Printable View
This entitled piece of dung has destroyed a family yet was only given a 10 yr sentence. Factor in time served and I bet he isn't in jail very long. This is why we needed a tough on crime pro law and order government. Maybe Omar Kahdr can coach him on media manipulation and all will be well. Before you know it we will also have a bunch of drivers high on weed endangering our loved ones. Sunny days.This prick deserved a life sentence.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ir-grandfather
What a piece of trash
I hope he gets his in jail
Read an article that theorized he could be out in 2-4 years. If so that's 1 year for each.
Not a stellar month for our justice system.
10 years in jail is a pretty long time to think about what he did and the lost are lost, nothing will get them back.
Instead of wasting money in jail I'm all for "Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" type law, let parents and familly take care of the judgment....
He will be getting 9 months knocked off for time served (6months).
Eligible for parole after 3 years.
No-one is disputing his remorse, nor that he pled guilty quickly (right away).
Even if he doesn't get parole the first time around, no way he will serve the full nine years.
So if he serves 3 years (36 months).
four dead people, or 9 months for each.
Quote:
The short sentences imposed in some cases of impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, the generous credit given for pre-conviction imprisonment and the fact that many of these offenders are paroled after serving only one-third of their sentence has generated controversy and angered victims of impaired driving.
http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD_C...work_FINAL.pdf
The title of the post is incorrect, here in Canada we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. With a legal system, he pled guilty, was sentenced, and will serve his time in accordance with the legal system. So in the legal system, he gets 10 years. Now there is credit for any time he has already spent confined, usual on a ratio, spend X days in jail, get credit for X times some arbitrary value they may apply, 3 times, 4 times, 10 times with the factor increasing dependant on your social status (translation, how much money you have). So that comes directly off the sentence. In Canada, you can apply for parole after serving 1/3 of your sentence, sometimes sooner, so if you had 10 years, credit for 1 year for spending a couple of days in jail prior to the trial, leaves 9 years, 1/3 of that is 3 years, apply for early parole and he could be out in time to celebrate New Years Eve with all his friends at the local club.
Now if we had a justice system, he would be sentenced to 10 years and walk out of jail a free man at the end of 10 years. And if there was truly justice, as he walked out of jail, a drunk driver coming down the street would turn him into a smear across the roadway.
One can only dream,,,,,
He will serve the mandatory 2/3rds of his sentence. I bet he is paroled soon after. In Chatham we had a drunk kill 4 ladies, he got a mere one year for each lady he killed. With parole, he didn't serve the four years. If I remember correctly, he served three years. IMHO, you kill someone while driving impaired, 25 yrs minimum !!!!
Just don't seem fair does it.
Am not going to comment on the duration of his sentence, we know what everyone thinks.
But I'm positive his life here is over, he will have to face this for the rest of his life. And if he
tries and forgets, society will always remind him. He will carry this guilt on his shoulders for
the rest of his life, whether he gets out early or not.
I hope he becomes some big nasty guy's "girlfriend" in jail and can't sit down the whole time he's in jail. My guess he ends up in some cushy country club like penitentiary. He is the son of a Billionaire.
They said at noon he would probably end up in a minimum security prison with t v , etc and will get day passes in a short time. If he gets phone he would even beable to run his business from his cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
People like him don't care the only remorse he has is he got caughtQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
And do you know that? Because he is rich?Quote:
Originally Posted by sambo
Yes because drunks don't careQuote:
Originally Posted by seabast
Unfortunately justice depends on how much money you can spend for your layer
Not sure Sambo. It's one thing to drink and drive and get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sambo
It's another thing to live with the nightmare of waking up every morning knowing
you've killed 3 innocent children and their grandfather. If he really has no remorse,
God help him ...
I hope i'm wrong. Time will tell
I'm not happy about the sentence, but the crime was driving drunk, the results, it was an accident. Stupidity for getting into the car and driving drunk, but he didn't intentionally kill these people. I know if I was in his position I would never drink again in my life, and given the means that he has, I would never drive again. I don't know him, I don't know what he is like, but unless he "suffers" from [COLOR=#6a6a6a]Affluenza, if you believe in that, I would think that he will remember this for the rest of his life.
I feel bad for all involved on both sides.
This is a tragedy on all levels. One stupid decision resulted in the destruction of two families. This same stupid decision is made every day. I don't for one minute think that this guy "does not care".
My guess is he is out in 3 years max. Resumes his coddled life as the son of a Billionaire. He got his drivers license revoked for only 12 years so his wife gets an upgrade on her multiple vehicles and he hires a chauffeur. He should have had it yanked for his entire life. In Canada you basically get a year in Prison for every person you kill. In reality they get billed for the first dead one and all the others are free. In the USA they stack the sentences so he would have got 40 yrs down there. I like that system. He chose to drink and chose to drive because entitled azzholes like him don't think the rules apply to them. people like him make return of the death penalty seem reasonable. And I would bill him for the juice in the needle and bill his family for disposal of the corpse.
He has a long record of hiway traffic act violations. He is an adult who spilled out of the private jet completely drunk and drove away. No pity. None. I hope he gets raped every day in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Finally some compassion. I'm all for serving the consequences whatever the crime. That doesn't mean I don't have some compassion for the offender. I would bet there are some on here who drank and drove , but no accidents happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
I can assure you that he won't emerge from prison the same man. He will suffer for the rest of his life .
We are all capable of the worst of crimes.
I was 6 when my grandmother was smoked by a DD while walking on a country road. While I don't remember her or carry it the rest of my life, the way my father did.....
Ms Lake will carry the anguish of losing her 3 toddlers the rest of her life to. Don't know her from Adam but I'd bet even money her life is ruined and she may not recover. She might become an alcoholic, or a statistic.
While I may not wish any "harm" on this guy. I have zero sympathy for him. In time he will get out and resume his life of privelage. Ms Lake? Don't bet on it.
I lost a cousin to a drunk driver and a good buddy from high school ( 2 victims in that one ). Both drivers were caught, both were adults and got minimal sentences. No sympathy. You choose to drink you choose to drive. That woman will likely live a life of pure hell and anguish.
Terry, although I also have very little sympathy (thinking this could have been my own children), the media has totally twisted this around, and made him look worse. The long highway traffic act violations I have heard consist of parking ticket offences and some speeding fines. My "long list" probably looks just as bad as his long list. Let's make sure we know the facts, and understand the media only puts fuel in the fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
The guy is going to live with this for the rest of his life. The parents are going to live with this the rest of theirs, and their pain will be greater than Muzzo's pain. It is a trategy all around.
Im very torn on this.
While I feel in a vacuum 10 years is not nearly enough, we're not in a vacuum. Hes not a violent offender. His risk of re-offending is likely low. Keeping him in jail rotting away will serve only to waste our taxpayer money.
If we had some way to give him a lifetime of work for the state and betterment of society with no benefit to himself then I'd be all for it, but unfortunately we do not.
Theres no easy answer to this one. I dont like that he'll be out early, but I also feel the money it costs to keep him any longer then that doesnt make sense.
What I can't understand is will this set the precedent now for an average sentence of 2 years for killing a person while drunk driving.
I can be pissed as I a few years ago got 3.5 years for growing 10 pot plants and pleading guilty. He gets 2.5 per life he took.
Don't seem fair does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cantcatchacold
No, we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
I hate when people make that or similar statements.
Some of us have moral compasses that govern how we live and what we do.
We're not perfect by any means, but we try to live "good lives" and that tends to keep the transgressions
on a much smaller scale than those who live recklessly without care for their or others safety.
Something bad happens and people say "It could happen to anyone". Sometimes true, but more often
its a consequence of a risky action that that "Could only happen to any fool who takes risky actions without regard for consequences."
[QUOTE=werner.reiche;966221]No, we're not.
I hate when people make that or similar statements.
Some of us have moral compasses that govern how we live and what we do.
We're not perfect by any means, but we try to live "good lives" and that tends to keep the transgressions
on a much smaller scale than those who live recklessly without care for their or others safety.
Something bad happens and people say "It could happen to anyone". Sometimes true, but more often
its a consequence of a risky action that that "Could only happen to any fool who takes risky actions without regard for consequences."[/QU0TE ]
Most definitely agree with your post ! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
[QUOTE=jaycee;966267]What he said ^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
That would be good if that was accurate,but,alas,it's not. US justice,in almost all jurisdictions,is woefully slow on the uptake that drunk driving should be treated the same as homicide. If you do the research of the US Justice Department,it's readily evident that their attitudes are,at least,where ours was thirty years ago. Judges in district courts still routinely grant limted driving priviledges to convicted drunk drivers to go to work,get groceries and,get this,drive kids to school. I have a nephew from the US who was busted for impaired use of a snowmobile and was released on a "Promise to Appear" here in Ontario. That was in 2001. He went back home and essentially forgot about it thinking the "statute of limitations" would run out (hot flash for the dumb Yank.WE don't have any). Fast forward to 2013 when he wanted to come up here for a family function and it was good he checked on his status,first. The whole family down there were quite aghast to find out there's a warrant for his arrest and if he had have went to the border,he would be going right straight to jail and would be staying there until his trial started. He literally can NOT come to Canada until this is rectified. They just don't get it down there. They have a very long way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
With this ending the way it did I am waiting to see the outcome of the Tim Bosma case. Our system is a Joke and needs a overhaul. But I have a feeling there are too many bleeding hearts out there that will fight a overhaul because it will cost a more housing these criminals long term. but again everyone complains about cases like this and how our system is a joke.
