Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

Graces7

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The speeding, the leaving the scene of the accident. Has she been charged with either of these crimes or is that just according to the deceased family and/ or the journalist?

please read my posts, from canada, and as they say, watch this space.

mrsbyrne

Graces7 wrote: »

you are imposing irish road standards and policing standards on canada. see my post please. her corrupt cop husband did a cover up but the videos will surface.

canada is less sentimental and stricter than here thankfully.

the boys were not reckless but riding safely in a designated cycle lane

she was over the speed limit and drunk. the public needs protection.

Who has decided her husband is corrupt? Who has decided the boys were not reckless? You, based on newspaper stories??

SparkySpitfire

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The speeding, the leaving the scene of the accident. Has she been charged with either of these crimes or is that just according to the deceased family and/ or the journalist?

No, she admitted to the speeding herself but they haven't charged her with it, and they acknowleged that she never had the breathalyser either.

So far, NEITHER of the parties' claims have been tested or proven in court so it's still very much up in the air. This is the best news article I've come across about it. Most reporting on it from this side of the world are rags:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+with+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

SparkySpitfire

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Who has decided her husband is corrupt? Who has decided the boys were not reckless? You, based on newspaper stories??

Who has decided that he is not corrupt? Who has decided the boys were reckless? You, based on newspaper stories??

None of us were there, we just have to wait for the results of the court case.

SpaceTime

Graces7 wrote: »

you are imposing irish road standards and policing standards on canada. see my post please. her corrupt cop husband did a cover up but the videos will surface.

canada is less sentimental and stricter than here thankfully.

the boys were not reckless but riding safely in a designated cycle lane

she was over the speed limit and drunk. the public needs protection.

I've knowledge of both and to be honest they're very similar.

Irish road death rates are actually significantly lower than Canada. 4.06 per 100,000km driven in Ireland vs 9.2 in Canada, 12.3 in the USA and 3.59 in the UK.

Surprisingly, Irish people actually drive MORE km per year than most North Americans too. We're comparable to mid density populated areas of the US and probably small town Canada.

Irish weather is a lot better on average in terms of lack of snow and ice but, Canadians mostly drive in urban areas.

Policing in Canada has its issues. There have been enormous scandals over the years and the judicial system is very very similar to ours.

So, all in all similar setup with significantly more dangerous driving conditions.

mrsbyrne

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Who has decided that he is not corrupt? Who has decided the boys were reckless? You, based on newspaper stories??

None of us were there, we just have to wait for the results of the court case.

Forgive me please if i continue to operate on the basis that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Its an old fashioned concept.

SparkySpitfire

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Forgive me please if i continue to operate on the basis that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Its an old fashioned concept.

Exactly, the boys too are innocent until proven guilty. Not that they (well, one of them) can care much about that, but their families can.

mrsbyrne

Graces7 wrote: »

please read my posts, from canada, and as they say, watch this space.

your posts are from officila police files Graces??

osarusan

Graces7 wrote: »

so...yes the boys were riding three abreast but safely in a designated cycle lane which are the norm in canada ie off limits to cars.

woman was driving too fast and clearly drunk or stoned; kept her foot on the accelerator. also over the speed limit..nb she too was out in the small hours.

husband, a cop, hustled her off the scene, which is illegal, and he will probably lose his job and rightly so, so she could not be breathalyzed.

Graces7 wrote: »

the boys were not reckless but riding safely in a designated cycle lane

she was over the speed limit and drunk. the public needs protection.

From the link provided in post 106:

They were returning to their homes about 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, riding abreast along the two-lane paved rural road, when they were hit from behind by Simon’s black SUV.

he report also confirmed that Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 km/h, above the 80 km/h limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one. A roadside screening device was administered “out of an abundance for caution,” the report said, and registered “zero alcohol content in her blood system.”

Graces7

mrsbyrne wrote: »

your posts are from officila police files Graces??

from equally reliable sources i have good reason to trust yes, more so than police files at present.

you are equating innocent until proved guilty with innocent. there is no innocence when a boy has died at your hands unless he threw himself under your wheels shouting he was committing suicide.

wonder how you would react were you the driver...i know my response. utter guilt. total .

SpaceTime

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Forgive me please if i continue to operate on the basis that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Its an old fashioned concept.

Yup very true in criminal law both in Ireland and Canada. You have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not prove that you're innocent.

However in civil law, it's about the balance of probability.

Pumpkinseeds

Graces7 wrote: »

having family in canada i asked them about this.

there is no sympathy there for the driver.

the whole incident was videod and the videos have...vanished. opinion is that they will be leaked later.

so...yes the boys were riding three abreast but safely in a designated cycle lane which are the norm in canada ie off limits to cars.

woman was driving too fast and clearly drunk or stoned; kept her foot on the accelerator. also over the speed limit..nb she too was out in the small hours.

husband, a cop, hustled her off the scene, which is illegal, and he will probably lose his job and rightly so, so she could not be breathalyzed.

her suing is to try to deflect from her guilt so no sympathy for her.

she killed a boy and his brother killed himself as a result. we have to answer for our actions

that is the reaction in canada.

To be honest Grace7, I would take the opinion of your family in Canada with a pinch of salt. Like the rest of us your relatives weren't there. Reading the posts here a lot of people are taking the side of the family with no evidence to back up the trial by media that is clearly taking place around the incident. Lots and lots of conspiracy theory and speculation on this.

Personally I'd leave it for a court to decide, if any charges are ever brought.

SparkySpitfire

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

To be honest Grace7, I would take the opinion of your family in Canada with a pinch of salt. Like the rest of us your relatives weren't there. Reading the posts here a lot of people are taking the side of the family with no evidence to back up the trial by media that is clearly taking place around the incident. Lots and lots of conspiracy theory and speculation on this.

Personally I'd leave it for a court to decide, if any charges are ever brought.

The entire court thing seems to be a farce.

The kid who died paid the ultimate price and the woman who killed him will never be the same again. I don't doubt that she's suffering massive psychological trauma, but so is everybody else involved, the friends cycling with him, the brother who died soon after and the parents. She killed him and she can never forget that, but she didn't set out to do any harm, it was a tragic accident.

Has everyone concerned not paid enough without having to bring money into this? That's what I find most shocking about the whole thing.

No Pants

Graces7 wrote: »

you are equating innocent until proved guilty with innocent.

miss no stars

No Pants wrote: »

People are found guilty or not guilty, innocence is never proven.

No Pants

miss no stars wrote: »

People are found guilty or not guilty, innocence is never proven.

Innocence doesn't have to be proven.

Pumpkinseeds

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

The entire court thing seems to be a farce.

The kid who died paid the ultimate price and the woman who killed him will never be the same again. I don't doubt that she's suffering massive psychological trauma, but so is everybody else involved, the friends cycling with him, the brother who died soon after and the parents. She killed him and she can never forget that, but she didn't set out to do any harm, it was a tragic accident.

Has everyone concerned not paid enough without having to bring money into this? That's what I find most shocking about the whole thing.

I think at this point her life has been turned upside down by the accident and that's before the media had dragged her name through the mud. I can't imagine what it must be like for her and her family having to deal with the fall out of it all. The families of the teenagers have had all the support and she's been tarred as a monster. Maybe she just feels angry at the way she's been treated. It seems bizarre to me that the entire media seems out to get her with what seems to be very one sided reporting.

It's all sensationalist journalism when you Google the story. Given the way she's been portrayed by the media she may feel that she really hasn't got anything left to lose. Or maybe she's just hoping that by counter suing that the family will drop their law suit against her. Who knows? There are no winners in a case like that.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

drunk

Link to proof?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+with+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

The South Simcoe review also addressed a number of the mother’s other concerns, many of which appeared to have sprung from town rumours.

One such was that Simon’s husband, Jules, was a member of the South Simcoe force, but as the report to Brandon’s mother said, in fact he is an officer with York Regional Police who had never met the investigator from Simcoe before.

The report also confirmed that Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 km/h, above the 80 km/h limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one. A roadside screening device was administered “out of an abundance for caution,” the report said, and registered “zero alcohol content in her blood system.”

So, she wasn't drunk.

Graces7 wrote: »

wonder how you would react were you the driver...i know my response. utter guilt. total .

So you'd have no qualms with paying the million to the family?

