2 Toronto guys got

C

Cobster

New member
Apr 29, 2002
10,420
0
0
Did the punishment fit the crime?
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070822/street_racers_071003/20071003?hub=TorontoHome


Ruben Rodrigues, the driver of the car who crashed into the couple, was sentenced on Wednesday morning to two years of house arrest. The 20-year-old Maple resident was also given a five-year driving ban. He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

Marco Gasparro, 19, of Richmond Hill, was given two years' probation. He was also fined $2,000 and banned from driving for 18 months. He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.


I would have liked it more if the Judge had suspended them from driving for a minimum of 10 years.
I doubt they'll get insured again and if they do, I would think that any insurance company can reject them and/or their rates would be insane.
Civil suit possible?
Read somewhere else the little girl was quoted as saying "mad at them for taking my mommy and daddy" or something along those lines.
Sickening.
 
Not at all. those two scum are likely laughing to themselves about it.


The accident was very near to where I live and I remember it well.


Those two punks , and thats what they are, are lucky that the judge has a fuzzy view of what racing is.

that stretch of Yonge with the slow hill just south of the lights is very deceptive.

If the dead guy had not been drinking I wonder what the judge would have done.
 
Lancs, was the father over the legal limit?
 
Cobster said:
Lancs, was the father over the legal limit?
Click to expand...


Yes, he was at about .14 ( nearly twice the .08).


Thing is it those two little bastards hadn't been racing they may have avoided him. I take that corner all the time and its tough at night when stone cold sober to judge Northbound cars speeds due to the crest of the hill, with the alcohol in him there is no way that poor bastard could have judged the speed those two were going, if he even saw them. At high speed you can be in the depression south of the lights one second and up to the lights 3 or 4 sec later. A slow turning car doesn't stand a chance.
 
So to understand this they were going uphill (fast) and the father was at an intersection? Did he go through a red light, how was he driving?
 
Cobster said:
So to understand this they were going uphill (fast) and the father was at an intersection? Did he go through a red light, how was he driving?
Click to expand...




Don't know the answer to that. Our local paper has had limited details.


that strip northbound on Yonge ( Hwy 11) has been a long time drag strip for late night racers.
 
Cobster said:
So to understand this they were going uphill (fast) and the father was at an intersection? Did he go through a red light, how was he driving?
Click to expand...

According to the police it made no difference. While he would have been charged with DUI if he survived, his driving didn't contribute to the accident.
 
The fact that the father was almost twice over the limit undoubtedly affected the verdict.

It's sad, but it's true.

If he was not impaired, the judge might have gone harder on the two punks. I wasn't aware that the male victim had been drinking (excessively) at the time. I don't recall that being published in the media.

I feel very sad for that little girl. She's lost her parents and that's not an easy thing for anyone, let alone an 8 year old girl.
 
Cobster said:
I would have liked it more if the Judge had suspended them from driving for a minimum of 10 years.
.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point of 10 year suspensions? Do you eventually want to be on the road with people who've been removed from traffic for 10 years? They may not be racing anymore but they will surely be worse drivers in every other way. I would be more inclined to see the argument for a lifetime suspension.

You either ban someone forever, or you suspend them for 18-24 months and then hope to bring them back with conditions before they actually loose touch with driving.

Lifetime suspensions sound nice but judging from the numbers of suspended and never-licensed drivers discoverd at random or through collision investigations, there are alot of them on the roads and the enforcment mechanisms to keep them off the road for 30 or 40 years just aren't in place.

In the case of these two young men, if they are so incorrigiable that they don't learn a lesson form this ordeal and it's consequences, then it's unlikely a few extra years suspension would make any more impact on them.
 
H.I., you might be right, so okay, how about a bigger ass fine?
Sayyy, $100,000? These punks deserve it.
 
Cobster said:
Did the punishment fit the crime?
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070822/street_racers_071003/20071003?hub=TorontoHome


Ruben Rodrigues, the driver of the car who crashed into the couple, was sentenced on Wednesday morning to two years of house arrest. The 20-year-old Maple resident was also given a five-year driving ban. He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

Marco Gasparro, 19, of Richmond Hill, was given two years' probation. He was also fined $2,000 and banned from driving for 18 months. He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.


I would have liked it more if the Judge had suspended them from driving for a minimum of 10 years.
I doubt they'll get insured again and if they do, I would think that any insurance company can reject them and/or their rates would be insane.
Civil suit possible?
Read somewhere else the little girl was quoted as saying "mad at them for taking my mommy and daddy" or something along those lines.
Sickening.
Click to expand...

