A sobering warning.

[shadowshiv]

If you ever think you might drink and drive read this first ....Accused in double-fatal hit-run stays in jail - British Columbia - CBC News

Huh. The story is closed to commenting at CBC.ca. Not really a surprise, as I imagine that it would be a hotbed of emotion.

I think that if someone kills another person( or people) while impaired(alcohol or drugs) they should be tried for first degree murder. There is NO way that anyone can say that they didn't know that impaired driving can kill someone. I want these turds getting REAL jail sentences, not the freaking slap-on-the-wrists that the judges love to hand out.

For example, there was this piece of garbage that killed 4 people in Chatham, four elderly women on their way back from a church bake-sale. He got four years. Are you ****ing kidding me? Four years?!?! This guy in the States faces 4 years in prison for killing the family pet, and some jackass in Canada gets the same sentence for killing FOUR people! A year per person. Bull****.

Now with regards to this stellar example of humanity who runs into two people and then drives away. I detest these cowards, as they don't even have to be impaired to do it. They may be racing down a street and go through a red light. They may be too busy texting to their friends and not see the bicyclist on the side of the road. They hit the person( and there is NO way they didn't know they hit a person) and then drive away as if nothing happened. Sometimes they actually grow a conscience and turn themselves in, but a lot of times they'll only get caught when they bring their cars in to get repaired so they can hide what they did or they leave parts of their cars behind that will allow the police to track them down.

This Corey Sater is a cowardly piece of crap, and I will hope that the justice system FINALLY wakes up and treats him like the criminal that he is.

 

[JLM]

Why is it the drinking that's the thing people grasp most tightly about this story, and not the hit and run? People do that sober too, and would end up in the same place, criminally, that he's in, sober or not.

My guess is it's the drinking that caused the "need" for the run.

No I'm not, you're point is stupid and you never bothered to think it through. That's not my fault.
Like Karrie said there were plenty of laws broken here and the only thing you can focus on is that he was charged with drunk driving.

Short memory what? It was you that brought guns into the argument in post # 13!!!!!!!!! :roll:

 

[shadowshiv]

My guess is it's the drinking that caused the "need" for the run.

Like she said, people do this drunk or sober. For some reason they think that it will be better for them if they can get away before the police arrive or anyone can identify them.

This point is especially for the sober ones, as the drunk ones are too stupified to think about this(but does not give them any excuses not to stop anyhow), but when they drive away they are potentially leaving someone at the side of the road to die. To die. If I ever got into an accident I would stay at the scene and offer whatever aid I could. Some people leave the scene of the accident even if it wasn't their fault and wouldn't have been charged with anything(the other car ran a red light and ran into them) but once they left the scene of the accident they will now be facing charges.

It just boggles the mind that people feel that they have to try and get away so they don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

[JLM]

Like she said, people do this drunk or sober. For some reason they think that it will be better for them if they can get away before the police arrive or anyone can identify them.

This point is especially for the sober ones, as the drunk ones are too stupified to think about this(but does not give them any excuses not to stop anyhow), but when they drive away they are potentially leaving someone at the side of the road to die. To die. If I ever got into an accident I would stay at the scene and offer whatever aid I could. Some people leave the scene of the accident even if it wasn't their fault and wouldn't have been charged with anything(the other car ran a red light and ran into them) but once they left the scene of the accident they will now be facing charges.

It just boggles the mind that people feel that they have to try and get away so they don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Out of fairness, we don't know ALL the facts. Maybe the visibility was poor and he may have hit them sober through no fault of his own, so wouldn't have had anything to fear by stopping. (Just playing Devil's advocate)

 

[shadowshiv]

Out of fairness, we don't know ALL the facts. Maybe the visibility was poor and he may have hit them sober through no fault of his own, so wouldn't have had anything to fear by stopping. (Just playing Devil's advocate)

Two counts of impaired driving causing death.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm.

(the above taken from the CBC article)

He definitely was impaired, so it was his fault.

 

[JLM]

Two counts of impaired driving causing death.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm.

(the above taken from the CBC article)

He definitely was impaired, so it was his fault.

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make- Karrie was questioning why we were attaching more weight to the impaired than the hit and run.

Two counts of impaired driving causing death.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm.

(the above taken from the CBC article)

He definitely was impaired, so it was his fault.

I see I worded that post badly, should have said "had he hit them while sober". Sorry for the confusion.

 

[shadowshiv]

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make- Karrie was questioning why we were attaching more weight to the impaired than the hit and run.



I see I worded that post badly, should have said "had he hit them while sober". Sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, but how could he have NOT felt them impact with his car? I have accidentally run over a raccoon and I could feel that, so how could someone(especially if they are sober) NOT feel it impacting with a person?

 

[JLM]

Yeah, but how could he have NOT felt them impact with his car? I have accidentally run over a raccoon and I could feel that, so how could someone(especially if they are sober) NOT feel it impacting with a person?

Had he have been sober he would have felt the impact and likely would have stopped. Being drunk feeling the impact was of no consequence, he was already "dead in the water". One thing does baffle me though- he wasn't apprehended for a good 24 hours so I'm not sure how they determined he was drunk. A lawyer will no doubt have fun with that one (and probably make a good $)

 

[Unforgiven]

Short memory what? It was you that brought guns into the argument in post # 13!!!!!!!!! :roll:

No, I brought your flip flop on nanny state into question. Talk about missing the point. :roll:

Yeah, but how could he have NOT felt them impact with his car? I have accidentally run over a raccoon and I could feel that, so how could someone(especially if they are sober) NOT feel it impacting with a person?

Have you ever driven a car in Toronto? Some streets, the speed limit is impossible.

 

[JLM]

No, I brought your flip flop on nanny state into question. Talk about missing the point. :roll:


QUOTE]

We had another pest on here for a couple years who like you kept moving the "goalposts" until the mods finally deep sixed the arrogant turd.

 

[Unforgiven]

No, I brought your flip flop on nanny state into question. Talk about missing the point. :roll:


QUOTE]

We had another pest on here for a couple years who like you kept moving the "goalposts" until the mods finally deep sixed the arrogant turd.

Did he have as difficult a time sticking to the topic as you do? The more I read what you have to say the more I can see you like rules for others while none should apply to you.

Just because you're friends can't handle their alcohol, that they are crappy drivers and that there are people who may abuse the legal limitations set out by law, doesn't mean I should pay the price for it.

Also from the very sketchy article two things that are important don't even seem to get a mention here.

First that the people standing in the middle of the highway in the middle of the night, probably dressed fashionably in black may have some responsibility in all this.

Second that Harper shouldn't be commenting on this as it's before the courts. In doing so, he may have just caused the technicality that let's another drunk driver off scott free.

 

[JLM]

Did he have as difficult a time sticking to the topic as you do? The more I read what you have to say the more I can see you like rules for others while none should apply to you.

Just because you're friends can't handle their alcohol, that they are crappy drivers and that there are people who may abuse the legal limitations set out by law, doesn't mean I should pay the price for it.

Also from the very sketchy article two things that are important don't even seem to get a mention here.

First that the people standing in the middle of the highway in the middle of the night, probably dressed fashionably in black may have some responsibility in all this.

Second that Harper shouldn't be commenting on this as it's before the courts. In doing so, he may have just caused the technicality that let's another drunk driver off scott free.

You're a joke- Where was the mention of people dressed in black in black in the middle of the highway?????????????? Last I heard, Harper as a citizen of Canada has the same rights to free speech the rest of us have. Go back to reading "Alice in Wonderland". :roll:

 

[Unforgiven]

You're a joke- Where was the mention of people dressed in black in black in the middle of the highway?????????????? Last I heard, Harper as a citizen of Canada has the same rights to free speech the rest of us have. Go back to reading "Alice in Wonderland". :roll:

Calm down. Black is fashionable and a very popular colour for those who go out at night. Harper shouldn't be saying anything one way or the other about a case before the courts. Now because of what he said, an argument can be made to exclude people from the jury pool.

Don't you have anything to say about your flip flop? Or is it just too difficult for you?

 

[JLM]

Calm down. Black is fashionable and a very popular colour for those who go out at night. Harper shouldn't be saying anything one way or the other about a case before the courts. Now because of what he said, an argument can be made to exclude people from the jury pool.

Don't you have anything to say about your flip flop? Or is it just too difficult for you?

So you assume that both victims were wearing black because it's fashionable? Who said they were attending a "fashionable" event?- maybe they had gone bowling or maybe at a friends house playing cards. In this case Harper is just another ordinary citizen as he is playing no role in the court procedure. There has never been any flip flop on my part- I merely brought up this incident hoping that reading it may influence someone not to drink and drive. I'm quite adamant and constant in my opinion of drinking and driving- it's bad at best and fatal at worst.

 

[Unforgiven]

So you assume that both victims were wearing black because it's fashionable? Who said they were attending a "fashionable" event?- maybe they had gone bowling or maybe at a friends house playing cards. In this case Harper is just another ordinary citizen as he is playing no role in the court procedure. There has never been any flip flop on my part- I merely brought up this incident hoping that reading it may influence someone not to drink and drive. I'm quite adamant and constant in my opinion of drinking and driving- it's bad at best and fatal at worst.

Maybe but that is just as much speculation as anything I've said.
Nice denial there. Nanny state is bad, nanny state is good. A weakness I expect.

Driving while under the legal limit is fine in most cases. That's why it's legal. You don't have to do it, but you don't have to force your whacked out religion down anyone's throat over it.

 

[JLM]

Maybe but that is just as much speculation as anything I've said.
Nice denial there. Nanny state is bad, nanny state is good. A weakness I expect.

Driving while under the legal limit is fine in most cases. That's why it's legal. You don't have to do it, but you don't have to force your whacked out religion down anyone's throat over it.

I'm not "forcing my whacked out religion" down anyone's throat. The roads would be safer if no one drinks and drives. Or do you want to argue about that too? I know you think you are perfectly OK to drive after embibing, and you're welcome to your opinion but just don't try to sell it to anyone as fact. There are a lot of crosses beside the highway marking the demise of people who were just as convinced as you.

 

[Unforgiven]

I'm not "forcing my whacked out religion" down anyone's throat. The roads would be safer if no one drinks and drives. Or do you want to argue about that too? I know you think you are perfectly OK to drive after embibing, and you're welcome to your opinion but just don't try to sell it to anyone as fact. There are a lot of crosses beside the highway marking the demise of people who were just as convinced as you.

Sure you are. Here is what you said.

Well- I'd go for 0.0000000000000000000000002- don't want to deprive a guy of his Xmas pudding.

You would according to your own words force me not to have a drink with dinner if I have to drive home after. The road is a dangerous place. But I am no danger to anyone on the road. A couple of drinks or not. That is a fact. I can easily pass any test you put before me. That there are people who have accidents doesn't mean that I am one of them.

The world would be a safer place if only the police and military had guns. There are a lot of crosses marking the demise of people who have been killed by fatal gunshot wounds.

Are you saying that you are going to get rid of your guns to make cities like Toronto safer?

 

[JLM]

Sure you are. Here is what you said.

You would according to your own words force me not to have a drink with dinner if I have to drive home after. The road is a dangerous place. But I am no danger to anyone on the road. A couple of drinks or not. That is a fact. I can easily pass any test you put before me. That there are people who have accidents doesn't mean that I am one of them.

The world would be a safer place if only the police and military had guns. There are a lot of crosses marking the demise of people who have been killed by fatal gunshot wounds.

Are you saying that you are going to get rid of your guns to make cities like Toronto safer?

Before you start commenting on what someone else says you should get some practice at distinguishing what is serious from tongue in cheek. the half zillion zeros before the two would be a clue for most folks. :lol:

 

[Unforgiven]

Before you start commenting on what someone else says you should get some practice at distinguishing what is serious from tongue in cheek. the half zillion zeros before the two would be a clue for most folks. :lol:

Calm down.

You said it, you denied it, now you want to say you were just joking?

 

[JLM]

Calm down.

You said it, you denied it, now you want to say you were just joking?

You're a slow learner. You should quit jumping and running. I systematically shot down all your arguments and you keeping moving on to something else, booze wasn't enough so you went to guns (my opinion on those is well documented in this forum too). But back to the topic. I'm more concerned with safety than legality- the two aren't the same - nowhere close- tubing in class 5 rapids is legal. I am as safe a driver as most people. I am quite confident I could drink 2 or 3 bottles of beer with a meal and drive home safely. I choose to drink coffee, so that while I am driving home and a child pops out of nowhere three feet in front of my bumper and I run over him and kill him (which I doubt I would ever get over) at least I wouldn't have the burden on my head of wondering if I hadn't had those beer would things have been different. I also wouldn't have the burden of convincing his family, his friends, the police, the judge, which I would no doubt would have to if my breath reeks of booze when the cop arrives on the scene. I just like to avoid situations that have a potential for grief. I don't personally give a rat's ass if you drink and drive, but if you ever harm one of my family or friends because of it you'll be brushing your teeth through your rectum. :lol: