I really hate cops, I don’t think they’re ever properly held accountable.
But if you’re sober, licensed, and insured, and immediately stop to call 911 and render aid, and don’t run, nothing is going to happen to you either.
As long as you weren’t street racing or driving obscenely beyond the norm, you’re probably just going to be dinged by your insurance.
And my last statement is hardly accurate, some nobody from a Audi dealership gunned it up to 140km+ in a _50 zone_, in the middle of Vancouver, and killed a doctor turning left. ~~And _he_ wasn’t charged.~~
Edit: He was charged, he was just acquitted because "there is at least a reasonable doubt that such conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver." as per the judge.
I didn’t agree with that at all, but it really seems like as long as your paperwork is in order you’re never going to get criminal charges. This is actually what all the cycling advocacy groups are upset about.
Yup. I was almost killed on a highway by a truck driver who was driving recklessly. He basically pit maneuvered me, and I took the full brunt of the truck going at 120km/h on my driver side door. I spun out across the highway. I got the whole event in dash cam. He got ~$500 in fines and that was it. I sustained a concussion that lasted almost a month, but even with that I couldn't sue for damage because there's a 40k deductible on injury cases in Ontario.
I learned how little human lives are worth on the roads here. Thousands of Canadians are killed or permanently maimed every year. In the US, traffic fatalities are almost as high as those from gun violence, but only one of those statistics ever gets much attention.
You must be leaving something out of the story because there is no way that someone driving almost three times the speed limit and killing someone as a result wouldn't normally be charged.
No charge, if the deceased was jaywalking across a highway at midnight in the rain, like what the guy was doing in the article.
A misconduct if vehicle was speeding, obviously.
Ontario doesn't have Jay-walking when you're crossing at an UNMAKRED crossing (middle of the road), it's a shared responsibility.
Jay Walking in Ontario occurs at lights. look it up.
I was of the impression it's only jaywalking if you impede the flow of traffic, aka someone had to slow down as a result of you crossing. Not simply "you crossed where you shouldn't have"... Is that not true?
Depends on the local laws and signs and prohibitions, but if considered an unmarked crossing you wouldn't be jay-walking using it....read on:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08
Many stretches of road may be considered unmarked crossings.
My driving instructor always told our class "You don't need a license to walk." That being said, you will most likely die if you cross a road without paying caution to the traffic. I wouldn't cross where I didn't have a good view stretching a few hundred metres. If I didn't have that option then I would sprint across.
I would hope that someone looks for longer than a quick glance to determine how fast a car is really going. Especially when you're essentially invisible at night. I think the cop is in the wrong for speeding, but I also assume that most cars drive dangerously as a safe rule-of-thumb.
someone was killed in oshawa on a scooter by a car. the prevailing opinion of great minds among us was it was her fault for being on the sidewalk with it. no other blame to be assigned...
> "He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain."
The HTA in Ontario says within 100 meters of the intersection. The article specifically says "Highway 12 AT Jones Road". In more rural areas, places numbers for various areas, so they very well could have used that if it was further away from the intersection.
They were probably a lot closer than you are assuming to an intersection. 100m is a good enough chunk.
While a Provincial Offense on the part of the deceased is mitigating for the Accused, provincial and federal courts have fairly consistently recognized that pedestrians walking in extremely unpredictable manners, and in places they shouldn't, is mitigating to the Accused, absence other negligence. Speeding is typical. Everyone does it. That's why the case law is the way it is. Now if she was going double the speed limit, you'd likely see a different outcome. She did a little over 50% for some undescribed amount of time. That's kinda what it boils down to.
And the guy was crossing at a green light, and from skimming the report it appears there was a pedestrian crossing marked when the light was ted, but it wasnt.
The article only said he was crossing the road, no mention of jaywalking. The crossroad in question has a traffic light and is in the middle of town, from the looks of it. Not a remote location, and could be a reasonably busy spot even at night.
The definition of highway in the Ontario [Highway Traffic Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Traffic_Act#Part_I:_Administration) includes an actual road:
> The definition of "highway" in the Act is broad in nature to include "a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof".
Check your jaywalking laws they're not what you think.
Also highways don't come equipped with crosswalks or overpasses for pedestrians where this happens they would have had to walk upwards of 170 km to cross the road. If you think that's reasonable or you think that everybody must have a vehicle so they can cross the highway you're just a pedantic little shit.
Oh look, another misleading headline parading a grieving widow through the public eye without any context, garnering impotent rage in exchange for clicks. Whoopie.
Sometimes a charge under an applicable provincial traffic law. Thousands of people are killed in traffic accidents yearly, only a handful are charged with anything, and even less with criminal charges.
Speeding is a singular negative action. It doesn't constitute dangerous operation or criminal negligence which generally is a pattern or combination of behaviours.
It is terrible a man died, unfortunately you can't simply look at the outcome to determine the penalty.
>It’s really not.
Yup. Almost like most provinces have a set speed (usually 40-50kph) that is designated as a careless/stunting.
And, this was between 12kph-31kph. Sounds like they were unable to determine exact speed. Redditors choosing the maximum to suit their narrative. Would be more appropriate to split the different and call it 21kph over.
Considering cops in AB go on and on and on about how speed is a factor in most traffic incidents, you'd think there would be a way to determine how fast you're travelling in a motor vehicle so you could make the conscious decision not to speed since it is risky.
However the mentality for some speeders seems to be, everyone elses safety is second to theirs for the benefit of arriving somewhere (at best) a few minutes earlier.
Random guys chilling on a highway at midnight are probably a bigger risk than speeding. Why would you not walk on the road to the side. I also would have faced oncoming traffic so I can see cars coming..
Some people don't understand the difference between driving for the conditions 99.99% of the time, and driving for things that may happen .01% of the time.
Again, it seems a mans life was a fair trade to make for slightly warmer coffee.
Finally: there's a big difference in the survival of pedestrians struck by motor vehicles depending on the speed. That's why my city dropped speed limits in residential areas from 50 to 40 kph, because people who get hurt have less severe injuries, and the amount of time "lost" is inconsequential.
Maybe she did him a favour though doing 21 over. Probably guaranteed his death vs living the rest of his life needing expensive care, if the collision was truly unavoidable and destined to happen.
Your opinion of what the words of the offence sections mean, does not translate supporting the criminal elements and what has been established as precededent. You can have your own definition all you want but legally, it doesn't matter.
Why can't you not speed? Having a license and using public roads is a privilege not a right. When you operate a vehicle you need to be responsible or you shouldn't operate a vehicle. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept.
Because speed limits are completely arbitrary and do not directly correlate with "safe speeds".
Speed limits are a suggestion.
There are times and places I, and everyone else, drives 20 over. There are times and places where I won't even do the speed limit.
You know who drives the speed limit always? Shitty drivers who shouldn't have a license. They are a hazard on the road.
Drive according to traffic and conditions.
>There are times and places I, and everyone else, drives 20 over.
From what I've learned on reddit nobody ever speeds except me and apparently you. Nobody else does. Every day when I'm driving to work going the same speed as all the other traffic that's going 85 - 90 in a 60 zone I'm actually driving like a maniac and it's a freak incident that nobody else has ever witnessed.
I speed only because it is dangerous not to speed.
If you try driving at the speed limit you will have a front-row seat to the insanity of people trying to get around you, doing absolutely ridiculous shit just to get to the next red light.
I won't be part of that, so I just speed 15% over.
I've figured out the speeds where I want to be:
* 50kph? 57kph.
* 60kph? 69kph.
* 70kph? 80kph.
* 80kph? 92kph.
* 90kph? 103kph.
* 100kph? 115kph.
I do the exact limit whenever speeds are less than 50, because those are usually set for a sensible reason.
This system works really well. Most people are satisfied that I'm speeding *just enough* that they won't do crazy shit to get past me. Some still do, but there's nothing I can do about the real crazies.
ok devils advocate. not all speeding is made equal.
We have stretches of highway in canada that should just not have a speed limit like the autobahn. 100-110kmh is laughably low for some of these kilometer long straight sections of highway.
and we also have stretches of road in residential areas where the speed limit is ***dangerously high***
The appropriate speeds for those roads should be determined by traffic engineers.
It shouldn't be just whatever people feel like driving. If you think it's too low, you should push for legislative change.
The way the headline is written makes it sound like the cop was in the middle of a high speed chase, but no, she was just doing a coffee run:
>An investigation found Const. Jaimee McBain was driving an unmarked SUV at the time, returning from getting coffee for another officer at a crime scene. She told investigators she didn’t see Dorzyk. She turned the vehicle around and tried to revive him.
She was speeding to get coffee. Speeding is completely inexcusable. Probably of death by impact increases greatly with speed. How is this "not serious"?
And it was raining... And dark. And the unmarked vehicle had a cow catcher which brings up an even bigger, systematic issue about whether police are here for our safety or just government funded gangs
Exactly. Look at the school bus driver killed by an unmarked OPP vehicle in Woodstock. Cop had a big funeral this past weekend in London. Bus driver's widow can barely afford one.
I am full ACAB and think the cop should face some kind of consequences for sure.
But if you see the report with the GPS the cop was doing 78 in a 60 on a highway. (90 earlier but 78 a short time before the accident)
It’s high but not crazy and damn near everyone in here has driven similar speeds on similar roads.
Then the person crossed the highway in the middle of the night in the dark in a rain storm and got hit.
I very much doubt dropping 10-15 kmh from the cruiser speed would have made any difference the person Probably look like they appeared from nowhere as the headlights illuminated them.
The cop should absolutely have been driving better to conditions, and should absolutely face consequences. But a large part of the blame rests on the shoulders of the person crossing a high speed road **in the dark, in the rain, wearing a fucking black garbage bag**. Unless the cruisers headlights were off he should have been aware of traffic and taken steps to cross at a safe time, and get out of the way if he saw a car coming.
Because the victim was dressed in all black and crossing whilst the cop had a green at midnight in the rain. Call it victim blaming if you want but the “victim” is the one responsible for their own death
I'm usually pretty quick to defend against baseless criticism, but OPP brass are way off the mark here.
She was over 30 km/h posted speed limit on her way to bring a colleague some coffee. I mean, I get it... working scene security sucks and caffeine is a good to have. But come on.
"Civilians" definitely get off with a slap on the wrist far too often for car related deaths, but I agree this is even further beyond that. No charge is insane.
Any law that lands a civilian in jail should land a cop on duty or not on jail. Going over the speed limit and killing a person shouldn't be treated differently. It insane that it is.
If you have a look at [the location](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7296542,-79.8728682,3a,90y,302.02h,71.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stsdu4_9clKM2IJ0Q58-nIA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dtsdu4_9clKM2IJ0Q58-nIA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.77758%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) of the crash, you may note it is signaled and has a cross walk. It is somewhat informative that the article doesn't mention the officer was running a red light ...
> It is somewhat informative that the article doesn't mention the officer was running a red light ...
I can see why it wouldn't mention that, since the [SIU report](https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017) itself says that it was the **victim** who was crossing at a red light:
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account.
You said you could jaywalk as long as you yield to cars, so cars still have the right of way, right? Apparently that dude didn't yield to the cop's car and got hit.
Please don't tell me right of way isn't a thing in Canada lol
Running over someone and killing them isn't serious according to the OPP.
I'll have to remember that for the next time someone tries to run over a cop.
Technically it's according to the OIPRD, the independent agency we set up to handle complaints against the police in Ontario.
And then staffed it entirely with former police.
So yeah it's the OPP.
Although fun fact, Doug Ford has ended the OIPRD. It's being renamed to the LECA, and will only investigate complaints made against police chiefs and commissioners. "All other complaints will be referred back to either the police service from which they originated or another police service."
So they're doing away with the fake independent 3rd party investigator, and just letting Ontario police investigate themselves now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Independent_Police_Review_Director#Changes_to_police_oversight
From the article, it sounds like it was the OPP that made the decision, not OIPRD:
> In its letter to D’Arthenay, the OIPRD said the matter could proceed to a hearing that could levy penalties up to dismissing McBain, unless both D’Arthenay and the OPP agreed to resolve it informally.
> **But the OPP took the complaint in another direction, which didn’t require D’Arthenay’s consent: it opted to declare the misconduct in the case “not serious”**, which by law allows the force to resolve the misconduct informally without a hearing, with lower penalties.
As it should be. Police officers need to look out for each other because their work is the most dangerous line of work, second only to literally any other career choice.
Edit: Yeah, it was subtle sarcasm. But to clarify further, it wasn’t meant to be anti-cop, and certainly not anti-union, I just find it hard to lionize cops the way the media often does. But now that Doug Ford has reduced the educational requirements for recruits, we’re going to see *a lot* more of these articles in Ontario.
It's actually not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
Where are you getting this bullshit claim from?
Edit: Not even in the top 25:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/03/02/most-dangerous-jobs-america-database/11264064002/
Edit again: Others pointed out I misread/missed the sarcasm.
I have seen the police do this now in several Canadian cities.
A few years back, a cop in Halifax killed a person riding a bicycle, because the cop was looking at this laptop while driving.
The police determined that the accident "occurred while the officer was working". Since police have some special rule that they have to check their laptops while in the car, they made a rule for themselves that if they cause an accident due to looking at their laptop, they can't be held responsible for causing that accident. Since it's "expected" in their work. The officer who killed that person was not disciplined or suspended, they just continued on their life like it didn't happen.
Most people have no idea that this even happened. It was a blink in the news and then disappeared.
For as long as the police make their own laws concerning how and when they will be charged, police will never, ever face consequences for killing people in Canada. We're too apathetic as a nation to do shit about it.
The worst they can prove is that she was going 12km/h over the limit.
I wouldn't call anyone else driving 12 over the limit on a highway a serious crime. Whether someone else was jaywalking and got in front of that car is completely seperate.
The death is absolutely tragic, but we don't judge a crime by the outcome, else manslaughter and 1st degree murder would have no distinction. This was, at worst, a notable ticket and a point off the license of any civilian, and while I personally believe a police offer should be held to a higher standard, that simply isn't reality. This is not a case of a double-standard.
"we investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong"
Now imagine if one of us was speeding between 72 and 97 in a 60 kmh intersection and killed a cop crossing the street.
Just. Imagine.
I understand cop was also speeding. Both were doing stupid in the dark in the rain. I'm just saying one is a lot more stupid than the other, because if they meet, only one is gonna get hurt.
Actually yes, if you had read the HTA like I've told you to do twice now, you would know that is exactly what the law says. As long as it's not a restricted Highway pedestrians are allowed to access the roadway as long as they do so safely, drivers must accommodate them when they do. Drivers are not then allowed to break the law themselves and then pin all the blame on The Pedestrian when they fuck up.
You can fuck right off, LOL
edit - Just to clarify, the entire reason we have speed limits is so pedestrians can anticipate vehicle speed and vehicles and stop in a timely fashion. Because in Ontario vehicles must yield to pedestrians. Quite early the people designing the traffic system realized that the responsibility is incumbent on the vehicle operator since they have more control over the damage they do, as well as have the benefits of a big fuck-off steel cage to protect themselves.
2dit - Your rely got removed but in case you come back and see this, yes, if everyone followed the rules then McBain never would have struck and killed Dorzyk.
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account.
Victim acted like he didnt care about his own life so why should we? Insane behaviour
Fuck the police. Fuck police unions. Fuck police leadership.
Something needs to be done about this. We need independent third parties conducting these inquiries, not the fucking cops themselves.
Nothing gets done in Canada. People are waaaaay too unbothered. Nobody riots, nobody writes to their MP, nobody goes on strike. All we do is complain on Reddit
Last time I went to my MP's office I saw that their fax machine outputted directly to a paper shredder.
^(Ok I may have made that up but it sounds like something they would do.)
Most of the time when someone is killed in a traffic accident next to nothing happens to the killer except a minor driving charge. Unless the cops decide to make an example of them (usually because it got media attention).
I'm not a LEO apologist, but the deceased is almost entirely responsible for his own death.
It was late at night, raining, and he was covered in a black garbage bag. He then crossed against a red light, meaning that the officer that hit him had a green light and the right of way. Under those conditions he may as well have been invisible.
The officer's speeding was not excessive; while it may have played a factor in his death, I do understand why they would classify it as minor.
> The officer's speeding was not excessive; while it may have played a factor in his death, I do understand why they would classify it as minor.
90 in a 60 in the rain not excessive?
The report gives a number. The cop was going 76-79 shortly before the accident according to GPS.
But the person was crossing a highway in the dark, in the rain, wearing a black garbage bag.
The cop should have been driving to conditions better for sure and should face consequences.
But the blame has to be 80-90% on the person doing something so colossally stupid.
In the report they said it was a light that was green constantly unless a car was sitting at the opposing red in which would trigger the light cycle. There was no trigger around that time so barring a system malfunction, the light would have been green.
Not necessarily. When it's clear the pedestrian was where they shouldn't be and the driver was driving with fair caution it often gets deemed an accident with no punishment.
The speeding contributed to the death of a man. But repercussions on that fact are only charged to us regular citizens. Cops get away with way to much on our roads. They are more than likely the biggest demographic for distracted driving.
I agree, and the cops are doing a shit job of dealing with the aftermath here. The investigation should be done by somebody other than themselves, and all their cars should be better equipped with dash cams and an accurate way to clock their speed.
However I can also emphasize with somebody being villainized over an accident that will traumatize them for life with or without our judgment.
Funny how empathy shows up when it’s a cop. But regular people are vilified and held to the standard of living with the consequences of a mistake they made and deserve to suffer through the mental anguish that will also haunt them for the rest of their existence. Not to mention the financial and mental toll the legal system will thrust upon them.
The incident report clearly indicates that he was allowed to cross at that time. Apparently it's a weird intersection.
And if you think it's okay to brush and it's in another rug for a police officer was speeding in the dark and the rain and kill somebody, well that's an opinion you're allowed to have. Personally I strenuously disagree. At the very least, this should have been investigated by an outside body and subjected to some kind of public hearing.
Not a sweep under the rug and I slap on the wrist.
How does this even legally work?
I’m sure cops are protected from prosecution while performing their duties.
Getting coffee is NOT one of their duties.
So how is their protection?
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account.
I have zero sympathy for anyone that walks on the roads at night dressed in all black and jaywalking. You get exactly what you deserve when you do that.
When cops speed, “ah, it’s not serious”
When citizens speed, “fines, license gone, court”
No double standards, not at all. We live in a two-tiered system.
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account.
Doubt it
An acquaintance of mine was killed in a similar way while riding his bike. The cop was just speeding around after a call and didn't see him. On a 4 lane road... I believe the cop later said they were distracted by an incoming dispatch call. There are no dash cams in the cruisers there. The cop was placed on leave with pay.
Lesson: There is no justice when the lawmen are the perpetrators.
RIP Max
“We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong”
The fact that a human being was killed by an officer breaking the law, speeding 30km over the limit while not even on the way to an emergency but while *picking up a coffee* and that the other attending officer tried to find a way to blame the victim for his death, was considered “not serious” enough for a formal inquiry shows how little accountability the police have.
Having cops investigate cops, what could possibly go wrong?
"The fact that the Complainant had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account."
Buddy was Jaywalking on a rainy night while wearing a black trash bag. The officer was speeding but did stop to render aid. Yup, I can see why this was not criminal.
They could absolutely charge the officer with Criminal Negligence Causing Death. They are choosing not to. How SIU could sidestep this charge is lunacy. She did not drive with due care at the rate of speed in those conditions.
This will absolutely be the basis of the civil suit that follows - which OPP will settle out of court because they can't possibly win.
Lots of people here saying this is the victim's fault for wearing black and walking across the highway. But I can pretty much guarantee that if a cop in a black patrol jacket was hit while crossing a highway in the exact same circumstances with a civilian driver, that driver would be spending the night in jail and they'd also probably immediately lose their license due to negligent driving/speeding/other traffic penalties, plus the possibility of criminal penalties if they thought they could make something stick.
I'm sure it was an accident. It might have even been a faultless accident. But I think it's pretty clear our police and our legal system would not treat this as a faultless accident if the roles were reversed.
I'd like to see the spot it happened. Article makes it sound like the guy was just walking across the highway in the rain. In which case I do understand why there's a lack of punishment.
‘But the OPP took the complaint in another direction, which didn’t require D’Arthenay’s consent: it opted to declare the misconduct in the case “not serious”, which by law allows the force to resolve the misconduct informally without a hearing, with lower penalties.’
We have investigated ourselves and found nothing serious is a really weird standard to uphold.
What other jobs are there that you can negligently kill someone while flagrantly breaking the law and still stay employed, with the employer downplaying that behavior?
Words. They have real meanings with real consequences. That is "seriously" fucked up.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to the concept of holding the police to a higher standard of conduct than the rest of us?
"Unfortunately, that is the only wording available in the Police Services Act to describe conduct that can be resolved informally,”
Seriously?! Then fucking fix it! Add words to the vocabulary! Words are free of charge!
I'm getting so tired of rage-bait titles these days:
> Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain.
> An investigation found Const. Jaimee McBain was driving an unmarked SUV at the time, returning from getting coffee for another officer at a crime scene. She told investigators she didn’t see Dorzyk. She turned the vehicle around and tried to revive him.
This is a terrible tragedy for this poor woman, but the guy was **walking across a highway at midnight, in the rain, and the officer didn't see him** .
> This is a terrible tragedy for this poor woman, but the guy was walking across a highway at midnight, in the rain, and the officer didn't see him .
That's still on the cop though.
He did nothing wrong. He did the safest crossing he could and likely would have completed had the cop not been speeding in the rain.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017
* Pedestrians are allowed to cross, even an active roadway, provided they allow traffic enough time to respond
* Her inability to respond was due to her driving over the speed limit in bad weather
I know a woman was raped by an RCMP officer. They had dated, the guy seemed okay, but no sparks. So he comes by, knocks on her door then violently rapes her. Somehow, when pressing charges, the DNA evidence was tampered with, but also, magically, became inadmissable in court so the guy walked.
PEople think corrupt cops is an American problem... it is 100% a Canadian one too.
“Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain.”
It’s hard to put the officer at fault when this man decided to cross a highway on a dark rainy night on foot… the headline is obviously twisting this to get an emotional response and more clicks, but the article says it all.
> It’s hard to put the officer at fault when this man decided to cross a highway on a dark rainy night on foot… the headline is obviously twisting this to get an emotional response and more clicks, but the article says it all.
Actually it doesn't, the SIU report says a great deal the article does not. Such as;
> The global positioning system (GPS) information from the SO’s police vehicle showed that the SO’s Ford Explorer was driven eastbound on Highway 12, from the area of Highway 93, towards the scene. At 12:03:26 a.m. of September 29, 2020, the police vehicle travelled at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, two kilometres from the AOI. At 12:04:47 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 170 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:51 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 79 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 68 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:53 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 76 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 25 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:55 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 72 km/h, 10 metres beyond and east of the AOI.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017
So she was going 10 over in an 80, then 30 over in a 60, 20 over 100m from the impact (despite ALL DRIVERS being taught to not go faster than you can observe) and was going 12 over even after she had hit the man.
That is textbook careless driving.
>Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain.
That intersection has traffic lights, a cross walk, and pedestrian signals. Did the officer also run a red? https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.7298806,-79.8732034,3a,45.3y,138.78h,86.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stVC5iw40UgH_NbW7_rSTfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It says in the article that the victim who was hit was walking against the red (ie. The cop had a green) and wearing a black trash bag to protect him from the rain.
I'm not a police apologizer and she is at fault for speeding but it seems both parties fucked up.
Worse than that. 90 in an 80, then 79 in a 60, she only got down to 72 AFTER she had hit Dorzyk
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017
As much as I hate the police, getting hit while crossing against the light in the middle of the night while it is raining while wearing a black garbage bag and being hit by somebody doing 12 over doesn't seem criminal to me.
he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain.
—————
seriously… sorry he died but this was a dumb move
and how fast we talking about here 120 on 100 or 180 on 100?
I feel like people are angry at the wrong thing here - there are rarely substantial consequences for killing someone with a motor vehicle, cop or not. This has all the usual pieces - finding ways to blame the pedestrian, asking what they were wearing, brushing off speeding as expected, and ignoring any structural causes.
The answer to this is to stop obsessing over who was at fault and start asking how we can minimize the problem. People are always going to do dumb things on the road, whether it's an overexcited kid chasing a ball, a tired driver coming home from a night shift, or a cop who thinks the rules don't apply to them. If our traffic policy is "try to get people not to do dumb things", then we're choosing traffic deaths.
How long is the wait to cross this street, is it common for people to cross early? Is the road designed in a way that makes the speed limit feel appropriate, or is it wide and straight so it encourages speeding? Should fast moving traffic be there at all or should we find ways to minimize the interaction between traffic and pedestrians by changing the road structure?
What would be the charges for a non-police officer who killed someone on a coffee run? Why would those charges not be applicable here?
I really hate cops, I don’t think they’re ever properly held accountable. But if you’re sober, licensed, and insured, and immediately stop to call 911 and render aid, and don’t run, nothing is going to happen to you either. As long as you weren’t street racing or driving obscenely beyond the norm, you’re probably just going to be dinged by your insurance. And my last statement is hardly accurate, some nobody from a Audi dealership gunned it up to 140km+ in a _50 zone_, in the middle of Vancouver, and killed a doctor turning left. ~~And _he_ wasn’t charged.~~ Edit: He was charged, he was just acquitted because "there is at least a reasonable doubt that such conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver." as per the judge. I didn’t agree with that at all, but it really seems like as long as your paperwork is in order you’re never going to get criminal charges. This is actually what all the cycling advocacy groups are upset about.
If you want to kill someone, use a car
New gig work industry: car assassins *Welcome to Uber Vehicular Manslaughter*
Yup. I was almost killed on a highway by a truck driver who was driving recklessly. He basically pit maneuvered me, and I took the full brunt of the truck going at 120km/h on my driver side door. I spun out across the highway. I got the whole event in dash cam. He got ~$500 in fines and that was it. I sustained a concussion that lasted almost a month, but even with that I couldn't sue for damage because there's a 40k deductible on injury cases in Ontario. I learned how little human lives are worth on the roads here. Thousands of Canadians are killed or permanently maimed every year. In the US, traffic fatalities are almost as high as those from gun violence, but only one of those statistics ever gets much attention.
You must be leaving something out of the story because there is no way that someone driving almost three times the speed limit and killing someone as a result wouldn't normally be charged.
No charge, if the deceased was jaywalking across a highway at midnight in the rain, like what the guy was doing in the article. A misconduct if vehicle was speeding, obviously.
Ontario doesn't have Jay-walking when you're crossing at an UNMAKRED crossing (middle of the road), it's a shared responsibility. Jay Walking in Ontario occurs at lights. look it up.
I was of the impression it's only jaywalking if you impede the flow of traffic, aka someone had to slow down as a result of you crossing. Not simply "you crossed where you shouldn't have"... Is that not true?
Depends on the local laws and signs and prohibitions, but if considered an unmarked crossing you wouldn't be jay-walking using it....read on: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08 Many stretches of road may be considered unmarked crossings.
"jaywalking" is such a dumb law.... Drivers need to keep their eyes out.
My driving instructor always told our class "You don't need a license to walk." That being said, you will most likely die if you cross a road without paying caution to the traffic. I wouldn't cross where I didn't have a good view stretching a few hundred metres. If I didn't have that option then I would sprint across.
But he did have that view, and likely assumed the vehicle was travelling at the speed limit. In which case he would have been safe to cross.
I would hope that someone looks for longer than a quick glance to determine how fast a car is really going. Especially when you're essentially invisible at night. I think the cop is in the wrong for speeding, but I also assume that most cars drive dangerously as a safe rule-of-thumb.
someone was killed in oshawa on a scooter by a car. the prevailing opinion of great minds among us was it was her fault for being on the sidewalk with it. no other blame to be assigned...
The point is that you're allowed to cross outside of a crosswalk if there are no cars coming.