Cobster, i agree with you all the way. They were responsible for two the loss of two lives. Loss of life is the worst loss that any one can experience, and these guys get a slap on the wrist.

The law is one thing, justice is another, someone once said.
 
One would wonder just how connected, so to speak, the families of these two little POS are, that they could get off so lightly.:mad:
 
The way I read the story, the most important aspect of the case is this:

"The judge in the case said Rodrigues and Gasparro were not street racing, but speeding."

If they had been in an illegal street race, I'd say they got off way to easy.

But they were just speeding. Admitedly, 150 km/h is pretty damn fast, but I wonder what the limit there was. 150 km/h in a 40 zone is obviously a lot worse than 150 on a main highway.

Although it is may be illegal, driving fast is no where near as serious an offence as street racing would be.

In fact, one could argue that simply driving fast is considerably LESS dangerous than driving drunk. Of course, that would depend on just how fast they were going, relative to the speed limit.

Without more info on the specifics of the crash, I would not leap to the conclusion that they got off to easy. I've certainly broke the speed limit before, and I think most people regularly break the speed limit. These guys did, and they happend to be unlucky, as a result someone died. It was an accident. One that they are going to pay for.
 
Limit is 80Km there, possibly 70 I'm not sure with the new houses that have gone in it may have been lowered at the church. i'll check tomorrow.

That strip and the corresponding section of Bayview are well known drag strips. The judge was being far to lenient.
 
There was testimony from witnesses that these guys were weaving in out of cars at high speed. If that isn't street racing I don't know what is. The fact the victim was drunk is irrelevant, the same outcome would have happened. And I don't think it contributed to the lenient sentence anyway. The precedent was already set with the cabbie's death and the accused being sentenced to house arrest. Until judges get tough on street racing these events will continue to occur. This is a travesty of justice.
 
If you are going 150 in a 70 zone, you have no choice but to swirve around other traffic wether you are racing or not. While it did not meet the legal definition for "Racing", that shouldn't really matter. Racing per se is not automatically more dangerous or serious - it should depend on how bonehead and risky the actions were.

Doing 150 in a 70 zone is more dangerous than doing 180 in a 100 zone. In this case, the egregiousness of the offense should be more about WHERE they chose to drive that fast, not just the number of Kmh's over the limit.

For this reason I would have liked to see them get some jail time, even a couple of months should be a culture shock to guys from such a pampered background and might put some fear into them.
 
The report I heard on the radio did mention that the other driver's impairment was taken inot account.

Although he may not have done anything wrong himself, it is not out of the question that he may have done something differently to prevent or mitigate the consequences of somebody elses dangerous driving.

For example, even without visibility, the SOUND of two cars going 150 against the ambience of much slower traffic might be detected and raise a flag for extra caution. You might chose to delay your turn until you know what it is - or if too late you might floor it in the hope of clearing the intersection sooner, at least take the hit on the tail instead of the passenger compartment.

I'm not too familiar with the blueprints of the collision in question, but there must have been some reason they took it into account, not just to punish the dead guy.
 
LOL @ hard idle, the SOUND of the two cars??? COme on dude, gimme a break.....so the couple were driving home from their celebration with all their windows down, the radio off, and their heads out the window? LOL yer funny...really.....

A couple of points about this case:
1) The guy who was killed. Yes, his alcohol content did play a part in the sentencing and I bet dollars to donuts that if he was stone cold sober, the case would have been different
2) He was making a left turn which when an accident is the result, typically results in an "at fault" charge (dangerous left turn, not in safety or something like that) because even though the other vehicles were travelling at a high rate of speed, they wouldn't have hit him if he hadn't been turning across oncoming traffic.
3) Yes, the 2 yrs house arrest is absolute bullshit and banning a driver from being behind the weel for 10 yrs is not uncalled for. They could also impose a retraining/retesting system where before they can drive again, they have to be retested.

Yea, I agree with the poster who said "it doesn't really matter revoking his licence, many are just driving while under suspension. IMO if you're caught while driving under suspension, and it isn't an emergency like you're driving your wife who is in labour to the hospital, you should get a mandatory 1 yr jail term.

This kind of reminds me of that guy out west (calgary? winnipeg?) who had been caught drinking and driving 37 times.....

This story also reminds me of those two rich punks who killed the cab driver.

I mean, what is house arrest when they are allowed to leave to go to school, shopping, and work? Oh, they have to stay in at night...that's right. OH the horror of the punishment to have to actually sleep at home....

But frankly, what do we expect? If someone uses a gun to rob a variety store, they're out the next day and if they're caught again? They're out the next day.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back