ACQUITTAL BY AUTOMATISM

[Deleted]

Not often do I post links about non-hockey matters - but this one is about a local hockey player being acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada due to being drunk and high (automatism).

From what I remember, the kid was naked - broke into the home of a woman he knew - and severely beat her causing permanent damage. This story doesn't mention those things in detail - but still. . .

IMO - the day when somebody can legally say - oops - sorry - didn't mean to kill those people with my car - but I was drunk and high - we're in trouble.

Using the impaired excuse shouldn't be anybody's constitutional right to use as a defense in any civilized country.

That's my opinion - for what it's worth, but I'm more wondering what other people think?

These people we have in place with the Supreme Court are very highly paid - but the logic can seem irrational from those people sometimes. I must be too dense to understand how the constitution can allow a person to use an "I was too intoxicated" excuse to supersede another citizen's rights to personal safety.

It's almost like saying it's OK to drink and drive if you claim you were too intoxicated to know you were getting behind the wheel of a car.

Drunk excuse (automatism) acquittal

[Captain Obvious]

Not sure I agree with the "I was on drugs" defense...

[yesisaiditfirst]

Not going to weigh in on what is right or wrong. Surely that line of legal defense can be abused. I have not followed this case.

But alcohism is considered a disease.And addiction is considered an illness.These are treatable.They are conditions that can change behaviour left unchecked. In the same way PTSD changes people's behaviour. Who is to blame when it gets out of hand because it was not treated? Drs? Society? Your employer?

At the root of it society is just beginning to accept that mental illness is an excuse for behaviour and PTSD is a source behind bad behaviour. I think people are more "accepting" of PTSD as its a condition where the person who is diagnosed with the condition is also considered a victim. But society is not ready yet to excuse alcoholism/addiction that same way that those with these diseases are victims, needing help and dissolve of their responsibility after a point where they are mentally changed.

It could be that some of these mental illness, degrading conditions are more and more associated with traumatic events. Example first responders after 911 many had divorces, intimate partner abuse, addictions associated with PTSD. And we feel sorry for them. Society can't distinguish the line. We aren't all qualified to. But society is very good at blaming people for their situation especially when they are not heroes.

That's why we have courts. (And refs and umpires too.) So I don't have to decide it. And whenever an issue has 2 sides there will ways be a difference of opinion.

[pinkbeaver]

May 21, 2022 20:58:22 GMT -4 QMJHL Fan said:

Not often do I post links about non-hockey matters - but this one is about a local hockey player being acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada due to being drunk and high (automatism).

From what I remember, the kid was naked - broke into the home of a woman he knew - and severely beat her causing permanent damage. This story doesn't mention those things in detail - but still. . .

IMO - the day when somebody can legally say - oops - sorry - didn't mean to kill those people with my car - but I was drunk and high - we're in trouble.

Using the impaired excuse shouldn't be anybody's constitutional right to use as a defense in any civilized country.

That's my opinion - for what it's worth, but I'm more wondering what other people think?

These people we have in place with the Supreme Court are very highly paid - but the logic can seem irrational from those people sometimes. I must be too dense to understand how the constitution can allow a person to use an "I was too intoxicated" excuse to supersede another citizen's rights to personal safety.

It's almost like saying it's OK to drink and drive if you claim you were too intoxicated to know you were getting behind the wheel of a car.

Drunk excuse (automatism) acquittal

I agree with your concern. There is certainly something criminal that occurred in my opinion and share some disgust with the outcome. However, they are following precedent that's been set the a guilty mind must exist. If the person was hallucinating the person really isn't guilty of the the assault. But I think they are responsible for their body making this some form of gross negligence. Just my opinion.


It was mentioned "The Supreme Court explained that Parliament could enact new legislation to hold an extremely intoxicated person accountable for a violent crime." This was not mentioned further but seems to indicate that they realize that the law in place is flawed and needs to be changed. 

Although I'm not an expert either, I don't think the Supreme court deserves blame for this. My understanding, they act on Law and Precedent and not their own feelings, opinions, ethics.

[Jack Bauer]

May 21, 2022 20:58:22 GMT -4 QMJHL Fan said:

IMO - the day when somebody can legally say - oops - sorry - didn't mean to kill those people with my car - but I was drunk and high - we're in trouble.

This day has existed for some time. 2 cases in CBRM within the last 15 years. Both cases of children being hit on bikes by intoxicated drivers.

In case 1 is was agreed the driver was intoxicated. But the Judge said the child on the bike was at fault for entering the street and any driver intoxicated or not would have run him over.

In case 2 there was testimony of drinks being had. But the judge said that intoxication could not be proven. Even though the driver admits to hitting something and said he thought he hit a deer even though he dragged a bike 1km down the road.

We like to talk about how there is zero tolerance around DUI's and all this but none of it is true. I'm sure other communities have their own horror stories to tell. But most here in CB are jaded towards this stuff as we keep seeing the system completely protect the criminal.