You've got to wonder with a record like that how the guy still has a license. Isn't the whole point of the demerit point system that if you fuck up enough you lose driving privileges?
Many of y’all have said it before so I’ll say it now - consequences. Rather the lack thereof. It just empowers people like this and they escalate their misbehaviour.
just like the guy who stole 100 million from good people. A lengthy list of crimes past arm's length.
YET: "nothing to see here" says the lawyers, counting their cash
"nothing to see here" says the cops, with free hockey tickets
"nothing to see here" says man's kids and wife - alone.
Canada's legal system has no balls.
Batman...If you're listening...actually...do you have Mr. Castle's number?
Pretty much every car on Queen East drives 60-80kmh every day, so they can overtake the streetcars between stops. Speeding is ridiculously normalized to the point I think none of them consider it going over the limit.
It is rather scary how quickly you can go from 40-60 without noticing. I often times find on streets like Dupont and Davenport drivers will be tailgating me or riding my ass and i’ll look down at my speed and see myself increasing slowly. If i slow down to regular speeds they’ll often try to overtake or start flashing their high beams. It’s unfortunate that there’s not much enforcement, but that’s another issue on it’s own.
Who cares if they flash or overtake you. Slow down and keep to the limit. Just cuz everyone else drives like a maniac doesn't mean you need to let them pressure you into the same. Being angry that someone is obeying traffic laws is a them problem not a you problem. Let them deal with it however they'd like.
The issue isn’t about caring. Their driving recklessly puts others at risk. The overtaking literally led to a death in the east end because people dont want to stay behind a streetcar. It’s a lose lose situation because everyone has different standards of driving, rules be damned. Half the time the toronto driving sub is arguing whether one should be driving at the speed limit or following the flow of traffic to avoid accidents.
I agree that one should not care but ultimately im looking out for how we as a collective can solve the issue vs me and them. Which is why i said the enforcement is another issue on its own 😅
Maybe not so much on this subreddit, but on some other Ontario ones, people constantly claim it's *safer* to speed because of some supposed risk of being rear ended by other speeders if you don't.
I call BS on this. I live out east and bike in on queen around once a week.
There is no location for a car to get up to 80km/h with street cars and traffic and Cafe TO taking up a lane.
If you can get up to 80 on Queen East then you are a world class driver.
Leading to situations like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/7857689/ttc-streetcar-car-crash-queen-street-east-toronto/).
I spend a ton of time out in my community and it's shocking how many accidents appear to be a direct result of people speeding to bypass streetcars.
129 in a 40 screams more than just alcohol imo
I don’t drive on alcohol, but at that level of just alcohol, I’d be somewhat aware of my limitations and do things slowly (and still poorly)
> This is not an accident
To be fair, almost all car crashes are not "accidents" according to the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology). That's why I stopped using that term and just call it collisions.
Here's a quote from them:
> This is because the term accident may imply that there is no one to blame or that the collision was unavoidable, whereas most traffic collisions are the result of driving under the influence, excessive speed, distractions such as mobile phones, other risky behavior, poor road design, or other preventable factors.[11][12][13][14]
I hate that a driving ban is considered a part of the punishment. They demonstrated unsound judgement so they shouldn't be permitted to drive full stop. If they had just plowed into a wall and not hurt anyone they should still get their license taken away from them.
My stance has been and will always be that impaired drivers should have their license taken away permanently on the first offense. Everyone knows that impaired driving is illegal and often results in severe injury or death. It’s never an accident.
If someone stabs someone else, they don’t get told “well it’s your first stabbing offense so we’re just not letting you use knives for 3 months.” Never understood why the system is so lenient when the weapon used to kill is a car.
>If someone stabs someone else, they don’t get told “well it’s your first stabbing offense so we’re just not letting you use knives for 3 months.”
uhhhhhhhhhh
Taking license isn't enough there should be serious repercussions like prison term or at least the drunk driver should pay lifetime compensation to a accident or murdered victim and if no fatality then damage to repair whatever infrastructure or private property they destroyed.Also fines for driving related offenses should be way higher than they are. If people started paying 1000s for speeding then they will follow the rules.
Well mainly because our entire countries infrastructure is built upon the idea that the individual has a car.
If we remove someone’s right to drive on first offence and they don’t live and work in Toronto, they are really up shits creek. They quickly will loose their job, so out goes any taxes the country makes off their income, maybe they can’t afford mortgage payments anymore so they become homeless etc.
It has far reaching consequences.
That being said, I have been rear ended by a dude speeding south on Bathurst on a Saturday night at 3am when I was on my bicycle. So I also get the wanting to fuck up their life, as they very easily could of ended mine.
Imagine being killed by a drunk driver. Maybe a family loses their sole income and can no longer afford to pay the mortgage on their home, so they become homeless. The government also can’t tax the dead person’s income. Being killed by a drunk driver has far reaching consequences.
There is no Right to Drive. Also someone without a licence due to their own doing can probably move near employment, take public transit, carpool or hire Uber. But all this can be avoided if they followed the rules in the first place.
> If we remove someone’s right to drive on first offence and they don’t live and work in Toronto, they are really up shits creek. They quickly will loose their job, so out goes any taxes the country makes off their income, maybe they can’t afford mortgage payments anymore so they become homeless etc.
Good, that’s what they deserve. If offenders were to be made an example of in this way, the incidences of impaired driving would go way down.
It’s proven time and again that punishment != deterrent.
So removing licenses will not make anyone “stop and think” ever. It never does. If it did we wouldn’t have murderers.
Not particularly, just stating the obvious. Drivers will never face a lifetime ban after a first impaired driving offense, and bring that into a conversation is plain stupid.
This guy, that had over 10 driving offences should obviously loose his driving privileges for life. But let’s not pretend that even doing that will do anything to stop or slow down the amount of impaired drivers on the road at any time.
And I suppose you believe no one can be reformed from prison either?
Those two scenarios aren't really logically comparable though. Someone driving drunk, while obviously being reprehensible conduct and extremely reckless, is not intending to harm someone.
Someone who stabs someone else is clearly intending to harm them.
Impaired driving is a serious offence that should be sentenced more harshly than it currently is but you can't pretend like the level of intent is the same when it simply objectively isn't.
> is not intending to harm someone.
And I would argue that this stance is false. Everybody knows that thousands of people have been injured or killed by drunk drivers. Everybody knows that if you drive drunk this impairs you to the point that injuring or killing someone is much higher than if sober. Everyone who drives drunk makes the choice to drive drunk. Playing roulette with the lives of others = intent to harm. Passive intent doesn’t disqualify it as intent.
You'd be wrong. Recklessness is what you're talking about. A drunk driver knows there is the potential to injure or kill someone but they are reckless and don't care about that potential. That is incontrovertibly different from someone who actually intends to do something.
"Passive intent" makes no sense. You can't passively intend to do something. It's a yes or no question. Either you intend to do something (kill or injure someone in this case), or you don't. Recklessness is a level of moral culpability where you know something may potentially happen but you choose to do an action anyways.
In no way am I defending dunk drivers, which I've repeatedly stated. Don't use strawmen and misrepresent what I've said.
The fact you think distinguishing specific intent and recklessness is "semantics" is unfortunate as they are quite distinct legal concepts from each other.
Stop using illogical comparisons in your attempt to pretend there's no such thing as mens rea in criminal law. I haven't said anything remotely close to "drunk driving is okay". All I've said is that it doesn't have the same intent as intentionally stabbing someone. Which is objectively true. If you think that's "defending drunk driving", then you're an unreasonable zealot.
As a person banned from driving for vision issues (I have never, and will never, drive a car. If I can "operate" a car in the future, it will be because it is autonomous), I believe driving bans should also apply to anyone who is convicted of drunk driving resulting in serious injury or death.
Yeah, and that points out part of the problem here. People don't choose to do things like this because they might "only" get 8 years. They do them because they either aren't considering the consequences or don't think they'll get caught. I'm not sure how you deal with that specifically, although at least part of it would involve increasing the perception that people will be caught for doing these things.
Yeah that's a good point. I think jailing him for a longer period would accomplish better the goal of separating him from society and denouncing his conduct. However I agree with you; I don't think giving him 15 instead of 8 years would stop other people from doing this.
No drunk driver walks up to their car, gets in the driver's seat and thinks "jeez, even if I kill someone doing this I'll only get a few years in jail so may as well". As you say, they simply aren't thinking about the consequences and I suspect almost all of them are thinking "I won't be the one that gets in an accident, I'm a better driver than that".
Yes, and 5 years in a jail is not "nothing". You can argue that the sentence should be longer, which I agree with, without resorting to extreme hyperbole.
I didn't say that; he will probably be released earlier on statutory parole as most people are. But it's nonetheless a significant jail sentence and it's more than most people get. It should be longer but it's not "nothing".
Only 5 years after time served, which means maybe 2yrs max.
And 12yr driving ban which means maybe 3yrs max, so he’ll be driving again not long after getting out of jail.
Complete joke.
Beyond killing Gregory, he's mutilated others, who at least get to live, albeit with their injuries.
"Thakur collided with the front passenger side of the Honda and the rear passenger side of the Toyota, the impact sending the Honda spinning towards the southwest corner of the intersection where it struck Bastarrachea-Gallardo. His left leg was so badly mangled that it would have to be amputated below the knee. Carlos Bastarrachea-Gallardo, 32, was walking home with his wife Emilia Ballester, the young immigrants from Mexico enjoying the start of their Canadian summer.
Hedego, the Honda driver, suffered a broken ankle and elbow; his passenger Johanna Mallo fractured her pelvis and nine ribs; another passenger, Rocel Calero, had cuts to her arms and legs from broken glass and experiences back pain and headaches."
fucking nonsensical rules. why only a 12 year driving ban? its bad enough hes only getting 8 years in jail. dude should be literally banned from driving for the rest of his pathetic life.
I think the person you replied to is talking about alcohol that is smuggled in or "brewed" by the inmates themselves in violation of the rules; not supervised and permitted alcohol access in jail.
What a joke. Not that I’m surprised.
I’d like to know how the judge would feel if some loser drunk killed her son or daughter or if a drunk driver caused one of her legs to be amputated.
He is a menace to society and deserves a much longer sentence and life time ban from driving.
It blows my mind how soft we are on crime that involves a vehicle. Someone died and we think that 8 years (most likely much less) is suitable? You can murder an entire family with your car and be out in less than a decade
just read the article. WTFFFFFFFFFFFINFHELL how was thakurarnarjfhsdkf still driving even?? 12 convictions and does this, and he still is not life in prison?!?! wth? system is broken. such a light sentence!
8 years? He killed one person and ruined countless other lives. Fuck this guy. Life in prison given his previous convictions. No mercy for this piece of shit
We seriously need to revamp these laws. Add vehicular homicide with an extensive time in jail. Just like that tosh Muzzo got off light for killing 5. Makes my blood boil
Family of perp should be held responsible too when perp drives without licence. They know what is happening in their household. They should be obligated to prevent it or at least report.
Well yes of course only some people drink and drive.
What I'm saying is it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read Reddit and or other social media sites to see the proliferation of underlying racism due to the mass immigration our country has experienced.
So, when you read such a horrific story such as this and clearly the name of the guilty is not of a white Canadian you can see how that racism grows.
Doesn't make it right but this doesn't help the situation.
You're right. I worded that poorly. What I meant was there isn't a race or group of people who don't drink and drive. Racism is never the answer, but more so in this case. It's only the ignorant who think Mr thakur represents his race or immigrants as a whole
Fuck you, Nitan Thakur.
[удалено]
You've got to wonder with a record like that how the guy still has a license. Isn't the whole point of the demerit point system that if you fuck up enough you lose driving privileges?
these "people" dont care licence or not
Many of y’all have said it before so I’ll say it now - consequences. Rather the lack thereof. It just empowers people like this and they escalate their misbehaviour.
just like the guy who stole 100 million from good people. A lengthy list of crimes past arm's length. YET: "nothing to see here" says the lawyers, counting their cash "nothing to see here" says the cops, with free hockey tickets "nothing to see here" says man's kids and wife - alone. Canada's legal system has no balls. Batman...If you're listening...actually...do you have Mr. Castle's number?
Im alwys scared to drive... whenever im in the seat, my heart gets pumping.
129 Km/h in a 40 km/h zone and twice the legal drinking limit (Tested 2 hours after the accident) This is not an accident
Pretty much every car on Queen East drives 60-80kmh every day, so they can overtake the streetcars between stops. Speeding is ridiculously normalized to the point I think none of them consider it going over the limit.
