Scum of the earth - Carol Berner

[Ludepower]

Originally Posted by AAnthony

Let's not forget about the scumbag lawyers that sent in the appeal on the grounds that police "mishandled her vehicle". These are the same types that let criminals walk away because the police forgot a word when reading them their rights, or forgot to ask a simple question.
Posted via RS Mobile

How do you blame the lawyer? It's their job to manipulate the law and squeeze every penny outta you.

The question should be how does Carol afford to keep appealing her ridiculously short jail sentence.

[Majestic12]

Originally Posted by AAnthony

Let's not forget about the scumbag lawyers that sent in the appeal on the grounds that police "mishandled her vehicle". These are the same types that let criminals walk away because the police forgot a word when reading them their rights, or forgot to ask a simple question.
Posted via RS Mobile

You realize lawyers are oath-bound to represent their clients to the best of their abilities at all times, right? It's not to represent everyone... except for lowlife pieces of shit.

It irritates the fuck out of me that ignorant people just try to slam the lawyers all the time for trying to explore all the possible avenues of helping their clients. Look at it this way -- The lawyers aren't there to represent her, they are there to uphold and defend the integrity of the constitution.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there could've been an error in how the vehicle was mishandled, whatever the result, and it was a critical error, shouldn't it be investigated? Wouldn't you, if your life was on the line?

Have you seen Shawshank Redemption? Remember how he tossed his gun into the river, and as a result, he ended up being convicted and sent to prison? Imagine his life was in the hands of a scuba-diving investigator that was sent out to find the gun. Except instead of giving it 100%, the scuba diver thought to himself, "Y'know what, fuck this... this river is too damn big. Imma go home and jerk it". Gun left in the water, innocent man goes to prison.

We should be absolutely 100% sure that a person is supposed to go to prison before they are actually sent there. And if that means people getting off on technicalities, so be it. If that means some bad guys go free, so be it. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 10 bad guys go free on shitty technicalities than 1 innocent good guy to to prison because the justice system failed him.

[sdubfid]

Where's the best place to write a complaint to?

Canadian judicial council?
Posted via RS Mobile

[noventa]

Originally Posted by Majestic12

You realize lawyers are oath-bound to represent their clients to the best of their abilities at all times, right? It's not to represent everyone... except for lowlife pieces of shit.

It irritates the fuck out of me that ignorant people just try to slam the lawyers all the time for trying to explore all the possible avenues of helping their clients. Look at it this way -- The lawyers aren't there to represent her, they are there to uphold and defend the integrity of the constitution.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there could've been an error in how the vehicle was mishandled, whatever the result, and it was a critical error, shouldn't it be investigated? Wouldn't you, if your life was on the line?

Have you seen Shawshank Redemption? Remember how he tossed his gun into the river, and as a result, he ended up being convicted and sent to prison? Imagine his life was in the hands of a scuba-diving investigator that was sent out to find the gun. Except instead of giving it 100%, the scuba diver thought to himself, "Y'know what, fuck this... this river is too damn big. Imma go home and jerk it". Gun left in the water, innocent man goes to prison.

We should be absolutely 100% sure that a person is supposed to go to prison before they are actually sent there. And if that means people getting off on technicalities, so be it. If that means some bad guys go free, so be it. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 10 bad guys go free on shitty technicalities than 1 innocent good guy to to prison because the justice system failed him.

touche. I wish I could "thank you" twice.

[trix4kids]

You guys gotta understand that there are two things that are mandatory to every crime. Actus rea and Mens Rea. Basically what they mean is that there was a crime committed and the person committing the crime was fully aware of what he/she was doing. Why is her sentence a lot shorter then it should of been? Because she wasn't in a mental state to understand her actions (stupid I know), but there was no intent and thats a huge factor. For example, lets say you chuck a pinecone at a buddy playfully and it hits him in the eye and he loses balances falls off a railing and dies, and lets say in the same situation the guy throwing the pinecone secretly hates the other dude and does the same thing. They would serve completely different sentences. Intent is a huge factor and although it can be flawed, it usually does serve its purpose. Remember that our law system cannot cater to every specific scenario , no law system can.

I fully agree however, that this woman should stfu and just serve her sentence to reflect on what she did to that little girls family and future instead of appealing like a little slut.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by trix4kids

... the person committing the crime was fully aware of what he/she was doing. Why is her sentence a lot shorter then it should of been? Because she wasn't in a mental state to understand her actions (stupid I know), but there was no intent and thats a huge factor.

And this is the single major failing with our legal system today: people INTENTIONALLY PUT THEMSELVES into diminished mental state, then successfully use that state to escape the consequences of their resulting actions.

No intent? Fuck that. Anyone who pounds booze and gets behind the wheel of a car is demonstrating intent to disregard human life and the law as surely as if they'd picked up that pinecone with the intent to throw it at someone. In fact, it's worse than if they did it hating their target - it's like whipping the pinecone into a crowd knowing but not caring that some random person could be hurt.

(Actually, the pinecone is a stupid example, since it's pretty much impossible to throw a pinecone hard enough to even hurt a sheet of paper.)

[MarkyMark]

Fuck this bitch, she needs to go away and for a lot longer than that. Yeah we've all made mistakes, but you took a childs life because of a poor choice that you made, and now you need to own up to that.

[MG1]

If my daughter was killed by the bitch, I don't think I could contain myself. I would be in her face and everybody else's face to ensure she has a miserable rest of her life.

She probably doesn't give two shits about the little girl or the family. Selfish little tnuc!

Fuck Kona 2012, we should have this bitch's picture up on every street corner in every town, post office, supermarket, whathaveyou.

[yogenfruz]

I know it's their job, but god I'd hate to be the lawyer defending her in this. That's why I don't think I could go into law; I couldn't sit by and put in 100% to keep a guilty person out of prison...

All in all, this is ridiculous. But it's not the first time we've seen the Canadian Judicial System falter around for years over something that should have been over within a month.

[E60_M5]

Originally Posted by MG1

If my daughter was killed by the bitch, I don't think I could contain myself. I would be in her face and everybody else's face to ensure she has a miserable rest of her life.

She probably doesn't give two shits about the little girl or the family. Selfish little tnuc!

Fuck Kona 2012, we should have this bitch's picture up on every street corner in every town, post office, supermarket, whathaveyou.

Exactly what I am thinking. If someone runs over my little girl because he/she is drunk, I am going to take it upon myself to serve justice since the canadian justice system is useless shit and my life is ruined anyways.

[trix4kids]

Originally Posted by Soundy

And this is the single major failing with our legal system today: people INTENTIONALLY PUT THEMSELVES into diminished mental state, then successfully use that state to escape the consequences of their resulting actions.

No intent? Fuck that. Anyone who pounds booze and gets behind the wheel of a car is demonstrating intent to disregard human life and the law as surely as if they'd picked up that pinecone with the intent to throw it at someone. In fact, it's worse than if they did it hating their target - it's like whipping the pinecone into a crowd knowing but not caring that some random person could be hurt.

(Actually, the pinecone is a stupid example, since it's pretty much impossible to throw a pinecone hard enough to even hurt a sheet of paper.)

So everyone who drives drunk is driving with the intent to hurt someone? I think you've mistaken the definition of intent. If you drive drunk, you usually have no intention of hurting someone, you usually just want to get home. To say that every drunk driver has the intent to disregard human life is wrong. It's more correct to say that ever drunk driver exhibits disregard to human life. Likewise in this case, the woman wasn't planning or intending to kill a child while driving home. And honestly, yes people do abuse the shit out of it, but you're forgetting an aspect of our courts that allow rulings to have common sense, the jury. The jury is consisted of people like you and me and have a bias for our societies beliefs so it kind of counteracts some loopholes, not all. Again I'm not defending this woman and I think shes a piece of shit, I'm just a highschool student whos taken law 12 and I just see some flaws in the logic of some people that I wanted to point out :P.

[Energy]

Sentencing is different from the actual trial.

She has already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the only question left is the sentence.

We can't really say whether the sentence is fit or not without looking at similar cases but it appears that public opinion on drunk driving seems to be leaning towards harsher punishments. This is something for legislatures to fix and this is probably why the province introduced those tough drunk driving laws recently.

[MG1]

OOOoooooo............ Soundy, you just got schooled by a Law 12 student, LOL.

You know what they say........ a little bit o' knowledge can be dangerous.

He does write well for a high school student. Not perfect, but....... Usually kids that age can't string a sentence together let alone spell worth a shit.

trix4kids, I'm just teasing.............

[trix4kids]

I do agree kids my age have problems conveying their opinions and articulating anything beyond a level of primitive thinking, but hey, you know what they say.....Youth is wasted on the young.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by trix4kids

So everyone who drives drunk is driving with the intent to hurt someone? I think you've mistaken the definition of intent.

I think you've mistaken what I said. Read it again.

If you drive drunk, you usually have no intention of hurting someone, you usually just want to get home.

And so knowing the dangers, you do it anyway - how is that not disregard for human life?

To say that every drunk driver has the intent to disregard human life is wrong. It's more correct to say that ever drunk driver exhibits disregard to human life. Likewise in this case, the woman wasn't planning or intending to kill a child while driving home. And honestly, yes people do abuse the shit out of it,

The problem is, the one-time offender is the one most likely to just take their lumps and move on. It's the repeat offenders and chronic drunks - the ones who most need to be smacked down - who've learned to work the system.

but you're forgetting an aspect of our courts that allow rulings to have common sense, the jury. The jury is consisted of people like you and me and have a bias for our societies beliefs so it kind of counteracts some loopholes, not all.

