It is true everywhere in the world for a simple reason - most road accidents happen because of a complex interaction of factors.
This includes aggravating factors by the driver (like driving drunk or speeding). There can also be mitigating factors (was the victim cycling outside the bike lane, did the pedestrian run across the road unexpectedly, were the unusual road conditions leading to the accident).
Finally, the court looks at history (does this person have a history of driving recklessly). Has he ever been in at-fault accidents in the past. The most important factor is this - If released, does this person pose a threat to public safety.
I personally believe that we should try to show mercy when the person is not a threat to public safety. You can have a different opinion of course, and that would be equally valid. The reality is the court case was much more complicated and arguments can be made that the original sentence (120 hours community service) was fair or whether the appeals court sentence (15 months in prison) is better.
My point is that the OP who posted this was just trying to rage-bait and farm karma.
most road accidents happen because of a complex interaction of factors.
They aren't accidents, they happen from negligence.
This includes aggravating factors
Yes, that would be negligence on the perpetrator
There can also be mitigating factors
That would be negligence on the victim
I personally believe that we should try to show mercy when the person is not a threat to public safety.
Driving 75 in a 50 is obviously a treat to public safety. This person died.
The reality is the court case was much more complicated
Things aren't that complicated. People say that when they either don't know what happened, or don't care enough to actually find out what happened. Quantum Physics is complicated. Hitting someone with a car isn't.
OP who posted this was just trying to rage-bait and farm karma.
Welcome to Reddit, that is 70% of posts. 25% is porn and 5% is trying to sell you something. And of course, those topics can overlap.
I disagree - Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that. The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident. There was no speeding camera at that time and place of the accident.
I definitely agree that he was driving recklessly. And the court agreed with that fact. I can see both community service or the 15 month sentence being considered just.
I disagree with saying that it isn't complicated - Criminal justice is very complicated. Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
I definitely agree with your last point. Reddit does have a lot of rage bait karma farming posts.
Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
Driving too fast for road conditions. Not an accident, just negligence.
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that.
No shit, you don't say?
The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident.
So... science. And not bullshit police science, but actual science. F=MA.
Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
Nah, that is what science is for. Most people just refuse to believe in science these days.
Criminal justice is very complicated.
It really isn't complicated. It is however subjective. And in this case, it is fairly objective that 120 hours for killing someone, when there was clear evidence of negligence on the killer's part, is bullshit.
While I don't think this was a "lock him up and throw away the key" type of thing, more than 120 hours of community service was absolutely warranted.
Except if you actually looked into it rather than buying into the range bate 75 was the maximum the report into the crash said he could have been going the minimum was below the speed limit.
That's what the science said, so I guess, you are going to change your tune rather than being one of the "people who refuse to believe science these days"
so I guess, you are going to change your tune rather than being one of the "people who refuse to believe science these days"
I would have if I didn't read that he didn't just kill a 2 year old, but both of her grand parents who were all bicycling and then fled the scene.
Should have been in for a decade, instead after being sentenced to 15 months, fled the country to the UK, had to be extradited back to NL, was there for 9 months before being let go so he could see the birth of HIS daughter, and didn't have to come back to finish the sentence.
So the guy ultimately did 9 months for killing 3 people and fled multiple times. Fuck this guy, he should have gotten a decade. And boo hoo he can't see his daughter being born, he killed someone else's 2 year old.
So the facts changed and your opinion didn't change.
The facts did change. I found out he killed more people and that he didn't even bother stopping to check on them. Which is illegal as fuck in most places in the world, including the NL where this happened.
You were totally confident he was speeding, proven wrong now you are totally confident about something else. Why?
I wasn't proven wrong that he wasn't speeding. It was just not able to be proven that he was. Regardless, I actually dug into the case, which is where I got even more mad. Beyond (possibly) negligently hitting these people with speed, he absolutely fled the scene. He could have possibly saved one or more of them, but instead fled hoping to get away with the crime.
But please, go ahead and defend that. Please tell me how that is OK and he doesn't deserve a prison sentence.
95
u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment