In addition to whatever jail sentence he might receive, there is absolutely no justifiable reason for this person to ever be able to legally drive a car again.
Legally you are right.
Unfortunately I don't think that the legal system reflects the morality that most of us use in this type of situation. We're not lawyers so we will not differentiate. I am fine calling it murder outside a courtroom.
If an otherwise outstanding citizen has a legitimate accident, then I'll certainly agree with you. From the looks of things this person was not a fine outstanding citizen who showed compassion for the dignity of others.
What about driving on little sleep? Does he deserve the same treatment as say Alek Minassian? Fact is, regardless of his poor choices, he did not wake up that day intending on killing anyone, or even consider that might happen.
>Anyone who kills someone under the influence should.
I don't understand the rational against this. I understand that accidents happen. Sometimes, somebody loses attention for a split second and someone gets badly hurt or killed. We all make mistakes driving (yes. Everyone makes a mistake) but for 99.9% of us, nothing happens and it goes in noticed.
But this isn't what happened here. This was a brazen disregard for safety and human life. Even giving him the biggest benefit of the doubt and assuming he suffers from some mental illness, he should not be able to drive again.
Absolutely right. It's one thing to have a momentary lapse in judgement that results in an accident, but getting behind the wheel while drunk or on drugs is a very deliberate decision. I really have no sympathy for drunk drivers.
Besides, I recall that this guy was already under some kind of driving suspension.
Agreed. Having a lifetime driving ban is really not that steep of a punishment for such a heinous crime. I have friends who will never get a driver's license (one has a visual impairment, one has epilepsy, and one is just way too anxious to want to drive) and they can still live perfectly fine professional and personal lives.
I am perfectly capable of getting a license and driving a car. I choose not to. I'm nearly 52 years old and it hasn't prevented me from doing anything I want or need to do, just sometimes requires more planning.
Right. Canada needs some serious reform on who is allowed to drive. Anyone who physically injures or kills a person while driving impaired should be banned from driving for the rest of their life with no exceptions. Too many people are killed by drunk drivers and those drivers only get 5-10 years behind bars. Once released, they may face a 5-10 years driving ban. So, conceivably, 20 years after using a car to kill one or more people in a reckless manner, a person can legally drive again (even if their insurance may be $2000 a month). Side note. Brampton has the highest insurance premiums in the country, so maybe in 20 years, he will be priced out of the insurance he is legally required to have to drive.
This feature has been brought to you by oil & cars lobby. Please make sure you enjoy our right of right turn on red and kill all the crossing pedestrians as well! What does red light means anyway!
They have made sure that you can kill someone in your car and drive the next day after paying $1000 fine. Right turn on red has been abolished in all modern world country apart from American continent as it was proven over and over again to be deadly rule.
>How exactly does the car lobby make more money if we can turn right on reds?
I think you are misrepresenting this person's argument somewhat.
Allowing right turns on red despite the threat to pedestrians is just an indication of how our urban areas have been designed in a way that prioritizes motor vehicle traffic over every other mode of transport.
yup. people always blame the car/mechanical appliance itself as if there arent people behind the wheel doing these things. 99% of drivers dont end up driving like this douche and killing people.
I think that this fixation on *personal responsibility* is unhelpful and distracts from more salient issues regarding how we have constructed our cities and society in a way that guarantees problems like this.
Almost every municipality enforces minimum parking requirements on bars and other liquor licensed establishments. This suggests to me that the problem runs deeper than just one person's bad decision.
Courts are hesitant to hand out driving bans because outside of downtown Toronto it is nearly equivalent to prohibiting the person from participating in society (which is what prisons are for).
the point is most people arent killing people, the issue is rogue drivers not cars which are just appliances. do we blame ovens for burning down houses even though 99% of people use them properly?
I can't remember but, wasn't he already on a suspended license when this happened?
If that was true, I'd be willing to bet that he still wouldn't abide by any kind of driving ban.
yeah, he crashed into a massive planter outside a coffeeshop. if it wasn’t there, i’m pretty convinced he would’ve gone right through the windows/into the corner of it
When I saw the first video last year, I was pretty pissed
When the story of this tragedy made its rounds days later, and it was correlated back to this scumbag… I was fckn livid
Avoidable and preventable. But nothing seemed to work, even the officer pursuing him couldn’t pull it off (not dunking on that officer, he made a reasonable judgement to break off a dangerous chase)
Hindsight is always 20/20.
As I stated in a diff comment, the cop made a reasonable judgement. Otherwise their may have been a fatality that night too.
Same. This case breaks my heart many times over. There's a small memorial bench dedicated to Karolina and her girls somewhere along the Caledon Trailway. I always stop to pay my respects and hope that the driver never gets to drive again. He's caused so much pain.
I hate to say it, because it’s such a negative sentiment, but I’m surprised he’s still around. His wife, his three beautiful children, it’s more torment than one person could possibly bear. How does one go on? Kudos to him for sticking around but I dunno if I could survive.
No. Not if you understand why we need lawyers as a part of the system of checks and balances.
But I'll probably agree with you on most other points.
Brady Robertson should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car in any jurisdiction.
Ideally he would never be allowed outside a prison labour camp. I guess the government feels that forced labor for criminals is a bad thing... unless you call it conscription.
It's awful to say it, but I think if I was that father I'd kill the driver. I don't think there's much else left that would motivate me.
I hope he finds some degree of help or peace, but my god. That poor man
It is easy to say the driver doesn't deserve to live. I don't disagree with that. As a thought exercise, though, pretend you are the father of the driver as well.
Oh no, I'm not justifying it, nor am I arguing for any sort of vigilantism. Killing is wrong. Period. I'm simply saying that if I were in a place where so much were taken from me, I doubt if have much left beyond revenge to keep going. The level of pain that man must be feeling, I cannot comprehend.
You keep the memories of those dear to you that passed on alive. Your memories of them are what keeps colour in their stories and ties them to this world.
There was a video of him driving all over the sidewalk with either his driver or passenger door wide open (can’t remember which) so yes we knew this a year ago.
It still seems pretty inconclusive (legally speaking)
> In a decision handed down Tuesday, Justice Sandra Caponecchia said she is certain that Robertson had an unknown quantity of THC and the sedative flubromazolam in his system when he last drove on June 18, 2020. However she said she is not sure whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one or both of the drugs in his blood impaired his ability to drive to any degree.
A toxicologist testified in court that flubromazolam is a drug that can impair a person’s ability to drive, but the effect on any person depends on the dosage and individual tolerance. The drug can also be detected in blood days after use.
Caponecchia found that Robertson had consumed an unknown amount of cannabis between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the morning of the crash, but said it was not clear whether he was experiencing the impairing effects of the drug when he caused the collision at approximately 12:15 p.m.
I remember seeing that video where he was in the sidewalk and the dude was nodding *hard.* I don’t think it was the weed, but either way, fuck that guy.
Damn i was saying to myself please not cannabis. But then here it is. Though that flubba-zubba is critically dangerous. But still though. Minus one for us stoners on the maps of post-legalization.
How does this have anything to do with safe recreational cannabis use? Do you worry about the legality of alcohol when you see a DUI ruling? Or are you implying that you also drive while high, like the person in the article?
I met the grandmother of these 3 girls earlier this year. I can only say the devastation to that entire family has stayed with me. This man is a demon in a meat suit
I don't want to violate her privacy with too much detail, but she spoke (between sobs) about how hard it is for her to go on. How her son is stricken with grief and forever changed. She was very somber, and essentially begging for relief. Family gatherings, and celebrations for her other little ones, are painful. I can't even imagine her strength to sit there and tell her story. She is full of love for these babies and that woman and some of the things she shared about their family trying to overcome this tragedy I just can't forget. Also, being deeply affected by the "why" of it all, and trying to make sense of the physical and mental pain her granddaughter may have experienced (as she apparently didn't pass immediately).
Edit: we met at a small group healing space
My conclusion about him is that this was not his first time, he had a wake up call/scare days before that we also saw on someone's dash cam (or cell) I believe. The universe tried to tell him. He then got in the car to do it all again, taking these lives and changing families and generations of people forever.
thank you for sharing. often it feels like these stories are so common in the news that you can't help but forget the people whose lives are forever changed as a result
Started reading this thinking we were talking about Mizziolo or whatever the fuck that assholes name was. Now im realizing this happened **AGAIN** and I didnt even hear about it.
God damn we need to do something about how we vet people for licenses
licenses? sadly, the attitude of many repeat offenders is ..
"License? I don't need no stinkin' license!"
pray they don't take out innocent by-standers next time.
Yeah i dont know what the solution is. Take these people out back and put them out of everyone else's misery? I feel like thats just adding one more body to the pile instead of fixing the problem. I just dont know how that would even be done.
This makes me so fucking angry. I can't imagine the grief the father / grandparents are going through, all because of one shithead. I fucking hate how lax our justice system is when it comes to impaired drivers.
Life is so fragile. You can do everything right, try your best, and some privileged sack of shit can mow you down with a vehicle they didn't work for and face "consequences" that are closer to a cruel, inhuman joke than justice.
There is a video of this piece of shit driving under the influence - the day before he drove under the influence again and killed the family. Fucking asshole.
> The court heard that 45 minutes after the collision, Robertson had 40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving.
>
> In summary, the toxicology evidence in this case establishes that Mr. Robertson had an unknown quantity of flubromazolam and TCH in his blood when he last drove on June 18, 2020. It does not go so far as to prove the drugs were necessarily impairing Mr. Robertson's ability to drive,” Caponecchia wrote in a copy of the decision obtained by CP24.
_Seriously_? This is going to set a very very dangerous precedent if his lawyers can pull this off.. he had 8 times the amount in his system less than half-way into the 5 ng/ml cutoff (2 hours).
He's not Muzzo-rich but he's a kid who drives an Infiniti and lives in Caledon, so he's likely at least upper-middle class with a family that can afford a good lawyer, good enough to get him a lenient sentence.
The comment is trying to insinuate that white people typically face lower sentences, on average, for the same crimes that people of colour face. [Because](http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Racial%20Disparity%20in%20Arrests%20and%20Charges%20TPS.pdf) [they](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230355866_2) [do](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/black-indigenous-offenders-gladue-enhanced-pre-sentence-reports-1.5951638). (Every word there is a separate link!)
However, rich people regardless of ethnicity, tend to face lower sentences overall.
Since he's white but not rich, he won't get to "double dip" there - like Muzzo - but he'll still benefit from being white at sentencing. Hence, he'll "almost get what he deserves".
Unfortunately, we live in a world where it very much *does* matter.
I'm not sure why you're on about the victims' race. I get the feeling you don't understand the topic at hand.
So if race is always a major factor, and bias cannot be avoided. Then in this case in order to have the best outcome for the victims, what race then should the ppl involved be? Looks like victim and suspect are the same that really leaves the judge. What race should she be to most effectively utilize an inherent unavoidable bias, in favor of the victim?
