官媒是看不出什么了，reddit上还是有人研究的。左派人士就是喜欢感情用事，浪费大家时间和纳税人的钱。

newvest1(newvest)

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛While initially outraged that one could be given no punishment at all for what is essentially murder, I gave the entire judgement a read and now have mixed feelings about it. To be clear, I neither agree or disagree with the judgement but I can present some reasons on why the judge here granted an acquittal. The biggest thing to note here is that the defendant was being tried in criminal court- that is, they're looking to see if he committed a criminal act deserving of imprisonment or other criminal sentence. Dangerous driving is illegal and this driver was driving dangerously at the time of the accident- there is zero doubt about that. However, there a number of requisite factors that must be met for the dangerous driving to be considered criminal. The Crown is open to appeal if they truly believe they have a case after the judgement was delivered but they may not (probably prompting public outrage in the process). The judge states multiple times that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the driver was driving recklessly for a prolonged period of time. The available evidence indicated to him that the driver was going the speed limit up until just 2-3 seconds before the accident. The judge also states multiple times that the driver was "objectively driving dangerously" so the judge does recognize the speeding and the dangerous driving. However, for all intents and purposes, it appears it was only momentarily. The other case where he was found guilty of excessive speeding cannot be recognized here as being related. The key flaw in the Crown's case is that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dangerous driving departed from mere carelessness to malicious intent. The evidence also suggests that the doctor may not have signaled his intent to turn and the defendant, speeding, did not expect the doctor to turn as he had right-of-way and that braking indicates that he was not being inattentive.. just.. careless. In addition to criminal proceedings, the victim's family will probably try the defendant in civil court where there is almost no chance they will lose and the defendant will probably be handed some driving restrictions and a huge civil penalty. But guess who loses in the end? ICBC... and all BC drivers who has paid for this man's defence and will pay whatever financial sum he must pay to the victim's family.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

(#11578874@0)
Last Updated: 2018-6-12
This post has been archived. It cannot be replied.

这个得签。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578305@0) +1

早晨的CBC都提到这个petition。 -calgarycat(POCO大猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578659@0)

如果是正常时速下撞死人，判疏忽还说得过去，超速90公里撞死人，就是犯罪。 -alang(阿朗); 2018-6-12 (#11578692@0) +3

看了半天新闻，没看出什么理由acquit.是不是因为他有路权， Dr Hui不该左转？ -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578711@0)

50公里限速开140，路权？ -mikesmith(老猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578715@0)

这个不管的，谁犯错先就是谁犯错先，法律不就是这么定的吗。acquit总要有理由吧？ -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578721@0)

撞人那一瞬间车速不可能从50蹦到140。所以超速在先。 -anexplorer(页于); 2018-6-12 (#11578749@0)

那你说什么理由acquit他了？ -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578753@0)

法官没说路权的事情，只说是司机一时没集中精神不小心，可以被原谅。 -mikesmith(老猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578779@0)

别胡扯了，加拿大又不是中国，至少要给出个合法理由。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578787@0)

不听新闻不看报吧 -mikesmith(老猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578798@0) +1

看了你的报，然后到处去看了看报，反正都是左媒的报，看不到为什么这么判，都是感情用事的报道。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578802@0)

估计法官也确实找不到合理的理由轻判，就这么硬判了。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578810@0) +1

请问加拿大是法制国家吗？不要告诉我不是哦。再怎么胡闹，也不可能这么搞，辛普森还要试一试手套呢。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578814@0)

辛普森在美国呀。。。。。。法官不懂法，在加拿大是常态吧？ -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578816@0)

加拿大判案出问题的多了。那谁说的就跟加拿大全是青天大老爷，判案百分百对。大家都是人，都会犯错。所以才有appeal -mikesmith(老猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578819@0)

没有理由就乱判？法官是不是应该被撤职了？你不是一直喜欢民主国家吗？民主国家不就是因为法律健全些吗？但是法律不是道德，法律上目前没错，道德上可能错了，所以要不断的修正法律。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578828@0)

不懂法还当法官？jesus，如果他不根据法律乱判，完全可以appeal，还会必胜。现在搞petition，主要是受害者也有一定的错吧。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578821@0)

当然都是装不懂，背后肯定有好处。比如加拿大有个法官判UBER不是经营出租车的公司，理由是人们也通过BELL电话叫出租，BELL也不是经营出租车。他故意忽略了BELL只管叫车，不管收费。UBER管收费。。。估计查查法官的账户，会有收获。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578832@0)

一时没集中精神不小心，开到140？我去！！！骗谁呐？ -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578788@0)

我没有兴趣去查。看到超速那么多就签了字。我看法官脑子进水了。 -anexplorer(页于); 2018-6-12 (#11578812@0)

估计不是脑子进水，而是钱进钱包了。。。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578822@0)

有路权，你也不能看见别人挡道，就加速到140公里撞过去啊。。。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578765@0)

well,我不是在说应不应该的问题，还是法律是怎么判的问题。说实话，canadian driver不都是到了intersection，看到有车想左转还加速的更起劲了的。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578778@0)

有路权，看到别人，加速撞过去，肯定是犯罪。记得以前有判例的。要不行人闯红灯，不都得撞死白撞？ -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578784@0)

行人闯红灯，如果不减速，正常速度撞上去，行人的确白死啊。除非证明是超速，但是路口，车和车是另外一回事。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578794@0)

好吧。这个是加速到140啊。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578806@0) +1

之前的速度是119，碰撞时加速到140. driver本人还有其它超速被定罪的事件。 -mikesmith(老猫); 2018-6-12 (#11578811@0)

大家轻点喷哈:) 我看判决上写得很清楚，和辛普森的案子有类似之处，就是合理怀疑。虽然是超速撞死了人，但存在这样的可能性，就是即使肇事者是正常行驶，也可能导致同样的后果。作为刑事控罪，疑罪从无。 -blueshirt(蓝衫); 2018-6-12 (#11578841@0)

他是acquit什么罪？至少超速还是要开罚单的吧？ -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 (#11578851@0)

我理解，开告票是另外一回事，现在诉的是刑事罪，没仔细看，应该是告过失杀人吧？ -blueshirt(蓝衫); 2018-6-12 (#11578854@0)

官媒是看不出什么了，reddit上还是有人研究的。左派人士就是喜欢感情用事，浪费大家时间和纳税人的钱。 -newvest1(newvest); 2018-6-12 {2375} (#11578874@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛While initially outraged that one could be given no punishment at all for what is essentially murder, I gave the entire judgement a read and now have mixed feelings about it. To be clear, I neither agree or disagree with the judgement but I can present some reasons on why the judge here granted an acquittal. The biggest thing to note here is that the defendant was being tried in criminal court- that is, they're looking to see if he committed a criminal act deserving of imprisonment or other criminal sentence. Dangerous driving is illegal and this driver was driving dangerously at the time of the accident- there is zero doubt about that. However, there a number of requisite factors that must be met for the dangerous driving to be considered criminal. The Crown is open to appeal if they truly believe they have a case after the judgement was delivered but they may not (probably prompting public outrage in the process). The judge states multiple times that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the driver was driving recklessly for a prolonged period of time. The available evidence indicated to him that the driver was going the speed limit up until just 2-3 seconds before the accident. The judge also states multiple times that the driver was "objectively driving dangerously" so the judge does recognize the speeding and the dangerous driving. However, for all intents and purposes, it appears it was only momentarily. The other case where he was found guilty of excessive speeding cannot be recognized here as being related. The key flaw in the Crown's case is that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dangerous driving departed from mere carelessness to malicious intent. The evidence also suggests that the doctor may not have signaled his intent to turn and the defendant, speeding, did not expect the doctor to turn as he had right-of-way and that braking indicates that he was not being inattentive.. just.. careless. In addition to criminal proceedings, the victim's family will probably try the defendant in civil court where there is almost no chance they will lose and the defendant will probably be handed some driving restrictions and a huge civil penalty. But guess who loses in the end? ICBC... and all BC drivers who has paid for this man's defence and will pay whatever financial sum he must pay to the victim's family.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

你没明白辛普森为什么无罪。 -anexplorer(页于); 2018-6-12 (#11578867@0)

辛普森做刑事无罪，主要是因为当事警官故意做伪证了，其实真实的证据基本足够判辛普森有罪。由于警官做伪证，很多真实的证据也失效了。所以辛普森刑事上无罪释放。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578924@0)

去好好看看辛普森案吧，远没有这么简单，存在全部证据都是警方伪造的可能性，当然也可能就是他干的（即使证据是伪造的），没人能确定。。也可能将来找到真凶 -mangosteen(MG); 2018-6-12 (#11579043@0)

对。我说与辛普森案有类似处就是指这一点，“存在无罪的可能性”。当然，是不是真的有这个可能性，这一点是可以辨的。 -blueshirt(蓝衫); 2018-6-13 (#11579645@0)

这个理由真有点扯，140公里撞上和50公里装上，那结果能一样吗？要是这都可以叫“合理怀疑”，那任何刑事犯都可以无罪释放了，因为“任何事情都是可能的”----有这一句话就够了。根据测不准原理，嫌疑人的位置都有很多种可能，更别说其他了。。。。。。 -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11578928@0) +1

这个得顶 -4_fun(寻开心: 誓别三推); 2018-6-12 (#11579057@0)

Signed -engaw(沙); 2018-6-12 (#11579061@0)

法官认为这人不是故意的，就这样。跟速度没关系。不过，左转的医生方完全可以指出，如果正常速度，他完全有时间完成左转不会被撞。这时，140的速度就是事故的关键，左转也合法了。 -bricksonly(鑫); 2018-6-12 (#11579065@0)

开到140，不是故意的？ -newrover(漫游); 2018-6-12 (#11579067@0) +1

无法证明他故意嘛。。。他一疏忽刹车踩油门了，你能说啥。。。 -bricksonly(鑫); 2018-6-12 (#11579074@0)
本案的关键就是刑事罪成否。我觉得法官也没太大办法。民事上，无异议，该赔偿还是得赔偿。 -bricksonly(鑫); 2018-6-12 (#11579075@0) +1
140的速度是事后计算出来的撞车时的速度，并不是他正常行驶的速度，至少没有证据证明这一点。那这个速度就可以被解释为肇事者是试图加速以避免车祸。这是我猜的哈。 -blueshirt(蓝衫); 2018-6-13 (#11579667@0)

法官也是人，也受各种潮流影响，没准跟老婆吵个架都影响判决。 -iga(nikita); 2018-6-12 {99} (#11579111@0)

所以才会有难民用冰球棍打老婆半小时判8天；出租司机强奸醉酒乘客没事；还有这个超速90撞死人的放了。。。

这个是直行的闯红灯，法官还是有些道理的。140是撞上去的速度，不是一直跑的速度。比如这人先开80，为了过踩了两下油们就能到140。路上还真有这种赶几秒闯红灯的，我就碰到过。 -gta_palace(GTA_Palace); 2018-6-12 (#11579246@0)

你意思是抢黄灯吧？如果有证据证明是闯红灯撞人，那就完全是另外一回事了。 -blueshirt(蓝衫); 2018-6-13 (#11579654@0)

@Las Vegas

官媒是看不出什么了，reddit上还是有人研究的。左派人士就是喜欢感情用事，浪费大家时间和纳税人的钱。

Replies, comments and Discussions:

More Topics