If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ontario cop playing the plea-bargaining game in advance.
While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the
vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following charge costs 4 demerits. Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of proof? The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and therefore to assure a conviction. A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van) showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what happened. But we're not sure how to approach it. I have fought a speeding ticket before, and had a good idea what to ask for insofar as disclosure by the prosecutor, but I am not clear at all what to ask for here besides witness statements and a copy of the ticket (both sides). How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? Feel free to write to me via email. Remove "REMOVE" for complete email address |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
owner wrote: <brevity snip>
> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > > The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), > and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > > The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following > charge costs 4 demerits. > > Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge > with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of > proof? > > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? "In the US" a charge of "following too closely" would have to be witnessed by the officer in question. I assume this was not the case. Therefore, a charge of "careless driving" would be the logical alternative and correct charge. Running into someone from behind is obviously careless and, since a collision obviously occured, the burden of proof is nil. "Following too closely" may or may not result in a collision. ----- - gpsman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
owner wrote: <brevity snip>
> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > > The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), > and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > > The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following > charge costs 4 demerits. > > Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge > with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of > proof? > > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? "In the US" a charge of "following too closely" would have to be witnessed by the officer in question. I assume this was not the case. Therefore, a charge of "careless driving" would be the logical alternative and correct charge. Running into someone from behind is obviously careless and, since a collision obviously occured, the burden of proof is nil. "Following too closely" may or may not result in a collision. ----- - gpsman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The original charge of careless is correct, What the cop did was use the
higher charge to ensure that the lower charge will be all but ensured in court with a plea bargain. Couple years ago I had an a$$#*!@ run a red light and hit me, this instance the cop only charged for running a red light, he should have charged him for careless driving causing bodily harm (as I was injured) this would have 1) take an incompetent driver of the road, 2) would have ensure the judge would pull his license as the prick already had 10 points against him. result was he took it to court on the running a red charge and got off scott free. Snow... "owner" > wrote in message ... > While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > > The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), > and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > > The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following > charge costs 4 demerits. > > Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge > with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of > proof? > > The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the > Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly > like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop > used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, > etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and > therefore to assure a conviction. > > A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How > hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an > objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, > should be used for something more than a fender-bender? The only damage > to the other vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber > (mini-van) showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. > > We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what > happened. But we're not sure how to approach it. I have fought a > speeding ticket before, and had a good idea what to ask for insofar as > disclosure by the prosecutor, but I am not clear at all what to ask for > here besides witness statements and a copy of the ticket (both sides). > > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? > > Feel free to write to me via email. > > > > Remove "REMOVE" for complete email address |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The original charge of careless is correct, What the cop did was use the
higher charge to ensure that the lower charge will be all but ensured in court with a plea bargain. Couple years ago I had an a$$#*!@ run a red light and hit me, this instance the cop only charged for running a red light, he should have charged him for careless driving causing bodily harm (as I was injured) this would have 1) take an incompetent driver of the road, 2) would have ensure the judge would pull his license as the prick already had 10 points against him. result was he took it to court on the running a red charge and got off scott free. Snow... "owner" > wrote in message ... > While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > > The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), > and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > > The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following > charge costs 4 demerits. > > Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge > with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of > proof? > > The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the > Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly > like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop > used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, > etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and > therefore to assure a conviction. > > A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How > hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an > objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, > should be used for something more than a fender-bender? The only damage > to the other vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber > (mini-van) showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. > > We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what > happened. But we're not sure how to approach it. I have fought a > speeding ticket before, and had a good idea what to ask for insofar as > disclosure by the prosecutor, but I am not clear at all what to ask for > here besides witness statements and a copy of the ticket (both sides). > > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? > > Feel free to write to me via email. > > > > Remove "REMOVE" for complete email address |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, owner wrote:
> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with > "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely" > (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, > while the Following charge costs 4 demerits. > The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the > Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly > like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop > used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, > etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and > therefore to assure a conviction. Y'think? > A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? It's common practice everywhere. Another variant: Driver: "Aw, shoot! A cop wants me to pull over!" Cop: "I clocked you going 80 in a 50 zone. I'm writing you up for 65 in a 50 zone." Driver: "Judge, this is my first offence, can we convert this to a non-moving violation if I take traffic school and promise never to do it again?" Judge: "No. The cop already gave you a break on your speed." > surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for > something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other > vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van) > showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. Look at it from the law's perspective. Driving carelessly (or while distracted) can result in a wide range of damage and injury, or even death. In your friend's case, the damage was minor. That's lucky for all parties involved. But it could've been much worse, and the cause would've been the same: your friend's failure to pay attention to the driving task. Remember, Breaking and Entering is B&E, even if the perpetrator doesn't damage or steal anything. In that light, the charge makes sense and sort of proves itself: If s/he'd been paying attention to the driving task, s/he wouldn't have been following too closely and wouldn't have hit the car in front. > We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what > happened. By all means, but be prepared for some of the responses above. > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? That's a toughie. DS > Feel free to write to me via email. > |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, owner wrote:
> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the > vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with > "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely" > (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, > while the Following charge costs 4 demerits. > The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the > Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly > like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop > used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, > etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and > therefore to assure a conviction. Y'think? > A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? It's common practice everywhere. Another variant: Driver: "Aw, shoot! A cop wants me to pull over!" Cop: "I clocked you going 80 in a 50 zone. I'm writing you up for 65 in a 50 zone." Driver: "Judge, this is my first offence, can we convert this to a non-moving violation if I take traffic school and promise never to do it again?" Judge: "No. The cop already gave you a break on your speed." > surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for > something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other > vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van) > showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. Look at it from the law's perspective. Driving carelessly (or while distracted) can result in a wide range of damage and injury, or even death. In your friend's case, the damage was minor. That's lucky for all parties involved. But it could've been much worse, and the cause would've been the same: your friend's failure to pay attention to the driving task. Remember, Breaking and Entering is B&E, even if the perpetrator doesn't damage or steal anything. In that light, the charge makes sense and sort of proves itself: If s/he'd been paying attention to the driving task, s/he wouldn't have been following too closely and wouldn't have hit the car in front. > We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what > happened. By all means, but be prepared for some of the responses above. > How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the > charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice > automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? That's a toughie. DS > Feel free to write to me via email. > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
owner > wrote: >While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the >vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > >The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), >and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > >The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following >charge costs 4 demerits. > >Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge >with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of >proof? I would expect that there's more to prove for "careless driving" >The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the >Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly >like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop >used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, >etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and >therefore to assure a conviction. Got it in one. Welcome to the modern-day justice system. It's like haggling at a third-world market, or like raising in poker to force the other guy to fold regardless of your hand. >A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How >hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an >objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, >should be used for something more than a fender-bender? I doubt the charge even requires an accident. You'd have to look it up. >How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the >charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice >automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? That's a job for an expert (that is, a lawyer), unfortunately. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
owner > wrote: >While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the >vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. > >The cop charged this person with "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), >and not "Following Too Closely" (HTA section 158(1)). > >The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, while the Following >charge costs 4 demerits. > >Apparently the officer has this kind of discretion, to lay the charge >with the greater penalty? But doesn't it require a greater burden of >proof? I would expect that there's more to prove for "careless driving" >The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the >Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly >like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop >used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, >etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and >therefore to assure a conviction. Got it in one. Welcome to the modern-day justice system. It's like haggling at a third-world market, or like raising in poker to force the other guy to fold regardless of your hand. >A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? How >hard is it to prove Careless in this instance? I know that's an >objective question, but surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, >should be used for something more than a fender-bender? I doubt the charge even requires an accident. You'd have to look it up. >How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the >charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice >automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? That's a job for an expert (that is, a lawyer), unfortunately. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
bring your gun to court and SHOOT THE PIG, PROBLEM SOLVED.
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, owner wrote: > >> While driving, an acquaintance got into a collision, rear-ending the >> vehicle in front, at a right-hand turn. The cop charged this person with >> "Careless Driving" (HTA, section 130), and not "Following Too Closely" >> (HTA section 158(1)). The Careless charge has a penalty of 6 demerits, >> while the Following charge costs 4 demerits. > >> The cop advised this person to go to the prosecutor, tell him/her the >> Careless charge was for "Following Too Closely". That sounds incredibly >> like advising plea-bargaining by the cop. It seems to me that the cop >> used the higher charge, with it's higher penalties ($200 to $1,000 fine, >> etc) to pretty much assure a plea-bargain on the lower charge, and >> therefore to assure a conviction. > > Y'think? > >> A naive question to be sure, but is this common practice in Ontario? > > It's common practice everywhere. Another variant: > > Driver: "Aw, shoot! A cop wants me to pull over!" > > Cop: "I clocked you going 80 in a 50 zone. I'm writing you up for 65 in a > 50 zone." > > Driver: "Judge, this is my first offence, can we convert this to a > non-moving violation if I take traffic school and promise never to do it > again?" > > Judge: "No. The cop already gave you a break on your speed." > >> surely careless driving, a 6-demerit offence, should be used for >> something more than a fender-bender? The only damage to the other >> vehicle was, literally, the rubber mat on top of the bumber (mini-van) >> showing a small crack. The paint didn't even chip. > > Look at it from the law's perspective. Driving carelessly (or while > distracted) can result in a wide range of damage and injury, or even > death. In your friend's case, the damage was minor. That's lucky for all > parties involved. But it could've been much worse, and the cause would've > been the same: your friend's failure to pay attention to the driving task. > > Remember, Breaking and Entering is B&E, even if the perpetrator doesn't > damage or steal anything. > > In that light, the charge makes sense and sort of proves itself: If s/he'd > been paying attention to the driving task, s/he wouldn't have been > following too closely and wouldn't have hit the car in front. > >> We will contest this, because it seems to be way too severe for what >> happened. > > By all means, but be prepared for some of the responses above. > >> How do we go to court saying (sorry for the layman's terms), that the >> charge is too severe for what happened, without the judge/justice >> automatically finding guilt on a lesser charge? > > That's a toughie. > > > DS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Feel free to write to me via email. >> |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|