Just wondering?
This story relates the tale of a guilty plea by the Toronto Fire mucky-muck who was clocked at 150kph on his way to a funeral in Kingston. He was allowed to plead down to a lesser charge of speeding from Stunt Driving. Just wonder who else can do this? Definitely not your average soccer mom or Civic roadster!
13 comments:
When the cop pulled him over did he ask facetiously "Where's the fire?"
But you're right of course, Ben. There`s a law for the rich and a law for the poor and those in uniform look after those in uniform -even if it ain`t the same uniform.
The police charged him, the courts lowered the fine. How about some unbiased comments!
how about the perception of equality before the law
It's hard without being in court to know exactly what happened but my understanding of the evidence is that the measured speed was exactly 50 over the limit and the driver was trying to get to a funeral on time. By the time of the hearing, the driver had already suffered the loss of his vehicle for a period of time and all the other consequences of being charged. In everyday court proceedings I think most of us, client or counsel, would see the logic in, indeed expect, a potential softening of the charge in these circumstances. For one thing, it might be hard for the state to prove that the speed was truly 50 over. I have seen nothing to suggest that this accused got special consideration because of his professional position; on the contrary, because of the public nature of the case he has probably taken more of a beating than most, and any objectives of specific and general deterrence probably have been achieved.
How about the presumption of innocence?
From all the comments here, we have the smug righteousness of people suggesting that the arresting officer was unethically and immorally letting a fellow goverment official off light than he should. And there is the smug righteousness of impuning the justice system with the suggestion that behind the scenes they are obtaining information on the accused's income so that they can deliver a penalty appropriate to the treasure the accused retains.
The bunch of you are a crock with exceedingly little sense of justice -- only your prejudice against those who have acquired more treasure than the lot of you losers. The bunch of you would be a mirror image of the injustice of the system, because I suspect you'd throw the book at him, max it out, why? Because he has a uniform and money. Pathetic prejudice.
As far as equality before the law is concerned, there is equality before the public -- which explains the cowards flying their prejudiced opinions behind anonymity -- perhaps judges should mete out justice behind anonymity also.
Anon. must be the same person who was defending doctors who exclude the poor from their patient list.
I am sure the privileged ones s/he worships appreciate his/her devotion to their inflated sense of entitlement. It would be so unseemly if they had to stick up for themselves without lackeys like our Anon. to do it for them.
I don't disagree at all. I just don't see in this case how it involves the police, who just did their job. How about the politically appointed Justices of the Peace. Who with no formal legal training render these outrageous decisions.
Those in uniform looking after others in uniform? Leaving him to walk and suspending his licence is hardly looking out for him. With friends like that who needs enemies?
I think the government told the courts to let him off with just a fine ,so they could get some money, because of the Lady's appeal that will show the government that this will not pass the bill of rights.
How much treasure have you accumulated, winner Wally?
Depends on who is asking Anony Mouse.
It's ok. You answered elsewhere: bankrupted by an ex-wife. Winner-ex = loser Wally. Question should be: how much treasure did your ex-wife accummulate?
Better question: why do you make the sweeping generalization that all others posting on this blog are losers?
Ok, now it all makes sense. Keeler got hosed by his ex-wife and now he has a bitter and miserable outlook on life.
Martin's post was by far the most considered. Why must everyone jump to conclusions instead of carefully considering the circumstances?
Deb O., simmer down with the sweeping generalizations. Are all poor people as bitter and miserable as you and Wally? I can answer that one ... Nope! I have nothing against anyone that has accumulated or inherited wealth even though I have not. Some of my close friends are quite well off, two of them are doctors and they are all kind, warm and considerate people.
Post a Comment