Judge rules racing not criminally dangerous

[JRSC00LUDE]

Did a search and don't see this here yet.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...9ddde6&k=75393

"However, Clark sided with defence lawyer Chris Archer's contention that racing itself does not amount to dangerous driving, and dangerous driving does not raise the prospective of causation of deaths."

Not saying racing is good, smart or even safe in most situations but I find it interesting that the courts have agreed that RACING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DANGEROUS DRIVING. I couldn't agree more with that particular statement.

Opinions?

[DayGlow]

I'll take a stab.

The test in court for dangerous driving is this:

For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

Now I do not know the details of the event, but the fact that 1 car lost control and crashed with enough force to kill 2 people would lead me to believe that they were putting the safety of the public in danger.

I believe the defense sucessfully argued that there wasn't enough evidence to show if the person charged caused the crash. It is up to you to decide if participating in the race means being responsible for the outcome. I personally do, much like if you praticipate in a robbery if someone else kills someone, you too are charged with that murder, even if you aren't directly involved. He choose to take part in the criminal action and should be responsible for the outcome.

[sexualbanana]

We've had similar discussions in other threads, none of which have given us a clear decision/conclusion, not that there will ever be one. I'm of the opinion, and you and I, JRS have disagreed on this before, that racing is dangerous driving because you are exceeding the limits set for the road and for the environment and placing yourself, your "opponent", and any other bystander, animal, object in the immediate area at risk. Just because a vehicle is built to go 180+km/h, doesn't mean the driver is capable of driving at that speed nor is the road ready to handle that speed.

I'm inclined to agree with DayGlow. That fact that the driver lost control of the car should provide more than reasonable proof that he was driving dangerously, and thus be charged.

I believe the Judge stated the lack of evidence as his reasoning for his decision. Based on that statement alone, I'd have to disagree with him. I'd like to see what other evidence was provided that led him to this decision.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by DayGlow
I personally do, much like if you praticipate in a robbery if someone else kills someone, you too are charged with that murder, even if you aren't directly involved. He choose to take part in the criminal action and should be responsible for the outcome.

How could you be convicted with the same offense if your not the one that pulled the trigger? Wouldn't it be a lesser charge?

[kenny]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
I'm inclined to agree with DayGlow. That fact that the driver lost control of the car should provide more than reasonable proof that he was driving dangerously, and thus be charged.

Where do we draw the line? What if a driver loses control on an icy road and crashes into a pedestrian? Should he/she be charged criminally with dangerous driving because they exceeded the limit of their vehicle and the environment?

[JRSC00LUDE]

^

Good points everyone, I just thought I'd post to hear opinions since there is basically a legal precedent shown there (sorry if my terminoligy is wrong, not a law student or anything) that will no doubt be referenced in future cases unless overturned on appeal.

Not looking to beat a dead horse and start a huge fued though!

[TKRIS]

ok,
So let's qualify it by saying that high speed racing is dangerous.

What are your opinions on Bill 203 in Ontario?
As I understand it, in a nutshell, this bill gives officers judge, jury, and executioner powers over their perceived suspects.
If you're caught racing, the cops can impound and crush your vehicle. No appeal, no court date. Nothing you can do, and the cop doesn't have to defend or prove his allegations because he cannot be challenged.

Furthermore, if the cop says your car is specifically built for street racing, he can impound your car and take your licence. If a cop thinks you've raced or stunted your car he can impound it and take your licence. Again, nothing you can do as there's no system of checks and balances.

Since the law writers purposely leave laws as retardedly vague as possible (see Canadian Firearms Laws for examples of bureaucratic horseshit), that means that if a cop has got a hardon to fuck with you (or just wants to be a prick because he hasn't written enough chicken-ass tickets that day), your car can be stolen from you and your licence suspended just for having a performance exhaust. You do not get to appeal his decision. You do not have any legal recourse. You do not have the right to defend yourself. You will not have your day in court. You are not innocent until proven guilty. There is no system of checks and balances, because there is no questioning the cops decision.

Raise your hand if you're skeptical that cops are qualified to handle that sort of power.

This is fascism at it's worst (or best, depending on whether or not you're a fascist)!

Fucking 1984, CrimeThink, tyrannical bullshit.

[Xtrema]

It's racing participants that died, so to pin the death to the other participant would be wrong.

Unless it can be proved that he intentionally crash into the other car and roll it into the ditch. Then he should be responsible.

[DayGlow]

Where do you draw a line? How about the other thread here where the BMW's crashed into that guy sending him to the hospital. If he didn't survive should the driver of the second BMW share the responsibility of the death caused by the car he is racing on a public road? I'm inclined to say yes.

I'm suprised here that he was aquited of all charges. I don't know how the system works totally, but often in murder trials if you can't show intent they are still convicted of manslaughter, not let off completely. Here I don't know why if the cause death part is up for debate, why he wasn't still found guilty of dangerous driving for praticipating in the race.

I'd be happy with that, but right now I think the system let down the community. I guess we'll see if this decision is appealed.

[StupidWade]

In the Sun article the judge was quoted as saying "I simply do not know whose driving caused the accident."

In court, it's not what you KNOW it's what you can PROVE. Unfortunately in this case the Crown didn't provide solid enough evidence that the defendant actually caused the deaths.

Perhaps that lack of clear evidence is what caused the hung jury during the first trial as well.

[Majestic12]

That's a pretty goofy article.
Whatever proposals they intend to enact will have to comply with the Charter though, and just at first glance, it doesn't seem to fly with s8.

And for the robbery analogy...

Say A and B decided to take their guns and go rob a store run by C.
During the robbery, A shoots C, killing him
It is very possible that B can be convicted of murder (or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances) if it can be shown that the probability of someone getting shot was forseeable (which it very plainly is, if you're taking guns along for the ride) while in the process of committing the robbery.

Traffic offences are classified as regulatory offences. What that basically means is whereas your run-of-the-mill crime such as murder or assault requires two fault elements: actus reus (the physical act) and mens rea (the mental element, or willingness to commit, in simple terms), regulatory offences ONLY require the physical act.

So, for example, if speeding were a criminal offence, it would have to be proven that you speeded AND you meant to speed. Since it's a regulatory offence, even if you meant to go at 50 but accidentally went at 80, you will be liable.

Now, if you're bringing in a criminal element like recklessness, then the game changes.

You have to now show that the person should have recognized the risks, but went ahead and did it anyway. That's recklessness.

Another option is criminal negligence. That is the wanton or reckless disregard for life, safety of others..it's a marked departure from what is expected of a reasonable person.

Long story short, driving fast is not criminal.
Racing (in my opinion) is not inherently criminal.
However, that can change very easily, and it all depends on the circumstances surrounding that specific situation.

[googe]

Originally posted by DayGlow


I'm suprised here that he was aquited of all charges. I don't know how the system works totally, but often in murder trials if you can't show intent they are still convicted of manslaughter, not let off completely. Here I don't know why if the cause death part is up for debate, why he wasn't still found guilty of dangerous driving for praticipating in the race.

I'd be happy with that, but right now I think the system let down the community. I guess we'll see if this decision is appealed.

because maybe he didnt cause the death? give me a fine for driving like an asshole, but if someone starts racing me, hits me, and kills themselves, it would be ridiculous to charge me for him dying.

[DayGlow]

did you even read my post? I'm asking why if the 'causing death' part was disputed that he wasn't still found guilty of dangerous driving?

By praticipating in the race he made a marked departure of what a reasonable person would do while driving. That means he could very well be still guilty of dangerous driving. Murder charges are often reduced to manslaughter when intent cannot be proven. Since his driving cannot be proven to cause the deaths I find it strange that the charge was reduced to just dangerous driving.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by kenny


Where do we draw the line? What if a driver loses control on an icy road and crashes into a pedestrian? Should he/she be charged criminally with dangerous driving because they exceeded the limit of their vehicle and the environment?

It would probably depends on the totality of the circumstances, like I first posted the test for dangerous driving is:

For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The actions of the driver on icy roads would weight heavily into it. A reasonable person can still have a collision, even a tragic one. Now if they are blasting around seeing how hard they can drift on the ice, then lose control and hit a pedestrian then the possibility of a criminal charge is there.

[Majestic12]

It's not really that simple.

You could go into endless discussion on what the standard of care really means, or who the reasonable person is.

It's not just the average person's interpretation of that sentence.

[TNation]

unbelieveable, are fast cars modded cleanly going to be impounded? BS at best

[sexualbanana]

We have the stunting charge here in Alberta, the only difference (mind you, it's a pretty big difference) is the end-all-be-all nature of the Ontario law. If that were taken out, it would be no different that what we have here.

EDIT: And the crushing part.

[slowep3]

i think its dumb period takin ur car away crushin it and shit wtf does that proove should be workin with the community to build tracks and set up events that would take ppl off the street and send em to the track down in the usa if u get caught they send u to driving school to race and learn more bout your car and to help take it off the street which by all means would be better than just crushin cars and givin big fines like wtf those dickwads in blue suits thinking

though there is still those dumb retards that ruin it for everyone........