A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario cop playing the plea-bargaining game in advance.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 14th 05, 06:43 AM
owner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 14th 05, 09:35 AM
gpsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 09:35 AM
gpsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 04:18 PM
Snow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 04:18 PM
Snow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 06:18 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 06:18 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 07:37 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 14th 05, 07:37 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 15th 05, 12:49 AM
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.