150
Man acquitted of dangerous driving in crash that killed toddler will not face new trial (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

yes there are systemic failing and corruption that needs to be addressed, and to go further the punitive system of justice is ineffective and should be replaced with more community oriented rehabilitative solutions.

that does not change the fact that gross negligence occurred and cost a father his child. even in a different framework with different transportation, such blatant and offensive negligence would still require the perpetrator to take accountability and face consequences for their actions that have resulted in a dead child. under the current system with the current legislative and transpotation frameworks this person recklessly endangered people to the most serious degree and is being let off scott free

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    The intersection requires pedestrians to wait, unprotected, in a dangerous location directly at the corner. The designer of the intersection recklessly endangered people to the most serious degree and is being let off scott free.

    The vehicle that did the killing was an SUV. SUVs are large and heavy, with high blunt front ends. These are incredibly dangerous in a colission, far more likely to cause fatalities than modern passenger cars with a low nose that scoop under pedestrians in a colission. The car's designer, manufacturer, and vehicle regulator who allowed this dangerous design onto the streets recklessly endangered people to the most serious degree and are being let off scott free.

    This court isn't even able to try most of those responsible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    None of these abaolve the driver of the responsibility of operating heavy machinery. All of the things you said are teue; that does not chamge the fact the driver was frossly negligent. Just because the responsibility cannot solely be placed on the driver does not mean they should face zero consequences, repercussions, and not have to accept any responsibility for their actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    The judge seems to disagree with you. Like the judge, I have also read the statutes. Gross negligence, as far as the law is comcermed, is far greater than misreading one traffic signal one time.

    The driver, as a presumably ordinary human, made an ordinary human mistake, that anyone could make. North American streets are designed so poorly that a single ordinary mistake results in fatalities.

    Even if the court could grant the consequences you're asking for it would do nothing to make roads safer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    if you think that not paying attention to the road and a light at an intersection you're driving through at 47 km/h is normal then you need your license revoked. Missing a traffic signal once is missing a speed limit sign, its missing an exit, its accidentally parking on the wrong side of the road during street cleaning. It is not barreling through an intersection at full speed and not even braking until after you've already impacted something. This was not "one mistake" this was an intentional decision (distracted driving is not accodental) that has led to the death of a small child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent