Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Kitchener]

Yup, we're Canadian, we'd rather have the crime, and the victims of that crime. Whoops, you, FTA and guyser never discuss victims, I forgot.

What are these "victims" of which you speak?

<Googles>

Oh, wow! I had no idea! This changes everything! Screw the rule of law! Judges are bleeding heart liberals, the system is BROKENSES, and due process is for pussies!

There's an old guy in this area who catches moles for people to supplement his small pension. The guy worked hard all his life, is honest and as such trusted other people. Old school. One of the things he did for his retirement was buy a small place as an investment rental property. He rented it to what he thought was a nice couple, trouble was they weren't. Eventually they got busted for operating a grow, the house was uninhabitable, he lost the equity he had in it, they got a conditional sentence and a fine. He got no compensation.

What, and the criminal justice system is supposed to make sure that this never happens? I had some tenants who turned out to be three-time losers wreck my place once, too. Can't sue them, of course, because they had nothing to take even if I'd won. OMG! TEH JUSTISE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!

It's not a half remembered anecdote, it happened in the municipality next door

It's not an urban myth; it happened just the way I said, to a friend of my cousin's. Buncha folks were talking about it and everything.

But never mind. As I said, even if you have the details right, it's impossible to fathom what you're in a tizzy about. Cops have to make sure it's the right place and the warrants are filled out before they kick the door in? Gasp! However will we root out the evildoers?

[Wilber]

Now who's hysterical?

What are these "victims" of which you speak?

I guess if there are no victims, there are no crimes, so why do we need a justice system?

What, and the criminal justice system is supposed to make sure that this never happens? I had some tenants who turned out to be three-time losers wreck my place once, too. Can't sue them, of course, because they had nothing to take even if I'd won. OMG! TEH JUSTISE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!

I've never said it was broken. I am saying that it is ineffective in many areas and it, itself is responsible for that in part.

But never mind. As I said, even if you have the details right, it's impossible to fathom what you're in a tizzy about. Cops have to make sure it's the right place and the warrants are filled out before they kick the door in? Gasp! However will we root out the evildoers?

Your comprehension isn't too good, they were in the right place, they had a warrant and they found what they were looking for.

This isn't the one I was thinking of but here is Another

[guyser]

Yup, we're Canadian, we'd rather have the crime, and the victims of that crime. Whoops, you, FTA and guyser never discuss victims, I forgot.

Geez Wilber, you just have to go throw something in that isnt warranted.

Ok then , lets look at this.

Show me where I have not cared about victims of crime.

What has not been clear to you is that victims of crime are put in a worse position due to the failings of some cops who thought it best not to do their job in the manner in which they were trained. When the accused are let off due to infringment of rights, then the victim is in a worse position due to police malfeasence.

And none of use would be happy about that. but to blame the courts for that is ridiculous.

The kid with the backpack had his rights violated and as such was let off. Go ahead and blame me for it but the facts are the police screwed up and so did a principal. But no one wants to blame them. If there was such a case that demanded proper investigation, that was one.

He rented it to what he thought was a nice couple, trouble was they weren't. Eventually they got busted for operating a grow, the house was uninhabitable, he lost the equity he had in it, they got a conditional sentence and a fine. He got no compensation.

Blood from a stone.

He should have checked on it more often, done municipal checks on it and so on.

[Kitchener]

Now who's hysterical?

Wilber, meet parody. Parody, Wilber. Shake hands, fellas.

I've never said it was broken. I am saying that it is ineffective in many areas and it, itself is responsible for that in part.

Good grief. Well, since this thread has focused on whether the system is broken or fundamentally flawed, and since none of the people who've denied that claim have denied that "it is ineffective in many areas", this all seems to have been a terrible misunderstanding.

Yet somehow I can confidently predict more context-free cherry-picked outrage-porn will be linked again and again, as if this establishes something other than the obsessions of their posters.

This isn't the one I was thinking of but here is Another

...and right on time, there it is. Well, what aspect of the judge's clear emphasis on the rule of law and the rights of citizens do you find offensive?

[guyser]

This isn't the one I was thinking of but here is Another

I can see how that one infuriates some. But the fact remains that the police ignored their own operations procedures and were caught out on it.

How many cases are there in Canada? 10,000? The ledger is still heavily in the "justice applied" sector.

[Wilber]

Show me where I have not cared about victims of crime.

Can't, you've never mentioned them until I goaded you into it. Kitchener and FTA still haven't acknowledged there is such a thing.

[Wilber]

I can see how that one infuriates some. But the fact remains that the police ignored their own operations procedures and were caught out on it.

How many cases are there in Canada? 10,000? The ledger is still heavily in the "justice applied" sector.

Makes sense to me, they knock and announce at the front door and when no one came they entered through a side door. I guess you and the judge would prefer that they entered guns holstered through the front door right into the muzzle of a 12 gauge.

[guyser]

Can't, you've never mentioned them until I goaded you into it. Kitchener and FTA still haven't acknowledged there is such a thing.

+1 for honesty.

But you must realize that you make a case against yourself. It could be you that does not care for victims.

If, and your writings suggest, you want the police to apprehend all criminals regardless of a violations of rights then it would be you that is leaving the victims of crimes in a worse scenario.

The victims have no recourse after charges are dismissed.

Now what?

[guyser]

Makes sense to me, they knock and announce at the front door and when no one came they entered through a side door. I guess you and the judge would prefer that they entered guns holstered through the front door right into the muzzle of a 12 gauge.

Certainly not Wilber.

Show me where any mention of guns were found? (I'll save you time --there were none mentioned)

"But the judge said in her ruling this week there was no risk assessment done by police supporting the use of drawn weapons."

Dont let facts trip you up.

[Wilber]

Certainly not Wilber.

Show me where any mention of guns were found? (I'll save you time --there were none mentioned)

"But the judge said in her ruling this week there was no risk assessment done by police supporting the use of drawn weapons."

Dont let facts trip you up.

How are the police to know there are no guns? How would you suggest they do a risk assessment, phone ahead and ask politely if there are any guns on the premises?

[Kitchener]

How are the police to know there are no guns?

As a sidebar, the gun registry was a valuable tool for knowing that there are guns. Too bad for the police that so many "law and order" types hated it.

But yes, it is hard for police to know that there aren't guns. It's hard to be certain that there aren't live snakes, for that matter. So I guess they should always kick in doors without knocking! How can they know whether there are guns there?

Or do we only get to apply this standard post hoc, when the police have let a genuine scumbag off the hook by not following established standards?

That a tough one to think through, I understand. It's only easier for me because I'm not wasting energy noticing the existence of victims. Like the various people I love and respect whose lives have been changed or ended by criminal acts, say. If only I were all about the victims, like the truly pious posters in our midst! Alas, I'm condemned to arguing that one's opinions on the topic should be, like, rationally defensible and based on evidence, not on panicked confirmation biases.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Kitchener

[Wilber]

As a sidebar, the gun registry was a valuable tool for knowing that there are guns. Too bad for the police that so many "law and order" types hated it.

Considering that 99% of the guns these people have aren't registered and a large number of them couldn't even be registered, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

But yes, it is hard for police to know that there aren't guns. It's hard to be certain that there aren't live snakes, for that matter. So I guess they should always kick in doors without knocking! How can they know whether there are guns there?

They did knock. They just didn't kick in the door they knocked. Smart no?

Let me ask you a question. You are standing in front of that door. The cop beside you says, this is a major grow and we don't know if these people are armed. We've knocked on the door so would you like to go first or do you think we should take the side door? Watcha think?

[FTA Lawyer]

Can't, you've never mentioned them until I goaded you into it. Kitchener and FTA still haven't acknowledged there is such a thing.

I have within the last year faced the mother and sister of a girl who died while a passenger in the car driven by my client, I have arranged to get property from a client so it could be returned to someone he took it from, I have been commended by a youth court judge for respectful cross-examinations of a teenage crime victim... and I could go on and on.

I have also watched grown men unlawfully victimized by the police openly weep in my office, I have choked back tears while their wives testified about why their children are afraid of police officers, I have stood with pride as fabricated charges were dropped against my 4-month pregnant client who was unlawfully held in custody for 21 hours without food.

I don't read about vicitms in the paper...I work with them in person.

And I certainly don't need to satisfy the on-line persona known as "Wilber" that I practice my profession with respect and integrity. You may not have intended the slight you made, but look to your left, that is asphalt...look to your right, a sewer grate...yup, you're in the gutter.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

How are the police to know there are no guns? How would you suggest they do a risk assessment, phone ahead and ask politely if there are any guns on the premises?

The police surveiled the residence to get their grounds for the warrant...through intelligence gathered they are expected to do a risk assessment (e.g., if they see a baby is living there, things are to be done differently than if the house is unoccupied). THEY SKIPPED THAT STEP.

In fact, from the evidence of THE OFFICERS THEMSELVES they had no reason to believe that there was any risk of destruction of evidence, and no reasonable suspicion that there were any violent persons staying there or weapons on site.

Then, they knock and announce at the front door, and quickly move 'round to the back to smash in with guns pointing every which way. One would think that those of you always slamming judges for never having common sense would agree with the judge's following statement:

One of the underlying purposes of the “knock and announce” rule is to allow any occupants a reasonable period of time to permit entry to the police. In most cases, one or two minutes would clearly be sufficient time for an occupant to respond to a demand for entry. In this case, however, the police directed the occupant’s attention to the front door and then surprised him by entering through the garage door. Whether or not I accept the accused’s evidence that he was endeavouring to respond to the pounding on the front door, the police have to assume that when they knock and announce at the front door, that will be the door to which the occupants will direct their attention. Consequently, if the police abandon the front door for another entrance to the residence, they must at least knock at the second door and give a reasonable period of time for the occupant to respond. Absent these minimum standards, the entry is in effect a dynamic one, which surprises the occupant, without any evidence of extrinsic circumstances.

At the end of the day, the judge in this case notes the serious risk (to both occupants and the police themselves) that is created by the police when they do no homework to find any evidentiary basis for a dynamic violent entry and just do it because they can.

As in the previous Feeney example, the police here totally disregarded the law that was clearly set out for them in 1989 (just shy of 2 f--king decades ago) as noted by the judge:

To attempt to justify the routine use of a battering ram to violate, unannounced, a private residence on the grounds that there have been weapons found in some homes where there have also been marihuana grow operations does not come close to meeting the onus upon the police to show why they concluded such force and surprise were necessary in a particular entry. It is clear from the comments in Genest [[1989] 1 S.C.R. 59] that the Crown must lay an evidentiary framework to show that there were grounds to be concerned about the possibility of violence in this particular case.

There were clearly no exigent circumstances identified in evidence warranting a dynamic entry in this case

But again, for some inexplicable reason no one on this board seems to want to look at the actual case and the actual facts and the actual decision of the judge...it's way easier to slam her by relying on media paraphrasing and politician's expressions of outrage.

EVERY PROVINCE HAS WEBSITES REPORTING ACTUAL JUDGMENTS!!!

No one expects police to let dangerous offenders arm themselves before entry for a warrant...just first have some shred of evidence that there might be a dangerous individual with something he may arm himself with in the home you are going into.

Oh, and don't be surprised if the occupants don't let you in the back door after you knock on the front...

FTA

[Kitchener]

Considering that 99% of the guns these people have aren't registered and a large number of them couldn't even be registered, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Consider you have to listen to yourself, that's quite the allegation. But the police certainly don't think it's dumb. Overwhelmingly they supported the use of the gun registry for precisely the reason I gave. Why do you have such contempt for the opinion of the police?

Let me ask you a question. You are standing in front of that door. The cop beside you says, this is a major grow and we don't know if these people are armed. We've knocked on the door so would you like to go first or do you think we should take the side door? Watcha think?

I'm not sure what I'd think if I were standing there having done my job improperly so that we weren't prepared. Probably I'd be nervous and scared, maybe feeling a bit guilty, from being underprepared. It's a good reason to follow the rules, as if not wanting the case to be properly thrown out of court weren't a good enough reason.

But why are you asking me such questions when you can't answer the simple one I posed? What part of the judge's respect for the rule of law do you find offensive? Or, putting it another way, how little respect for the law would you prefer to see judges show, in order to satisfy your knee-jerk reactions to misdescribed cases?

Edited May 22, 2008 by Kitchener

[Wilber]

Consider you have to listen to yourself, that's quite the allegation. But the police certainly don't think it's dumb. Overwhelmingly they supported the use of the gun registry for precisely the reason I gave. Why do you have such contempt for the opinion of the police?

It's not an allegation, ask any police officer. Of course they use the registry, why wouldn't they but it only tells them there might be a person with a registered weapon in that building, it doesn't tell them there are no weapons. The registry is of some use when it comes to things like domestic disputes, it has next to none when it comes to real criminals.

I'm not sure what I'd think if I were standing there having done my job improperly so that we weren't prepared. Probably I'd be nervous and scared, maybe feeling a bit guilty, from being underprepared. It's a good reason to follow the rules, as if not wanting the case to be properly thrown out of court weren't a good enough reason.

Drivel. Answer the question.

But why are you asking me such questions when you can't answer the simple one I posed? What part of the judge's respect for the rule of law do you find offensive? Or, putting it another way, how little respect for the law would you prefer to see judges show, in order to satisfy your knee-jerk reactions to misdescribed cases?

It's the judges disrespect for safety of the police involved that I find offensive.

[Keepitsimple]

It's not an allegation, ask any police officer. Of course they use the registry, why wouldn't they but it only tells them there might be a person with a registered weapon in that building, it doesn't tell them there are no weapons. The registry is of some use when it comes to things like domestic disputes, it has next to none when it comes to real criminals.

Drivel. Answer the question.

It's the judges disrespect for safety of the police involved that I find offensive.

I guess that's it in a nutshell. I would rather the justice system err of the side of the safety of police and the protection of the public - after all, when a criminal gets off, they prey on the public until they are caught. If there is a flagrant or even a technical breach of the rules and the actions are found to be unwarranted (i.e. no crime, no evidence of criminality), then the police should be disciplined through their wallet - unpaid suspensions that may lead to dismissal through escalating penalties. If a civilian is injured in a breach of the rules, then the police should be criminally liable (which I believe they are today). Having said all that, the other side of the coin is that if their reasoned actions results in the uncovering of criminal activity - then that evidence should be allowed to stand......but even then, the Police could be subject to discipline. In other words, the police can only bend rules at their own peril. Such an approach ensures that criminals don't get away scot free while protecting the public from unreasonable searches.

[sharkman]

I have within the last year faced the mother and sister of a girl who died while a passenger in the car driven by my client, I have arranged to get property from a client so it could be returned to someone he took it from, I have been commended by a youth court judge for respectful cross-examinations of a teenage crime victim... and I could go on and on.

I have also watched grown men unlawfully victimized by the police openly weep in my office, I have choked back tears while their wives testified about why their children are afraid of police officers, I have stood with pride as fabricated charges were dropped against my 4-month pregnant client who was unlawfully held in custody for 21 hours without food.

I don't read about vicitms in the paper...I work with them in person.

And I certainly don't need to satisfy the on-line persona known as "Wilber" that I practice my profession with respect and integrity. You may not have intended the slight you made, but look to your left, that is asphalt...look to your right, a sewer grate...yup, you're in the gutter.

FTA

Ah, so your handle, FTA, has nothing to do with Free Trade Agreement Lawyer!

You defend those facing criminal charges, and seem unaware that those grown men you've shared tears with may be lying their asses off and crying crocodile tears. I had a brother in law who could do that, and turn on the tears at will. Seriously, one year at christmas he became extremely "thankful" for his gifts. Too bad he turned out to be a lying son of a gun who was a hard drug user.

The best lawyer is one who THINKS you are innocent. Have you had a case yet where you defended someone charged of a violent crime and got him off, only to later find he actually killed or raped after all? It doesn't sound like it. You may accuse someone of being in the gutter, friend, but your job includes getting off gutter people.

[FTA Lawyer]

Ah, so your handle, FTA, has nothing to do with Free Trade Agreement Lawyer!

You defend those facing criminal charges, and seem unaware that those grown men you've shared tears with may be lying their asses off and crying crocodile tears. I had a brother in law who could do that, and turn on the tears at will. Seriously, one year at christmas he became extremely "thankful" for his gifts. Too bad he turned out to be a lying son of a gun who was a hard drug user.

The best lawyer is one who THINKS you are innocent. Have you had a case yet where you defended someone charged of a violent crime and got him off, only to later find he actually killed or raped after all? It doesn't sound like it. You may accuse someone of being in the gutter, friend, but your job includes getting off gutter people.

Yeah, I'm a total dupe who can't recognize that some of my clients are more truthful than others. Holy shit...now that you mention it, I think I'm going to change careers...it never occurred to me before that some of my clients actually did what they were accused of!!!!!!

You know those stats I was referring to earlier, well guess what, they apply to my clients the same as anyone else's...if you need that spelled out completely, that means the vast majority of my clients plead guilty. Of those who go to trial, many of them are nevertheless convicted.

Oh, and would you change your tune if you knew the "crocodile tears" were coming from clients of mine who were themselves police officers?!?! Now that's a bit of a conundrum for the critics here isn't it?!?!?

FTA

[guyser]

I guess that's it in a nutshell. I would rather the justice system err of the side of the safety of police and the protection of the public

That is exactly where you go wrong KIS. The justice system violates everyones rights if they "err on the...".

The public is not protected but rather harmed when we turn a blind eye to transgressions of police.

Either we uphold the law or we dont.

[Keepitsimple]

That is exactly where you go wrong KIS. The justice system violates everyones rights if they "err on the...".

The public is not protected but rather harmed when we turn a blind eye to transgressions of police.

Either we uphold the law or we dont.

Justice is administered after the fact. Police work in "real time". While there are rules to try and make law enforcement decisions "black and white", there will always be exceptions to those rules or misinterpretations when danger is imminent.....and yes, there are human failings as well. Police cannot be perfect. As I mentioned, I would like to see the courts discipline the police where required - in some cases seriously - but in cases of serious crime, evidence should not be disallowed. That does not violate my rights and I'm sure that 99% of citizens would agree with me.

[guyser]

Justice is administered after the fact. Police work in "real time". While there are rules to try and make law enforcement decisions "black and white", there will always be exceptions to those rules or misinterpretations when danger is imminent.....

When danger has shown to be imminent then that is taken into concern by the courts. That wont change nor should it. All the examples shown in this thread are of the non-imminent catregory.

and yes, there are human failings as well. Police cannot be perfect. As I mentioned, I would like to see the courts discipline the police where required - in some cases seriously - but in cases of serious crime, evidence should not be disallowed. That does not violate my rights and I'm sure that 99% of citizens would agree with me.

Nobody is perfect. well maybe you and me....

I too would like Police disciplined more often. But that is a finding of the Police Chief and they normally side on the cops end. No surprise there , but to my thinking it should occur more.

Serious , not serious , minor crime, all sorts of evidence can and is excluded . The only true way it can be. No one wants the slippery slope to begin.

Your rights are my rights are everyone elses rights. They are collectively violated and the pattern is then established. It becomes a matter of time before you are aware of your violation.But I stand up for all rights and hope our courts do the same.

[Oleg Bach]

I am encouraging all posters to use this thread to vent.....if you read of ill-advised sentencing, post the story and relieve some of that pent-up frustration!

When will it end? Another soft-headed judge has exacerbated an already broken Justice System and this case seems to be representative of all that's wrong. To wit:

1) Plea Bargaining: Putting aside the fact that plea bargaining is often done just to keep the courts moving, one would think that when you plead guilty to a lesser charge, then your sentence should be at the "upper end" of that lesser charge.

2) Double and Triple credit for time served: This whole business of double and triple credit for time served started with the Don Jail in Toronto. Built around 1850, it was dirty, rat-infested and horrendously over-crowded. So....around 7 or 8 years ago, a judge agreed to give someone who had been held at the Don Jail double credit for time served. This has now become a precedent- apparently in every juristiction in the country - regardless of the pristine conditions under which these criminals might be held. Now this social-engineering Judge gives a 3 for 1 credit.

3) Soft-headed logic: In explaining his reasoning for giving a 3 for 1 credit for time served, the judge had this to say about these criminals: The judge said the men have suffered "extreme" hardship during their jail time because they have not been able to see their loved ones, there are no programs offered to them in jail, and they have endured lockdowns in the North Central Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene.

4) Statutory Release: Well let's see - they've supposedly served 5 and a half years of an 8 year sentence - so one would think that they'd have 2 and a half years left to serve.....but hold on - Statutory Release will automatically grant them freedom after two thirds of their sentence - which for an 8 year sentence is 5 years and 4 months. I guess they won't have to pack a toothbrush.

Here's the whole story:

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008...pf-4760215.html

Stabbed in the guts out of the blue! What the hell? There was a young beautiful fine woman, a friend of one of my daughters. She was waiting for a street car at the corner of Broadview and Danforth - at Toronto. Suddenly without warning, this creepy guy - from what I understand - an "Arab" plunged a knife into her guts, not once but three times then quietly walked away as if he had just casually killed a bug.

My daughter went to visit the girl in the hospital. The poor suffering thing, a woman of stature and dignity still had the blackened blood under her fingernails from clutching the wound attempting to stay alive till she was cared for..What I found disturbing is that this assassin did not pick some low quality person but the finest female representing our extended Canadian family.

Here is the glitch..this man if you could call him that had five years previous did the same thing to another female supposedly at random. I don't believe he is crazy but is a fanatic and I do not believe that he attempts to kill who is ever handy. It seems he picks out only fine and dignified white woman. N O W - talk about the broken justice system...how in heavens name did our immigration bring in such a extremist Muslim to do "God's work" - and HOW in the hell is he allowed to walk around and repeat the same crime...? Why is he not doing twenty five years? Why was he not deported? It is as if he is release to harrass and continue to terrify the public..that would make him a terrorist and the judicary faciltators to terror...There should be an investigation.

[Oleg Bach]

Stabbed in the guts out of the blue! What the hell? There was a young beautiful fine woman, a friend of one of my daughters. She was waiting for a street car at the corner of Broadview and Danforth - at Toronto. Suddenly without warning, this creepy guy - from what I understand - an "Arab" plunged a knife into her guts, not once but three times then quietly walked away as if he had just casually killed a bug.

My daughter went to visit the girl in the hospital. The poor suffering thing, a woman of stature and dignity still had the blackened blood under her fingernails from clutching the wound attempting to stay alive till she was cared for..What I found disturbing is that this assassin did not pick some low quality person but the finest female representing our extended Canadian family.

Here is the glitch..this man if you could call him that had five years previous did the same thing to another female supposedly at random. I don't believe he is crazy but is a fanatic and I do not believe that he attempts to kill who is ever handy. It seems he picks out only fine and dignified white woman. N O W - talk about the broken justice system...how in heavens name did our immigration bring in such a extremist Muslim to do "God's work" - and HOW in the hell is he allowed to walk around and repeat the same crime...? Why is he not doing twenty five years? Why was he not deported? It is as if he is release to harrass and continue to terrify the public..that would make him a terrorist and the judicary faciltators to terror...There should be an investigation.

Post Script. Is the real problem here that we are so debased and conditioned to abuse that it has come to that point that we don't have justice because we no longer believe in what is good..that evil is acceptable? That chaos..that is rape pilage and murder - is the norm and as long as we get three sqaure meals, a few bucks and a shack that it's to hell with everyone? When secularism and crimminality replace Christain doctrine it all fell apart..you have to remember if you are going to tear a system down you had better have a replacement...we made the fatal error of destoying society with out a thought on replacement of on system with another..there is no system to speak of. There is a broken clock that will never tell time again and we don't care..as we stumble about.

[Keepitsimple]

Street Racing now carries a maximum penalty of Life in Prison. See if you can justify why this criminal got House Arrest for killing an innocent person....oh and he got a fine of $1250 for driving without insurance. Heck - it costs more for insurance than it does for the fine. Read on:

Racer wrist-slap ripped

Man gets house arrest for speeding accident that killed trucker

By TRACY MCLAUGHLIN, SUN MEDIA

BARRIE -- With tears streaming down her cheeks, the wife of an Innisfil truck driver who was killed in a street racing incident stomped out of court yesterday, angry after hearing the man responsible for the death was sentenced to house arrest.

"The whole justice system is going to hell," said Debbie Virgoe, widow of David Virgoe, who was killed a year ago when his tractor-trailer truck swerved and crashed to avoid colliding with a street racer on Hwy. 400 June 17, 2007.

Nauman Nusrat, 20, of Etobicoke, was sentenced to two years of house arrest on top of the 11 months he has served in jail since his arrest.

He had plead guilty to street racing causing death, which carries a maximum penalty of life.

He also received a life-time driving prohibition, two years of probation, $1,250 in fines for driving without insurance and having a forged insurance document, and 140 hours of community service.

Court heard Nusrat reached speeds of 170 km/h in his Pontiac Grand Am as he raced northbound against two other friends who were driving a Mustang convertible and a Honda Civic.

Laughing as they zigzagged in and out of lanes and cutting people off, they gestured to each other and egged each other on while calling each other on cellphones for a total of 66 calls.

Nusrat's Grand Am eventually struck the tire of Virgoe's truck, causing him to swerve into a ditch to avoid hitting other traffic. The truck flipped and Virgoe was killed instantly.

"He was a hero," said provincial court Justice Gregory Regis in his sentencing, saying if Virgoe had not cranked his steering wheel to veer into the ditch, he would have headed into traffic.

"His death has had a dramatic impact on his loving family," the judge said.

"A husband and dad has been stolen from them," he said.

"But the justice system is not capable of taking away that pain," Regis said. "Sentencing principles are not about taking revenge ... the rules of sentencing state that a person should not be deprived of his liberty if there is a less restrictive sentence available."

Outside of court, Virgoe's family hugged each other and wept.

"I don't understand," Debbie said. "What were politicians wasting their time for when they fought to change the maximum sentence to life in prison for street racing ... what did all that mean? Perhaps the attorney general could have a little chat with me to explain it."

"It's a slap in the face," said the truck driver's brother, Dean Virgoe. "This judge wasn't just out in left field ... he wasn't even in the right ball park."

An hour later, Nusrat walked out of jail armed with paperwork that states he must stay in his home -- except to go to school, work, medical appointments or shopping on Saturdays.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008...pf-5764371.html

Edited June 4, 2008 by Keepitsimple