Which leads to a whole other can of worms: the famous "incorrect instructions for the jury" defense that we hear about so often.

[trix4kids]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I think you've mistaken what I said. Read it again.


And so knowing the dangers, you do it anyway - how is that not disregard for human life?


The problem is, the one-time offender is the one most likely to just take their lumps and move on. It's the repeat offenders and chronic drunks - the ones who most need to be smacked down - who've learned to work the system.


Which leads to a whole other can of worms: the famous "incorrect instructions for the jury" defense that we hear about so often.

No intent? Fuck that. Anyone who pounds booze and gets behind the wheel of a car is demonstrating intent to disregard human life

It's really late, and maybe I'm wrong, but what I've concluded from your statement was that. People who drink demonstrate (that they have the mindset) to disregard human life. Instead of intent, I substituted my personal definition of the word. If not, please explain what you mean by that statement.

And so knowing the dangers, you do it anyway - how is that not disregard for human life?

As I stated a little later, I said it EXHIBITS disregard for human life. Intentionally disregarding human life and exhibiting disregard are two different things.

Which leads to a whole other can of worms: the famous "incorrect instructions for the jury" defense that we hear about so often

While I agree with your complaints about the legal system, again I think people have to look at a bigger picture. It will never be perfect unless we live in an utopian society because of the fundamentals of capitalism and the constitution. And out of all the legal systems in history, can you find one that doesn't have controversy and flaws? Although it is nice, it's easier said then done to come up with a new set of rules especially in the rapid progression of our modern day society. It serves its purpose, if we were to skew it in lets say where we disregard the incapacitation of alchohol and say drunk drivers who kill people get sentenced as 1st degree murder. What about if a guy just had his wife leave him, goes to the bar and gets drunk and accidently runs over a serial killer on the way home. Think of all the change you'd have to make to the law to accomodate just two one-dimensional situations. Not trying to say your wrong, but rather your perspective of my opinion.

[DC5-S]

Is she killed my kid I'd take justice into my own hands and I wouldn't care if I went to jail. Justice system is a joke here anyways and I'd be out in ten years
Posted via RS Mobile

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by El Bastardo

Who was that BCIT student who killed those people in that Porsche after recieving a driving ban? He was an Asian guy who seemed developmentally disabled. Hes another one who deserves dubious notoriety.

when you mentioned this guy, and then reading threads about carol berner and that cacino girl from the riots...i'm waiting to see if an official scumbag thread is going to pop up on here

[Pooface55]

I would go Law Abiding Citizen on her

[Sniperslayer]

Originally Posted by DC5-S

Is she killed my kid I'd take justice into my own hands and I wouldn't care if I went to jail. Justice system is a joke here anyways and I'd be out in ten years
Posted via RS Mobile

Eventually this will happen, and ill support the victim who took justice into their own hands completely

One day when some person who killed someone's child/S/O someone's gonna walk up to the court house and put a bullet in their head because they got a 3 year sentence for destroying a whole family.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Majestic12]

If that happens, I will clap just as hard for the person getting revenge going to prison as I would for the other person getting shot.

One aspect of living in a society under the rule of law is that you can't just unilaterally take the law into your own hands and effect street justice when you see fit or when someone "deserves" it.

[The_AK]

Tubes need tying.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Majestic12

If that happens, I will clap just as hard for the person getting revenge going to prison as I would for the other person getting shot.

One aspect of living in a society under the rule of law is that you can't just unilaterally take the law into your own hands and effect street justice when you see fit or when someone "deserves" it.

And another aspect is, if you're rich, you'll most likely win or get off with a slap on the wrist at most. Especially in Canada, the justice system is so light and easy going. Does Robert Pickton ring a bell?

[The_AK]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

And another aspect is, if you're rich, you'll most likely win or get off with a slap on the wrist at most. Especially in Canada, the justice system is so light and easy going. Does Robert Pickton ring a bell?

Oh yea, what happened to him? He out?

[Impreza]

Originally Posted by Ludepower

How do you blame the lawyer? It's their job to manipulate the law and squeeze every penny outta you.

The question should be how does Carol afford to keep appealing her ridiculously short jail sentence.

Looks like we are paying for it. Here is a quote.

Shapray does think the chance of another appeal is slim, but if granted, it would come at high costs.

“Every time she appeals there’s got to be a Crown attorney who is representing the government on the appeal, so there’s a cost there. If she’s on the legal aid system, then obviously her lawyer is being paid by the government, and then there are the ordinary court costs of hearing a case.”
Posted via RS Mobile