Vianet.ca
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: 17B Fatality

  1. #1
    Senior Member DM46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    409

    Default 17B Fatality

    http://www.sootoday.com/content/news...ls.asp?c=63844


    I'm just wondering how many people behind this letter are privy to know EVERY piece of evidence behind this investigation. My bet is none. I will admit, That I, only know what has been shown by the media. Unlike the City Police, the OPP in the Algoma district do very well with this kind of investigation. Perhaps there are details we don't know that justify the charges that were laid. Maybe Mr. Roach accidentally walked in front of the vehicle. Maybe he tripped or stumbled into the path of the vehicle. Given the time of the accident why was Mr. Roach walking on the highway to begin with? Is it possible he was intoxicated? Is it possible he left a party in the Sault to go to Garden River? Or vice-versa? This is not meant to offend anyone in any way. I fully feel sympathy and compassion for the family, friends and all known to him. However I feel that all of this hype about the investigation is premature. More charges may follow for the driver. This happens often with these kinds of investigations. Maybe the police have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was not the fault of the driver. If so no further charges are warranted, aside from not remaining at the scene of the accident.

    Your thoughts.
    Last edited by Barry Morris; 11-07-2013 at 11:50 PM. Reason: Spelling
    It's a Ford thing, you wouldn't understand.

  2. #2
    Senior Member The Freq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Below the Surface :-)
    Posts
    252

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    So far, it's looks like this driver got a slap on the wrist. Obviously, we don't know everything, but killing someone with your vehicle and then fleeing the scene should result in some some heavy charges. I don't think is should matter if the victim was possibly drunk or not. The driver still fled the scene. Had he stayed, who knows if the young boy could have been saved. I hope that there's more to this than the charges stated.
    "Zingy Zingy"

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    SSM
    Posts
    821

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Which leads me to wonder if the driver was drunk himself and that's why he left the scene.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Ladywolf 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    519

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Agreeing with you whole heartedly, Asparas. A question that I just asked others elsewhere. Seems to me that there is very little being said at this point and I can well understand his family and friends for getting frustrated. I feel terrible that his Community is having to go through this, especially for someone so young. My heart goes out to his community and I hope that they don't have to wait much longer for their answers.
    Last edited by Ladywolf 1; 11-08-2013 at 12:37 AM. Reason: adding
    SPRING-SUMMER-FALL-YEAH !

  5. #5
    Senior Member axalon2003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    654

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    I would think that proving that the driver was DUI when he hit Mr Roach after the amount of time that went by would be pretty tricky. Seems like a deliberate attempt by the driver to get out of more serious charges. I imagine that the police want to get charges in place ASAP, and can always add to them as they are able to. Hopefully they can prove the DUI, but that is going to be an uphill challenge thanks to the driver.
    As to this somehow being a racial issue, PLEASE SHAKE YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS! The driver, who is solely responsible for his actions, looks to have taken deliberate steps to avoid serious charges. What we would like him to be charged with and what the police can charge him with based on the evidence they are able to collect that will stand up in court are two different things. The OPP will file the charges that are appropriate.
    I would be more concerned if this was being handled in town, given the number of repeat offenders you see in the news.
    Quando omni flunkus moritati.

  6. #6

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    to Freq and Asparas: where does it say that the driver fled the scene? He was charged with failing to notify of an accident. This seems to suggest that he did not leave the scene, but did not report it. It has been rumoured that he was on scene but it was called in by others.

    to Axalon 2003 and Asparas: it is only speculation on your part that the driver was DUI. If this had been the case, charges would have been made.

    The whole area community feels for BOTH families involved.

    Speculation on this site does nothing but hurt all who are involved. Let due process take its course.

  7. #7
    IMHO
    Guest

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    LET THE COURTS work this one out....too many unanswered questions and a lot of folks are jumping the gun.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tutones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    3rd Braincell to the right.
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by IMHO View Post
    LET THE COURTS work this one out....too many unanswered questions and a lot of folks are jumping the gun.
    Why does everyone automatically assume that the driver is the man who was charged? It could very well be that he is just the owner of the car and someone else was driving it. He may be protecting the identity of that person, which would make perfect sense of the charges that were laid.

    Even if he was the driver, the only thing the police can prove right now is that he owned the car, until they can actually PROVE beyond a doubt that he was the one behind the wheel, they cannot charge him with anything else!
    “Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times they accomplish this impossible task.”
    Haim Ginott

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    SSM
    Posts
    821

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by ctf View Post
    to Freq and Asparas: where does it say that the drivers fled the scene? He was charged with failing to notify of an accident. This seems to suggest that he did not leave the scene, but did not report it. It has been rumoured that he was on scene but it was called in by others.

    to Axalon 2003 and Asparas: it is only speculation on your part that the driver was DUI. If this had been the case, charges would have been made.

    The whole area community feels for BOTH families involved.

    Speculation on this site does nothing but hurt all who are involved. Let due process take its course.
    1) All the earlier news coverage mentions he was found by a passing motorist and there was a reward offered for tips leading to an arrest. That tells me the driver fled the scene.

    2) What part of my post did you misread? What part of "leads me to wonder" did you not understand? Of course it's speculation. If it were fact he'd be charged accordingly.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,927

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by Tutones View Post
    Why does everyone automatically assume that the driver is the man who was charged?
    Police say they identified the driver and vehicle involved. This didn't occur until 5 days after the incident. Police have charged a man and have completed their investigation. I can't imagine the circumstance where the driver, who either left the scene or failed to identify himself as the driver while at the scene, wouldn't be charged with something by the time the investigation was completed. Therefore is would seem logical the man charged was also the driver.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Sault
    Posts
    8,833

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Needless to say, this is an awful thing for a family to have to go through, and I do not take lightly the fact that emotions are high, questions linger, and the desire to seek justice from a Native community with a history of not getting their fair share of that, plays a role here.

    But, I've tried to visualize the situation a number of times, trying to understand why things played out the way they did, and of course, I don't have all the information, so I don't know if alcohol played a factor for either the driver or the young man who lost his life, that is up to the police to try and figure out.

    What I have done, is try to play devil's advocate, and come up with a scenario in which nothing sinister took place. As a result, I think it's possible that this tragic incident was possibly just a really unfortunate accident. Here's what I came up with:

    - A young man, wearing dark clothing, is walking down the highway in the dark.

    - A 73 year-old man is driving on the highway, in the dark.

    - The vehicle strikes something on the road, but the driver didn't see anything.

    - He stops, gets out and looks around, but doesn't see anything (the young man ended up on the black asphalt, in the dark, wearing dark clothing.

    - The driver knows he hit something, there is damage to his vehicle, but he doesn't have a cell phone, didn't see what he hit, and draws the conclusion that the only thing he could have hit at this time of day, must have been some wildlife crossing the road. So, he drives home (which would lead to the 'failing to remain' charge, since it was actually a person he hit).

    - In the morning, he washes off the front of his vehicle, and assesses the damage (which would lead to the 'obstruction' charge, since this was obviously evidence).

    The question is, would any of us have done anything differently? Let's be honest here. If you hit something in the dark at 5am on the highway, would you honestly think you hit a person, or a deer? If you had a cell phone, you might have decided to call the police for insurance purposes, but you can also do that once you get home.

    If you had a spotlight, you might have had a chance at spotting whatever you struck, but wouldn't you come to the conclusion that whatever you hit must have run off into the bush to die?

    So, maybe this 73 year old knew he hit a person. Maybe he had been drinking. Maybe he knew he did something awful, and just fled to avoid paying the price for it. Or maybe, he was just an old man who hit something on the way home, and had no idea it was a young man instead of a deer, and did the same thing many of us would do, given the circumstances.