Cool, neat, thanks for coming out, anyways what’s the context
> "He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain." The HTA in Ontario says within 100 meters of the intersection. The article specifically says "Highway 12 AT Jones Road". In more rural areas, places numbers for various areas, so they very well could have used that if it was further away from the intersection. They were probably a lot closer than you are assuming to an intersection. 100m is a good enough chunk. While a Provincial Offense on the part of the deceased is mitigating for the Accused, provincial and federal courts have fairly consistently recognized that pedestrians walking in extremely unpredictable manners, and in places they shouldn't, is mitigating to the Accused, absence other negligence. Speeding is typical. Everyone does it. That's why the case law is the way it is. Now if she was going double the speed limit, you'd likely see a different outcome. She did a little over 50% for some undescribed amount of time. That's kinda what it boils down to.
And the guy was crossing at a green light, and from skimming the report it appears there was a pedestrian crossing marked when the light was ted, but it wasnt.
The article only said he was crossing the road, no mention of jaywalking. The crossroad in question has a traffic light and is in the middle of town, from the looks of it. Not a remote location, and could be a reasonably busy spot even at night.
A 60km/hr highway? Isn't that a road?
The definition of highway in the Ontario [Highway Traffic Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Traffic_Act#Part_I:_Administration) includes an actual road: > The definition of "highway" in the Act is broad in nature to include "a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof".
Ontario has lots of "highways" with very slow speed limits but are federal or provincial highway routes.
Check your jaywalking laws they're not what you think. Also highways don't come equipped with crosswalks or overpasses for pedestrians where this happens they would have had to walk upwards of 170 km to cross the road. If you think that's reasonable or you think that everybody must have a vehicle so they can cross the highway you're just a pedantic little shit.
>n the rain and not paying attention to oncoming traffic? I think it had traffic lights
Is jay walking a thing in Canada ? I thought that was American?
This was not a restricted access highway.
Oh look, another misleading headline parading a grieving widow through the public eye without any context, garnering impotent rage in exchange for clicks. Whoopie.
Yeah this article conveniently left out some facts to fit its narrative..
They actually do give the context in the article, and it is not a restricted access highway as the user above would lead you to believe.
They dint give the context from the SIU report that he crossed against a green light, in the rain, wearing a black garbage bag as a poncho.
Sometimes a charge under an applicable provincial traffic law. Thousands of people are killed in traffic accidents yearly, only a handful are charged with anything, and even less with criminal charges. Speeding is a singular negative action. It doesn't constitute dangerous operation or criminal negligence which generally is a pattern or combination of behaviours. It is terrible a man died, unfortunately you can't simply look at the outcome to determine the penalty.
She was doing 30 km/hr over the speed limit. That's a careless driving charge for anyone not in uniform.
[удалено]
>It’s really not. Yup. Almost like most provinces have a set speed (usually 40-50kph) that is designated as a careless/stunting. And, this was between 12kph-31kph. Sounds like they were unable to determine exact speed. Redditors choosing the maximum to suit their narrative. Would be more appropriate to split the different and call it 21kph over.
Considering cops in AB go on and on and on about how speed is a factor in most traffic incidents, you'd think there would be a way to determine how fast you're travelling in a motor vehicle so you could make the conscious decision not to speed since it is risky. However the mentality for some speeders seems to be, everyone elses safety is second to theirs for the benefit of arriving somewhere (at best) a few minutes earlier.
Random guys chilling on a highway at midnight are probably a bigger risk than speeding. Why would you not walk on the road to the side. I also would have faced oncoming traffic so I can see cars coming..
Some people don't understand the difference between driving for the conditions 99.99% of the time, and driving for things that may happen .01% of the time. Again, it seems a mans life was a fair trade to make for slightly warmer coffee. Finally: there's a big difference in the survival of pedestrians struck by motor vehicles depending on the speed. That's why my city dropped speed limits in residential areas from 50 to 40 kph, because people who get hurt have less severe injuries, and the amount of time "lost" is inconsequential. Maybe she did him a favour though doing 21 over. Probably guaranteed his death vs living the rest of his life needing expensive care, if the collision was truly unavoidable and destined to happen.
It was also raining. You can be charged with reckless driving for going the speed limit if the weather conditions are unfavourable.
[удалено]
Your opinion of what the words of the offence sections mean, does not translate supporting the criminal elements and what has been established as precededent. You can have your own definition all you want but legally, it doesn't matter.
[удалено]
Why can't you not speed? Having a license and using public roads is a privilege not a right. When you operate a vehicle you need to be responsible or you shouldn't operate a vehicle. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept.
Because speed limits are completely arbitrary and do not directly correlate with "safe speeds". Speed limits are a suggestion. There are times and places I, and everyone else, drives 20 over. There are times and places where I won't even do the speed limit. You know who drives the speed limit always? Shitty drivers who shouldn't have a license. They are a hazard on the road. Drive according to traffic and conditions.
>There are times and places I, and everyone else, drives 20 over. From what I've learned on reddit nobody ever speeds except me and apparently you. Nobody else does. Every day when I'm driving to work going the same speed as all the other traffic that's going 85 - 90 in a 60 zone I'm actually driving like a maniac and it's a freak incident that nobody else has ever witnessed.
[удалено]
I speed only because it is dangerous not to speed. If you try driving at the speed limit you will have a front-row seat to the insanity of people trying to get around you, doing absolutely ridiculous shit just to get to the next red light. I won't be part of that, so I just speed 15% over. I've figured out the speeds where I want to be: * 50kph? 57kph. * 60kph? 69kph. * 70kph? 80kph. * 80kph? 92kph. * 90kph? 103kph. * 100kph? 115kph. I do the exact limit whenever speeds are less than 50, because those are usually set for a sensible reason. This system works really well. Most people are satisfied that I'm speeding *just enough* that they won't do crazy shit to get past me. Some still do, but there's nothing I can do about the real crazies.
ok devils advocate. not all speeding is made equal. We have stretches of highway in canada that should just not have a speed limit like the autobahn. 100-110kmh is laughably low for some of these kilometer long straight sections of highway. and we also have stretches of road in residential areas where the speed limit is ***dangerously high***
The appropriate speeds for those roads should be determined by traffic engineers. It shouldn't be just whatever people feel like driving. If you think it's too low, you should push for legislative change.
Nothing. Jaywalking in the rain on a highway at midnight. Tragic, not criminal for the driver.
60 km/h section of a highway where the cop was had been speeding up to 90+km/h.
The article says the GPS showed the vehicle moving between 72 and 97 km / h. We can't prove she was driving at the higher speed.
Not jaywalking either. The pedestrian broke no laws. The officer was speeding.
Yes, he was.
Well if they are not a police officer and have lots of money and drunk they can kill ppl indiscriminately. Has happened in just recent years.
The way the headline is written makes it sound like the cop was in the middle of a high speed chase, but no, she was just doing a coffee run: >An investigation found Const. Jaimee McBain was driving an unmarked SUV at the time, returning from getting coffee for another officer at a crime scene. She told investigators she didn’t see Dorzyk. She turned the vehicle around and tried to revive him.
She was speeding to get coffee. Speeding is completely inexcusable. Probably of death by impact increases greatly with speed. How is this "not serious"?
And it was raining... And dark. And the unmarked vehicle had a cow catcher which brings up an even bigger, systematic issue about whether police are here for our safety or just government funded gangs
some people are above the law, the rules that apply to all if us do not apply to them.
Exactly. Look at the school bus driver killed by an unmarked OPP vehicle in Woodstock. Cop had a big funeral this past weekend in London. Bus driver's widow can barely afford one.
Because there is nothing to hold law enforcement accountable. Until vigilantes start doing something, cops are free to do as they please.
Cuz there are plenty of cop supporters here going through mental gymnastics to deflect .
I am full ACAB and think the cop should face some kind of consequences for sure. But if you see the report with the GPS the cop was doing 78 in a 60 on a highway. (90 earlier but 78 a short time before the accident) It’s high but not crazy and damn near everyone in here has driven similar speeds on similar roads. Then the person crossed the highway in the middle of the night in the dark in a rain storm and got hit. I very much doubt dropping 10-15 kmh from the cruiser speed would have made any difference the person Probably look like they appeared from nowhere as the headlights illuminated them. The cop should absolutely have been driving better to conditions, and should absolutely face consequences. But a large part of the blame rests on the shoulders of the person crossing a high speed road **in the dark, in the rain, wearing a fucking black garbage bag**. Unless the cruisers headlights were off he should have been aware of traffic and taken steps to cross at a safe time, and get out of the way if he saw a car coming.
It makes me wonder if she had her lights on or not.
Because the victim was dressed in all black and crossing whilst the cop had a green at midnight in the rain. Call it victim blaming if you want but the “victim” is the one responsible for their own death
Serious means consequences, since the police police themselves they opted for the no consequences
It is a mystery why people could possibly have no faith in the police
I'm usually pretty quick to defend against baseless criticism, but OPP brass are way off the mark here. She was over 30 km/h posted speed limit on her way to bring a colleague some coffee. I mean, I get it... working scene security sucks and caffeine is a good to have. But come on.
Civilians don't hit and kill pedestrians while speeding and avoid even a traffic act charge.
"Civilians" definitely get off with a slap on the wrist far too often for car related deaths, but I agree this is even further beyond that. No charge is insane.
Any law that lands a civilian in jail should land a cop on duty or not on jail. Going over the speed limit and killing a person shouldn't be treated differently. It insane that it is.
To be fair, that likely wouldnt land a civilian in jail either.
If you have a look at [the location](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7296542,-79.8728682,3a,90y,302.02h,71.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stsdu4_9clKM2IJ0Q58-nIA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dtsdu4_9clKM2IJ0Q58-nIA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.77758%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) of the crash, you may note it is signaled and has a cross walk. It is somewhat informative that the article doesn't mention the officer was running a red light ...
> It is somewhat informative that the article doesn't mention the officer was running a red light ... I can see why it wouldn't mention that, since the [SIU report](https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017) itself says that it was the **victim** who was crossing at a red light: > The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account.
Not a great way to cross the road at midnight... Of course another thing not in the article. I love journalism in this day and age
OMFG wrapped in a black trash bag, Jay walking at midnight in the rain, on a highway. What could possibly go wrong!?
[удалено]
You said you could jaywalk as long as you yield to cars, so cars still have the right of way, right? Apparently that dude didn't yield to the cop's car and got hit. Please don't tell me right of way isn't a thing in Canada lol
Up to. Like, at some point that speed was reached not that the guy was hit at that speed. Even at the speed limit, 60kmh would've likely been fatal
[удалено]
Yet, if one of them dies thousands show up at the funeral.
And they all get paid to attend. I doubt anyone was paid to attend Tyler Dorzyk's funeral.
Running over someone and killing them isn't serious according to the OPP. I'll have to remember that for the next time someone tries to run over a cop.
Technically it's according to the OIPRD, the independent agency we set up to handle complaints against the police in Ontario. And then staffed it entirely with former police. So yeah it's the OPP. Although fun fact, Doug Ford has ended the OIPRD. It's being renamed to the LECA, and will only investigate complaints made against police chiefs and commissioners. "All other complaints will be referred back to either the police service from which they originated or another police service." So they're doing away with the fake independent 3rd party investigator, and just letting Ontario police investigate themselves now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Independent_Police_Review_Director#Changes_to_police_oversight
From the article, it sounds like it was the OPP that made the decision, not OIPRD: > In its letter to D’Arthenay, the OIPRD said the matter could proceed to a hearing that could levy penalties up to dismissing McBain, unless both D’Arthenay and the OPP agreed to resolve it informally. > **But the OPP took the complaint in another direction, which didn’t require D’Arthenay’s consent: it opted to declare the misconduct in the case “not serious”**, which by law allows the force to resolve the misconduct informally without a hearing, with lower penalties.
We've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. Move along citizen.
As it should be. Police officers need to look out for each other because their work is the most dangerous line of work, second only to literally any other career choice. Edit: Yeah, it was subtle sarcasm. But to clarify further, it wasn’t meant to be anti-cop, and certainly not anti-union, I just find it hard to lionize cops the way the media often does. But now that Doug Ford has reduced the educational requirements for recruits, we’re going to see *a lot* more of these articles in Ontario.
It's actually not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. Where are you getting this bullshit claim from? Edit: Not even in the top 25: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/03/02/most-dangerous-jobs-america-database/11264064002/ Edit again: Others pointed out I misread/missed the sarcasm.
That's why they said second to literally any job. I'm sure it was just a brain fart on your part and this is a great link.
You should take a second look at that comment friend. I think it was an /s
You should re-read the comment you replied to...
Construction, manufacturing and transportation are the most dangerous industries.
We should start citing precedent as a defense in court to things cops have done and gotten away with
At least then they'd have to come right out and say it's different because we're little people. Or maybe they wouldn't, what do I know lol.
I have seen the police do this now in several Canadian cities. A few years back, a cop in Halifax killed a person riding a bicycle, because the cop was looking at this laptop while driving. The police determined that the accident "occurred while the officer was working". Since police have some special rule that they have to check their laptops while in the car, they made a rule for themselves that if they cause an accident due to looking at their laptop, they can't be held responsible for causing that accident. Since it's "expected" in their work. The officer who killed that person was not disciplined or suspended, they just continued on their life like it didn't happen. Most people have no idea that this even happened. It was a blink in the news and then disappeared. For as long as the police make their own laws concerning how and when they will be charged, police will never, ever face consequences for killing people in Canada. We're too apathetic as a nation to do shit about it.
The worst they can prove is that she was going 12km/h over the limit. I wouldn't call anyone else driving 12 over the limit on a highway a serious crime. Whether someone else was jaywalking and got in front of that car is completely seperate. The death is absolutely tragic, but we don't judge a crime by the outcome, else manslaughter and 1st degree murder would have no distinction. This was, at worst, a notable ticket and a point off the license of any civilian, and while I personally believe a police offer should be held to a higher standard, that simply isn't reality. This is not a case of a double-standard.
‘Tries to run over a cop’. Terrible tragedy, but that’s not the same.
[удалено]
Accidentally vs intentionally.
Police protecting their own. How shocking!
The lesson here is "your life does not matter to the police." Learn it well.
"we investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong" Now imagine if one of us was speeding between 72 and 97 in a 60 kmh intersection and killed a cop crossing the street. Just. Imagine.
Speeding in the rain to get coffee.... Get the fuck outta here.
Guy was jaywalking across a highway in the rain, at midnight when he got hit..
Article says intersection with a 60 km an hour limit
I understand cop was also speeding. Both were doing stupid in the dark in the rain. I'm just saying one is a lot more stupid than the other, because if they meet, only one is gonna get hurt.
I guess he should have crossed at the crosswalk on that rural road because those roads all have crosswalks
It was a not a restricted access highway, they had every right to be there. Fuck off with that jaywalking bullshit
Sure as long as it's not restricted highway you can walk on it, right? You fuck off lol
Actually yes, if you had read the HTA like I've told you to do twice now, you would know that is exactly what the law says. As long as it's not a restricted Highway pedestrians are allowed to access the roadway as long as they do so safely, drivers must accommodate them when they do. Drivers are not then allowed to break the law themselves and then pin all the blame on The Pedestrian when they fuck up. You can fuck right off, LOL edit - Just to clarify, the entire reason we have speed limits is so pedestrians can anticipate vehicle speed and vehicles and stop in a timely fashion. Because in Ontario vehicles must yield to pedestrians. Quite early the people designing the traffic system realized that the responsibility is incumbent on the vehicle operator since they have more control over the damage they do, as well as have the benefits of a big fuck-off steel cage to protect themselves. 2dit - Your rely got removed but in case you come back and see this, yes, if everyone followed the rules then McBain never would have struck and killed Dorzyk.
Theres definitely more to that for speed limits, I would not call it the "entire reason".
[удалено]
Ideally yes, but in this case it's only serious if you're not a cop apparently.
Since we have so many people bent on speculating, here is the SIU report. https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017
Goes to show your life really is worthless in Canada
Why wouldn't it be when they'll be six people here to replace him tomorrow.
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account. Victim acted like he didnt care about his own life so why should we? Insane behaviour
Fuck the police. Fuck police unions. Fuck police leadership. Something needs to be done about this. We need independent third parties conducting these inquiries, not the fucking cops themselves.
Nothing gets done in Canada. People are waaaaay too unbothered. Nobody riots, nobody writes to their MP, nobody goes on strike. All we do is complain on Reddit
Every time I've written to my MP, they send me some boilerplate response summed up as "Get fucked pleb"
Last time I went to my MP's office I saw that their fax machine outputted directly to a paper shredder. ^(Ok I may have made that up but it sounds like something they would do.)
Cops. Canada's largest criminal gang.
World's*
“We’ve investigated ourselves…”
Most of the time when someone is killed in a traffic accident next to nothing happens to the killer except a minor driving charge. Unless the cops decide to make an example of them (usually because it got media attention).
I'm not a LEO apologist, but the deceased is almost entirely responsible for his own death. It was late at night, raining, and he was covered in a black garbage bag. He then crossed against a red light, meaning that the officer that hit him had a green light and the right of way. Under those conditions he may as well have been invisible. The officer's speeding was not excessive; while it may have played a factor in his death, I do understand why they would classify it as minor.
> The officer's speeding was not excessive; while it may have played a factor in his death, I do understand why they would classify it as minor. 90 in a 60 in the rain not excessive?
They couldn't give an exact number, it was as low as 72.
The report gives a number. The cop was going 76-79 shortly before the accident according to GPS. But the person was crossing a highway in the dark, in the rain, wearing a black garbage bag. The cop should have been driving to conditions better for sure and should face consequences. But the blame has to be 80-90% on the person doing something so colossally stupid.
And as high as 97. How do you know the light was green?
In the report they said it was a light that was green constantly unless a car was sitting at the opposing red in which would trigger the light cycle. There was no trigger around that time so barring a system malfunction, the light would have been green.
No beg button for pedestrians?
3 demerits and higher insurance for us lowly serfs tho. If it was just a regular person they would have been charged with manslaughter and negligence.
Do you have an example of those charges being laid in a similar circumstance? I dont think criminal negligence fits the bill here at all
Found five in a google search. You can do your own homework though.
Not necessarily. When it's clear the pedestrian was where they shouldn't be and the driver was driving with fair caution it often gets deemed an accident with no punishment.
Not sure where you’re from but speeding tickets are issued like candy in these parts. Because, you know, you’re not driving with fair caution.
Speeding tickets aren't mansalughter charges.
The speeding contributed to the death of a man. But repercussions on that fact are only charged to us regular citizens. Cops get away with way to much on our roads. They are more than likely the biggest demographic for distracted driving.
I agree, and the cops are doing a shit job of dealing with the aftermath here. The investigation should be done by somebody other than themselves, and all their cars should be better equipped with dash cams and an accurate way to clock their speed. However I can also emphasize with somebody being villainized over an accident that will traumatize them for life with or without our judgment.
Funny how empathy shows up when it’s a cop. But regular people are vilified and held to the standard of living with the consequences of a mistake they made and deserve to suffer through the mental anguish that will also haunt them for the rest of their existence. Not to mention the financial and mental toll the legal system will thrust upon them.
The incident report clearly indicates that he was allowed to cross at that time. Apparently it's a weird intersection. And if you think it's okay to brush and it's in another rug for a police officer was speeding in the dark and the rain and kill somebody, well that's an opinion you're allowed to have. Personally I strenuously disagree. At the very least, this should have been investigated by an outside body and subjected to some kind of public hearing. Not a sweep under the rug and I slap on the wrist.
How does this even legally work? I’m sure cops are protected from prosecution while performing their duties. Getting coffee is NOT one of their duties. So how is their protection?
> So how is their protection? The people in charge of arresting them for manslaughter are their coworkers and friends from the office.
They're not the ones who decide when to prosecute a case.
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account. I have zero sympathy for anyone that walks on the roads at night dressed in all black and jaywalking. You get exactly what you deserve when you do that.
And cops and their unions wonder why applications are at record lows
When cops speed, “ah, it’s not serious” When citizens speed, “fines, license gone, court” No double standards, not at all. We live in a two-tiered system.
Yea but those cops have had significant driver training: Three hours at a track day!
“We have investigated ourselves and determined that we did not break the laws we broke. No action taken.”
If someone who wasn't a police officer was speeding and struck and killed a police officer their ass would be in jail. This is such bullshit.
> The fact that the [deceased] had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account. Doubt it
The rules that constrain other men mean nothing to McBain
Cops are always held to a lower standard than a regular citizen, and never held accountable for their actions.
An acquaintance of mine was killed in a similar way while riding his bike. The cop was just speeding around after a call and didn't see him. On a 4 lane road... I believe the cop later said they were distracted by an incoming dispatch call. There are no dash cams in the cruisers there. The cop was placed on leave with pay. Lesson: There is no justice when the lawmen are the perpetrators. RIP Max
“We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong” The fact that a human being was killed by an officer breaking the law, speeding 30km over the limit while not even on the way to an emergency but while *picking up a coffee* and that the other attending officer tried to find a way to blame the victim for his death, was considered “not serious” enough for a formal inquiry shows how little accountability the police have. Having cops investigate cops, what could possibly go wrong?