a co worker says bringing back the death penalty could cut costs and make these people think twice before acting. but that's behind us now.
http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overvie...e_Overview.pdf
Approximate Jail or Prison Sentences Possible inTraffic Crash Deaths Caused by a Drunk Driver*Alabama: 1 to 10 yearsAlaska: 1 to 99 yearsArizona: 1 to 22 yearsArkansas: 5 to 20 yearsCalifornia: 0 to 10 yearsColorado: 0 to 24 yearsConnecticut: 1 to 10 yearsDelaware: 1 to 5 yearsDC: 0 to 30 yearsFlorida: 0 to 15 yearsGeorgia: 0 to 15 yearsHawaii: 0 to 10 yearsIdaho: 0 to 15 yearsIllinois: 1 to 28 yearsIndiana: 2 to 20 yearsIowa: 1 to 25 yearsKansas: 0 to 172 monthsKentucky: 0 to 10 yearsLouisiana: 3 to 30 yearsMaine: 6 months to 10 yearsMaryland: 0 to 5 yearsMassachusetts: 30 days to 15 yearsMichigan: 0 to 20 yearsMinnesota: 0 to 10 yearsMississippi: 5 to 25 yearsMissouri: 0 to 15 yearsMontana: 0 to 30 yearsNebraska: 1 to 50 yearsNevada: 2 to 25 yearsNew Hampshire: 0 to 15 yearsNew Jersey: 5 to 10 yearsNew Mexico: 0 to 6 yearsNew York: 0 to 15 yearsNorth Carolina: 15 to 480 monthsNorth Dakota: 0 to lifeimprisonmentOhio: 1 to 15 yearsOklahoma: 0 to 1 yearOregon: 0 to 20 yearsPennsylvania: 0 to 10 yearsRhode Island: 5 to 20 yearsSouth Carolina: 1 to 25 yearsSouth Dakota: 0 to 15 yearsTennessee: 8 to 60 yearsTexas: 2 to 20 yearsUtah: 0 to 15 yearsVermont: 1 to 15 yearsVirginia: 1 to 20 yearsWashington: 31 to 177 monthsWest Virginia: 90 days to 10 yearsWisconsin: 0 to 40 yearsWyoming: 0 to 20 years*Time is listed as approximate as an offender may be charged withother crimes which may add on to the sentence.
What I find alarming is that driving drunk is still such a generally accepted practice. One of my friends is a City Of kawartha Lakes OPP, and it amazes me when I see her after a shift. It is completely routine to charge 3 or 4 people in a 10 hour shift with impaired. Usually several warnings in the same shift. And this during normal day shifts (not during special ride checks during holidays). It's usually not the repeat offender either, so there are a ton of people doing it on a regular basis. The message doesn't seem to be getting through, and the person's view of the consequences must be minor).
It's a shame that people can't be responsible with cars and alcohol. It almost seems it has an allure that is conducive to driving around and drinking.
I always thought that if folks could work a shift with me they would never drink and drive again. The bloody cleanup, the destroyed futures, the helplessness you feel when informing the next of kin. You'd think any one of those would deter anyone, much less the combination. However it's just not a deterrent.
I have literally caught Rescue Fireman and Cops DUI. I know they have to witness just as bad of a mess as I do with drinking and driving but I still caught them. I don't mean caught randomly or accidentally, I mean extremely drunk and swerving on the equivalent of the 401 and headed into another State(the fireman).
Their wives and children travel those same roads too.
I just don't get it.
Sometimes justice is only poetic.
There is no justice, only LAW. Some while back we lost the "justice" when the source of law changed. We also lost our knowledge of freedom, and we lost the basis for what Werner calls a moral compass. "Without morals we can have no freedom", without ethics grounded solidly upon God, there is no morality and the "moral" compass is all messed up. So when you have a legal system based on what is expedient, and not what is ethical or moral, there can be no justice.
The courts don't take impaired driving seriously . Around here, they are allowing impairds to plead guilty to careless driving and withdrawing the impaird charges....! Something seriously wrong there.