The teenagers were cycling on a rural road two abreast wearing dark clothes, no lights. I'd call this suicidal.

Regarding the lawsuit, the counter-sue is pretty much calling the families bluff; go ahead with the lawsuit, and we'll sue you.

SparkySpitfire

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think at this point her life has been turned upside down by the accident and that's before the media had dragged her name through the mud. I can't imagine what it must be like for her and her family having to deal with the fall out of it all. The families of the teenagers have had all the support and she's been tarred as a monster. Maybe she just feels angry at the way she's been treated. It seems bizarre to me that the entire media seems out to get her with what seems to be very one sided reporting.

It's all sensationalist journalism when you Google the story. Given the way she's been portrayed by the media she may feel that she really hasn't got anything left to lose. Or maybe she's just hoping that by counter suing that the family will drop their law suit against her. Who knows? There are no winners in a case like that.

I know we can only guess at her motivations, but she was already being persecuted by media but now she's given them more fodder to call her a monster. Although your last point about counter-suing is an interesting one. Her life was ruined - no doubt about it, but at least she still has a life. I can have sympathy for her though.

I noticed that too, if you Google it, you get results from the Daily Mail and The Mirror and other such respected newspapers. I didn't have to click on them because I knew what they'd say.

Maybe if the media never got involved to such a degree this whole debacle wouldn't be as ugly as it is. You're right in that they're all losers here. The money won't make either party truly happy at the end of the day.

StinkyMunkey

the_syco wrote: »

Link to proof?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+with+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

So, she wasn't drunk.


So you'd have no qualms with paying the million to the family?

The teenagers were cycling on a rural road two abreast wearing dark clothes, no lights. I'd call this suicidal.

Regarding the lawsuit, the counter-sue is pretty much calling the families bluff; go ahead with the lawsuit, and we'll sue you.

When i first read the article, I thought what a bitch.

But know i know the real story, i can actually understand why she is suing.

Cyclists on rural roads is a particular worry of mine, even in the day time. Its hard enough to spot people in dark clothing on bikes in the suburbs, let alone down some winding rural road.

osarusan

the_syco wrote: »

Link to proof?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+with+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

So, she wasn't drunk.

I posted that on the last page. Graces7 has also posted since, but seems to have missed my post somehow.

I'd say yours will somehow be missed too.

mrsbyrne

Graces alleges the driver was drunk or stoned and also alleges corruption and paints the cyclists as fully compliant with best practice regarding cycling at night. Other posters have given information that I feel is probably closer to the truth.
Why do people insist on rushing to judgement based on flimsy biased evidence?
Its very unfaiir to slander someone in this way.

Shakespeare's Sister

She said herself she was driving 10kmph in excess of the speed limit. The kids were in the wrong for sure, but unfortunately she was speeding. Not by a huge amount, but still speeding - I'm not pointing it out to judge her, it's simply not a factor that can be ignored.

the_syco

Magaggie wrote: »

Not by a huge amount, but still speeding - I'm not pointing it out to judge her, it's simply not a factor that can be ignored.

Had she been going the correct speed (60km/h), I'm unsure if it would have made any difference.

Considering they were cycling in the dark without lights, without a helmet, two or three abreast on the road, and it was overcast, it sounds like Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

having family in canada i asked them about this.

there is no sympathy there for the driver.

the whole incident was videod and the videos have...vanished. opinion is that they will be leaked later.

so...yes the boys were riding three abreast but safely in a designated cycle lane which are the norm in canada ie off limits to cars.

woman was driving too fast and clearly drunk or stoned; kept her foot on the accelerator. also over the speed limit..nb she too was out in the small hours.

husband, a cop, hustled her off the scene, which is illegal, and he will probably lose his job and rightly so, so she could not be breathalyzed.

her suing is to try to deflect from her guilt so no sympathy for her.

she killed a boy and his brother killed himself as a result. we have to answer for our actions

that is the reaction in canada.

repeating this, as fact. you are seeing this as if on an irish road.
you wanna believe else, feel free. your choice. mine is as above.

she has done neither herself nor her husband any favours as now fuller investigations are o ngoing.

over and out . too sick and in too much pain so closing down. risking it seems being accused of not replying but hey, your freedom...