Fisherman charged after saving his friends

What a horrible story ..very sad

Quote:

---

They are three weather-hardened fishermen. But after fighting for their lives in the icy waters of Georgian Bay and watching a fourth friend die, there’s a softness in their souls that’s changed their lives.


The memory of thrashing in the frigid waters, grasping for the ice that shattered like glass with each desperate reach and hearing their friend’s fading pleas for help, is imprinted in their minds forever.

Since he was a young boy, Brent Fisher, 47, of Innisfil, was all about fishing. But this was his final fishing trip. When he fell through the ice on Feb. 6, he never made it out.

Sitting around a table at best friend Ross Guy’s Innisfil home, where fishing rods and tackle are displayed like cherished ornaments, the three men share their tragic story.

Beneath their tough exteriors, you can sense the pain.

Survivors Brad Jakubiak 57, of Coldwater, Mike Rimmer, 56, of Alliston, insist their friend Guy, 51, is a hero who risked his life to save theirs and tried to save Fisher, too.

“Without him, I was a dead man,” Jakubiak says. “There is no doubt about it.”

The police, it seems, weren’t as impressed with his efforts.

---

you have to read this one thru:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/02/20/...saving-friends

Wow makes me feel sick to my stomach I have been in that situation and luckily all 3 of us are still around to talk about it. It was a life changing experience can't imagine if one of us wasn't here today. Very sad story. If you are an ice fisherman make sure you read the story.

The charge should be drop in court. Cops obeyed by the rules I guess...

Sometimes even if you have been drinking you need to make a decision. The Police were wrong and very wrong to charge him.

Anyone would have done the same. It was a life and death situation.

Poor decision by the cops.
Still have a chance for the crown prosecutor not to prosecute.
If it makes it to court, he's going to be found guilty - because by the law, he is.

That's a problem with our legal system - when everyone is "just doing there job" sometimes, it falls apart.

The excuse "just doing their job" (also known as the Nuremburg defense), likely means that they weren't doing their job if it involves thinking and decision making.

Police can always use discretion. That being said we only heard one side of the story, It's possible a few details were left out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ldub

Police can always use discretion. That being said we only heard one side of the story, It's possible a few details were left out.

---

That's the problem with these articles...never the 'whole ' story and most times not very accurate. Which leaves the arm chair commenters making a lot of assumptions.

Unbelievable. While he did break the law, hopefully someone will have enough common sense to see that there were grievous extending circumstances that forced him to drive. As it was reported, he was a passenger up til that time. It could also be a case where the police issue charges based on their initial findings and leave it to the crown and the courts to decide whether to proceed.

Very sad indeed.

The other side of the story could be, they put their own life in danger by going on thin ice (and cops don't like us been on the ice this year) and he endangered other people life by driving drunk. Some innocent life could have been lost, sort to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

Unbelievable. While he did break the law, hopefully someone will have enough common sense to see that there were grievous extending circumstances that forced him to drive. As it was reported, he was a passenger up til that time. It could also be a case where the police issue charges based on their initial findings and leave it to the crown and the courts to decide whether to proceed.

---

I agree, the cops job is to charge people who do wrong, not be judge and jury, that is the job of the courts. I think most people would make that same decision, my licence, or the life of a friend, is an easy one for me to make, and dam the consequences. Should he lose both his friend and his licence, is for a trial to decide, not a cop. I do hope they have mercy upon him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Poor decision by the cops.
The excuse "just doing their job" (also known as the Nuremburg defense), likely means that they weren't doing their job if it involves thinking and decision making.

---

Not even a close comparison of examples.
In one case a group was involved in participating in acts of mass murder and claiming they were ordered to do so & in this case of these police officers, they were acting fully within the law.

It would be interesting to know what the driver's BAL was when the cops got him to the station breathalyzer operator. After all that time,exertion and hypothermia,if his BAL was still over the limit enough to lay impaired charges,it must have been very,very high to begin with and if it was that high,how was it that he managed to have the wherewithall to rescue his friends and get them to shore? He would have been too pissed. We're obviously not getting the entire story,here.

Unfortunately, the police all to often just fall back on the "let the courts handle it" premise. Common sense doesn't enter their mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Unfortunately, the police all to often just fall back on the "let the courts handle it" premise. Common sense doesn't enter their mindset.

---

I hear that, it's like most jobs if you can pass it along you do it. Another thing to consider is the fact that this situation would get a lot of attention due to the fact there was a death, and the officers would have the mindset to do everything by the book and keep themselves out of trouble. Can't see their superiors having a problem with them charging somebody, anybody that was driving impaired regardless of the apparent situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That's the problem with these articles...never the 'whole ' story and most times not very accurate. Which leaves the arm chair commenters making a lot of assumptions.

---

There are just too many unknowns and the reporter will write down what they want to say, not necessarily what happened. I find it odd that in the list of things they would do differently, they didn't add not drinking, as this may have contributed to the problem and certainly looks like it was responsible for the charges laid. A tragedy for sure but it would be interesting to find out the whole story.

Very tragic event, dont let the dui overshadow the loss of life. Its jack in the big picture. That being said, I hope buddy gets some proper recognition for his actions. He saved lives, charge or no charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by someJoe

Very tragic event, dont let the dui overshadow the loss of life. Its jack in the big picture. That being said, I hope buddy gets some proper recognition for his actions. He saved lives, charge or no charge.

---

Ain't that the truth kinda the unfairness of the world. It's rarely the things you do right that get attention. You can do a 1000 things right and 1 thing wrong and that's what ya hear about.

This will likely get tossed when court date comes up

Morals vs Ethics. Ethically, he was was correctly charged, but morally he is a hero and should not have been charged. The letter of the law is just that the letter of the law, ethically. Depending what kind of judge he gets and what side of the bed the judge wakes up on. See a lot less that that in the courts get wacked. I hope that the crown takes their heads out of their butts and use some moral values here.

muddler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddler

Morals vs Ethics. Ethically, he was was correctly charged, but morally he is a hero and should not have been charged. The letter of the law is just that the letter of the law, ethically. Depending what kind of judge he gets and what side of the bed the judge wakes up on. See a lot less that that in the courts get wacked. I hope that the crown takes their heads out of their butts and use some moral values here.

muddler

---

Drunk guy, does not save friend from drowning....HOW is he a hero???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Drunk guy, does not save friend from drowning....HOW is he a hero???

---

He saved his other 2 friends. The one that died was swimming away from them and too far to reach. If he didn't act,
there would be 3 dead guys, not 1.

Yes, the cops had the right to charge him, but I don't think they need to be robots when applying the laws. Every cop uses
judgement out there, when reducing a speeding ticket, to controlling an escalating situation, to determining when to shoot a gun.
In this case, I don't think he should have charged him ... but maybe that's why I'm not a cop.

possible scenario for charges being laid; it forces an investigation and if it finds that he was indeed a driver of one of the sleds and his actions lead to the death of his passenger then it's a more serious offense. Cops need to cover all the bases.

As someone previously posted, not ALL the information is known here. The "rest of the story" has yet to be disclosed !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Drunk guy, does not save friend from drowning....HOW is he a hero???

---

Seriously? give you head a shake..

Too bad it happened, my condolences to the family and friends, must have been awful.

Police were 100% correct to charge him.
Police can't trust every drunk driver that gives an excuse, no one would ever be charged if that happened. it's the courts decision to let him slide or not, it is most certainly NOT the police officers, it's the judges.

Here is the issue with this instance.
1- Anyone defending him, is taking his story as gospel. He is claiming he was too drunk to drive, so he was a passenger in the incident, but maybe he WAS the driver? the police don't know yet, at the time of laying a charge. An officer can't just "trust" every drunk driver's story. If he was the driver of the snowmachine would you still defend him? I think Police need to know with more certainty before police letting a person off.
2- It's hard to use the word lucky in this situation. However, everyone is lucky that this drunk guy on a snowmachine didn't kill someone else while driving to safety. Would you be defending him if he ran over a child while drunkenly driving that snowmachine? would his excuse (if true) still hold up for you as a justifiable defence?