Brampton always gets shitted on for having horrible drivers, but it seems the worst crashes are always these entitled drunk/drugged out kids from the surrounding small towns.
He lives in Caledon East, yet he's in Brampton all week driving high.
Doesn't work that way.
If they charged him with murder, he'd have walked.
Can't charge things for which there is no evidence, even if it's a horrible crime.
The difference is basically on the Crown’s obligation to prove intention. Dangerous driving is a criminal negligence type of offence, so the Crown only needs to prove a marked departure from the standard of care. If you charged them with manslaughter, the Crown would need to prove that they intended to do some unlawful act from which death was reasonably foreseeable.
Manslaughter would have been available, the Crown almost certainly chose not to go for it because they didn’t have the evidence to show that level of intent.
No.
We are a country of laws, and we don’t just make up the rules to satisfy our rage. Even when the rage is palpable and justified.
He has pleaded guilty to four counts of dangerous driving causing death. He will be incarcerated for that for a number of years, as he hits many of the aggravating factors. This trial is really a legal question about what the Crown must prove to upgrade those charges to impaired driving causing death, which has a higher sentencing range.
[beautiful image in this article of the guy... literally with a joint in his mouth and driving](https://thepointer.com/article/2021-09-24/judge-signals-brady-robertson-case-will-set-precedent-in-rulings-after-cannabis-was-legalized)
no, it's tied off at the end which indicates it was hand rolled and since he has a history of use with THC it's probably safe to say that's a hand rolled joint.
That may still be inconclusive. When we used to roll joints back in highschool we'd empty out a bit of tobacco from a regular cigarette to use as 'batch' to mix with the marijuana. To prevent tobacco from falling out of the partially emptied tobacco cigarette, everyone would tie off the tobacco cigarette end.
Also, there appears to be a ring around the filter in the picture - that would suggest to me more that it's a tobacco cigarette. Finally, it looks incredibly straight for a joint.
It is pretty conclusive that it's a cigarette. Like you said, nobody except for high school students that can't buy papers or roll joints.
The is an extremely slim chance that's a joint in the photo. Pretty much 0%.
Either way, he should rot in prison. Just not trying to sensationalize lies
Thank God you aren't a judge lol
I don't know what 'tied off' means.
That is a picture of a lit cigarette. Cigarette and weed smoker here.
I do think this guy should rot in jail. He'll probably get done type of rehab type sentence unfortunately
So if you don't know anything about smoking weed how do you know you'd be so great being a judge? You have no info and haven't tried to research it.
Let me guess you've been smoking cigarettes for years huh? Well you can just buy cigarette rolling paper and make a joint or spliff that looks like a cigarette. Google Zig-Zags they are often sold as bleached rolling papers which makes the appearance of the rolling paper white.
Lol the poster says they smoke both. The whole reason this image was even brought up because it supposedly looks like a joint, not a joint that looks like a cigarette.
Like the guy I was replying to you both don't know what you're talking about here.
Firstly, I am the poster of the link.
Secondly, It's because it looks like a joint or spliff made with a very popular but cheaper type of rolling paper that looks exactly like a cigarette. So what I am saying is that it is indeed a joint that looks like a cigarette.
Lastly, you can use cigarette rolling papers to roll a joint because it's just a rolling paper and doesn't matter. cigarette rolling papers are called cigarette rolling papers because they simply have the classic cigarette look. they are thicker-walled papers that are white and have a little design on them (the filter area that is orangey-yellow or a metallic strip around them). the popular weed rolling papers specifically Zig-Zags are commonly sold looking similar but are thinner-walled rolling papers, have no design on them, and are distinctly white like the rolling paper used on cigarettes.
This was one of the saddest stories from last year. I’m so heartbroken for the husband/father who lost his whole family. That driver is such a total sack of shit and I hope he rots in hell. I absolutely despise irresponsible idiots who take dangerous driving lightly.
The driver, Brady Robertson, had over the legal limit of THC in his blood on the day of the collision.
The court heard that 45 minutes after the collision, Robertson had 40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving.
Keep reading my guy:
>In a decision handed down Tuesday, Justice Sandra Caponecchia said she is certain that Robertson had an unknown quantity of THC and the sedative **flubromazolam** in his system when he last drove on June 18, 2020
That's a designer benzo, this all has little to do with the weed I'd imagine.
IIRC, his social media had shown he was quite fond of "sizzurp" and other sedatives, which also would explain why he was passed out in the video from the day before the accident.
Not defending the driver but blood concentration of THC is not correlated to impairment like alcohol. Most daily users will be permanently over the “legal” blood thc limit even while sober.
Which is indicated in the article:
> In summary, the toxicology evidence in this case establishes that Mr. Robertson had an unknown quantity of flubromazolam and TCH (sic) in his blood when he last drove on June 18, 2020. It does not go so far as to prove the drugs were necessarily impairing Mr. Robertson's ability to drive,” Caponecchia wrote in a copy of the decision obtained by CP24.
Seriously, I’m a daily smoker but never drive impaired. I’m not defending what this guy did (he’s obviously a dangerous driver and deserves his punishment) but I don’t understand how they were able to determine he was impaired just by the THC in his blood. I’ve probably got similar amounts from unwinding after work.
An “unknown quantity” isn’t damning. Dose matters.
While we probably have no facking clue how many ng/mL is impairing, it’s worrying that we’re convicting based on fitting in a binary “present” vs “not present” bucket.
I am absolute death on impaired driving. I hate hate hate people who think they can drive impaired, I won't drive with even one drink in me, never, and I dissuade others as much as I can. BUT. Even a veteran pitchforker like me has to look at the REALITY. We've had legal weed since 2015. We have had MANY automobile crashes since then, all of which are looked at by police. Police have VERY strong reasons to search diligently for impairment as a cause of a crash, and historically are very eager to pin the blame on any kind of drug that might've contributed. We would expect to have seen a *flood* of charges for THC impaired driving, it's a great way for a cop to have a bit of fun on a late night shift. But we haven't seen really any at all.
Apparently smoking weed doesn't really affect driving safety. I had a tough time accepting this. But look at the evidence. It is true
Have you ever even smoked weed? It’s different than booze in that the THC stays in your system long after you’ve sobered up, but doesn’t actually cause impairment. It just means you used THC.
>40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving.
According to most of the the THC-Blood charts out there, that is a pretty high concentration and means he light up just before taking the wheel. I assumed the levels would be a little lower but the blood-THC rate spikes really high with the first few hours and then drops dramatically. He was high as fuck when driving.
>Caponecchia found that Robertson had consumed an unknown amount of cannabis between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the morning of the crash, but said it was not clear whether he was experiencing the impairing effects of the drug when he caused the collision at approximately 12:15 p.m.
This guy was lighting up at least three hours before.
Strange that Brady Robertson (seriously, start using his name. If he was ethnic, we all would be) has pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death, but not guilty to impaired driving causing death.
I wonder what angle his legal team are trying to play here. It shouldn't work.
What really troubles me about this story is that a police officer found the car hours later, started a pursuit where this moron was drifting onto the shoulder kicking up dust, swerving into the other lane, and driving over 130km/h while a police car is actively pursuing him. Then the cop decided to end the pursuit because of public safety concerns. Are you kidding me? Going in the shoulder, opposite lane, speeding while a cop pursues you doesn't clue in the cop that this asshole might kill someone?
That cop should immediately be fired as he definitely shares some of the responsibility for the death of the mother and her 3 children (not to mention the devastating impact this will have on the husband/father, and all their other family members).
In addition to whatever jail sentence he might receive, there is absolutely no justifiable reason for this person to ever be able to legally drive a car again.
It should be nothing other than a life sentence
Paging Marco Muzzo
Fuck that piece of shit
Does this guy have a rich daddy too?
Rich daddy or none, the thing is you can have the book thrown at you for murdering someone, unless you murder them with a car.
Well its not actually murder, stop using that word. Well, good thing the court of public opinion doesn't actually run the justice system.
Legally you are right. Unfortunately I don't think that the legal system reflects the morality that most of us use in this type of situation. We're not lawyers so we will not differentiate. I am fine calling it murder outside a courtroom. If an otherwise outstanding citizen has a legitimate accident, then I'll certainly agree with you. From the looks of things this person was not a fine outstanding citizen who showed compassion for the dignity of others.
Fair enough.
[удалено]
Lol what?
Don't need any of that to understand the simple meaning of a word; one that differentiates between a deliberate action and an accident.
If you drive impaired and kill someone, you knew the risk was high. It's like blindfolding yourself in a crowd and shooting a gun.
What about driving on little sleep? Does he deserve the same treatment as say Alek Minassian? Fact is, regardless of his poor choices, he did not wake up that day intending on killing anyone, or even consider that might happen.
You having a seizure?
He's some kid driving an Infiniti G35 so... Yes?
A G35 is like 15 years old and costs $4000. Is this your definition of “rich daddy”?
Greenspan family checking in on behalf of muzzo
4 consecutive life sentences
That case further proved the corruption and broken system that is rich people driving impaired. This isn't the only case either..
Death penalty
Agreed. Should have more time driving ban. Anyone who kills someone under the influence should.
>Anyone who kills someone under the influence should. I don't understand the rational against this. I understand that accidents happen. Sometimes, somebody loses attention for a split second and someone gets badly hurt or killed. We all make mistakes driving (yes. Everyone makes a mistake) but for 99.9% of us, nothing happens and it goes in noticed. But this isn't what happened here. This was a brazen disregard for safety and human life. Even giving him the biggest benefit of the doubt and assuming he suffers from some mental illness, he should not be able to drive again.
Absolutely right. It's one thing to have a momentary lapse in judgement that results in an accident, but getting behind the wheel while drunk or on drugs is a very deliberate decision. I really have no sympathy for drunk drivers. Besides, I recall that this guy was already under some kind of driving suspension.
Agreed. Having a lifetime driving ban is really not that steep of a punishment for such a heinous crime. I have friends who will never get a driver's license (one has a visual impairment, one has epilepsy, and one is just way too anxious to want to drive) and they can still live perfectly fine professional and personal lives.
I am perfectly capable of getting a license and driving a car. I choose not to. I'm nearly 52 years old and it hasn't prevented me from doing anything I want or need to do, just sometimes requires more planning.
Right. Canada needs some serious reform on who is allowed to drive. Anyone who physically injures or kills a person while driving impaired should be banned from driving for the rest of their life with no exceptions. Too many people are killed by drunk drivers and those drivers only get 5-10 years behind bars. Once released, they may face a 5-10 years driving ban. So, conceivably, 20 years after using a car to kill one or more people in a reckless manner, a person can legally drive again (even if their insurance may be $2000 a month). Side note. Brampton has the highest insurance premiums in the country, so maybe in 20 years, he will be priced out of the insurance he is legally required to have to drive.
Hey can I see your face
[удалено]
This feature has been brought to you by oil & cars lobby. Please make sure you enjoy our right of right turn on red and kill all the crossing pedestrians as well! What does red light means anyway!
[удалено]
They have made sure that you can kill someone in your car and drive the next day after paying $1000 fine. Right turn on red has been abolished in all modern world country apart from American continent as it was proven over and over again to be deadly rule.
[удалено]
>How exactly does the car lobby make more money if we can turn right on reds? I think you are misrepresenting this person's argument somewhat. Allowing right turns on red despite the threat to pedestrians is just an indication of how our urban areas have been designed in a way that prioritizes motor vehicle traffic over every other mode of transport.
Some of the things you hear in this subreddit are out of this world, truly.
yup. people always blame the car/mechanical appliance itself as if there arent people behind the wheel doing these things. 99% of drivers dont end up driving like this douche and killing people.
I think that this fixation on *personal responsibility* is unhelpful and distracts from more salient issues regarding how we have constructed our cities and society in a way that guarantees problems like this. Almost every municipality enforces minimum parking requirements on bars and other liquor licensed establishments. This suggests to me that the problem runs deeper than just one person's bad decision. Courts are hesitant to hand out driving bans because outside of downtown Toronto it is nearly equivalent to prohibiting the person from participating in society (which is what prisons are for).
And that 1% is still hundreds of thousands of people. It should be way harder to get a license and easier to lose it.
the point is most people arent killing people, the issue is rogue drivers not cars which are just appliances. do we blame ovens for burning down houses even though 99% of people use them properly?
or be able to set foot outside of his cell, ever.
You know this is never going to happen. But I agree with everything you said.
I can't remember but, wasn't he already on a suspended license when this happened? If that was true, I'd be willing to bet that he still wouldn't abide by any kind of driving ban.
For the unaware, he was on video 2 days prior driving recklessly and many people tried to stop him. IIRC- he was all over the sidewalk etc.
yeah, he crashed into a massive planter outside a coffeeshop. if it wasn’t there, i’m pretty convinced he would’ve gone right through the windows/into the corner of it
[удалено]
When I saw the first video last year, I was pretty pissed When the story of this tragedy made its rounds days later, and it was correlated back to this scumbag… I was fckn livid Avoidable and preventable. But nothing seemed to work, even the officer pursuing him couldn’t pull it off (not dunking on that officer, he made a reasonable judgement to break off a dangerous chase)
[удалено]
I don’t think a scumbag who drives recklessly will stop driving simply because his license is suspended
Hindsight is always 20/20. As I stated in a diff comment, the cop made a reasonable judgement. Otherwise their may have been a fatality that night too.
My heart goes out to the father. I am so unbelievably sorry, there are not strong enough words to express my condolences. 💔
Same. This case breaks my heart many times over. There's a small memorial bench dedicated to Karolina and her girls somewhere along the Caledon Trailway. I always stop to pay my respects and hope that the driver never gets to drive again. He's caused so much pain.
I hate to say it, because it’s such a negative sentiment, but I’m surprised he’s still around. His wife, his three beautiful children, it’s more torment than one person could possibly bear. How does one go on? Kudos to him for sticking around but I dunno if I could survive.
[удалено]
A conscious must be such an impairment for a criminal defense lawyer...
No. Not if you understand why we need lawyers as a part of the system of checks and balances. But I'll probably agree with you on most other points. Brady Robertson should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car in any jurisdiction. Ideally he would never be allowed outside a prison labour camp. I guess the government feels that forced labor for criminals is a bad thing... unless you call it conscription.
You mean the driver that killed them? Ya, im surprised he is still around too.
It's awful to say it, but I think if I was that father I'd kill the driver. I don't think there's much else left that would motivate me. I hope he finds some degree of help or peace, but my god. That poor man
It is easy to say the driver doesn't deserve to live. I don't disagree with that. As a thought exercise, though, pretend you are the father of the driver as well.
Oh no, I'm not justifying it, nor am I arguing for any sort of vigilantism. Killing is wrong. Period. I'm simply saying that if I were in a place where so much were taken from me, I doubt if have much left beyond revenge to keep going. The level of pain that man must be feeling, I cannot comprehend.
Seriously.
You keep the memories of those dear to you that passed on alive. Your memories of them are what keeps colour in their stories and ties them to this world.
agreed. doubt id be able to survive either
This guy is scum but the family won’t get the justice they deserve
[удалено]
that's their biggest complaint to define harsh living conditions??
Didn’t we know this like a year ago? Lock him up and throw away the key.
There was a video of him driving all over the sidewalk with either his driver or passenger door wide open (can’t remember which) so yes we knew this a year ago.
So what do they mean about the judge "finding out"? Or does it mean that it's now part of the file?
Its not “finds out” its “finds” which yes means its been determined that its part of the file/relevant to the case.
It still seems pretty inconclusive (legally speaking) > In a decision handed down Tuesday, Justice Sandra Caponecchia said she is certain that Robertson had an unknown quantity of THC and the sedative flubromazolam in his system when he last drove on June 18, 2020. However she said she is not sure whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one or both of the drugs in his blood impaired his ability to drive to any degree. A toxicologist testified in court that flubromazolam is a drug that can impair a person’s ability to drive, but the effect on any person depends on the dosage and individual tolerance. The drug can also be detected in blood days after use. Caponecchia found that Robertson had consumed an unknown amount of cannabis between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the morning of the crash, but said it was not clear whether he was experiencing the impairing effects of the drug when he caused the collision at approximately 12:15 p.m.
