Biker vs Car; Biker wins.

[Bricktop]

Both the Biker and the driver of the car should be charged since they crashed into a Chevy Avalanche  with a family in it and flipped it over on the HWY their is fault on bothsides esp if the bikker ran from the scene   makes it look even worse optically to the public so the car driver might come out looking better in this case.



So both should be looking at Criminal negligence and charged with Manslaughter, Reckless Driving ednagering the public  if anybody died from that.



Plus it was caught on Camera they proably already know who  the suspect is by now and making a solid case.



Canadian law defines manslaughter as "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death, although there may have been an intention to cause harm". There are two broad categories of manslaughter: unlawful act and criminal negligence.



Unlawful act is when a person commits a crime that unintentionally results in the death of another person.



Criminal negligence is when the homicide was the result of an act that showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives of others

Sorry, but that won't fly.



Any judiciary would examine the incident from the perspective of cause and effect.



The action of kicking the side of a car does not in itself precipitate the car veering sharply to the left, slamming into the guard rail on one side of the road then careering into a car on the OPPOSITE side of the road.



No court will accept the prospect that the biker



(a) deliberately caused and intended the incident to unfold as it did, or

(b) acted with reckless negligence when the outcome could be reasonably foreseen.



If neither of those two arguments can be sustained...and they can't...the biker cannot be held accountable for the mayhem that followed.



Of course, it may be argued that the actions of the biker PRECIPITATED the eventual chaos, but that action was too far removed from the driver's response. For those who not ridden a motorcycle, kicking car alongside you with enough force to actual damage the vehicle is practically impossible, in accordance with Newton's Law. The biker's kick caused no damage, therefore there was no legal collision. No damage, no injury = no accident.

[Angry White Male]

I suppose at most kicking at a car would be punishable by a mischief charge, but again if there is no damage, that may not fly...

[Bricktop]

No damage, no foul.



Perhaps a driving without due care (or similar dependent on country) would stick.



Even a minor behavioural offence.



But I can see no liability for the accidents that followed.

[Angry White Male]

I'm trying to think of our laws, and what they could nail him with...



Careless Driving, Driving without due care and attention, Dangerous Driving, and even Criminal Negligence...



Some are Motor Vehicle Act fines, others are Canadian Criminal Code violations.

[RW]

Criminal Code of Canada:



249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates



(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;



The biker also left the scene of an accident which is also an offense.

[Angry White Male]

Although then again, the police can charge you with whatever they want...



Only a judge can make the final determination, based on case law, provided the individual pleads not guilty.

[RW]

Although then again, the police can charge you with whatever they want...



Only a judge can make the final determination, based on case law, provided the individual pleads not guilty.

No actually, they can't.

[Angry White Male]

No actually, they can't.

Yeah, they pretty much can here.



Crown Counsel is the one that would decide whether or not to proceed.



And then finally the Judge decides...

[RW]

Crown Counsel decides whether or not charges will be laid.

[Angry White Male]

Crown Counsel decides whether or not charges will be laid.

No.



Police first charge you.



Then later Crown Counsel decides whether or not to proceed.

[Angry White Male]

Years ago the cops tried to charge me with careless use of a firearm.



I told the cops I wasn't careless.  They charged me nonetheless.



Crown reviewed the evidence on court day, and it was tossed out before it even reached the Judge.



Cops think they know everything...

[Angry White Male]

The moral of that story is...  Don't bust caps off in town!  City folk get nervous when they see some dude busting off caps.



The police presence was large.  And I mean really fucking large!  I think they even deployed their chopper!



Just another day in the life of the Ace-Man!

[RW]

Crown Counsel decides whether or not charges will be laid.

No.



Police first charge you.



Then later Crown Counsel decides whether or not to proceed.

No....the police arrest you.  Charges are laid by Crown Counsel.  The police are called by Crown to swear the information in from of a judge by stating they have the necessary grounds to support the charge.



If the police detain you wrongfully, it's wrongful arrest.

[Bricktop]

Haven't you got a forum to run?

[Angry White Male]

No....the police arrest you.  Charges are laid by Crown Counsel.  The police are called by Crown to swear the information in from of a judge by stating they have the necessary grounds to support the charge.

Look bitch, if I have to repeat myself one more fucking time, I'm not going to be so nice.



Have you ever even seen the inside of a courtroom?  I have, multiple times.



THE FUCKING POLICE CHARGE YOU WITH THE CRIME.



It is then, at a later date, up to Crown Counsel to decide whether or not to proceed with the charges at trial.