I'm usually not an eye for an eye kind of guy, but man, the world is a cruel mistress.

That's b.s happening right there.

Common stall tactic. Anything to keep him out of prison. It's sad, but it's not surprising. However, it also hints at the fact that perhaps he realizes that he doesn't have much of a defence case. If he thought he did, he'd have no problem with having the trial asap.

defence lawyer tony serka doing his best to stall and delay.

Read that cory's dad either has or works for some home reno or roofing bus in coquitlam. Boycott.

This cory sater dude was already convicted of 2 assault charges in both 2004 and 2009. Fucking loser.

Posted via RS Mobile

delay... whatever, who cares.

go to prison now or go to prison later. it's all the same.

in fact it's actually worse if it's delayed because they'll just have more time to be under stress before they go to prison.

who really cares, it's not a reality tv show. your wishes and desires don't affect the outcome. there's no producer who makes more from listening to you.

they're caught and the courts will deal with them. people cheering on the judiciary system hoping that they get like... torn apart on the rack or something is ridiculous.

your feelings mean nothing.

the story is already over. the outcome will be the same whether you are looking or not, whether you care or not, whether you exist or not.

and from the looks of it, we can already make an educated guess to as what will happen.

watching people follow these types of things is the exact same thing as someone watching paint dry on the wall and HOPING something else will happen... it's gonna dry, what else are you hoping for?
you'd never watch paint dry on a wall right?


i'm sorry but that is a super uneducated, and biased statement.

what do mandatory minimums have to do with the victims?

the justice system is not designed for the satisfaction of the victims. if it were, everyone would just be shot.

the victims have nothing to do with the say of how the convicted should be punished. in fact the victims should have the LEAST say because their judgements are the most clouded by emotions.

the justice system is not here to feed people's emotions.

so what if the driver only has to serve 2/3rds of the time of X amount of years?
how do you know that's not gonna change them forever? how do you know this process already hasnt changed them forever?
HOW DO YOU KNOW 5 YEARS IS GONNA CHANGE THEM AT ALL?

mandatory minimums are fucking stupid in all aspects.

if the person is rehabilitated and experts judge that they will not re-commit crimes, then they are good to go. that's all that matters.

the lives of the surviving members... they have to fucking deal with it. it's life. shit happens. deal with it. it's not like they're dealing with someone that is constantly attacking them. it was a one time event. an accident if you will.
this is like someone stepping on your shoes in a club, and you just HAVE to fucking hit them back or shove them, even if they were drunk and didnt mean it.


if the family wants revenge, they should run the offender over with a car.
but i guarantee that it wouldn't change the outcome of how they feel in the long run.

the event happened and it's over. nothing that happens afterwards will change how they feel about it. nothing.
if the driver was also killed in the crash, the family would not be any happier now.

as for the person who committed the offence. we already have a system set up to deal with them in a "fair", LOGICAL, and un-emotional manner.


plus i can assure you, if mandatory minimums are implemented, all that will mean is the ppl that fuck up and get caught will serve more time. the amount of ppl that fuck up will not change.
it will not deter anyone. you're trying to SAVE lives right? so focus on saving lives.
don't focus on something that's not gonna save any lives, and just cause more money to be wasted in the prison system, and the net amount of suffering to rise.
you want LESS suffering, not MORE.

since when did causing more suffering solve/reduce suffering?

your logic would dictate that if you want to prevent more deaths in a war, you should kill people that start wars. lol give me a break. that wont deter anyone from anything.







if you judge with negative emotions, you've lowered yourself to BELOW an animal. you've become a demon.
animals have no choice. you do. you're not a beast. use your fucking head.





lol amen.

Out of curiosity, why is he a scumbag defense lawyer? Do you actually know of some scumbaggish things he does or has done, or it just because he's this girl's lawyer?

I don't think you understand what it does to the friends and family of these victims. It is a little more than "watching paint dry"...in fact, it is pretty gut wrenching to be told that the pain you are feeling right now and the sick anticipation twinge you have in your stomach is going to last even longer.

Its a little more than making an "educated guess to as what will happen". Its about attempting to have some closure...to stop having some looming date out there where you know your gut is going to be torn open again as you re-count how your loved one was killed.

But there again...maybe your right its not a fucking reality show and my "feeling mean nothing".

yes i do understand what it does to the friends and family of the victims.

what you don't understand is how they feel is something they have to get over. and no matter what happens to the offender, there will be no permanent closure. it's just some small temporary feeling that will probably fade almost immediately.

you don't have to be there in court if you don't have to. you don't have to listen to the stories again.
you can choose not to go and just accept the fact that your kid is dead and they wont ever fucking come back.

the looming date? so now is better than later? really? really???

and yes, i am right. not maybe. your feelings do mean nothing, you are not involved. your feelings and whatever you think are in a separate bubble that does not affect their bubble.

you just want the offender to burn, and you just want the victim's family to be happy watching the offender burn.

you are wishing ill on someone, in which no good will come out of it, except the satisfaction of your own feelings.

you're literally being evil. a demon.

"mandatory minimums are fucking stupid in all aspects.

if the person is rehabilitated and experts judge that they will not re-commit crimes, then they are good to go. that's all that matters."

bullshit....so easy for you to say in your arrogance when you've probably never been a victim....any sensible person knows that our courts and the sentences they divy out are fucking joke...so yeah, bring on the minimums
esp when the douchebags get our 2/3 later anyway....and THIS douchebag sater obviously hasn't been ''rehabilitated'' ...2 assault convictions...runs over these people and doesn't stop...king douchebag.

and too bad more emotional equation (aside from the victim impact statements)
didnt' go into sentencing: it's the horrible emotions the surviving families
have to suffer for years (even a lifetime) afterwords.

call me a demon for hoping for this prick to suffer?...i call you a naive and glib moron for thinking anything other.

I bet the self-loathing inside of his head is incredible. Can you imagine if you knew you were such a piece of shit? Like, not suspected it because you dine-and-dashed once, or because you were mean to someone last week, but genuinely felt it in the core of your being. You killed innocent, loved people.

I'm sure the man exists in a perpetual state of sorrow, hidden by a wall of smug anger.

as per your reply, first you don't know this (but let's hope so)....then a minimum of 5 yrs is fine in my books ***especially when we all see more and more the carnage of drunk/driving deaths (esp more heinous as in this case drunk driving and hit and run)....i think we're at a tipping point in our society when tolerance for fatalities from drunk driving (or texting, or speeding etc) is at a breakig point for the public's patience.

i'm not one who feels he murdered someone and should get ''15 yrs to life'' as some do (because there is no intent to kill) but given today's awareness and growing stigmatism towards drunk driving causing fatalities, then yeah, for sure, bring on much heavier sentences with minimums for those still ''not getting the message'' read any number of comments after a drunk driving fatality (and the devastation on the surviving families) and you can easily read the public is fed up and wants more accountability/stiffer sentences.

The law and the judiciary aren't meant to be at the whim of the bloodseeking public.

She may have committed a crime but drinking and driving are considered manslaughter, correct me if I am wrong. People make bad decisions, wrong decisions, but they are still nice people. I am sure that even if the driver got 6 months or 2 years, when she comes out she'll never be the same again either.
Posted via RS Mobile

Minimum is there for a reason. It's there to make sure people who commit a crime serve the time they need to serve. Because there are evidence that can get you off a charge, or tampering with evidence, etc. They need to make sure that the obvious crime committed need to be dealt with.

I think it's wrong to wish death or harm on anybody. If you consciously wish to see someone be tortured or killed, you are no more than a murderer yourself. People do things that are not of their intention, but because of accidents, stupid decisions made in an unconscious states (alcohol, drugs, pressure, etc.) These people deserve to be jailed than to be tortured or executed.

But I believe that if a person commits a crime in their conscious state, and their decision to do so is straight from the heart and soul, they should be executed. These people are considered demons and THE evil of mankind. But you'll rarely see any murder, assault, etc. these days that are under these circumstances because every murder, assault, etc. have a reason behind it which causes the person to become unconscious.

In my books, education rather than punishment goes a long way in establishing a foundation for society as a whole. Most people would choose the latter because of the "almost instant" gratification of seeing the accused punished for their actions. But, in the long run the root cause of their actions are not addressed, just deterred for the moment.

how do you know? Yeah when I was younger the solution would be to shoot any offender to which I was the victim. But I'm smarter and I realise that the world would be chaotic if it were run like that. We're not chimpanzees. I realise that no matter what punishment the offender gets, I won't feel the same, it doesn't matter what happens. They could get 20 years or life, or executed. I wouldn't care a year later. I would just wanna go back in time and fix the problem and wish it never happened.

any "sensible person" meaning most people? meaning most people that have never been to prison? so how do you know 6 months in prison doesn't suck? have you been to prison?

this is the family's problem now. They can't go back in time and prevent it from happening. The only thing they need to do now is get over the pain. That is something they have to figure out with their inner-selves. They have to find peace, from within.

No... I know most people will want the guy to suffer, but also know most people are misinformed and acting out of negative emotion.

I am not a moron. I see both sides. I see the side that causes less suffering. And I see the side that causes more suffering, but brings no other benefit to the table. I choose to take the side where less suffering is caused.

You on the other hand, only see one side. Even when presented with the other side, you still choose to ignore the facts and stand on the side that brings suffering, and for what reason? You want to watch someone burn. and when they do burn, inside you're laughing like a little kid who just stole some candy... then your emotions go flat, until you find the next victim to watch burn.

But you are by definition a demon. One that wills pain on others for self satisfaction. You can't argue that, get over it. The way you're thinking is plain evil.

of course what makes it most evil, is you cannot see it. Demon's don't know they're demons. Hence why they're called demons, it is their true nature. You don't bitch about a wasp stinging you, because it's a fucking wasp, it's in its nature. I guess you can't bitch when demons want to cause harm on others... right?

oh yeah? 5 years is fine in your books? you know what's fine in my books? 50 years.
what's the diff man? why would u disagree with 50 years but agree with 5 years?

you think 5 years will deter more people from doing it? You think 50 years will?

I'll tell you what, if they made it life in prison, you'd still have the same amount of people drinking and driving and hitting people.

your rationality is totally backwards.
a hobo steals something from your property, so you beat him.

so they keep stealing... so your solution is to beat them harder... you really think if you beat them harder they're gonna steal less? give me a break. you could have a sign that says "you will be shot if you enter my property" and they'd STILL try to steal your shit.

if anything you and the public aren't getting the message. harder punishments don't prevent anything. Just look at american stats.


if you've ever been victim to a drunk driver, it's obvious that you're not letting go and wanting every drunk driver to burn hard. you're going to live a shitty and dark life.

you have to get over it. GET, OVER, IT.

there are plenty of people that have gotten over much worse things. and guess what, they're happier after they get over it. and there are grumps that grow old and just have a dark cloud hovering over them constantly. Their hearts are full of revenge and hate. You get to decide what you are.

Hmm. I really hope the judge isn't a gomer and s/he makes the right ruling. Since it's the supreme court, there are no appeals.

I'm pretty surprised it's even going to the supreme court to be honest.

The only solution to drinking and driving is when every car has a breathalyzer system, the ones where you must install if you are found guilty of drinking and driving.

someone drinks and drives then hits a pole. Someone drinks and drives, then hit someone - killing them. They both committed the same offence, broke the same law, had the same intentions...one person gets license suspended, the other goes to jail for 5 years. Doesn't make much sense to me. I don't like mandatory minimums, people don't want proper justice, they just want to make someone pay or the pain they feel.

I have a friend who was killed by a drunk driver in Cloverdale, so I know the pain...but I still don't think it's appropriate to hand out sentences based on random results that can happen. The offender drank alcohol then drove a car, consequence should be based on that, not what happened after IMO.

Rather interesting discussion but mandatory or not. Nothing good will happen from it.

My question for the person that said if they learn from their mistake and are rehabilitated in the court eyes. Should someone that was sentence for premeditated murder get the same sentence? Just for the sake of discussion.
Posted via RS Mobile

No. Rehabilitation is only one consideration. Some of the relevant sentencing principles, directly quoted from the Criminal Code --


255.1 Without limiting the generality of section 718.2, where a court imposes a sentence for an offence committed under this Act by means of a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or of railway equipment, evidence that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the offender at the time when the offence was committed exceeded one hundred and sixty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances relating to the offence that the court shall consider under paragraph 718.2(a).

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

actually i prefer people who committ crims go to prison sooner then later. an extreme example of why would be someone committing a crime in his 20's, gets to live his life, and when he's 50 gets sent to jail after living a good portion of his life and his youth...i think they benefit from the delay IMO

maybe i'm just over thinking it lol

Out of curiosity, why is he a scumbag defense lawyer? Do you actually know of some scumbaggish things he does or has done, or it just because he's this girl's lawyer?


^^ Still waiting for a response to this, if you have one.

canali, I feel like spending 70,000$+ a year of taxpayer money to house a prisoner for your little vendetta is a little silly.
get over it, save us all some money. like Ulic said, move the fuck on, you'll be happier

You're exaggerating a little. 30 years a long time to reach a verdict. But I do agree with you.

It's hard to say because in some cases. There was a case, I think in the states, where the guy was found innocent after 30 or something years because of new evidence. Just saying if they had taken more time to gather evidence, it wouldn't have happened.

She's back on the news:

Applied for parole 10 months into her 3 year sentence...

I re-read the thread, but I have to say, I still feel no sympathy for her.

'Sober' drunk-driving killer denied parole - British Columbia - CBC News