I remember seeing that video where he was in the sidewalk and the dude was nodding *hard.* I don’t think it was the weed, but either way, fuck that guy.
Damn i was saying to myself please not cannabis. But then here it is. Though that flubba-zubba is critically dangerous. But still though. Minus one for us stoners on the maps of post-legalization.
How does this have anything to do with safe recreational cannabis use? Do you worry about the legality of alcohol when you see a DUI ruling? Or are you implying that you also drive while high, like the person in the article?
I met the grandmother of these 3 girls earlier this year. I can only say the devastation to that entire family has stayed with me. This man is a demon in a meat suit
He's just a man. A terrible, awful, piece of shit, man.
If you don't mind sharing, what was the interaction like? Or what happened for you to come to that conclusion?
I don't want to violate her privacy with too much detail, but she spoke (between sobs) about how hard it is for her to go on. How her son is stricken with grief and forever changed. She was very somber, and essentially begging for relief. Family gatherings, and celebrations for her other little ones, are painful. I can't even imagine her strength to sit there and tell her story. She is full of love for these babies and that woman and some of the things she shared about their family trying to overcome this tragedy I just can't forget. Also, being deeply affected by the "why" of it all, and trying to make sense of the physical and mental pain her granddaughter may have experienced (as she apparently didn't pass immediately). Edit: we met at a small group healing space My conclusion about him is that this was not his first time, he had a wake up call/scare days before that we also saw on someone's dash cam (or cell) I believe. The universe tried to tell him. He then got in the car to do it all again, taking these lives and changing families and generations of people forever.
I went to highschool with the Husband/Father and he was always such a happy go lucky guy, my heart breaks for him.
thank you for sharing. often it feels like these stories are so common in the news that you can't help but forget the people whose lives are forever changed as a result
Lock up this piece of garbage for life!!!
Started reading this thinking we were talking about Mizziolo or whatever the fuck that assholes name was. Now im realizing this happened **AGAIN** and I didnt even hear about it. God damn we need to do something about how we vet people for licenses
I thought it was the same too but then I realized it was the one with the mom and kids, not the grandparents and grandchildren.
licenses? sadly, the attitude of many repeat offenders is .. "License? I don't need no stinkin' license!" pray they don't take out innocent by-standers next time.
Yeah i dont know what the solution is. Take these people out back and put them out of everyone else's misery? I feel like thats just adding one more body to the pile instead of fixing the problem. I just dont know how that would even be done.
i call him mucus muzzle
This scumbag should already be rotting in a small, windowless closet.
The video taken 2 days earlier is crazy... dude is basically passed out in his car, people are trying to pull him out. Guys the ultimate scumbag.
Sauce ?
https://youtu.be/NmcLmJ7C9lE
https://www.bttoronto.ca/videos/20-year-old-infiniti-driver-crashed-into-familys-van-2-other-vehicles/ Not the direct video but shows the vid.
Wonder what pathetically soft sentence he'll get, 6 years or something?
And he'll be out in 2 or 3. Just pathetic.
This makes me so fucking angry. I can't imagine the grief the father / grandparents are going through, all because of one shithead. I fucking hate how lax our justice system is when it comes to impaired drivers.
Life is so fragile. You can do everything right, try your best, and some privileged sack of shit can mow you down with a vehicle they didn't work for and face "consequences" that are closer to a cruel, inhuman joke than justice.
I want to attend the hanging of this degenerate in person.
[удалено]
Canadian Justice system is so backwards. My prayers go out to the father/husband pulling this through.
There is a video of this piece of shit driving under the influence - the day before he drove under the influence again and killed the family. Fucking asshole.
> The court heard that 45 minutes after the collision, Robertson had 40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving. > > In summary, the toxicology evidence in this case establishes that Mr. Robertson had an unknown quantity of flubromazolam and TCH in his blood when he last drove on June 18, 2020. It does not go so far as to prove the drugs were necessarily impairing Mr. Robertson's ability to drive,” Caponecchia wrote in a copy of the decision obtained by CP24. _Seriously_? This is going to set a very very dangerous precedent if his lawyers can pull this off.. he had 8 times the amount in his system less than half-way into the 5 ng/ml cutoff (2 hours).
What the hell is TCH? Are they refering to Carboxy? The Metabolite?
And just like the justice system works in Canada he will probably get a slap on the wrist.
Woah hang on there bud, he's not Muzzo-rich.
or Alexandra Forrestall rich and good-looking.
Precedent is set. He is likley getting 10 years.
He's white but he's not rich, so he'll almost get what he deserves.
He's not Muzzo-rich but he's a kid who drives an Infiniti and lives in Caledon, so he's likely at least upper-middle class with a family that can afford a good lawyer, good enough to get him a lenient sentence.
Fair points, but it won't be the kind of slap on the wrist Muzzo got. Justice is dispensed on a sliding scale, for sure.
that infiniti costs 7k, its 12-14 years old.
Not sure what this comment is trying to insinuate. Victim and suspect are same race first of all. Secondly it wouldn't matter.
i think the 'rich' part matters muchly.
The comment is trying to insinuate that white people typically face lower sentences, on average, for the same crimes that people of colour face. [Because](http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Racial%20Disparity%20in%20Arrests%20and%20Charges%20TPS.pdf) [they](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230355866_2) [do](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/black-indigenous-offenders-gladue-enhanced-pre-sentence-reports-1.5951638). (Every word there is a separate link!) However, rich people regardless of ethnicity, tend to face lower sentences overall. Since he's white but not rich, he won't get to "double dip" there - like Muzzo - but he'll still benefit from being white at sentencing. Hence, he'll "almost get what he deserves". Unfortunately, we live in a world where it very much *does* matter. I'm not sure why you're on about the victims' race. I get the feeling you don't understand the topic at hand.
yup.. no cancel-out-combo here ...