    One question that lingers with me is, should he have called someone when he got home, and said that he had contact with something on the road? If you do think you hit a deer or a bear on the road, is it standard practice to call and report that to someone? If so, that would sway my opinion on how responsible this person may or may not be, but I honestly don't know if that is a required thing. I have hit a number of small animals on the highway, and never thought to actually report it to anyone. Is that something you need to do, if you have a collision with a larger animal, but your vehicle is still roadworthy?
    Currently being ignored: The Voice, The Official Cat of Soonet, Barry Morris, and Aristotle.

  12. #12
    Senior Member The Freq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Below the Surface :-)
    Posts
    252

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by ctf View Post
    to Freq and Asparas: where does it say that the driver fled the scene? He was charged with failing to notify of an accident. This seems to suggest that he did not leave the scene, but did not report it. It has been rumoured that he was on scene but it was called in by others.
    I was basing my post on this Sootoday report that the body was discovered by a passing motorist. There is no mention of the driver involved in the accident being there. True, speculation on my part, but I think if he was there, the news would have surely mentioned it.

    http://www.sootoday.com/content/news...ls.asp?c=62827
    "Zingy Zingy"

  13. #13

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by The Freq View Post
    I was basing my post on this Sootoday report that the body was discovered by a passing motorist. There is no mention of the driver involved in the accident being there. True, speculation on my part, but I think if he was there, the news would have surely mentioned it.

    http://www.sootoday.com/content/news...ls.asp?c=62827
    There was no mention of the person not being there either. And if the individual eventually charged was the passing motorist? What if as mentioned above, the individual who discovered Jesse was not aware that he had in fact hit him? Sootoday mentions what it wants, for the sole purpose of getting hits on its site and is not really interested in the truth. In any of the so called news releases related to this from that site be sure to notice there are no followup blogs!!! No opportunity for other opinions or possible information sharing. Why?

    In any case, as mentioned above "LET THE COURTS work this one out....too many unanswered questions and a lot of folks are jumping the gun."
    Last edited by ctf; 11-11-2013 at 02:42 PM. Reason: grammar

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    218

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by The Left Sock View Post
    Needless to say, this is an awful thing for a family to have to go through, and I do not take lightly the fact that emotions are high, questions linger, and the desire to seek justice from a Native community with a history of not getting their fair share of that, plays a role here.

    But, I've tried to visualize the situation a number of times, trying to understand why things played out the way they did, and of course, I don't have all the information, so I don't know if alcohol played a factor for either the driver or the young man who lost his life, that is up to the police to try and figure out.

    What I have done, is try to play devil's advocate, and come up with a scenario in which nothing sinister took place. As a result, I think it's possible that this tragic incident was possibly just a really unfortunate accident. Here's what I came up with:

    - A young man, wearing dark clothing, is walking down the highway in the dark.

    - A 73 year-old man is driving on the highway, in the dark.

    - The vehicle strikes something on the road, but the driver didn't see anything.

    - He stops, gets out and looks around, but doesn't see anything (the young man ended up on the black asphalt, in the dark, wearing dark clothing.

    - The driver knows he hit something, there is damage to his vehicle, but he doesn't have a cell phone, didn't see what he hit, and draws the conclusion that the only thing he could have hit at this time of day, must have been some wildlife crossing the road. So, he drives home (which would lead to the 'failing to remain' charge, since it was actually a person he hit).

    - In the morning, he washes off the front of his vehicle, and assesses the damage (which would lead to the 'obstruction' charge, since this was obviously evidence).

    The question is, would any of us have done anything differently? Let's be honest here. If you hit something in the dark at 5am on the highway, would you honestly think you hit a person, or a deer? If you had a cell phone, you might have decided to call the police for insurance purposes, but you can also do that once you get home.

    If you had a spotlight, you might have had a chance at spotting whatever you struck, but wouldn't you come to the conclusion that whatever you hit must have run off into the bush to die?

