True Crime and Hockey

[NyQuil]

Even this case aside, I don't think that a family saying "well we think he feels really bad, so he shouldn't face punishment" should excuse a person from legal consequences. Playing professional sports should be a privilege, and I don't think someone who recklessly ends another's life should go on to earn over 50 million dollars playing professional hockey. Just my opinion, i never knew how hot of a take this was.

These two cases aside.

The counter argument to this is that the accident costs the lives of two productive members of society instead of one.

The victim is a sunk cost - nothing brings him back. So now what?

What is the purpose of jail time?

1. Punishment

Eye for an eye. He made a terrible decision that cost someone his life and should be punished for it by being removed from society for a period of time.

How far does this punishment go?

As an ex-con, should he be prohibited from making a living in his chosen field?

Should we have a list of jobs that he shouldn't be able to pursue? Is it the income and the celebrity that is the problem? Should he be prohibited from doing anything aside from the most basic of manual or monotonous labour? Should his income be tithed?

I assume that civil action allows for some degree of this if pursued.

2. Rehabilitation

Instead of losing two productive members of society, you rehabilitate the one that is still remaining.

It's a difficult pill to swallow emotionally, but from a societal perspective it makes more sense. It's more efficient and less costly for someone to be out of prison, doing something they are good at.

If they do not present a danger to others, there's no logical rationale for keeping them locked up aside from whether you believe in the deterrent effect of DUI sentences or that it just makes you feel good to see someone suffer for their crime.

There's no right answer here because there's an intersection between individual values and what is most productive for society at large.

In both the Ramage and Heatley cases, the intent from the family statements was for the perpetrators, as public figures, to educate and highlight the dangers and consequences of drinking and driving and that this would be more beneficial to society than sitting in a cell.

In Heatley's case, I think there's a strong argument to be made that he did not take this responsibility particularly seriously.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Thank you for admitting that your argument was all the way at the extreme of "Murder" at one point?

Bruh, you're literally the only person that introduced metabolism as anything to do with any of this and then want to claim "Well I said even without considering it." If you're not considering it why the f*** did you bring it up?!

I didn't "admit" anything of the sort.... Again it's obvious that you're more interested in arguing and having a 'gotcha'. I never intended to say that Heatley willfully killed anyone, that was never the crux of my argument and I owned up to the fact that I had used the wrong terminology. What more do I need to say to express that I am admitting that I USED THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY but never intended for my statements to mean that I think Heatley killed Snyder purposely.

I never factored in anything about metabolism, I said that even without that consideration it's a pretty ugly situation. Even without factoring it in it's pretty reasonable to surmise that his BAC was at a level of intoxication when the accident occurred. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CONSIDER IT then that's another factor which could add to a reduced BAC, but EVEN WITHOUT FACTORING THIS IN it's a pretty bad look. Again, I went out of my way to say that even without looking at this, it's obvious to me that he was impaired

This really isn't a complicated idea when you stop trying to "get me" and just try to comprehend what I'm actually saying.

You quite literally dismissed his anecdotal experience in favor of your own.

No... He tried to use an anecdote to dismiss me saying that I think Heatley got preferential treatment that wouldn't be given to most normal citizens. My first-hand experience is just as valid as his. My experience helps me build my opinion, his experience can help him build his. Neither cancels out the other was my point.

 

[Crow]

I didn't "admit" anything of the sort.... Again it's obvious that you're more interested in arguing and having a 'gotcha'. I never intended to say that Heatley willfully killed anyone, that was never the crux of my argument and I owned up to the fact that I had used the wrong terminology. What more do I need to say to express that I am admitting that I USED THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY but never intended for my statements to mean that I think Heatley killed Snyder purposely.

I never factored in anything about metabolism, I said that even without that consideration it's a pretty ugly situation. Even without factoring it in it's pretty reasonable to surmise that his BAC was at a level of intoxication when the accident occurred. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CONSIDER IT then that's another factor which could add to a reduced BAC, but EVEN WITHOUT FACTORING THIS IN it's a pretty bad look. Again, I went out of my way to say that even without looking at this, it's obvious to me that he was impaired

This really isn't a complicated idea when you stop trying to "get me" and just try to comprehend what I'm actually saying.

How many hours were there between the accident and blood alcohol testing?

The liver does most/nearly all of the heavy lifting on metabolism of alcohol. Being an athlete is inconsequential. It might even be a detriment if he drank really often due to being a pro athlete.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

I didn't "admit" anything of the sort.... Again it's obvious that you're more interested in arguing and having a 'gotcha'. I never intended to say that Heatley willfully killed anyone, that was never the crux of my argument and I owned up to the fact that I had used the wrong terminology. What more do I need to say to express that I am admitting that I USED THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY but never intended for my statements to mean that I think Heatley killed Snyder purposely.

I never factored in anything about metabolism, I said that even without that consideration it's a pretty ugly situation. Even without factoring it in it's pretty reasonable to surmise that his BAC was at a level of intoxication when the accident occurred. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CONSIDER IT then that's another factor which could add to a reduced BAC, but EVEN WITHOUT FACTORING THIS IN it's a pretty bad look. Again, I went out of my way to say that even without looking at this, it's obvious to me that he was impaired

This really isn't a complicated idea when you stop trying to "get me" and just try to comprehend what I'm actually saying.

So one could say that you... Recklessly said that instead of intentionally?

... I think we should hold people responsible for recklessly saying things. Even if they didn't intend to!

BTW, I don't need to "get you." You've been getting yourself since this thread started.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

These two cases aside.

The counter argument to this is that the accident costs the lives of two productive members of society instead of one.

The victim is a sunk cost - nothing brings him back. So now what?

What is the purpose of jail time?

1. Punishment

Eye for an eye. He made a terrible decision that cost someone his life and should be punished for it by being removed from society for a period of time.

How far does this punishment go?

As an ex-con, should he be prohibited from making a living in his chosen field?

Should we have a list of jobs that he shouldn't be able to persue? Is it the income and the celebrity that is the problem? Should he be prohibited from doing anything aside from the most basic of manual or monotonous labour?

2. Rehabilitation

Instead of losing two productive members of society, you rehabilitate the one that is still remaining.

It's a difficult pill to swallow emotionally, but from a societal perspective it makes more sense. It's more efficient and less costly for someone to be out of prison, doing something they are good at.

If they do not present a danger to others, there's no logical rationale for keeping them locked up aside from whether you believe in the deterrent effect of DUI sentences or that it just makes you feel good to see someone suffer for their crime.

There's no right answer here because there's an intersection between individual values and what is most productive for society at large.

In both the Ramage and Heatley cases, the intent from the family statements was for the perpetrators, as public figures, to educate and highlight the dangers and consequences of drinking and driving and that this would be more beneficial to society than sitting in a cell.

In Heatley's case, I think there's a strong argument to be made that he did not take this responsibility particularly seriously.

Ehh, you're kinda leaving out other reasons for incarceration such as deterrence and protecting the public from the person.

That being said, if the US Justice System ever treated DUI as a serious crime that society needed to be deterred from, it wasn't in my lifetime. As long as I can remember it's been treated as a joke unless you're an incessant offender.

How many times was Tammy Sytch arrested for DUI before she killed some poor old man and they finally dropped the hammer on her? I think it's close to a dozen?

 

[NyQuil]

Ehh, you're kinda leaving out other reasons for incarceration such as deterrence and protecting the public from the person.

Am I?

If they do not present a danger to others, there's no logical rationale for keeping them locked up aside from whether you believe in the deterrent effect of DUI sentences or that it just makes you feel good to see someone suffer for their crime.

I think I was pretty clear on both.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Am I?



I think I was pretty clear on both.

Ehh sorry my guy. It was a long post I focused on the bold print.

Deterrence does deserve its own bullet point. It's just a forgotten factor in the justice system at this point. But it's still my bad for not seeing that you did bring it up.

 

[NyQuil]

Interestingly:

'It's not a deterrent': Experts question whether tougher sentences counter drunk driving

Muzzo (convicted of a 10 year sentence in the article) received full parole and was released in June 18, 2022.

Marco Muzzo, drunk driver who killed 3 children and grandfather, granted full parole

Drunk driver Marco Muzzo, who killed three children and their grandfather in a Vaughan, Ont. crash in 2015, has been granted full parole.

toronto.ctvnews.ca

Ended up serving just over 4 years.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

So one could say that you... Recklessly said that instead of intentionally?

... I think we should hold people responsible for recklessly saying things. Even if they didn't intent to!

BTW, I don't need to "get you." You've been getting yourself since this thread started.

Given the speed with which you just responded to the comment you quoted I find it hard to believe you even fully read, internalized, and analyzed my entire comment before responding with more vitriol and snark.

Me mistakenly using the wrong word is not akin to ending another's life. You're showing again and again that you simply want to have a "gotcha" moment rather than actually understand my point. Your statements throughout the thread that aren't directed at me have shown that your opinion is actually REALLY close to my own, but for some reason you're finding the desire to argue with me with vitriol.

Do you have some kind of grudge against me from another thread that I don't know about or something?

 

[Jumptheshark]

I tell ya I am shocked this thread has gone sideways

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Given the speed with which you just responded to the comment you quoted I find it hard to believe you even fully read, internalized, and analyzed my entire comment before responding with more vitriol and snark.

Me mistakenly using the wrong word is not akin to ending another's life. You're showing again and again that you simply want to have a "gotcha" moment rather than actually understand my point. Your statements throughout the thread that aren't directed at me have shown that your opinion is actually REALLY close to my own, but for some reason you're finding the desire to argue with me with vitriol.

Do you have some kind of grudge against me from another thread that I don't know about or something?

Oh trust me, I definitely didn't fully read that dissertation of bullshit.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I call the bullshit. The family can emotionally forgive him all they want, but their feelings shouldn't factor into justice at all. He recklessly murdered a teammate and got a tap on the wrist (not even a slap). A second chance is maybe like, him getting a normal job and getting to live amongst the public. Not him making 50 mil playing professional hockey.

Do you think that you or I would have gotten 3 years probation for committing vehicular homicide?

Probably, yes. Given he facts of the case.

2nd Degree Vehicular Homicide is considered a misdemeanor in Georgia and has a max sentence of 12 months in county jail. The facts fit this because some of the qualifications for it are Speeding and Driving to fast for conditions.

1st Degree vehicular homicide is a 3-5 year felony. But you need the facts to fit. To get to 1st degree, he would have needed to be passing a school bus, running from the cops, hit and run or yes DUI.

But they've got to prove the DUI, and given the blood test was at .015, to do that they would need to argue in court and have expert testimony about how fast his BAC would drop from time of the crash to when it was drawn, etc. Not impossible, but not a slam dunk.

Thats almost always going to get pled down given the facts of the case, given family cooperation, etc. No jail time would not be uncommon in that situation.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Interestingly:

'It's not a deterrent': Experts question whether tougher sentences counter drunk driving

Muzzo (convicted of a 10 year sentence in the article) received full parole and was released in June 18, 2022.

Marco Muzzo, drunk driver who killed 3 children and grandfather, granted full parole

Drunk driver Marco Muzzo, who killed three children and their grandfather in a Vaughan, Ont. crash in 2015, has been granted full parole.

toronto.ctvnews.ca

Ended up serving just over 4 years.

CBC for some reason is blocked for me, at work. That said, I think deterrence is so far out the window at this point (Not just in DUIs but crimes as a whole) that we can't accurately gauge whether it works.

 

[NyQuil]

CBC for some reason is blocked for me, at work. That said, I think deterrence is so far out the window at this point (Not just in DUIs but crimes as a whole) that we can't accurately gauge whether it works.

Ah, sorry about that.

Here's a quote:

Andrew Murie, Chief Executive of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, said impaired motorists are more likely to be deterred by the possibility of getting caught, not the potential consequences of a hypothetical tragedy.

"It's not a deterrent," Murie said in a telephone interview.

"It never has been, it never will. . . . There's other things that deter them, the penalties given out in court are not part of that."

There are few quantitative measures gauging what keeps people from getting behind the wheel after drinking, but Murie and others point to years worth of national statistics showing that impaired drivers are still frequently on Canada's roads.

TIRF Research Associate Steve Brown said the finding was disconcerting, adding it remains to be seen whether the 2016 result will evolve into a trend. Previous reports have noted spikes in individual years that have tapered off during the next poll.

Brown pointed to a number of proven deterrents that have emerged over the years, including graduated licensing programs with zero tolerance for alcohol on young drivers and administrative suspension powers accorded to the provinces.

But he shares Murie's views that stiff penalties are not a driving factor.

"There's going to be some people out there, it doesn't matter how strict the laws are, how tough the sentences are, there's this perception that they can get away with it," he said.

There's a degree of logic to the fact that your decision-making is obviously going to be impaired as well as your physical abilities in the event of intoxication.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Oh trust me, I definitely didn't fully read that dissertation of bullshit.

Well, at least you have no qualms admitting that you aren't even bothering to read what you're trying to argue with before proclaiming a "gotcha". What's the sense in not even reading the statement that you seem so dedicated to spitting vitriol at? As I said before, when I read your comments that you're not targeting at me it is pretty obvious our opinions on the matter are pretty close.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Ah, sorry about that.

Here's a quote:



There's a degree of logic to the fact that your decision-making is obviously going to be impaired as well as your physical abilities in the event of intoxication.

"said impaired motorists are more likely to be deterred by the possibility of getting caught, not the potential consequences of a hypothetical tragedy"

... Doesn't that kind of back up the idea that incarceration would be a deterrent, though? He's saying you're more likely to be deterred by getting caught. Why? Because if you get caught you could be held responsible.

Well, at least you have no qualms admitting that you aren't even bothering to read what you're trying to argue with before proclaiming a "gotcha". What's the sense in not even reading the statement that you seem so dedicated to spitting vitriol at? As I said before, when I read your comments that you're not targeting at me it is pretty obvious our opinions on the matter are pretty close.

Dude you've been saying such absurd shit that I stopped fully reading your posts a long time ago.

Weird though, that while you're still whining to me, you haven't bothered responding to this:

How many hours were there between the accident and blood alcohol testing?

The liver does most/nearly all of the heavy lifting on metabolism of alcohol. Being an athlete is inconsequential. It might even be a detriment if he drank really often due to being a pro athlete.

Or this:

Probably, yes. Given he facts of the case.

2nd Degree Vehicular Homicide is considered a misdemeanor in Georgia and has a max sentence of 12 months in county jail. The facts fit this because some of the qualifications for it are Speeding and Driving to fast for conditions.

1st Degree vehicular homicide is a 3-5 year felony. But you need the facts to fit. To get to 1st degree, he would have needed to be passing a school bus, running from the cops, hit and run or yes DUI.

But they've got to prove the DUI, and given the blood test was at .015, to do that they would need to argue in court and have expert testimony about how fast his BAC would drop from time of the crash to when it was drawn, etc. Not impossible, but not a slam dunk.

Thats almost always going to get pled down given the facts of the case, given family cooperation, etc. No jail time would not be uncommon in that situation.

 

[Gee Wally]

Alan Eagleson.
Embezzled from Bobby Orr and misrepresented him with the Bruins resulting in Orr leaving as a free agent.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/eagleson-pleads-guilty-to-three-counts-of-fraud-1.166522

This book was outstanding.

Amazon.com

 

[JPT]

I didn't say "mine is right and yours is wrong", i said quite the opposite.

I guess I just never knew that the opinion "recklessly ending the life of another person should result in severe punishment" was such a controversial take..............

The controversial part of it is that recklessness is a subjective thing. By definition, context has to be taken into account, whether or not people like it, but you're not really allowing for any context that might suggest the need for a lighter punishment. If he had been shown to have acted maliciously, yeah, I'm with you, but he wasn't. He admitted to acting recklessly, but recklessness can still result in accidents. It seems to me that you're calling for mandatory minimums for deaths resulting from reckless, but not malicious, actions which cause accidents, which, to me, is a terrible idea considering how mandatory minimums for  objective things like amounts of drugs a person has in their possession have been used in such a biased manner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm basing that perspective on one of your previous comments in which you essentially said anyone who recklessly causes the death of another should spend time in jail.

 

[NyQuil]

... Doesn't that kind of back up the idea that incarceration would be a deterrent, though? He's saying you're more likely to be deterred by getting caught. Why? Because if you get caught you could be held responsible.

The argument they are making is that increasing the length of the sentence has no bearing on the decision-making calculus.

While something like RIDE programs (which we have in Ottawa, particularly over the winter holidays), where the police block a busy road and spot-check all drivers coming through might have more impact.

Quick anecdote: I ran into one of these after the Superbowl and the police was convinced I was ripe. I hadn't had a drink in probably six or seven hours, as it was late, but I did have two earlier in the evening. They took me out of the line of cars.

"First, I'll blow into the device to show you what a 0.00 looks like."

*then I blow into it. also 0.00*

"Oh, wow. Ok. Well, how was the game?"

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

The argument they are making is that the length of the sentence has no bearing on the decision-making calculus.

While something like RIDE programs (which we have in Ottawa, particularly over the winter holidays), where the police block a busy road and spot-check all drivers coming through might have more impact.

Sobriety checkpoints have kinda gone out the window in the US. (Or at least I haven't heard of them in a looooonnnnggg time. In my area, at least) Likely because a it's a crap shoot depending on which judge you appear in front of as to whether the stop would be considered legal. It technically is if you're stopping everybody... But again, depending on the judge it may not go well.

 

[NyQuil]

Those have kinda gone out the window in the US. (Or at least I haven't heard of them in a looooonnnnggg time) Likely because a it's a crap shoot depending on which judge you appear in front of as to whether the stop would be considered legal. It technically is if you're stopping everybody... But again, depending on the judge it may not go well.

They used to give out gift cards (very small amounts) for the inconvenience. Overall I thought it was a decent little programme but I'm not sure of the legal ramifications.

 

[Voight]

Alan Eagleson.
Embezzled from Bobby Orr and misrepresented him with the Bruins resulting in Orr leaving as a free agent.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/eagleson-pleads-guilty-to-three-counts-of-fraud-1.166522

This book was outstanding.

Amazon.com

Recently read an article about Mike Gillis, another former player who got swindled by Eagleson.

Thankfully he was able to make a good living afterwards as an agent and then GM.

 

[NyQuil]

Recently read an article about Mike Gillis, another former player who got swindled by Eagleson.

Thankfully he was able to make a good living afterwards as an agent and then GM.

I actually ran into Eagleson on a plane as a kid. My older brother recognized him and got him to sign his NHL Official Guide and Record Book for that year.

While waiting for luggage, he informed my Dad that, to make the big bucks, "don't be a hockey player, be a lawyer." That should tell you everything.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

They used to give out gift cards (very small amounts) for the inconvenience. Overall I thought it was a decent little programme but I'm not sure of the legal ramifications.

Yeah. It's still technically legal here but I can easily see arrests getting thrown out because you're just stopping the individual without reasonable suspicion.

I think it's become one of those things where it's technically a legal stop, but so flimsy that few police administrators are willing to do it anymore.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

The NHL and Atlanta Thrashers shamelessly supported him, and the victim's family apparently asked for him to not be imprisoned. (I don't know why in God's green earth that mattered).

I believe both federal and Georgia state law mandates that victims and their family members are permitted to make victim impact statements prior to sentencing, which the judge may take into consideration when formulating a sentence.

IIRC Snyder’s parents said something like they would be further victimized by knowing their son’s friend and teammate was in jail and that probation would be a more appropriate punishment.