Edmonton Police Officier found not guilty of dangerous driving causing death

[lilmira]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/const-chris-luimes-not-guilty-of-dangerous-driving-causing-death-1.3075884

Don't know if this has been posted before, it happened few years ago.


"Should 84-year-old Annie Walden have expected oncoming traffic to be going almost twice the speed limit? Of course not,'" Hak said. "For her driving error, she paid a dear price." Defence lawyer Mike Danyliuk argued that speeding, even twice the limit, does not in itself constitute dangerous driving. "We have 57 km/h over the limit. Speed alone can constitute dangerous driving. In this environment, 57 over does not constitute dangerous driving. "This whole accident is a loss for all who were involved," said Danyliuk, who called the crash "a tragic accident. Not a criminal act."

Can I use that defense next time I get pulled over? It's not dangerous, if shit happens, shit happens basically.

Is there any guideline for driving like that without sirens and lights activated? How do you expect that to be safe driving almost twice the speed limit without warning the people around you?

[zipdoa]

I'm interested to hear Traffic_Cop's opinion.

I found DayGlow's response in a previous thread to be interesting, referring to a Surgeon who was stopped rushing to save the life of someone dying of a heart attack doing 75 in a 40-zone:


Originally posted by DayGlow
It's a tough one. It is dangerous, from my understanding from reading the article he was going nearly double the limit in a residential area, that can be very dangerous. No idea if this is a narrow street or a wide boulivard, so it's hard to say. I do know that when I'm responding to an emergency, even with lights and sirens I wouldn't be doing that speed in a lot of residential areas as the risk is too high.


If saving a life doesn't warrant speeding, how does catching a small-time peddler of stolen jewelry?


Quoting Constable Sinclair

But Sinclair defended his officer, saying he might have prevented an accident by stopping the speeding physician. "It doesn't matter if it's a physician or whoever that is on his way to what he or she considers an emergency," Sinclair said. "If he or she gets in a collision on the way to that emergency, they're no use. They're going to be tied up a lot longer than what it takes to write a ticket."

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?threadid=303481

[BavarianBeast]

What a fucking joke!

[CompletelyNumb]

In his verdict, Little referred to an internal police department document that reported 41 incidents between 2012 and 2014 where police cars drove more than 50 km/h over the speed limit without using lights or sirens.

All were investigated and found to be justified, he said, which showed that what happened in this case was not an infrequent occurence.


Carte blanche on breaking laws. Nice.

[snowcat]

You should be asking lawyers and what not for their opinion, not officers.

[xnvy]

Wow... what a garbage ruling. It's not dangerous driving if a police officer does it but I'm guessing it would be considered dangerous if I did it? Or maybe even an exceptional civilian driver like one of the autocross champs did it? Such a load of :bullshit:

[FraserB]

People need to go read the TSA before ranting about police being allowed to "break the law".

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by FraserB
People need to go read the TSA before ranting about police being allowed to "break the law".

That would mean being wrong or admitting they don't know what they're talking about. That's not going to happen. In case you're new around here, this is a place where matters on law enforcement are conducted with public trials without the benefit of all the facts, and speculation and uninformed opinion constitute simple fact. It's easier to just roll out cliches and tired cop bashing lines, which is why many of us on the other side don't post here much anymore.

Oh wait, you aren't new. Why are you trying to inject sensibility into this when the knives are just starting to come out?! :drama:

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by snowcat
You should be asking lawyers and what not for their opinion, not officers.

Why? Would your preconceived notions be shattered if I told you I thought his driving given the circumstances was likely inappropriate and dangerous? I have charged people who have driven way worse with much less as it doesn't meet the criminal threshold, and that was on the direction of the criminal driving unit of the Crown, who agreed with me and numerous other police officers that it wasn't enough to be criminal.

None of us support stupid driving in our work, and I'm hoping you aren't leaning towards the implication that we do. Many of us have made it clear we don't support carte blanche abuse of section 63 and 64 of the UHRORR. It is both unlawful and negligent. It doesn't reflect our responsibilities and what we are supposed to be doing out there.

[revelations]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb


Carte blanche on breaking laws. Nice.

Apparently you failed to read the quote above your post, all incidents were justified.

"Code 2" was the informal command we used in the RCMP when you had to approach the scene quietly. If a B&E in progress, or someone held up at gunpoint hears sirens, things get worse.




If a person is incapable of judging speed and distance, they need to get off the road. The motorist who caused the accident would have died at a highway intersection eventually.

[01RedDX]

.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by revelations


Apparently you failed to read the quote above your post, all incidents were justified.

"Code 2" was the informal command we used in the RCMP when you had to approach the scene quietly. If a B&E in progress, or someone held up at gunpoint hears sirens, things get worse.




If a person is incapable of judging speed and distance, they need to get off the road. The motorist who caused the accident would have died at a highway intersection eventually.

I think the fact that he was doing surveillance in a surveillance vehicle (that is, not a regular police car) makes this a teensy bit different than responding to a hot call in a marked/unmarked police car that some people may be looking out for. While I understand the need to conduct surveillance on active criminals, this is too similar to what happened in Quebec. It was a needless cost of that police operation.

The judge may have deemed it non criminal due to the fact that he didn't depart from the standard, but in retrospect, given all the circumstances he didn't make a good decision and may be just this side of negligent. I don't think it's fair to point any fingers towards her. We are supposed to drive in a manner that protects the people who don't know what we are doing, and be prepared for these things to happen so we don't actually cause serious collisions.. or any collisions at all, if at all possible.

There's my two bits.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


I was hoping that you would explain why it's acceptable or necessary to drive at twice the speed limit to catch up to a target who was not breaking any traffic laws at the time.

Instead we get another typical condescending post lambasting the public as being stupid and uninformed.

Sure, I can kinda see how they ruled that the death is not a result of criminal action as he was on duty but I don't understand what precludes him from saying "I'm sorry for your loss."

I suppose one could also argue that it was the lady's gambling habit that killed her.

If I may, I thought I made it pretty clear in the post right after my first one, that I thought it was likely inappropriate and dangerous, and how that type of driving isn't ok.

I didn't say anything about him not apologizing, or justifying it. In fact, I just stated it likely can't be justified.

As far as being condescending goes: People like an anti police narrative and shaping things to that end. There is constant assumption that we "break traffic laws" when we don't break them. The law states we are exempt from them in the lawful execution of our duties. Furthermore, this ruling doesn't give carte blanche to police to "break the law." If someone reads it that way and slaps that ridiculous interpretation on it, that's not on me. Perhaps it would be of some benefit for folks to inform themselves before they render an opinion. I've been more than helpful around here, and have done a very good job of informing people.

I'm sick and tired of seeing us crapped on because people think we can just do what we want, when we want, and how we want. Yeah, I will admit to getting snarly on occasion and making it known, but I don't think it's as typical as you may suggest.

If you'd prefer, I'll go back to not posting and leave my opinion out of it. Clearly my type of disagreement is not to your taste.

[01RedDX]

.

[phil98z24]

For what it's worth, I apologize if I came off condescending. That is never my intention. I'm trying to use hyperbole to poor effect. Anyways, hopefully this will get back on topic.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This time, I waited till AFTER Phil posted to weigh in. Now there's no need. Thanks Phil.

[revelations]

Originally posted by phil98z24


I think the fact that he was doing surveillance in a surveillance vehicle (that is, not a regular police car) makes this a teensy bit different than responding to a hot call in a marked/unmarked police car that some people may be looking out for. While I understand the need to conduct surveillance on active criminals, this is too similar to what happened in Quebec. It was a needless cost of that police operation.

The judge may have deemed it non criminal due to the fact that he didn't depart from the standard, but in retrospect, given all the circumstances he didn't make a good decision and may be just this side of negligent. I don't think it's fair to point any fingers towards her. We are supposed to drive in a manner that protects the people who don't know what we are doing, and be prepared for these things to happen so we don't actually cause serious collisions.. or any collisions at all, if at all possible.

There's my two bits.

I agree with the issue of excessive speeding for the purposes of trailing pointer vehicles. It should not be standard policy for members to be doing this. Needless risk of harm to members and the public.

However, we have the case here of a person causing an accident by turning in front of a vehicle moving at highway speeds. Further, the elderly driver motorist proceeded so slowly (or just stopped in the middle of the intersection) that the member had 100ft (or about 4 seconds) full on the brakes AFTER application.

These are separate issues and the officer was, IMO, rightly absolved of any any wrong doing. But internally - this should have been a catalyst for change in the EPS.

[16hypen3sp]

This cop didn't seem to care when he was close to retirement.


http://globalnews.ca/news/2003948/top-alberta-sheriff-caught-doing-143-kmh-in-100-zone/


EDMONTON — The chief of the Alberta Sheriff’s Department – who retired May 14 – was pulled over last week doing 143 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

Sources confirm to Global News that Rick Taylor was pulled over the evening of May 10 on Highway 14 by Strathcona County RCMP.

Taylor’s retirement was announced on the Alberta Sheriff’s Twitter feed on May 14.

Taylor spent nearly 37 years in law enforcement.

“It has been an honour and privilege to serve as the Chief Sheriff, and to work with such a great team,” said Taylor in a statement posted on Facebook. “I look forward to continuing my work with the Special Olympics Alberta Board of Directors, and the Alberta Law Enforcement Torch Run. I thank you all for your support and friendship.”

A spokesperson for Alberta Justice said Taylor’s retirement was not sudden and had been planned for some time.

The incident came just before National Road Safety Week, which runs May 12 to 18.

“Justice and Solicitor General does not condone unlawful speeding by any employee,” said a spokesperson. “Abiding by speed limits is important in ensuring public safety on our roads and highways.”

[phil98z24]

Sheriffs aren't cops. :banghead:

Anyways, I have a feeling he was on the cusp of retirement and he retired so this wouldn't be made an issue. Seems lame, but weirder things happen.

[cancer man]

Sheriffs have more authority than cops.You need to be a Marshall to trump them.
Get it straight.