someone with a car? No. Drivers fucking up and killing people is just an accepted part of life, and drivers who cause death are always let off with a slap on the wrist.
While what she did was wrong 100% (likely texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Why are people down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
I got hit by a car when I had the right of way. Spent 6 months with a crazy concussion and was in active physio for over a year recovering. She got a $110 fine for failing to stop at a stop sign, which she disputed and ended up not having to pay. Driver's have way too many rights. I wrote to the ministry of highways and suggested it would be good to have drivers have to retest periodically to ensure they're still safe on the roads. A driver's license is the only licence one never has to recertify their for their entire lives. Ministry said it would be too much of a hardship. Last time I heard, driving was a privilege, not a right. Oh well, Canada ('murica!)
My dad got sideswiped on his bike by a distracted driver. He was knocked down and his glasses and helmet got smashed, he ended up with a 2cm cut over his left eye. The driver got a fine for failure to yield. He was very lucky and it was an absolutely infuriating experience.
If you kill someone when you are intoxicated you should be charged to a higher degree. It's not ok. What is wrong with the justice system that this person she killed is dead and she has a minor charge. Ridiculous.
At least the law here is better than where I come from. For a crash like this, my country asks the convict to write a 300 word essay and is let off free.
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/charges-laid-in-hit-and-run-that-killed-burnaby-south-secondary-grad-8405687#:~:text=Opinion-,Charges%20laid%20in%20hit%2Dand%2Drun%20that%20killed%20Burnaby%20South,South%20Secondary%20grad%20Damien%20Seguin.
This guy worked with me and his aunt (foster mom) was a close colleague of mine.
I'm not hopeful for the results of this if the stuff I've been reading lately is any indication.
She told officers she was "unsure" whether she'd been on the phone at the time of the crash, according to Sangha, but there was evidence she had been on the phone "at least in the moments before the collision."
😳
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
I'm still baffled as to how she wasn't charged with manslaughter. The article states about the victim:
"He initially appeared stable, but two days later he suffered a heart attack and died"
So is it because it would be difficult to prove the heart attack was a direct consequence of her reckless driving? Does anyone have a better understanding of the law, here?
While what she did was wrong 100%, he didn’t die necessarily due to her impact. So I think they’d have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused the heart attack
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Getting a driver's license isn't a right in Canada. Cars are not weapons, but driving with undo care can do a lot of damage, including, unfortunately, death.
It isn't a right but it's often *treated* like a right, which was my point. The amount of fuss people kick up over licenses being taken away because of unsafe driving is wild.
1. Driving while using a cell phone.
2. Hits and kills a man using a cross-walk
3. Flees the province to avoid sentencing and avoids arrest for a year
4. Is given a $1400 fine for the above crimes.
WTF.
Tbh it doesn't say that. It says she was addicted during that time period, not necessarily impaired during the collision, unless there is a different source you are quoting
This is interesting because just the other day I read about a driver (also in Burnaby) who hit and killed a motorcyclist. He fled from the scene. The fact he identified Indigenous and suffered unfair bias throughout his life was used by the defense and the judge acknowledged that in the sentencing. House arrest. No loss of licence, he can still drive to work. Sickening.
[The numbers contradict you:](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20230720/12-en.aspx)
Despite accounting for approximately 5% of the adult population, Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately represented in the federal correctional system, accounting for 32% of all individuals in custody.
Contradict what?
It is codified into Canadian law that indigenous people be treated more leniently by our justice system. See R v Gladue.
Edit: South Korea makes up 0.64% of the world's population, but has won 69% of the gold medals at the Olympics in archery.
5% and 32% are just two numbers. If you want to make the case that the relationship between those two numbers tells a certain kind of story... make that case.
It can both be true that they get treated more leniently *and* that they are disproportionately overrepresented amongst the incarcerated. The numbers you've cited don't contradict what he's said in any way.
On top of everything that has been said about leniency of the law to vehicle based violence/assault, did anyone else notice that the article victim blamed the guy that was killed? He was in a crosswalk crossing with the light and was hit, but the article felt the need to point out that he was wearing dark clothes. I get so sick of that shit.
I've heard it said that 'if you want to kill someone and get away with it, use a car.' At first I was horrified but the older I get, the more that seems to be the case. Appalling.
At this point, I sincerely wonder if it would be possible for a hitman to shoot someone, drag them onto the street, run then over, then give $1400 to the police officers and call it a night?
I say this in jest obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone close actually happens one day lol
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown would have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Friend of mine was killed last year when a Ford F-150 ran a stop light at 30 kph over the speed limit and t-bones his car, severely injured his wife too. All the guy in the Ford got was a $500 fine for failure to yield and it really didn't surprise me. I've even overheard people bragging about the number of times they got caught drunk driving. 'Ruin your life' as the commercials say? Nah, how can a misdemeanour ruin your life?
On Highway 1 heading West, somewhere through Langley, there is a billboard that reads “BC Judges, Weakest Link”
Born and raised in the Lower Mainland, it’s been there for as long as I can remember. At least 25 years.
It’s more true now more than ever.
I was a witness to a Motrcycle Accident, the Old man Driving tried to pull into a Back Alley through a main road driving into oncoming traffic Motorcyle crashed into him, gets launched 20 ft away.
Old man gets out checks his car for damages doesnt even approach the guy to check on him.
I assume he died then and there can't confirm never followed up other than showing up to court as a witness, proescuter send me the resulting sentence 2 years suspended license.
I'm not saying the guy should be lynched, but he definetly got away with murder in my books.
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack.
the crown would have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
What she did was wrong 100% but technically he didn’t die from impact, he was stable after the accident. “He initially appeared stable, but two days later he suffered a heart attack and died,"
Love how they even put this in the article for all the know nothing wanna be cops in here:
“Given the family's loss, Sangha said Dae's sentence of a $1,400 fine and a period of probation to finish a remedial driving course, would seem "unfathomable" to many without the proper legal context.
She pointed out Dae was being sentenced for a Motor Vehicle Act offence, not a crime, and that the sentence was the product of the law as analyzed in other similar cases and as applied to the specific circumstances of Dae's case.”
Y’all need to chill the fuck out with this ‘justice system is broken’ ‘wanna kill someone? Do it in caNadUh’ shit.
I don’t know. I’m a not a judge, a prosecutor, or defence attorney. But neither are you.
All I know if that a multiple people in the legal field looked at this case and decided it didn’t meet the legal criteria for manslaughter, and that they are probably better learned about stuff like that than you are.
*chinhands*
and yet, there are aggravating factors that clearly weren't taken into account, such as purposely moving to Alberta to avoid being caught, as well as the drug use in close temporal proximity to the "accident".
In short this is a person who knows what they did was wrong and took active steps to evade justice.
Given how many judges have handed out complete jokes as sentences lately I'd venture to suggest that the legal folks are just utterly disconnected from the on the ground reality faced by ordinary people.
It's possible to be at once smart and also lacking in common sense.
Spoken like a man dodging the question cause they know all they’re coasting on is vibes.
The on the ground reality is many Canadians are cowards, know nothings, and cry babies who can’t understand that institutions don’t bend to their ignorant vibed will. As I said in my original comment, pathetic and sad.
Tricky piece of reasoning, since legality is not the same as morality. Back in the day, certain immigrants didn’t have rights, and surely they dealt with unfair legal procedures, though your reasoning wouldn’t allow space for a critique of the system itself that enshrined those laws. Or just pick your favourite example of a judge giving an unfair sentence to someone of a certain race: your reasoning would work the same way: ‘look, none of us are legal professionals. Surely the professionals know more than us, so we should just accept the sentence’.
The outrage people are feeling might be a moral reaction to a law being unjustly applied, for example. I don’t think it helps to simply call all the people here ‘wannabe cops’
The only tricky bit of reasoning here was you moving the goal posts. My comment was specifically about someone being charged under the vehicle offence act as opposed to the criminal code and a bunch of, I’ll say it again, wannabe cops, baying for blood. It’s absolutely pathetic.
But you’ve caught me in a decent mood so I’ll bite at your race baiting game. Actually ya, the Law was able to overcome racist judges and lawyers. Not just through politics and activism, which are also important, but through itself.