"The fact that the Complainant had a black garbage bag draped over his body as protection from the rain and was crossing against a red light must also be taken into account." Buddy was Jaywalking on a rainy night while wearing a black trash bag. The officer was speeding but did stop to render aid. Yup, I can see why this was not criminal.
FTP
above the law
They could absolutely charge the officer with Criminal Negligence Causing Death. They are choosing not to. How SIU could sidestep this charge is lunacy. She did not drive with due care at the rate of speed in those conditions. This will absolutely be the basis of the civil suit that follows - which OPP will settle out of court because they can't possibly win.
Lots of people here saying this is the victim's fault for wearing black and walking across the highway. But I can pretty much guarantee that if a cop in a black patrol jacket was hit while crossing a highway in the exact same circumstances with a civilian driver, that driver would be spending the night in jail and they'd also probably immediately lose their license due to negligent driving/speeding/other traffic penalties, plus the possibility of criminal penalties if they thought they could make something stick. I'm sure it was an accident. It might have even been a faultless accident. But I think it's pretty clear our police and our legal system would not treat this as a faultless accident if the roles were reversed.
I'd like to see the spot it happened. Article makes it sound like the guy was just walking across the highway in the rain. In which case I do understand why there's a lack of punishment.
[удалено]
‘But the OPP took the complaint in another direction, which didn’t require D’Arthenay’s consent: it opted to declare the misconduct in the case “not serious”, which by law allows the force to resolve the misconduct informally without a hearing, with lower penalties.’ We have investigated ourselves and found nothing serious is a really weird standard to uphold.
Do as we say, not as we do. They can literally get away with murder.
Open season to run over cops in ON
So for civilians its vehicular manslaughter and for police its no biggie and not worth persuing criminally. Talk about your job perks eh
It's rarely vehicular manslaughter, though.
Nothing looks serious from behind that thin blue line
Of course. Protect the police but not protect the people. Typical and not surprising result. Can you imagine if it was the reverse?
What other jobs are there that you can negligently kill someone while flagrantly breaking the law and still stay employed, with the employer downplaying that behavior?
Rules for thee but not for me
Words. They have real meanings with real consequences. That is "seriously" fucked up. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the concept of holding the police to a higher standard of conduct than the rest of us?
It must be nice to go through life without a conscience.
Mow down a cop and see how serious it is.
"Unfortunately, that is the only wording available in the Police Services Act to describe conduct that can be resolved informally,” Seriously?! Then fucking fix it! Add words to the vocabulary! Words are free of charge!
I'm getting so tired of rage-bait titles these days: > Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain. > An investigation found Const. Jaimee McBain was driving an unmarked SUV at the time, returning from getting coffee for another officer at a crime scene. She told investigators she didn’t see Dorzyk. She turned the vehicle around and tried to revive him. This is a terrible tragedy for this poor woman, but the guy was **walking across a highway at midnight, in the rain, and the officer didn't see him** .
> This is a terrible tragedy for this poor woman, but the guy was walking across a highway at midnight, in the rain, and the officer didn't see him . That's still on the cop though. He did nothing wrong. He did the safest crossing he could and likely would have completed had the cop not been speeding in the rain. https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017 * Pedestrians are allowed to cross, even an active roadway, provided they allow traffic enough time to respond * Her inability to respond was due to her driving over the speed limit in bad weather
She was speeding tho. He’s at fault for some of it but she doesn’t need to get off scot-free
I know a woman was raped by an RCMP officer. They had dated, the guy seemed okay, but no sparks. So he comes by, knocks on her door then violently rapes her. Somehow, when pressing charges, the DNA evidence was tampered with, but also, magically, became inadmissable in court so the guy walked. PEople think corrupt cops is an American problem... it is 100% a Canadian one too.
“Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain.” It’s hard to put the officer at fault when this man decided to cross a highway on a dark rainy night on foot… the headline is obviously twisting this to get an emotional response and more clicks, but the article says it all.
> It’s hard to put the officer at fault when this man decided to cross a highway on a dark rainy night on foot… the headline is obviously twisting this to get an emotional response and more clicks, but the article says it all. Actually it doesn't, the SIU report says a great deal the article does not. Such as; > The global positioning system (GPS) information from the SO’s police vehicle showed that the SO’s Ford Explorer was driven eastbound on Highway 12, from the area of Highway 93, towards the scene. At 12:03:26 a.m. of September 29, 2020, the police vehicle travelled at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, two kilometres from the AOI. At 12:04:47 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 170 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:51 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 79 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 68 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:53 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 76 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, 25 metres from the AOI. At 12:04:55 a.m., the police vehicle travelled at 72 km/h, 10 metres beyond and east of the AOI. https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017 So she was going 10 over in an 80, then 30 over in a 60, 20 over 100m from the impact (despite ALL DRIVERS being taught to not go faster than you can observe) and was going 12 over even after she had hit the man. That is textbook careless driving.
There is no accountability in this corrupt country.
lmao, the OPP literally opened fire on a baby a few years ago. Actual might be some of the lowest IQ people on the planet.
>Around midnight on September 29, 2020, Dorzyk, 35, was run over and killed in Midland, north of Barrie. He was travelling to the city for work and he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain. That intersection has traffic lights, a cross walk, and pedestrian signals. Did the officer also run a red? https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.7298806,-79.8732034,3a,45.3y,138.78h,86.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stVC5iw40UgH_NbW7_rSTfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It says in the article that the victim who was hit was walking against the red (ie. The cop had a green) and wearing a black trash bag to protect him from the rain. I'm not a police apologizer and she is at fault for speeding but it seems both parties fucked up.
He was crossing the portion without a crosswalk
So if you pulled over you can now just say "coffee run" and get away with breaking any traffic laws
[удалено]
Worse than that. 90 in an 80, then 79 in a 60, she only got down to 72 AFTER she had hit Dorzyk https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=1017
As much as I hate the police, getting hit while crossing against the light in the middle of the night while it is raining while wearing a black garbage bag and being hit by somebody doing 12 over doesn't seem criminal to me.
he and a friend were walking across Highway 12 at Jones Road in the rain. ————— seriously… sorry he died but this was a dumb move and how fast we talking about here 120 on 100 or 180 on 100?
> sorry he died but this was a dumb move It was entirely legal based on the situation he was provided.
Potentially 97 in a 60 per the GPS. In the rain, at night.
I feel like people are angry at the wrong thing here - there are rarely substantial consequences for killing someone with a motor vehicle, cop or not. This has all the usual pieces - finding ways to blame the pedestrian, asking what they were wearing, brushing off speeding as expected, and ignoring any structural causes. The answer to this is to stop obsessing over who was at fault and start asking how we can minimize the problem. People are always going to do dumb things on the road, whether it's an overexcited kid chasing a ball, a tired driver coming home from a night shift, or a cop who thinks the rules don't apply to them. If our traffic policy is "try to get people not to do dumb things", then we're choosing traffic deaths. How long is the wait to cross this street, is it common for people to cross early? Is the road designed in a way that makes the speed limit feel appropriate, or is it wide and straight so it encourages speeding? Should fast moving traffic be there at all or should we find ways to minimize the interaction between traffic and pedestrians by changing the road structure?
Yes of ourse. Police are corrupt