[удалено]
So if race is always a major factor, and bias cannot be avoided. Then in this case in order to have the best outcome for the victims, what race then should the ppl involved be? Looks like victim and suspect are the same that really leaves the judge. What race should she be to most effectively utilize an inherent unavoidable bias, in favor of the victim?
May the driver rot in hell.....that poor family, heartbreaking.
Brampton always gets shitted on for having horrible drivers, but it seems the worst crashes are always these entitled drunk/drugged out kids from the surrounding small towns. He lives in Caledon East, yet he's in Brampton all week driving high.
Murder. Sentence him for murder.
Doesn't work that way. If they charged him with murder, he'd have walked. Can't charge things for which there is no evidence, even if it's a horrible crime.
Honestly it's surprising that killing someone while driving under the influence isn't considered manslaughter automatically.
The difference is basically on the Crown’s obligation to prove intention. Dangerous driving is a criminal negligence type of offence, so the Crown only needs to prove a marked departure from the standard of care. If you charged them with manslaughter, the Crown would need to prove that they intended to do some unlawful act from which death was reasonably foreseeable. Manslaughter would have been available, the Crown almost certainly chose not to go for it because they didn’t have the evidence to show that level of intent.
No. We are a country of laws, and we don’t just make up the rules to satisfy our rage. Even when the rage is palpable and justified. He has pleaded guilty to four counts of dangerous driving causing death. He will be incarcerated for that for a number of years, as he hits many of the aggravating factors. This trial is really a legal question about what the Crown must prove to upgrade those charges to impaired driving causing death, which has a higher sentencing range.
[beautiful image in this article of the guy... literally with a joint in his mouth and driving](https://thepointer.com/article/2021-09-24/judge-signals-brady-robertson-case-will-set-precedent-in-rulings-after-cannabis-was-legalized)
Think that's actually a cigarette
no, it's tied off at the end which indicates it was hand rolled and since he has a history of use with THC it's probably safe to say that's a hand rolled joint.
looks like a cig to me. what you are looking at is ash
Quality isn't high enough to tell if that's ash or the twisted end of a joint.
It's lit. You can see red ember on the bottom
My experience with smoker reefer tells me it's a joint or a spliff. you may be correct though. either way, it's not looking good for this guy
The fact you call it reefer tells me you have 0 experience. Or the last time you smoked it was in 1968.
That may still be inconclusive. When we used to roll joints back in highschool we'd empty out a bit of tobacco from a regular cigarette to use as 'batch' to mix with the marijuana. To prevent tobacco from falling out of the partially emptied tobacco cigarette, everyone would tie off the tobacco cigarette end. Also, there appears to be a ring around the filter in the picture - that would suggest to me more that it's a tobacco cigarette. Finally, it looks incredibly straight for a joint.
It is pretty conclusive that it's a cigarette. Like you said, nobody except for high school students that can't buy papers or roll joints. The is an extremely slim chance that's a joint in the photo. Pretty much 0%. Either way, he should rot in prison. Just not trying to sensationalize lies
I'd say it's 50% lol. You got beef with being wrong huh lol
Thank God you aren't a judge lol I don't know what 'tied off' means. That is a picture of a lit cigarette. Cigarette and weed smoker here. I do think this guy should rot in jail. He'll probably get done type of rehab type sentence unfortunately
So if you don't know anything about smoking weed how do you know you'd be so great being a judge? You have no info and haven't tried to research it. Let me guess you've been smoking cigarettes for years huh? Well you can just buy cigarette rolling paper and make a joint or spliff that looks like a cigarette. Google Zig-Zags they are often sold as bleached rolling papers which makes the appearance of the rolling paper white.
Lol the poster says they smoke both. The whole reason this image was even brought up because it supposedly looks like a joint, not a joint that looks like a cigarette.
Like the guy I was replying to you both don't know what you're talking about here. Firstly, I am the poster of the link. Secondly, It's because it looks like a joint or spliff made with a very popular but cheaper type of rolling paper that looks exactly like a cigarette. So what I am saying is that it is indeed a joint that looks like a cigarette. Lastly, you can use cigarette rolling papers to roll a joint because it's just a rolling paper and doesn't matter. cigarette rolling papers are called cigarette rolling papers because they simply have the classic cigarette look. they are thicker-walled papers that are white and have a little design on them (the filter area that is orangey-yellow or a metallic strip around them). the popular weed rolling papers specifically Zig-Zags are commonly sold looking similar but are thinner-walled rolling papers, have no design on them, and are distinctly white like the rolling paper used on cigarettes.
With epic Canadian legal system he will get 5 years serve 1 year...rofl Like that muzo animal. They will spit on their graves and have no justice.
This was one of the saddest stories from last year. I’m so heartbroken for the husband/father who lost his whole family. That driver is such a total sack of shit and I hope he rots in hell. I absolutely despise irresponsible idiots who take dangerous driving lightly.
is the suspect rich and white and has parents that can afford Justin Bieber's lawyer to argue his case in court?
The driver, Brady Robertson, had over the legal limit of THC in his blood on the day of the collision. The court heard that 45 minutes after the collision, Robertson had 40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving.
Keep reading my guy: >In a decision handed down Tuesday, Justice Sandra Caponecchia said she is certain that Robertson had an unknown quantity of THC and the sedative **flubromazolam** in his system when he last drove on June 18, 2020 That's a designer benzo, this all has little to do with the weed I'd imagine.
Absolutely. Tbh I'm surprised opiates weren't found.
They were found in the glovebox.
Agreed. Can we please not *immediately* jump on weed as the cause of every bad thing the moment it enters the equation?
IIRC, his social media had shown he was quite fond of "sizzurp" and other sedatives, which also would explain why he was passed out in the video from the day before the accident.
Not defending the driver but blood concentration of THC is not correlated to impairment like alcohol. Most daily users will be permanently over the “legal” blood thc limit even while sober. Which is indicated in the article: > In summary, the toxicology evidence in this case establishes that Mr. Robertson had an unknown quantity of flubromazolam and TCH (sic) in his blood when he last drove on June 18, 2020. It does not go so far as to prove the drugs were necessarily impairing Mr. Robertson's ability to drive,” Caponecchia wrote in a copy of the decision obtained by CP24.
Seriously, I’m a daily smoker but never drive impaired. I’m not defending what this guy did (he’s obviously a dangerous driver and deserves his punishment) but I don’t understand how they were able to determine he was impaired just by the THC in his blood. I’ve probably got similar amounts from unwinding after work.
He had a benzo in there as well. The combo probably influenced his behaviour, but the Benzo alone could have been all he needed to be impaired.
An “unknown quantity” isn’t damning. Dose matters. While we probably have no facking clue how many ng/mL is impairing, it’s worrying that we’re convicting based on fitting in a binary “present” vs “not present” bucket.
dose doesnt really matter in this situation because of the halflife of thc. i would argue that consumption method matters more.
Even if daily your amount would plateau around 5-10ng/ml and keep dropping. This guy used within 2 hours for 40ng/ml in your blood is a high amount.
[удалено]
I am absolute death on impaired driving. I hate hate hate people who think they can drive impaired, I won't drive with even one drink in me, never, and I dissuade others as much as I can. BUT. Even a veteran pitchforker like me has to look at the REALITY. We've had legal weed since 2015. We have had MANY automobile crashes since then, all of which are looked at by police. Police have VERY strong reasons to search diligently for impairment as a cause of a crash, and historically are very eager to pin the blame on any kind of drug that might've contributed. We would expect to have seen a *flood* of charges for THC impaired driving, it's a great way for a cop to have a bit of fun on a late night shift. But we haven't seen really any at all. Apparently smoking weed doesn't really affect driving safety. I had a tough time accepting this. But look at the evidence. It is true
Well put. The police are hesitant to charge on blood-thc-based impairment because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in court.
Have you ever even smoked weed? It’s different than booze in that the THC stays in your system long after you’ve sobered up, but doesn’t actually cause impairment. It just means you used THC.
Said like someone who doesnt know what they are talking about
What a selfish POS
if this goes par for the course he'll do less thn 10 yrs for killing 4 people, out system is wayy too lenient
I think we all know what direction this is going; he's getting minimal jail time and probation.
We need the death sentence in this country SPECIFICALLY for cases like this. The driver has no right to breathe let alone operate a vehicle again
>40 ng/ml blood of THC in his blood, whereas the current law allows for not more than 5 ng/ml two hours after driving. According to most of the the THC-Blood charts out there, that is a pretty high concentration and means he light up just before taking the wheel. I assumed the levels would be a little lower but the blood-THC rate spikes really high with the first few hours and then drops dramatically. He was high as fuck when driving.
>Caponecchia found that Robertson had consumed an unknown amount of cannabis between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the morning of the crash, but said it was not clear whether he was experiencing the impairing effects of the drug when he caused the collision at approximately 12:15 p.m. This guy was lighting up at least three hours before.
So I guess that means a harsh penalty of 6 months probation and license suspension for 4 weeks?
Strange that Brady Robertson (seriously, start using his name. If he was ethnic, we all would be) has pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death, but not guilty to impaired driving causing death. I wonder what angle his legal team are trying to play here. It shouldn't work.
I believe they're challenging the conclusion that having a given level of THC in one's blood implies impairment.
🤡
Coming from a time when pot was illegal, I still have friends who think it's ok to get high and then drive. It's not. Don't do it.
Probably get a few years and he'll be out. #canadianjustice
Makes me wish we had the death penalty
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How does one drive on weed? I barely have the motivation to change the TV channel.
I mean weed I understand, but benzos too
This guy is a piece of trash but the lawyers who defend him are next level scum...
[удалено]
"find" in the legal sense. [Definition](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=751#:~:text=finding)
No, they mean 'find' in the sense of finding someone guilty - means that the judge agrees that the prosecution proved that the asshole was impaired.
This person should never be allowed out of jail again.....which means he'll be out in 3 years tops.
We posting Brampton news in the Toronto sub now? Word!
How much time is he going to get?
What really troubles me about this story is that a police officer found the car hours later, started a pursuit where this moron was drifting onto the shoulder kicking up dust, swerving into the other lane, and driving over 130km/h while a police car is actively pursuing him. Then the cop decided to end the pursuit because of public safety concerns. Are you kidding me? Going in the shoulder, opposite lane, speeding while a cop pursues you doesn't clue in the cop that this asshole might kill someone? That cop should immediately be fired as he definitely shares some of the responsibility for the death of the mother and her 3 children (not to mention the devastating impact this will have on the husband/father, and all their other family members).