Excellent words.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
That is exactly the problem !!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
No use having RIDE programs and advertising programs if your just going to water it all down in the end.
You know, reading all this, I wonder what the reaction would be if Mark Muzzo wasn't drunk, but still killed 3 children and a grandfather from distracted driving (reading his cellphone while driving).
Would the public be just as outraged?
If so, does anyone have a statistic on how many people still drive and use their cellphone. I'm willing to bet that MANY people do. So it just begs the question ... why has the public gone crazy about drinking and driving (not that I'm condoning it), but yet think it's "better" (as in not as bad as drunk driving) if someone gets killed due to distracted driving?
Going further ... all those condeming Mark Muzzo ... I hope none of those people for sure drink and drive, but I also hope that none of them use their cellphone and drive ... it's no better than drinking and driving, and I believe the leading cause of accidents today.
I think the response would be the same. Lots of people still using there cellphones and driving, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
The responses would been a lot different, you probably wouldn't have heard about it at all (beside local news paper). There are roughly 2000 fatalities in Canada from car accident, which one do you hear about? And if he wasn't rich, it wouldn't have been the same response either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
I don't think the response would be the same at all. I think a lot of people would have just shut up about it, because probably 1/3rd of the population is texting and driving (totally my wild guess). So begs the question ... what makes people think they can judge a person who's drinking and driving, when they are doing something just as bad (maybe much worse?) like texting and driving?
I'm all for punishing Mark Muzzo for killing 3 innocent babies, but I do think it's wrong that society thinks they can act as judge and jury. Social media has just turned us into mob frenzied judgers who overlook our own shortcomings (and hope no one else finds out).
I can agree somewhat with the comparison. However it is looked at one way when one is incapable of driving(intoxicated) and another when one is capable of driving but distracted for whatever reason. End results CAN be the same as you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
I have worked wrecks where a woman was putting on makeup while driving in traffic and looking at herself in the rear view mirror.
Yep, she rear-ended a guy stopped at a redlight. It is possible for people to be stupid rather than drunk.
Since stupidity has become epidemic and common, those people give it a pass more so than drunkenness.
I'm convinced that he was distracted at the wheel above and beyond being drunk. I drive by that intersection every day and on a bright sunny Sunday afternoon, there's no way he could have not seen a vehicle approaching the intersection, even with the amount of alcohol he had in his system. Running a stop sign is one thing, but not seeing a moving minivan at a completely open intersection is another.
Driving impaired and texting is definitely a big NO NO!!! Everyone should know that.....Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbnot
Had a transport truck, who was turning left in front my me today, almost run into me. He had a Timmy's in his hand and was turning the rig left with one hand on the wheel. He lost control momentarily.
Distracted driving is now a bigger problem (fatality-wise) than impaired.
http://www.680news.com/2014/03/04/di...d-driving-opp/
78 people were killed in distracted driving
57 impaired deaths
44 speed-related ones
I drive @ 50k a year on business and have seen it all but by far the most prevalent and dangerous thing is imbeciles texting. If they made it legal to just talk on a cell phone while holding it in your hands it would probably save lives. Still distracting but at least they would be looking at the road.
I had a Peterborough cop shake her finger (tsk,tsk) at me yesterday when she saw the Timmies in my hand while I sat at a non-functioning traffic light. If she hadn't been on "point duty",I likely would have gotten a ticket because she certainly could have.
I put over 5000K on my bike past summer and I saw the same thing Terry. Way too much time with eyes off the road, way too far over the fog line and way too slow for the surrounding traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Hold on, you're saying you can't drink a coffee and drive? As in pick up the cup, drink and put it down?
Why then does every single car out there have cup holders in the front?
I used to use my cell in the car a little at first but then got it through my head that I'M NOT THAT IMPORTANT it can wait. I think a lot of people have a hard time coming to terms with that.
True, and it's just too convenient. Way too easy and tempting to make or answer a call and even if one is not inclined to use it, all want to see whom is calling or texting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
In Ontario,it's always been a provincial offense to have anything in your hand while driving. It's in the Ontario Regulations attached to The Highway Traffic Act. It's only since the advent of the cell phone as a result of some grizzly collisions that governments have been pressured into stricter enforcement and stiffer fines.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
Wow I didn't realize that either. I don't drive around with a coffee in hand but sip on one on the way to work. Has anybody heard of someone getting a citation for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
x1000 . What else drives me nuts is the self important wanker yakking on the phone standing in line at the store. ARGGGGGG .Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger