Skyway bridge crash: Judge cites charter, rules out breath tests

[Ridgeman08]

No, I'm not a lawyer. One doesn't need to be to understand why this guy got off on the impaired and over 80 charges. Your beef shouldn't be with the law or judge in this case. It should be with the cops who didn't follow procedure. Seriously, cop 101 is you have 3 hours to give a suspected impaired driver a breathalyzer. There isn't a cop out there who doesn't know this, and beyond that time limit the evidence will be tossed.

Perhaps you should go back and read all my posts in this thread AGAIN.I certainly DO have an issue with the cops, and have said so in each of my posts here! Like others have said, justice is NOT white or black. There are varying degrees of guilt, and more than one party involved can be guilty. Just because one party makes a mistake in gathering evidence (which is a matter of opinion BTW), doesn't mean the guy is innocent, he's STILL guilty.

You see this is why I have an issue with people like you and our legal system. I believe the law states innocent until proven guilty or something to that effect. Well this guy was/ is CLEARLY guilty. The evidence is insurmountable...

Any right minded individual can make that distinction, I'm not sure why you don't grasp that concept.

 

[FAST]

Perhaps you should go back and read all my posts in this thread AGAIN.I certainly DO have an issue with the cops, and have said so in each of my posts here! Like others have said, justice is NOT white or black. There are varying degrees of guilt, and more than one party involved can be guilty. Just because one party makes a mistake in gathering evidence (which is a matter of opinion BTW), doesn't mean the guy is innocent, he's STILL guilty.

You see this is why I have an issue with people like you and our legal system. I believe the law states innocent until proven guilty or something to that effect. Well this guy was/ is CLEARLY guilty. The evidence is insurmountable...

Any right minded individual can make that distinction, I'm not sure why you don't grasp that concept.

Right on all counts.

If the the law was "black and white", what are we paying judges for, that WON"T make a judgment,... just have some law clerk look up the law, and we are done.

No more lawyer legal bull shit, no more wasted tax dollars, that do not add the GNP.

FAST

 

[TeeJay]

1st, I acknowledge that I have an obvious advantage in this "debate", with some one has to start and continue their reply with childish insults.
FAST

You seem to have misread the entire article lol
oagre may have given up but I can't believe anyone is this dense...

The DEFENCE is the drunk truck driver & his lawyers
If judge has already thrown evidence out there is no reason for them to testify (or do you think its a good idea to stand up and say good job judge)

Just for kicks what exactly would you tell a judge AFTER he has already ruled in your favour?

 

[TeeJay]

You mean when the cops don't follow the Charter.

Now imagine for a second what it would be like if cops were allowed to do whatever they want. No thank you!

You mean when judges twist the Charter?
The entire purpose for the 3 hours is to prevent unlawful detainment or police harassment after the fact (or false positives, if I decide I need a drink to calm myself after nearly dieing in a crash)
Dude in this case was detained in back of a car and was not going anywhere

 

[GameBoy27]

Perhaps you should go back and read all my posts in this thread AGAIN.I certainly DO have an issue with the cops, and have said so in each of my posts here! Like others have said, justice is NOT white or black. There are varying degrees of guilt, and more than one party involved can be guilty. Just because one party makes a mistake in gathering evidence (which is a matter of opinion BTW), doesn't mean the guy is innocent, he's STILL guilty.

You see this is why I have an issue with people like you and our legal system. I believe the law states innocent until proven guilty or something to that effect. Well this guy was/ is CLEARLY guilty. The evidence is insurmountable...

Any right minded individual can make that distinction, I'm not sure why you don't grasp that concept.

Read what I said at the bottom of post #40. I agree the guy was impaired, everyone knows that. What I'm saying is because the cops screwed up, the breath test results were no longer being accepted as evidence so there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges. That lead the judge to acquit on those two charges. I'm not sure why you don't grasp that concept.

We can sit here and complain until we're blue in the face about how the guy is "guilty". And had the cops not screwed up he would surely be convicted. I'm not saying it's a good outcome either, BUT IT IS WHAT HAPPENED!

 

[FAST]

You seem to have misread the entire article lol
oagre may have given up but I can't believe anyone is this dense...

The DEFENCE is the drunk truck driver & his lawyers
If judge has already thrown evidence out there is no reason for them to testify (or do you think its a good idea to stand up and say good job judge)

Just for kicks what exactly would you tell a judge AFTER he has already ruled in your favour?

DUDE,...what the hell are you sniffing,...your rant here has NOTHING to do with anything I have posted.

If you want to runoff at the mouth fine,..but don't quote my post, unless it it relative,...or you sober up,...!!!

FAST

 

[fuji]

It's about the system as a whole being more important than the result of any one specific case. If the police can evade the rules - rules which they know about - then soon there are no rules and we live in a society wherein the police have no accountability. Therefore, society accepts that the guilty may go free from time to time in order to ensure that the rights of society as a whole do not become compromised. You may not like that, but every judge sitting in every Western democracy understands, accepts and applies this reasoning.

This is correct. Don't get mad at the judge for following the law. Get mad at the police for not following it. They had an easy case against this guy and they fucked it up by not doing the job they have been trained to do.

 

[TeeJay]

DUDE,...what the hell are you sniffing,...your rant here has NOTHING to do with anything I have posted.

If you want to runoff at the mouth fine,..but don't quote my post, unless it it relative,...or you sober up,...!!!

FAST

So no response is your answer?

Simply click on links to back track if ADD has kicked in
Post 6 & 21 among others

 

[GameBoy27]

It's about the system as a whole being more important than the result of any one specific case. If the police can evade the rules - rules which they know about - then soon there are no rules and we live in a society wherein the police have no accountability. Therefore, society accepts that the guilty may go free from time to time in order to ensure that the rights of society as a whole do not become compromised. You may not like that, but every judge sitting in every Western democracy understands, accepts and applies this reasoning.

This is correct. Don't get mad at the judge for following the law. Get mad at the police for not following it. They had an easy case against this guy and they fucked it up by not doing the job they have been trained to do.

Exfuckingactly! ^^^

Misdirected anger in a nutshell...

 

[fuji]

Yes the cops screwed up technically. But is justice truly served ethically?

There are two separate "has justice been served" questions here, not one.

Has justice been served by the judge's decision? Yes. His ruling vigilantly upholds our rights to be free from intimidation, arbitrary detention, illegal search.

Has justice been served by the cops failure to get a proper breath sample as they had been trained to do? No, they screwed up.

 

[Bud Plug]

2. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was obtained too long after the crash.

Last try. Incorrect. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it had been obtained unlawfully (after 3 hours) and it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to allow its introduction (in the opinion of the judge). The issue is - why would doing so bring the administration of justice into disrepute (on the facts of this case)?

Either deal with the legal issues in this case, or stop talking about those aspects.

 

[GameBoy27]

Last try. Incorrect. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it had been obtained unlawfully (after 3 hours) and it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to allow its introduction (in the opinion of the judge).

Maybe this will help explain it to you. 2. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was obtained too long after the crash. Which means:

On Monday, Campling said Ontario Provincial Police officers demanded a breath test from Rai too long after he was sitting in the driver's seat. Campling said this demand was a breach of Rai's protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Breath tests must be made within three hours of the accused being behind the wheel, as outlined in the Criminal Code. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/skyway-bridge-trial-leads-to-acquittal-on-impaired-driving-charges-1.3493978

The issue is - why would doing so bring the administration of justice into disrepute (on the facts of this case)?

Either deal with the legal issues in this case, or stop talking about those aspects.

"With the breath test results no longer being accepted as evidence, the court heard there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges, leading Campling to acquit on the two charges."

 

[SkyRider]

Laws change when society deems them unworthy and unethical in a true democracy.

That is why we have juries. They refuse to convict when they consider a law asinine.

Example: Juries in 1800's England refused to convict because over 200 crimes carried the death penalty.
Example: Juries refused to convict Morgentaler in the abortion cases.
Example: Juries refused to convict in assisted suicides in cases where a painful death was certain.
Example: Juries will refuse to convict where two consenting adults engage in coitus.

 

[FAST]

So no response is your answer?

Simply click on links to back track if ADD has kicked in
Post 6 & 21 among others

Didn't deserve a response.

But let me try to simplify for you,...

The idiot judge made a decision/judgement/ruling in favour of making an example of the cops,...instead of taking a potential murderer of the streets.

If you can't see the problem with that,...I can't help you anymore.

And once again,...if decisions are made simply by the letter of the law,...get rid of all the make work idiot judges,...and have a computer program look up the law,...and make a ruling.

FAST

 

[Bud Plug]

Maybe this will help explain it to you. 2. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was obtained too long after the crash. Which means:



"With the breath test results no longer being accepted as evidence, the court heard there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges, leading Campling to acquit on the two charges."

You should stick to commenting on topics that you understand because you aren't interested in learning about the ones you don't. Anyone can have an opinion and debate about what the law should be or as to the moral aspects of the incident but not everyone is equipped to discuss what the law actually is.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Quickly jumping in here.

I'm sorry but am I missing something here.

This perp is over the limit EVEN AFTER 3 hours?

And they want to consider that test inadmissible?

Maybe if they allowed him to have a drink at the police station, but this is fucking ridiculous.

What's the rationale?

 

[fuji]

The idiot judge made a decision/judgement/ruling in favour of making an example of the cops,...instead of taking a potential murderer of the streets.

The judge is right. That is exactly we want.

It's called the rule of law and it's really fucking important. Way more important than taking a potential murderer off the streets.

 

[FAST]

The judge is right. That is exactly we want.

It's called the rule of law and it's really fucking important. Way more important than taking a potential murderer off the streets.

Would you still have that warped "opinion",...after your family is murdered by some who was guilty, but was let off by some idiot judge,...on a technicality,...???

There is a very high percentage of criminals who are committing crimes over and over again,...because of this legal tit for tat stupidity.

AND,...just how the hell did you get to be a legal expert also,...ever hear the term,..."Jack of all trades, master of none"

FAST

 

[SkyRider]

This perp is over the limit EVEN AFTER 3 hours?

And they want to consider that test inadmissible?

Yes, the law imposed the 3 hour limit to protect the guilty. An innocent man or woman could have a 10 hour limit and they will still be innocent, not so for a guilty person.

 

[lomotil]

The judge followed the law, the ruling would be up held all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. However due to police incompetence in handling the evidence, the scales of justice tipped in favour of the accused resulting in this seemingly egregious action going unnecessarily under punished. This is painful to watch although the laws of the land should never be trumped by emotion.