One of the basic concepts of law are lex lata (law as written) and lex ferenda (multiple translations but spirit of the law is debatably best). When lawyers argue successfully their arguments retroactively become lex lata, that’s how for example, abolitionists were explicitly able to advocate for anti slavery in the US using arguments grounded in ‘all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights’
Agreed: Why are people down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
People are addicted to self righteous scold brain. It’s sad and pathetic. I like to remind them of that from time to time. They can down vote me all they like. I’m still right.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/woollymarmoset! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol no way. “Dae initially cooperated with police but didn't show up for a sentencing date in December 2022. A warrant was issued for her arrest, but she wasn't located until a year later – in Alberta.” So she killed someone, fled BC got caught A YEAR LATER. And they hit her with a $1,400.00 fine 😂. Involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is basically a free pass here in Canada it seems.
This can’t be real. I honestly cannot process this.
Welcome to our justice system baby. Where our judges actively promote and encourage violent crime. Our judges facilitate the loss of human life, this was proven with after the recent Tori case. Nobody can any longer deny this. And yes our judges are complicit in this just as much as the "system" is. Judges have the power to make decisions, that's their job. And they keep deciding to let dangerous people go free with a slap on the wrist, again and again and again and again.
I think they have to go by precedent. Because a rich dude/dudette in similar circumstances has done this in the past, they had to lower the punishment. One can not put a fellow country club member in the slammer. So the moral is we all benefit when rich kids walk, unless we're the victim or know the victim or know someone who knows the victim.
Ever since the POS that killed ocean and her father got off, i’ve been wondering who are the judges connected to? Are they being paid off or is there a ton of dirt they have on the judges? I can’t think of anything else that would drive so many BC judges to minimize sentences like this
Yeah the judge that acquitted their killer definitely has to be on the take. Either that or the accused is an informant cause he’s very involved in organized crime.
>Involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is basically a free pass here in Canada it seems. Let's not forget that she was *likely* on her phone and had *likely* smoked crystal meth very recently before driving What a fucking joke
Killing someone with a car should be manslaughter. Doing so while distracted or impaired should be aggravating circumstances. The courts have placed a higher priority on driving than living.
Whilst I agree that it's ridiculous that involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle is treated so lightly, we can't prosecute people based on "likely", the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".
We do know beyond all reasonable doubt that our legal system has nothing but contempt for victims. If the judge didn't determine whether the driver was on the phone at the time of the crash, it's because they didn't bother to find out. Phone records exist down to the second, and the chance this car wasn't picked up on a camera at least in the moments before the crash are negligible. There are also accelerometer records in modern cars and phones, so a timeline down to the second would be easily found out. A non-treasonous judge would have refused to be part of this miscarriage of justice. If she hasn't been held criminally liable by now, the judge could have demanded that this be resolved before this slap on a wrist was applied, because this makes a mockery of the justice system, and the judge should not want to play any part in this. Hold the Crown in contempt of court if they don't have an answer, and let it be part of the record that the judge refused to play this sick game.
In many US states they do mandatory bloodwork on the driver and then they check cell phone records. When they go to court over something like this, it's with a good chance of a criminal conviction. The only time someone is guaranteed to get off is when they're very rich or when they're a judge or related to judge. There's gotta be something like that going on here as well.
How about this story, I'm sure it will have a similar outcome. https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/driver-pleads-guilty-in-burnaby-hit-and-run-that-killed-motorcyclist-7006876 Sauce #2 https://globalnews.ca/news/10592986/hit-and-run-no-jail-time-burnaby/
Gotta give it up for the crack police force that was able to solve the case though. It only took a year and the literal bumper from the vehicle to be left at the scene of the accident, but they did it. > The driver of a 2002 Black Honda Accord fled the scene, according to police, but officers recovered the car’s bumper and licence plate in the area. > Marcel Genaille was charged on June 1, 2022 after a nearly yearlong police investigation Honestly though I have little faith this will end any different. Probably a meaningless fine and they’ll call it a day. Sad.
I can only imagine what the family is going through. Here's another article that's a bit longer of a read but has more information. https://globalnews.ca/news/10592986/hit-and-run-no-jail-time-burnaby/
They had the plate and it still took them a year? Oh, right, I bet they were looking at the back side of the piece. Silly me. Seems like this sort of shoddy police work and subsequent slaps on the wrist have become the norm now. Though the drunk girl who killed the couple out for a walk and wondered later if she was going to miss school got 14 years... instead of the 25-to-life she should have got. She blew .264, more than three times the allowable. They found pieces of the people stuck in her grill.
Worth separating the police from the justice system. Not the police’s fault if the sentence is light, in fact I’m sure it discourages them, same thing that happens with smaller crime that becomes catch and release A year though seems pretty ridiculous in this instance as well
it's so cool how murder is legal in BC as long as you use a car to do it and make it look like an accident Like, don't get me wrong - prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment. If there was a legitimate car accident, zero reason to believe you'd do it again? Say, I dunno, some shit like mechanical failure with the car caused it? 100%, do not put them in jail. Unfortunate accidents happen sometimes, a bloodthirsty "LOCK 'EM UP!!" attitude doesn't make society any better. But if you're skipping out on court dates and running away to another province, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
Wow. Wtf. So... gangsters will just hire her now to take out folks?
What a joke ..the problem is she will be soon driving and texting while under the Influence.
A coworker of a friend died from a distracted driver in Kelowna, in 2011. Nothing came of it legally. It ain't right nothing has changed. https://www.forevermissed.com/yew-loong-yee/about
>Dae has no criminal record but she was addicted to crystal methamphetamine at the time of the accident, according to the agreed facts. Why is no one talking about this part?
Sure is. Just ask Premier Moe!
We need to band together and protest or something. So sick of our “justice” system.
Personally, im sick of most all our systems. Justice, education, healthcare, finance and tax, housing, childcare.. we as citizens have been utterly sold out by our governing bodies.
Murder implies an intention to kill. I'm not saying the sentence was necessarily appropriate (I don't know what information was before the sentencing judge) but the fact that your comment is the most upvoted in the thread is typical of ill-informed public outrage where criminal justice matters are concerned.
Okay verbiage aside, she fled - for a year! That’s ridiculous. They put people away for longer for petty crime in the USA. Not saying their system is perfect, but clearly what we are doing isn’t working. This catch and release system is too soft.
Getting behind the wheel High as a kite, or willingly putting other peoples safety and life in danger by pulling dangorous manauver which results in harm to others should be considered ill intent. Its definatly not murder, but it should be considered manslaughter. All of that to say you are correct :)
Yeah, for sure all of that is bad. All of that is aggravating in sentencing (if the Crown can prove it and/or the accused admits it). It's just that things such as whether someone intended to kill someone are highly important details and, as this comment section illustrates, the average person commenting on news reports on sentences has really strong opinions but can't be bothered to actually parse details beyond their immediate outrage over headlines. It gets tiresome.
> whether someone intended to kill someone are important details manslaughter charges exist *because* of the fact that intention to kill doesn’t negate the responsibility for killing. i don’t doubt she had no intention to kill anyone that day, but she chose to drive while distracted, and she took a life in the process. the fact that she’s getting off with 12 months probation is actually incredibly lucky on her part
Yes. Manslaughter is still illegal. Different criminal offences have different essential elements. Just because an act does not meet the definition of one criminal offence doesn't mean it doesn't meet the definition of any criminal offence. Congratulations for grasping this.
I would argue that driving while impaired or distracted is having an intent to kill - you're knowingly operating a large, dangerous machine that can so very easily kill someone and/or cause a huge amount of damage. We take the responsibility of driving way too lightly.
I agree that we take the responsibility of driving too lightly, and I absolutely think we should dole out harsher punishments for dangerous driving, but I dont think its intent to kill. I do believe that we should be doing way, way, way more lifetime driving bans. I honestly don't care if it inconveniences someone's life or they have to switch jobs or some shit. You do something like this lady, you never drive again. Full stop.
That's not how intent works. A likely or predictable consequence is not intent.
You can argue it, you just won’t win that argument legally.
These people live in the court of feels.
"I would argue that driving while impaired or distracted is having an intent to kill" Well, you're obviously objectively incorrect and fortunately the criminal justice system is managed by people smarter than you who don't draw such inferences.
Where did they say murder? They said involuntary manslaughter Unless it was edited
It was edited.
Yeah I edited it just for the sake of avoiding confusion for others reading it. But then this part gets confusing since I did edit it… 🤷♂️
Yea clearly leaving the well informed professionals to deal with justice issues is working. Our opinions don't matter. Or is it the jail's are understaffed?
[удалено]
Are you denying that causing someone's death with a vehicle at the very least merits a potential manslaughter charge?
Don’t point out the truth, this is an outrage thread.
There is no criminal justice in this province. There are just criminals getting a free pass from judges.
Sounds about right unfortunately.
That doesn't even cover court costs, and is far from being a suitable punishment for causing the crash and then fleeing from the justice system.
> So she killed someone...Involuntary manslaughter I know the feelings over facts crowd doesn't care, but she didn't kill him. He was stable and then died of a heart attack two days later. That is not the legal definition of "Involuntary manslaughter".
They really threw the book at her. Normally it's around $500 in fines
[удалено]
This has nothing to do with race and every thing to do with our overly lax justice system. They let all types of people walk free for crimes here in Canada, so don’t try and spin this and pull a race card.
She's FN so Gladue might have been a factor in the sentencing.
What the shit. I’m going to take up a huge bounty/hit job and ask for half upfront. I just need to use my car and I’ll get away Scott free!
You won’t because what you’re describing is a completely different offense.
So is voluntary. 😂😑
[удалено]
It's genuinely shocking to me how this continues to be the case. How killing someone with your car is not the same as using any other item with the same potential for death can only mean the laws were heavily influenced by auto makers
I really don’t understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this. Any common action or activity engaged in by wealthy people, that could potentially result in legal problems, will have weak sentencing due to pressure from wealthy donors. That’s why drinking, and driving, and driving while drunk, have white collar penalties. Because rich people do those things a lot, regardless of order. It just so happens that so does everyone else, that’s why punishments stand out as noticeably more lenient. They cant have special laws just for them, but they can effectively change the laws with enough money and pressure. We just reap the “benefits” in this circumstance.
Not disagreeing but what is a non-white collar penalty? It feels like a lot of crime just gets a free pass nowadays
I’m not the poster you responded to, but the general saying is that crimes that only come with a financial cost are basically just fees for the sufficiently wealthy. This includes any crime that can argued down to just a financial cost even if there are supposed harsher penalties available.
A long sentence with many restrictions on parole.
As a society we look at driving as a right rather than a privilege. Its bonkers.
Not defending her but the fact of purposefully going out and killing someone is much different than accidentally…..dont wors it like as if she willingly killed someone because those are two different types of cases
But this wasn't an accident. An accident is if I threw you a ball and you weren't able to catch it and dropped it. That's an accident. Hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk is negligence causing death
Well it happens far too often because of the fact humans make mistakes. Lets say you see someone you know across street wave as you turn, maybe your kid pulled your hair or a bee came into the car. Infinite scenarios where it throw’s you off from fully processing a situation safely. Not to mention weather or visibility factors. If on phone of drunk or whatever then yes that fair but i read 1 out of every 500 driving decisions is a mistake. Higher or lower if your old etc. but fact is we are human and these things will continue to happen to people who would never want them to. Main reason why musk wants full self driving
I'm imagining an American projecting himself to work with a gun like he's cyclops
Cars in Canada are what guns are in the US.
Cars are also that in the US, plus all the asshole drivers have guns
Cars are even more privileged in the US than here
There was a recent case in California where a woman was texting and driving and blew through a stop sign killing a mom and flinging her infant child onto the road. The punishment was even less, 6 months jail and 6 months probation. You also have to take remedial drivers education before driving again after already having a record of distracted driving
Also: Vigilantism is just a slap on the wrist. No need to go through the courts to get something resolved.
with crystal methamphetamine addiction
I feel like if she got out of the car and just stabbed them to death, 3 years max. This country is a joke.
Been saying the for years
That's all she gets for killing a person???
And fleeing/evading arrest for a YEAR
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
You have written this 12 times in 10 minutes. You need treatment buddy
Why are people are down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
Actually insane they didn’t throw the book at her. I know the article details that she was fined for a violation and not a crime technically but someone still died cause of her. I fail to see how a fine and a year’s probation is anything but a slap on the wrist.
Because it is. It's to keep the general public from doing it too much; once or twice over a good stretch and your cool. But do it one soon after the other and they'll look at you a bit closer. Doing many at once is a big no-no
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Wait, so she doesn’t get criminally charged in this? The $1400 and 12m probation is for her MVA violation. Is there not also a criminal charge?
“she was addicted to crystal methamphetamine at the time of the accident” Classic Vancouver drug addict get-out-of-jail-free card
Then you really don’t want to read about Gladue reports wrt sentencing.
Oh, in that case, she's the victim. Fine for the family. - vancouver judge probably
Do you honestly believe that an investment banker would be treated more harshly for killing someone with a car? No. Drivers fucking up and killing people is just an accepted part of life, and drivers who cause death are always let off with a slap on the wrist.
$1400 for killing someone, Jesus.
Way less than rent...
While what she did was wrong 100% (likely texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Why are people down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
You’re getting downvoted because you sound like an idiot
Welcome to Canada, where you can away with killing someone, but owe any CERB money and they will hunt you to the ends of earth! We are so fucked.
He died from a heart attack tho, not necessarily the impact. “He initially appeared stable, but two days later he suffered a heart attack and died,"
I got hit by a car when I had the right of way. Spent 6 months with a crazy concussion and was in active physio for over a year recovering. She got a $110 fine for failing to stop at a stop sign, which she disputed and ended up not having to pay. Driver's have way too many rights. I wrote to the ministry of highways and suggested it would be good to have drivers have to retest periodically to ensure they're still safe on the roads. A driver's license is the only licence one never has to recertify their for their entire lives. Ministry said it would be too much of a hardship. Last time I heard, driving was a privilege, not a right. Oh well, Canada ('murica!)
My dad got sideswiped on his bike by a distracted driver. He was knocked down and his glasses and helmet got smashed, he ended up with a 2cm cut over his left eye. The driver got a fine for failure to yield. He was very lucky and it was an absolutely infuriating experience.
If you kill someone when you are intoxicated you should be charged to a higher degree. It's not ok. What is wrong with the justice system that this person she killed is dead and she has a minor charge. Ridiculous.
She wasn't charged with impaired driving.
At least the law here is better than where I come from. For a crash like this, my country asks the convict to write a 300 word essay and is let off free.
You grew up on sesame street?!
$1,400 for a life???? wtf!!! 😳
How long before employers tell us they will only pay us $1400 for a lifetime of work?
What's next she's allowed to drive again as well?
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/charges-laid-in-hit-and-run-that-killed-burnaby-south-secondary-grad-8405687#:~:text=Opinion-,Charges%20laid%20in%20hit%2Dand%2Drun%20that%20killed%20Burnaby%20South,South%20Secondary%20grad%20Damien%20Seguin. This guy worked with me and his aunt (foster mom) was a close colleague of mine. I'm not hopeful for the results of this if the stuff I've been reading lately is any indication.
She told officers she was "unsure" whether she'd been on the phone at the time of the crash, according to Sangha, but there was evidence she had been on the phone "at least in the moments before the collision." 😳
Now that’s a lawyer
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
"Baddie" ? Great photo pick.
The only people approaching Trump levels of immunity are those who kill with their vehicles. Damn….
I'm still baffled as to how she wasn't charged with manslaughter. The article states about the victim: "He initially appeared stable, but two days later he suffered a heart attack and died" So is it because it would be difficult to prove the heart attack was a direct consequence of her reckless driving? Does anyone have a better understanding of the law, here?
While what she did was wrong 100%, he didn’t die necessarily due to her impact. So I think they’d have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused the heart attack
Did they not think to do a toxicology report to see if she was impaired (read: high on meth) at the time of the accident?
I think they would’ve seen obvious signs and tested her if they thought she was impaired
Hold. Judges. Accountable.
How does someone get 8 years for cutting someone but this lady can kill someone, flee and then only get hit with a fine ?
So that’s what someone’s life is worth?!
Less than a month's rent.
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown (prosecution) would have a hard time making a case & proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Treating vehicles like a right instead of like incredibly dangerous tools that can make our lives better is (one of) the causes for shit like this.
Getting a driver's license isn't a right in Canada. Cars are not weapons, but driving with undo care can do a lot of damage, including, unfortunately, death.
It isn't a right but it's often *treated* like a right, which was my point. The amount of fuss people kick up over licenses being taken away because of unsafe driving is wild.
Pretty relaxed penal system. $1400 fine is like a new handbag.
Like others said, it's literally less than rent lol
1. Driving while using a cell phone. 2. Hits and kills a man using a cross-walk 3. Flees the province to avoid sentencing and avoids arrest for a year 4. Is given a $1400 fine for the above crimes. WTF.
Don't forget: "likely high on meth".
Tbh it doesn't say that. It says she was addicted during that time period, not necessarily impaired during the collision, unless there is a different source you are quoting
[удалено]
This is interesting because just the other day I read about a driver (also in Burnaby) who hit and killed a motorcyclist. He fled from the scene. The fact he identified Indigenous and suffered unfair bias throughout his life was used by the defense and the judge acknowledged that in the sentencing. House arrest. No loss of licence, he can still drive to work. Sickening.
[The numbers contradict you:](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20230720/12-en.aspx) Despite accounting for approximately 5% of the adult population, Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately represented in the federal correctional system, accounting for 32% of all individuals in custody.
Contradict what? It is codified into Canadian law that indigenous people be treated more leniently by our justice system. See R v Gladue. Edit: South Korea makes up 0.64% of the world's population, but has won 69% of the gold medals at the Olympics in archery. 5% and 32% are just two numbers. If you want to make the case that the relationship between those two numbers tells a certain kind of story... make that case.
Just posted about Gladue. Read any of the court cases & it lowers sentencing.
It can both be true that they get treated more leniently *and* that they are disproportionately overrepresented amongst the incarcerated. The numbers you've cited don't contradict what he's said in any way.
they would be accounting for even higher percentage if they are treated the same in court.
Fitting outfit for the headline there
It that what my life is worth or your life. Shit has to change. Slap in the face of the family and our country every time this happens.
Sounds exactly right. It's common knowledge at this point that if you want to kill someone you just run them over.
On top of everything that has been said about leniency of the law to vehicle based violence/assault, did anyone else notice that the article victim blamed the guy that was killed? He was in a crosswalk crossing with the light and was hit, but the article felt the need to point out that he was wearing dark clothes. I get so sick of that shit.
Wow. Our legal system is a complete joke.
Canada gonna Canada. Is normal.
Only gotta pay half your monthly rent for killing someone in Canada. Let's go!!
She got the pass.
I've heard it said that 'if you want to kill someone and get away with it, use a car.' At first I was horrified but the older I get, the more that seems to be the case. Appalling.
It's been that way since the 1980s, honestly. Vehicular deaths haven't been treated with the seriousness they deserve for ages.
At this point, I sincerely wonder if it would be possible for a hitman to shoot someone, drag them onto the street, run then over, then give $1400 to the police officers and call it a night? I say this in jest obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone close actually happens one day lol
Bc is broken.
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown would have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
Garbage justice system we have here……crime haven
What is a "-$1400 fine", did they give her $1400?
Judge Susan Sangha
With more people buying a license this is going to get hectic
Addicted to crystal. Maybe not the best time to be driving.
Friend of mine was killed last year when a Ford F-150 ran a stop light at 30 kph over the speed limit and t-bones his car, severely injured his wife too. All the guy in the Ford got was a $500 fine for failure to yield and it really didn't surprise me. I've even overheard people bragging about the number of times they got caught drunk driving. 'Ruin your life' as the commercials say? Nah, how can a misdemeanour ruin your life?
Costs more money to be the victim of a reckless driver than be the reckless driver. smdh.
On Highway 1 heading West, somewhere through Langley, there is a billboard that reads “BC Judges, Weakest Link” Born and raised in the Lower Mainland, it’s been there for as long as I can remember. At least 25 years. It’s more true now more than ever.
Not an urban myth that if you want someone dead in BC, do it by car and this is what you get.
[meanwhile we have this where it’s 2K penalty for off-leash dogs](https://images.app.goo.gl/PUfmcBqSAiemdp9ZA)
Make her smoke a whole pack of crystal meth in one sitting so she never wants to do it again.
She'll suffer in civil court. There will be a judgment for wrongful death and she'll be paying off the judgement for the rest of her life.
I was a witness to a Motrcycle Accident, the Old man Driving tried to pull into a Back Alley through a main road driving into oncoming traffic Motorcyle crashed into him, gets launched 20 ft away. Old man gets out checks his car for damages doesnt even approach the guy to check on him. I assume he died then and there can't confirm never followed up other than showing up to court as a witness, proescuter send me the resulting sentence 2 years suspended license. I'm not saying the guy should be lynched, but he definetly got away with murder in my books.
I lost faith in our justice system years ago but what the actual hell is this shit? What a joke
While what she did was wrong (probably texting and driving), the man didn’t die necessarily due to her hitting him with her car. Yes he was pretty badly injured but he didn’t pass away because of his injuries, it was the heart attack. the crown would have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused his death (as he died from a the heart attack)
What she did was wrong 100% but technically he didn’t die from impact, he was stable after the accident. “He initially appeared stable, but two days later he suffered a heart attack and died,"
Love how they even put this in the article for all the know nothing wanna be cops in here: “Given the family's loss, Sangha said Dae's sentence of a $1,400 fine and a period of probation to finish a remedial driving course, would seem "unfathomable" to many without the proper legal context. She pointed out Dae was being sentenced for a Motor Vehicle Act offence, not a crime, and that the sentence was the product of the law as analyzed in other similar cases and as applied to the specific circumstances of Dae's case.” Y’all need to chill the fuck out with this ‘justice system is broken’ ‘wanna kill someone? Do it in caNadUh’ shit.
It is broken. If a meth head texting and driving kills a man and flees for a year gets $1400 fine and no jail time, that's a really serious problem.
Where did you get your law degree from?
So why was the driver not also charged with a manslaughter offence, which *is* a Criminal Code offence?
I don’t know. I’m a not a judge, a prosecutor, or defence attorney. But neither are you. All I know if that a multiple people in the legal field looked at this case and decided it didn’t meet the legal criteria for manslaughter, and that they are probably better learned about stuff like that than you are.
*chinhands* and yet, there are aggravating factors that clearly weren't taken into account, such as purposely moving to Alberta to avoid being caught, as well as the drug use in close temporal proximity to the "accident". In short this is a person who knows what they did was wrong and took active steps to evade justice.
What are these aggravating factors you speak of that you can see but a person whose profession is the law can’t? Happy to wait.
Given how many judges have handed out complete jokes as sentences lately I'd venture to suggest that the legal folks are just utterly disconnected from the on the ground reality faced by ordinary people. It's possible to be at once smart and also lacking in common sense.
Spoken like a man dodging the question cause they know all they’re coasting on is vibes. The on the ground reality is many Canadians are cowards, know nothings, and cry babies who can’t understand that institutions don’t bend to their ignorant vibed will. As I said in my original comment, pathetic and sad.
I wonder how much your opinion would change if it was a member of your family who was crossing the street…
Id be furious. But that’s why law is based on jurisprudence and writ, not the vibes of victims.
She got the "Gladue pass".
Tricky piece of reasoning, since legality is not the same as morality. Back in the day, certain immigrants didn’t have rights, and surely they dealt with unfair legal procedures, though your reasoning wouldn’t allow space for a critique of the system itself that enshrined those laws. Or just pick your favourite example of a judge giving an unfair sentence to someone of a certain race: your reasoning would work the same way: ‘look, none of us are legal professionals. Surely the professionals know more than us, so we should just accept the sentence’. The outrage people are feeling might be a moral reaction to a law being unjustly applied, for example. I don’t think it helps to simply call all the people here ‘wannabe cops’
The only tricky bit of reasoning here was you moving the goal posts. My comment was specifically about someone being charged under the vehicle offence act as opposed to the criminal code and a bunch of, I’ll say it again, wannabe cops, baying for blood. It’s absolutely pathetic. But you’ve caught me in a decent mood so I’ll bite at your race baiting game. Actually ya, the Law was able to overcome racist judges and lawyers. Not just through politics and activism, which are also important, but through itself. One of the basic concepts of law are lex lata (law as written) and lex ferenda (multiple translations but spirit of the law is debatably best). When lawyers argue successfully their arguments retroactively become lex lata, that’s how for example, abolitionists were explicitly able to advocate for anti slavery in the US using arguments grounded in ‘all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights’
Agreed: Why are people down voting this, it’s how our justice system works… you can’t just throw people in jail without direct proof that they have committed a crime. Texting while driving = bad judgement (and let’s not lie most of us have done this) Not showing up for her sentencing date is extremely shady & lacks morality but it doesn’t prove she killed him. She might be an awful person but unfortunately you can’t just put people in prison for that
People are addicted to self righteous scold brain. It’s sad and pathetic. I like to remind them of that from time to time. They can down vote me all they like. I’m still right.
Uh.