Off Topic

Man, 19, 90 days in jail for hit and run

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 14th, 2017 7:08 am
Tags:
None
32 replies
Deal Addict
Aug 2, 2017
1205 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
Soft on crimes, particularly heinous ones like this, is a good justification for vigilantism.
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 22, 2016
817 posts
136 upvotes
Ontario
Kill a person in Canada you get a light sentence. Screw up your taxes and they will ruin life. In Canada its all about the taxes. Its harder to bring an extra bottle of booze in to the country than to claim refugee status.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28240 posts
4206 upvotes
Ottawa
webshark wrote:
Nov 8th, 2017 11:37 pm
Kill a person in Canada you get a light sentence. Screw up your taxes and they will ruin life. In Canada its all about the taxes. Its harder to bring an extra bottle of booze in to the country than to claim refugee status.
Actually, leave a dog in your car and see what happens .......
Is it solipsistic here? Or is it just me?
Sr. Member
Aug 17, 2009
613 posts
297 upvotes
In fact, this was likely an appropriate sentence, given the circumstances. He was 19, he panicked and bolted. By the sounds of it, he will have a criminal record, as well.

Had he been drinking and driving or had known & intended to kill the victim, the outcome would have been much harsher for the defendant. But if it was accidental (i.e. did not mean to harm anybody), then the only aggravating factor was his running from the scene.

Put differently, had he remained at the scene and the police did not found him to be at fault, there's chance he would not have seen a single day in jail.
Deal Addict
Feb 23, 2015
1428 posts
364 upvotes
Brampton, ON
Gotta love the emotional arm chair experts on rfd questioning the decision of qualified individuals when they know next to nothing about the case.
Sr. Member
Sep 30, 2011
688 posts
169 upvotes
MISSISSAUGA
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 10:18 am
In fact, this was likely an appropriate sentence, given the circumstances. He was 19, he panicked and bolted. By the sounds of it, he will have a criminal record, as well.

Had he been drinking and driving or had known & intended to kill the victim, the outcome would have been much harsher for the defendant. But if it was accidental (i.e. did not mean to harm anybody), then the only aggravating factor was his running from the scene.

Put differently, had he remained at the scene and the police did not found him to be at fault, there's chance he would not have seen a single day in jail.
The same can be said to all murderer, raper, gang; which wasn't intentional but accidentally realize has to kill, rape or beat some one.
If he didn't kill rape and gang he would post crap on rfp for another day.

Law is law, but in Canada nowaday, a law is not the law, either border law or anti-terror law is all up to spin.

What the sentence suggest to any one facing the same situation? Maybe should take a chance to run to avoid being caught for DUI causing death.
Just like Omar Khader, the cost is not only 10m, but jump to 50m within months.
Sr. Member
Aug 17, 2009
613 posts
297 upvotes
napoleonbot wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:16 pm
The same can be said to all murderer, raper, gang; which wasn't intentional but accidentally realize has to kill, rape or beat some one.
If he didn't kill rape and gang he would post crap on rfp for another day.

Law is law, but in Canada nowaday, a law is not the law, either border law or anti-terror law is all up to spin.

What the sentence suggest to any one facing the same situation? Maybe should take a chance to run to avoid being caught for DUI causing death.
Just like Omar Khader, the cost is not only 10m, but jump to 50m within months.
No. Accidentally hitting someone with a car cannot be said to be the same thing as all murderers, raper, gang (?). The problem with the public is that they do not (seem) to understand how Canadian laws work. Someone who murders or rapes, will be charged and tried, accordingly. That someone is absolutely not in the same boat with someone who accidentally hits someone, with their car, and then runs away because they panicked.
Deal Addict
Aug 2, 2017
1205 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 2:31 pm
No. Accidentally hitting someone with a car cannot be said to be the same thing as all murderers, raper, gang (?). The problem with the public is that they do not (seem) to understand how Canadian laws work. Someone who murders or rapes, will be charged and tried, accordingly. That someone is absolutely not in the same boat with someone who accidentally hits someone, with their car, and then runs away because they panicked.
Think you missed their point..

Ending someone's life.. accident or not, 90 days jail..
Sr. Member
Sep 30, 2011
688 posts
169 upvotes
MISSISSAUGA
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 2:31 pm
No. Accidentally hitting someone with a car cannot be said to be the same thing as all murderers, raper, gang (?). The problem with the public is that they do not (seem) to understand how Canadian laws work. Someone who murders or rapes, will be charged and tried, accordingly. That someone is absolutely not in the same boat with someone who accidentally hits someone, with their car, and then runs away because they panicked.
key word today, Panicked. LOL
Sr. Member
Aug 17, 2009
613 posts
297 upvotes
AndySixx wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 2:58 pm
Think you missed their point..

Ending someone's life.. accident or not, 90 days jail..
I don't want to sound belittling, but this is exactly why we have laws. What about assisted suicide? Abortions? Accidental salmonella food contamination leading to death? We have to draw a line between the different types of offences. Otherwise there will be issues.
Deal Addict
Aug 2, 2017
1205 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 4:02 pm
I don't want to sound belittling, but this is exactly why we have laws. What about assisted suicide? Abortions? Accidental salmonella food contamination leading to death? We have to draw a line between the different types of offences. Otherwise there will be issues.
lol no, not belittling whatsoever. Why would I? Your post makes perfect sense.

I think there's probably a number of facets to the issue, prob muddled due to lack of specifics (which is sort of why I think it seems like you're arguing something else entirely), but it's more the moral premise of punishing someone 90 days for ending the life of another, regardless of intent. I think most can distinguish between 1st degree (intent/planning/malice), 2nd degree (intent/malice), manslaughter (unintentional) and so on. But 90 days even for manslaughter..

When I was in the US there was a fellow classmate of mine who was drunk driving, ran head on into another classmate, killing 3 classmates and injuring 1, along with himself. He got like 3 counts drunken vehicular manslaughter.. which is about the minimum it gets for these cases (only less if you subtract the booze intensifier), he still got out in 8 years on good behavior. A just punishment for the lives he ruined, especially at such an early age. 90 days per count (even knowing these aren't the same circumstances, even though comparable).. can't imagine that.
Sr. Member
Aug 17, 2009
613 posts
297 upvotes
Fair enough. In your example, classmate was drunk driving. That would attract major prison time here, as well. What can you do?
Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2017
193 posts
48 upvotes
Apparently, if you want to get away with murder just hit someone with your car.
Deal Addict
Feb 23, 2015
1428 posts
364 upvotes
Brampton, ON
MyNameWasTaken wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 5:30 pm
Apparently, if you want to get away with murder just hit someone with your car.
I am assuming intent played a big role in this case. The man did not intend on hitting the guy.

And not to get way off topic but what does putting a 19 year old behind bars for 15 or 20 years do for society? Serious question, the punitive justice system has its many flaws, for a man of his age I think its better he gets rehabilitated one way or another.

Top