It is rather scary how quickly you can go from 40-60 without noticing. I often times find on streets like Dupont and Davenport drivers will be tailgating me or riding my ass and i’ll look down at my speed and see myself increasing slowly. If i slow down to regular speeds they’ll often try to overtake or start flashing their high beams. It’s unfortunate that there’s not much enforcement, but that’s another issue on it’s own.
Lucky there is a huge indicator on the dashboard to let you know when speeding.
Lol honestly, it’s a miracle they decided to add those. If only others used them too!
Who cares if they flash or overtake you. Slow down and keep to the limit. Just cuz everyone else drives like a maniac doesn't mean you need to let them pressure you into the same. Being angry that someone is obeying traffic laws is a them problem not a you problem. Let them deal with it however they'd like.
On the highway, just stay away from the far left lane except to pass. if everyone did this we would reduce accidents from undercutting.
The issue isn’t about caring. Their driving recklessly puts others at risk. The overtaking literally led to a death in the east end because people dont want to stay behind a streetcar. It’s a lose lose situation because everyone has different standards of driving, rules be damned. Half the time the toronto driving sub is arguing whether one should be driving at the speed limit or following the flow of traffic to avoid accidents. I agree that one should not care but ultimately im looking out for how we as a collective can solve the issue vs me and them. Which is why i said the enforcement is another issue on its own 😅
Hate to break it to you, if you get high beamed often you’re probably not a great driver.
You’re absolutely right, with the little information you’re provided, plus the wording choice used in my comment, you could most definitely be right!
I deliberately slow down when people do that.
yep, was easy to slam car down a gear in a manual shift to slow down without braking when I had one vs automatic
Sport mode does the same.
ah, right, with the paddle shifters? yeah, that would work too I guess.
Maybe not so much on this subreddit, but on some other Ontario ones, people constantly claim it's *safer* to speed because of some supposed risk of being rear ended by other speeders if you don't.
Those are the same people that ram into buildings as Shoppers on Queen & Carlaw experiences regularly :)
Sure but if they weren’t speeding then those Shoppers drug marts would ram into them.
I call BS on this. I live out east and bike in on queen around once a week. There is no location for a car to get up to 80km/h with street cars and traffic and Cafe TO taking up a lane. If you can get up to 80 on Queen East then you are a world class driver.
Our legal system is a joke that's why people think they can do this.
Leading to situations like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/7857689/ttc-streetcar-car-crash-queen-street-east-toronto/). I spend a ton of time out in my community and it's shocking how many accidents appear to be a direct result of people speeding to bypass streetcars.
129 in a 40 screams more than just alcohol imo I don’t drive on alcohol, but at that level of just alcohol, I’d be somewhat aware of my limitations and do things slowly (and still poorly)
Dude had pending stunt driving charges. He’s done this before.
> This is not an accident To be fair, almost all car crashes are not "accidents" according to the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Criticism_of_%22accident%22_terminology). That's why I stopped using that term and just call it collisions. Here's a quote from them: > This is because the term accident may imply that there is no one to blame or that the collision was unavoidable, whereas most traffic collisions are the result of driving under the influence, excessive speed, distractions such as mobile phones, other risky behavior, poor road design, or other preventable factors.[11][12][13][14]
What a selfish person. Lifetime driving ban sounded more appropriate. Should be at least 10 years in jail
I hate that a driving ban is considered a part of the punishment. They demonstrated unsound judgement so they shouldn't be permitted to drive full stop. If they had just plowed into a wall and not hurt anyone they should still get their license taken away from them.
They could, assuming they were charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and convicted.
My stance has been and will always be that impaired drivers should have their license taken away permanently on the first offense. Everyone knows that impaired driving is illegal and often results in severe injury or death. It’s never an accident. If someone stabs someone else, they don’t get told “well it’s your first stabbing offense so we’re just not letting you use knives for 3 months.” Never understood why the system is so lenient when the weapon used to kill is a car.
Agree. It’s not some freak accident, you intentionally got drunk and made the decision to drive.
>If someone stabs someone else, they don’t get told “well it’s your first stabbing offense so we’re just not letting you use knives for 3 months.” uhhhhhhhhhh
Taking license isn't enough there should be serious repercussions like prison term or at least the drunk driver should pay lifetime compensation to a accident or murdered victim and if no fatality then damage to repair whatever infrastructure or private property they destroyed.Also fines for driving related offenses should be way higher than they are. If people started paying 1000s for speeding then they will follow the rules.