    So, maybe this 73 year old knew he hit a person. Maybe he had been drinking. Maybe he knew he did something awful, and just fled to avoid paying the price for it. Or maybe, he was just an old man who hit something on the way home, and had no idea it was a young man instead of a deer, and did the same thing many of us would do, given the circumstances.

    One question that lingers with me is, should he have called someone when he got home, and said that he had contact with something on the road? If you do think you hit a deer or a bear on the road, is it standard practice to call and report that to someone? If so, that would sway my opinion on how responsible this person may or may not be, but I honestly don't know if that is a required thing. I have hit a number of small animals on the highway, and never thought to actually report it to anyone. Is that something you need to do, if you have a collision with a larger animal, but your vehicle is still roadworthy?
    Regardless of dark clothing, 5 in the morning, or what ever other excuse that you come up with; if you do not see something when you have hit it with your headlights on, you should not be driving. This guy should have known what he hit, he is guilty of a crime. The Dark Knight will deal with him.

  15. #15
    Senior Member The Freq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Below the Surface :-)
    Posts
    252

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by ctf View Post
    There was no mention of the person not being there either. And if the individual eventually charged was the passing motorist? What if as mentioned above, the individual who discovered Jesse was not aware that he had in fact hit him? Sootoday mentions what it wants, for the sole purpose of getting hits on its site and is not really interested in the truth. In any of the so called news releases related to this from that site be sure to notice there are no followup blogs!!! No opportunity for other opinions or possible information sharing. Why?

    In any case, as mentioned above "LET THE COURTS work this one out....too many unanswered questions and a lot of folks are jumping the gun."
    I'm not sure the news would call this person a "passing motorist" if they were actually the ones involved in the accident. That just seems like poor reporting if that was the case.
    As for no followup blogs... there aren't many of the Lukenda DUI either. I can only speculate on that. :-) As for people jumping the gun... bad news reporting can fuel such things. Hopefully the news clarifies this case as time passes.
    "Zingy Zingy"

  16. #16
    Senior Member The Freq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Below the Surface :-)
    Posts
    252

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Looks like you just may be right "Ctf". Just read this on the Sault Star site. Proper news reporting would probably have cleared some things up earlier on in the investigation. None the less, and interesting development. http://www.saultstar.com/2013/11/11/...idnt-hit-roach
    "Zingy Zingy"

  17. #17

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by The Freq View Post
    Looks like you just may be right "Ctf". Just read this on the Sault Star site. Proper news reporting would probably have cleared some things up earlier on in the investigation. None the less, and interesting development. http://www.saultstar.com/2013/11/11/...idnt-hit-roach
    So it appears that maybe those that ASSUMED the driver was DUI and left the scene may not be correct. Only after time and the proper venue (A Courtroom) will any clarity occur. Inflaming comments and accusations will not help. There are way too many wannabe CSI's on this site. Not every wannabe news site has the proper people or training to provide the information without sensationalism - like a National Enquirer.

  18. #18

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Quote Originally Posted by The Freq View Post
    Looks like you just may be right "Ctf". Just read this on the Sault Star site. Proper news reporting would probably have cleared some things up earlier on in the investigation. None the less, and interesting development. http://www.saultstar.com/2013/11/11/...idnt-hit-roach
    How long, if ever, for Sootoday people to post this information on their NEWS site?

  19. #19

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    Perhaps Chief Sayers should shut his mouth too until he knows the facts.
    Last edited by Official Cat of Soonet; 11-11-2013 at 08:40 PM.
    The cat didn't come back the very next day but he does check in every now and then.

  20. #20

    Default Re: 17B Fatality

    “We have the driver and we have the vehicle,” said Const. Brian Speakman of Ontario Provincial Police in Sault Ste. Marie.

    http://www.saultstar.com/2013/10/18/...fied-by-police


    Sure you do Constable Speakman. Where are the charges if you are so sure about that. Usually when you make a statement like that you have some proof.
    The cat didn't come back the very next day but he does check in every now and then.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts