It's amazing this guy is getting away with drunk driving

[Relentless]

I don't know what to tell you because I just don't get why people don't care about their rights or why they'd prefer to be cast as guilty and have to prove their own innocence.

It's all about your word.
If your a man, and your truthful and responsible, you will take what you deserve.

Technicalities should not be allowed to enter the legal system.
The law should read: If you are in an accident, and the smell of alcohol is present, a breath sample must be provided to immediately rule out drunk driving. Failure to provide a breath sample should result in life inprisonment for impersonating a human being!

[WhatThe]

OK here is another reason. Those who choose to drink and drive , then maim and kill people should not be able to pull out this tired and ridiculous defense.
If I ever kill someone with my car , giving a couple cc's of blood is a pretty minor inconvenience. The only reason I would not want to give the blood is if I was high or drunk.
As far as rights go , if you don't want to be held accountable for your drunk driving , you have the right to decline the privilege of driving.
I don't mind if a cop wants to enter and search my house , as long as he takes his boots off at the door. Why ? because I don't have any restricted firearms , or a grow op , or a dungeon for kidnap victims , or a pot full of crack on the stove , or a drawer full of stolen credit cards , or , or, or. Those that do , don't really have the right to rights in my opinion.
Those that choose to drive drunk don't usually just do it once , they do it regularly and hopefully get caught before they kill a nice young man , like this waste of air did.
14 YEARS sounds good to me for this *bleep*. OK so you and your lawyer came up with a lame excuse and got off the drunk charge , that doesn't and shouldn't mean you won't be held accountable for your actions anyways.

People who defend the rights of the scum of our society mystify me.

Samples are already legally required so I don't understand why it keeps being brought up. It's sad that the boy died but if Crown couldn't prove impaired driving... That's the requirement right? Prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Defend scum? I'm defending our rights, mine, yours, his, everyone's. Again, you haven't really thought the concept of charter and civil rights through. If we ignore this "scums" rights, deny him basic charter rights, then who or which "undesirable" person or group is next? To protect my charter rights I have to protect his, we are all equal before and under the law.

[KL3-Something]

Welcome to the intricacies of impaired driving case law in Canada (especially in BC)

Quite ridiculous at times.

[cutter7]

This reminds me of a similar but well publicized case of r.c.m.p monty robinson... Seems the public is learning how to beat these cases from those who know best.

[KL3-Something]

That has been around far longer than since the time Monty did it. I've known that since before I was drinking age myself. But not until I was on the side I'm on now did I understand the reasons why.

[Graphite]

Is it scientifically possible that he could blow that much over the limit if he had some sips out of his vehicle post accident? How much would he have had to consume in his vehicle? In what amount of time?

[Donald G]

Another in the ongoing trail of incidents surfacing from our Criminal Court system that identify the difference between a search for truth and justice and a lawyer enriching exercise in theoretical law that would be better suited to law school than a public courtroom. It exemplifies one of the main reasons that administrative regulations had to be brought in to effectively remove drunk drivers from behind the wheel. Lawyer initiated 'technical' defenses like that used in this case have made it all but impossible for the police to convict a drunk driver because of the many such technical loopholes available. The approximately 1,250 innocent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who are killed each year across Canada each year are ample proof that society has been led astray by the men in black.

[Donald G]

To Graphite ...

If he was a 150 lb male he would have had to drink at least EIGHTEEN OUNCES OF HARD LIQUOR IN MINUTES, which even a confirmed alcoholic would have trouble doing. According to the alcohol guidance chart each 1 1/2 ounce drink will raise the blood alcohol reading of a 150 lb man .02 mg/100 ml. If he had a reading of three times the impaired limit two hours later he would have had to have consumed at least three additional ounces as the liver of an average human, regardless of size will break down about .015 per hour.

I note it says that HIS LAWYER SAID he had consumed alcohol after the accident. What is with that? Did no one actually take the stand and give sworn evidence that he had consumed alcohol after the accident to "calm his nerves"? Or did the Judge accept UNSWORN evidence of his ALLEGED drinking?

[james-d]

Before 1968, This man would have been given a blood test whether he wanted to or not. Today these criminals don't have to give it if they don' want to,(Would you if you were drunk or a pothead under the influence?) of course not because you now have rights to screw over the puplic. In my opinion these as----es give up their rights when they drink and drive, the cops can tell real quick if the driver was drunk, but their hands are tied because these people have a way more rights then the victims, and dead victims don't hire mouth pieces to get them off ,for fear of being convicted. So I quess, in todays politically correct atmosphere, Just do whatever you feel like doing, Because you have rights Ya know.
I'm not saying we should go back to When criminals did not have any rights after doing nefarious deeds to the public, Because that would be harsh and unusual punishment, Might offend their sensibilitys and we could not live with that.

[WhatThe]

Before 1968, This man would have been given a blood test whether he wanted to or not. Today these criminals don't have to give it if they don' want to,(Would you if you were drunk or a pothead under the influence?) of course not because you now have rights to screw over the puplic. In my opinion these as----es give up their rights when they drink and drive, the cops can tell real quick if the driver was drunk, but their hands are tied because these people have a way more rights then the victims, and dead victims don't hire mouth pieces to get them off ,for fear of being convicted. So I quess, in todays politically correct atmosphere, Just do whatever you feel like doing, Because you have rights Ya know.
I'm not saying we should go back to When criminals did not have any rights after doing nefarious deeds to the public, Because that would be harsh and unusual punishment, Might offend their sensibilitys and we could not live with that.

lol seriously? one would think after being around for more than 60 years that one would have a least better understanding of our laws and our charter rights.
fail.

[Donald G]

To james-d ....

I'm not sure if the date identifying the change from the old Diefenbaker Bill of Rights and the now used and abused (my opinion) Trudeau Bill of rights is accurate, but the change (and subsequent JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the Trudeau Bill of Rights) certainly caused a lot of evidence that would have previously gone to prove guilt or innocence to no longer be admitted into a criminal court. The interpretation of the Diefenbaker BOR was that ALL evidence that went to prove guilt or innocence WAS admitted into evidence. The Trudeau BOR and interpretation of that bill of rights has determined that only that evidence that in the OPINION of the judge was 'properly' seized and handled according to the new fluctuating rules of evidence will be admitted into evidence REGARDLESS OF HOW SIGNIFICANT THAT EVIDENCE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS IN PROVING GUILT OR INNOCENCE. The highly questionable (my opinion) decisions that often DISALLOW drugs and weapons seized from the trunk of vehicles driven by criminals and criminal gangs are examples of such misled interpretations ... unreasonable search and seizure. The same interpretation that prohibits the police from making ad hoc checks of vehicles that enables drunk drivers to kill about 1,250 mothers, fathers, sons and daughters across Canada each year ... unlawful detainment and unreasonable search and seizure.

[james-d]

I agree Don G. I just believe he went away to far with his revamping of our bill of rights, And caused more grief with the criminal code changes he made.It has just grown worse and worse, There is no real punishment for crimes nowadays. It is a joke, Like some as----e having 52 convictions for auto theft, The man is 56 years old, Either his brother is the judge,or maybe because we don't want to pay for any more prisons, We can rehabilitate him, Yea right.

[Donald G]

To james-d ...

I think you will find that it is the JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the Canadian Bill of Rights that now so often enables criminals to escape detection by the police or escape answering for their crimes if and when charged. It used to be that ALL evidence that went to prove guilt or innocence WAS admitted into criminal court. Under the new Liberal INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER BY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES only those individual pieces of evidence as in the OPINION of the presiding judge were 'properly' seized and handled as per the also new rules of evidence put in place (ALSO A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGE) have any chance of being admitted into evidence. Since individual judges differ on their interpretation the whole issue has now become a crap shoot for the police. That is why (my opinion) what used to be a search for truth and justice has become little more than a lawyer enriching exercise in theoretical law ... in which truth and justice have become mere bystanders. Theory alone is perfect ... in the theoretical world of Judges and lawyers. Unfortunately "we the people" live in the real world that has, in my opinion, been abducted by the legal profession led by the men and women in black. With respect.

[Donald G]

To james-d ...

I think you will find that it is the JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the Canadian Bill of Rights that now so often enables criminals to escape detection by the police or escape answering for their crimes if and when charged. It used to be that ALL evidence that went to prove guilt or innocence WAS admitted into criminal court. Under the new Liberal INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER BY CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES only those individual pieces of evidence as in the OPINION of the presiding judge were 'properly' seized and handled as per the also new rules of evidence put in place (ALSO A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGE) have any chance of being admitted into evidence. Since individual judges differ on their interpretation the whole issue has now become a crap shoot for the police. That is why (my opinion) what used to be a search for truth and justice has become little more than a lawyer enriching exercise in theoretical law ... in which truth and justice have become mere bystanders. Theory alone is perfect ... in the theoretical world of Judges and lawyers. Unfortunately "we the people" live in the real world that has, in my opinion, been abducted by the legal profession led by the men and women in black. With respect.

[james-d]

You are right and that is why we as law-ading citizens should be letting our mp's know we want change. is it not about time people took responsibility for their actions AGAIN as they used to, Never mind getting a kiss and a hug when you commit a crime,and sent back out on the street to TRY and DO better, People better start paying attention, I am over sixty and by heavens, pretty darn soon YOU HAD BETTER ARM YOURSELF to protect you and yours.Because our laws and courts cannot be counted on.IMO