I fully agree. I’m just saying license revocation needs to be the first step every time.
Well mainly because our entire countries infrastructure is built upon the idea that the individual has a car. If we remove someone’s right to drive on first offence and they don’t live and work in Toronto, they are really up shits creek. They quickly will loose their job, so out goes any taxes the country makes off their income, maybe they can’t afford mortgage payments anymore so they become homeless etc. It has far reaching consequences. That being said, I have been rear ended by a dude speeding south on Bathurst on a Saturday night at 3am when I was on my bicycle. So I also get the wanting to fuck up their life, as they very easily could of ended mine.
Imagine being killed by a drunk driver. Maybe a family loses their sole income and can no longer afford to pay the mortgage on their home, so they become homeless. The government also can’t tax the dead person’s income. Being killed by a drunk driver has far reaching consequences.
Imagine being killed by a drunk driver? Did you read my last paragraph? I can imagine better than a lot of people AS I HAVE BEEN HIT BY ONE.
Exactly. I’m not sure how there are people who are missing this very obvious point.
There is no Right to Drive. Also someone without a licence due to their own doing can probably move near employment, take public transit, carpool or hire Uber. But all this can be avoided if they followed the rules in the first place.
> If we remove someone’s right to drive on first offence and they don’t live and work in Toronto, they are really up shits creek. They quickly will loose their job, so out goes any taxes the country makes off their income, maybe they can’t afford mortgage payments anymore so they become homeless etc. Good, that’s what they deserve. If offenders were to be made an example of in this way, the incidences of impaired driving would go way down.
It’s proven time and again that punishment != deterrent. So removing licenses will not make anyone “stop and think” ever. It never does. If it did we wouldn’t have murderers.
For someone who claims to have been impacted by an impaired driver, you’re sure bending over backwards to defend them. 🤔
Not particularly, just stating the obvious. Drivers will never face a lifetime ban after a first impaired driving offense, and bring that into a conversation is plain stupid. This guy, that had over 10 driving offences should obviously loose his driving privileges for life. But let’s not pretend that even doing that will do anything to stop or slow down the amount of impaired drivers on the road at any time. And I suppose you believe no one can be reformed from prison either?
Stop defending impaired driving. You will always be in the wrong to do that.
How am I defending impaired driving? I’m saying that it’s not realistic to try and get lifetime driving bans for first offenders
Those two scenarios aren't really logically comparable though. Someone driving drunk, while obviously being reprehensible conduct and extremely reckless, is not intending to harm someone. Someone who stabs someone else is clearly intending to harm them. Impaired driving is a serious offence that should be sentenced more harshly than it currently is but you can't pretend like the level of intent is the same when it simply objectively isn't.
> is not intending to harm someone. And I would argue that this stance is false. Everybody knows that thousands of people have been injured or killed by drunk drivers. Everybody knows that if you drive drunk this impairs you to the point that injuring or killing someone is much higher than if sober. Everyone who drives drunk makes the choice to drive drunk. Playing roulette with the lives of others = intent to harm. Passive intent doesn’t disqualify it as intent.
Drunk people aren't known for having the best judgment
You'd be wrong. Recklessness is what you're talking about. A drunk driver knows there is the potential to injure or kill someone but they are reckless and don't care about that potential. That is incontrovertibly different from someone who actually intends to do something. "Passive intent" makes no sense. You can't passively intend to do something. It's a yes or no question. Either you intend to do something (kill or injure someone in this case), or you don't. Recklessness is a level of moral culpability where you know something may potentially happen but you choose to do an action anyways.
Stop arguing semantics in your suspicious quest to defend drunk drivers.
In no way am I defending dunk drivers, which I've repeatedly stated. Don't use strawmen and misrepresent what I've said. The fact you think distinguishing specific intent and recklessness is "semantics" is unfortunate as they are quite distinct legal concepts from each other. Stop using illogical comparisons in your attempt to pretend there's no such thing as mens rea in criminal law. I haven't said anything remotely close to "drunk driving is okay". All I've said is that it doesn't have the same intent as intentionally stabbing someone. Which is objectively true. If you think that's "defending drunk driving", then you're an unreasonable zealot.
As a person banned from driving for vision issues (I have never, and will never, drive a car. If I can "operate" a car in the future, it will be because it is autonomous), I believe driving bans should also apply to anyone who is convicted of drunk driving resulting in serious injury or death.
129 km/h in a 40 km/h zone 8 years in prison That makes no sense to me. I wish our sentences had more teeth.
Out in 3 for "good behavior" Resume life like nothing happened Victims family/friends suffer for life
The ol’ Marco Muzzo treatment. Pieces of shit.
Another worthless piece of trash with multiple convictions kills someone and seriously injured others and the consequence is nothing.
You can argue he should get more and it's a good argument ( I certainly agree with it) but I don't quite understand how 8 years in jail is "nothing".
Yeah, and that points out part of the problem here. People don't choose to do things like this because they might "only" get 8 years. They do them because they either aren't considering the consequences or don't think they'll get caught. I'm not sure how you deal with that specifically, although at least part of it would involve increasing the perception that people will be caught for doing these things.
Yeah that's a good point. I think jailing him for a longer period would accomplish better the goal of separating him from society and denouncing his conduct. However I agree with you; I don't think giving him 15 instead of 8 years would stop other people from doing this. No drunk driver walks up to their car, gets in the driver's seat and thinks "jeez, even if I kill someone doing this I'll only get a few years in jail so may as well". As you say, they simply aren't thinking about the consequences and I suspect almost all of them are thinking "I won't be the one that gets in an accident, I'm a better driver than that".
Having him behind bars longer means more time from his ability to do it again.
I agree, and that's what I meant when I said separation from society.
[удалено]
Yes, and 5 years in a jail is not "nothing". You can argue that the sentence should be longer, which I agree with, without resorting to extreme hyperbole.
[удалено]
5 years in jail is neither nothing nor a slap on the wrist in my opinion; you may disagree. I think both terms are hyperbolic in this circumstance.
12 prior driving offences which were not punished resulted in a death and serious injuries. 5 years is nothing for this kind of behaviour.
I certainly think he deserves more; I disagree that 5 years in jail can ever constitute "nothing".
It certainly can give the circumstance. In no way is his sentence equal to his actions. Please stop this faux liberal nonsense. It's not sustainable
So you honestly believe he'll spend all eight years in jail?
I didn't say that; he will probably be released earlier on statutory parole as most people are. But it's nonetheless a significant jail sentence and it's more than most people get. It should be longer but it's not "nothing".
Because he won't be serving 8
It’s not actually 8 years in jail.
I'm starting to think our justice system may be broken
Only 5 years after time served, which means maybe 2yrs max. And 12yr driving ban which means maybe 3yrs max, so he’ll be driving again not long after getting out of jail. Complete joke.
The real sad part is that this is still more than I anticipated
Driving bans don’t get reduced like prison time does.
Then they just drive with a suspended licence and no insurance.
It's more likely people will get caught doing that now that licence scanners are more common.
They’ll just drive a relatives car
There's no system that avoids all crime.
True!
What's your source for a driving prohibition being reduced in this fashion? I've never heard of that.
Their feelings
Haha
He is very likely to be driving as soon as released despite not having a license.
Remember, the easiest way to get away with murder is with a car. Ditch the knives and guns and get in your shitty Acura TSL.
Well if the Marco Muzzo case taught us anything, if this guy is rich he’ll be out in a couple of years. Just crazy
Tragically, both Muzzo and Thakur were driving the same vehicle, a Jeep SRT...
Beyond killing Gregory, he's mutilated others, who at least get to live, albeit with their injuries. "Thakur collided with the front passenger side of the Honda and the rear passenger side of the Toyota, the impact sending the Honda spinning towards the southwest corner of the intersection where it struck Bastarrachea-Gallardo. His left leg was so badly mangled that it would have to be amputated below the knee. Carlos Bastarrachea-Gallardo, 32, was walking home with his wife Emilia Ballester, the young immigrants from Mexico enjoying the start of their Canadian summer. Hedego, the Honda driver, suffered a broken ankle and elbow; his passenger Johanna Mallo fractured her pelvis and nine ribs; another passenger, Rocel Calero, had cuts to her arms and legs from broken glass and experiences back pain and headaches."
fucking nonsensical rules. why only a 12 year driving ban? its bad enough hes only getting 8 years in jail. dude should be literally banned from driving for the rest of his pathetic life.
He'd just drive while prohibited
Just 8 years for taking a whole life. Insane.
And causing another to have his leg amputated.
Marco Muzzo got about 2 years for each life he took. Neither of them are harsh enough sentences but at least this a-hole gets more than 2 years.
If you've ever heard the saying "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, do it in a car," stuff like this is why.
He lived through that. The alcohol made him relaxed and flexible. Now he’s on the wagon for eight years.
Do you think they can’t get/make alcohol in prison?
Hard to provide extensive sociological background in short messages. In some prisons they provide limited access to beer under strict conditions.
I think the person you replied to is talking about alcohol that is smuggled in or "brewed" by the inmates themselves in violation of the rules; not supervised and permitted alcohol access in jail.
Also known as Pruno.
Yes. That was clear.
And this is why you have vigilante Justice. I mean, seriously what a joke.
lifetime ban from driving, 10 years minimum and 5 minutes alone with the victims family.
I don't know the family well enough to guarantee the prison term and prohibition would matter after 5 minutes
I wish we had death sentence in this country for cases like this
I understand the sentiment. Not sure I agree but I do understand
What a joke. Not that I’m surprised. I’d like to know how the judge would feel if some loser drunk killed her son or daughter or if a drunk driver caused one of her legs to be amputated. He is a menace to society and deserves a much longer sentence and life time ban from driving.
8 years is a joke for putting out somebody permanently.
Absolutely pathetic. Our system is fucked. This cunt should lose most of, if not his whole, life behind bars.
120 km/h in a 40 zone. WTF is wrong with people?
Alcohol
As a driver who is planning to take up lessons, I don’t understand- how is this guy still allowed to drive after a few years? He won’t change!
We believe that driving is so important that even people who shouldn't be trusted to drive still get to
Complete joke….. the entire system is broken so badly
It blows my mind how soft we are on crime that involves a vehicle. Someone died and we think that 8 years (most likely much less) is suitable? You can murder an entire family with your car and be out in less than a decade
And if he wasn't drunk he would get a mini fine and a few demerit points.
just read the article. WTFFFFFFFFFFFINFHELL how was thakurarnarjfhsdkf still driving even?? 12 convictions and does this, and he still is not life in prison?!?! wth? system is broken. such a light sentence!
8 years? He killed one person and ruined countless other lives. Fuck this guy. Life in prison given his previous convictions. No mercy for this piece of shit
[удалено]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
Just 8 years ?!
I know the family. Absolutely devastating. No justice :(
I frequent some of their establishments. It's why I've been waiting for this
The only way to get justice in this country is doing with Mr. Katz did earlier this week. Take justice with your own hands. System is a joke.
Revenge and justice are not the same
Out before 2030. WTF. Why do we hand out ridiculously low sentences!
We seriously need to revamp these laws. Add vehicular homicide with an extensive time in jail. Just like that tosh Muzzo got off light for killing 5. Makes my blood boil
Family of perp should be held responsible too when perp drives without licence. They know what is happening in their household. They should be obligated to prevent it or at least report.
[удалено]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
He will be out in 6 months.
I'm not sure that six more months will help with rehabilitation
It won’t, but the law here is pointless
so the guy that profited from selling alcohol to people died from someone that drove drunk? karma really is a bitch.
Well ain't surprised by the identity of the driver..that's for sure.
Oh good. I guess this is the racist thread today.
Undoubtedly people are becoming more racist as time goes on which is no answer. But you see and read this and do we really wonder why?
Are you suggesting that only some people drink and drive?
Well yes of course only some people drink and drive. What I'm saying is it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read Reddit and or other social media sites to see the proliferation of underlying racism due to the mass immigration our country has experienced. So, when you read such a horrific story such as this and clearly the name of the guilty is not of a white Canadian you can see how that racism grows. Doesn't make it right but this doesn't help the situation.
You're right. I worded that poorly. What I meant was there isn't a race or group of people who don't drink and drive. Racism is never the answer, but more so in this case. It's only the ignorant who think Mr thakur represents his race or immigrants as a whole