"had a few drinks"? what does that mean? 3, probably not, it never does. if it was 3 he'd have said 3. So how great a danger was he? was he swerving and skidding all over and risking countless other lives? these are all questions for courts to mull.

So given that A) We can't believe his story until we talk to everyone and investigate, and B) He risked public safety to save himself. Yes i believe a charge and investigation is 100% warranted.

And as a follow-up, everyone that believes his story, can i ask why you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to applying a critical and skeptical mind? Because that's what a police officer has to do. they can't just believe every story, they apply charges based on what they have in front of them and then let a court decide from there.

Also, to quote the story "[COLOR=#333333]Admittedly now, they left the hut too late in the day, when dusk was moving in.[COLOR=#333333]Admittedly now, they travelled too close to a small island on the way back, where the ice would have been thinner."
NEVER, does he say "admittedly now, I never should have been drunk in the first place. Maybe i could have done more, and then i wouldn't be the subject of a criminal case. Let this be a lesson, Ice fishing where snow machines are necessary, and getting drunk are not good bedmates"

Did i read the article correctly that rescuers in a airboat were there? why didn't one of them drive him back? instead of hoping on a sled KNOWINGLY drunk and risk others by driving yourself to shore????

MANY mistakes were made here... none by the police that charged him. He's lucky he didn't kill someone driving back drunk to top the day off.

he deserves this charge.

It's a sad sad case. i've been through the ice 6 times in my life, ice fishing and trapping. not always alone, but twice i was. Thank the lucky stars that i wasn't drunk.

I will say it's true we are assuming the article is in fact correct, but that is not a good assumption.

So, yes, you are right, there could be more to this, and it should be investigated. I take back my original opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flytyermiller

So given that A) We can't believe his story until we talk to everyone and investigate, and B) He risked public safety to save himself. Yes i believe a charge and investigation is 100% warranted.

---

While I agree with (A), the story presented is the opposite of (B). He did not need to be saved, as he was never in danger. It was his companions that needed help.

Very sad story and I guess it is just one more example of how things are not done like they were in the old days. Beware folks if your drinking while doing risky activities and you have a serious incident (accident should't really be a word) do not expect anyone to look the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camp Red Maple

Very sad story and I guess it is just one more example of how things are not done like they were in the old days. Beware folks if your drinking while doing risky activities and you have a serious incident (accident should't really be a word) do not expect anyone to look the other way.

---

Lets not forget, the individual charged for drinking and driving only did so to try and save his friends life.
From the story I read (not from speculation) he was a passenger, saved a few lives, couldn't help the others so went to get help. Was he to stand there and say, I can't go for help because I was drinking and watch his friend die?

From the story he is a hero first. From the story......Drinking and driving had nothing to do with his friends death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flytyermiller

Police were 100% correct to charge him.

2- It's hard to use the word lucky in this situation. However, everyone is lucky that this drunk guy on a snowmachine didn't kill someone else while driving to safety. Would you be defending him if he ran over a child while drunkenly driving that snowmachine? would his excuse (if true) still hold up for you as a justifiable defence?

"had a few drinks"? what does that mean? 3, probably not, it never does. if it was 3 he'd have said 3. So how great a danger was he? was he swerving and skidding all over and risking countless other lives? these are all questions for courts to mull.

So given that A) We can't believe his story until we talk to everyone and investigate, and B) He risked public safety to save himself. Yes i believe a charge and investigation is 100% warranted.

And as a follow-up, everyone that believes his story, can i ask why you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to applying a critical and skeptical mind? Because that's what a police officer has to do. they can't just believe every story, they apply charges based on what they have in front of them and then let a court decide from there.

Also, to quote the story "[COLOR=#333333]Admittedly now, they left the hut too late in the day, when dusk was moving in.[COLOR=#333333]Admittedly now, they travelled too close to a small island on the way back, where the ice would have been thinner."
NEVER, does he say "admittedly now, I never should have been drunk in the first place. Maybe i could have done more, and then i wouldn't be the subject of a criminal case. Let this be a lesson, Ice fishing where snow machines are necessary, and getting drunk are not good bedmates"

Did i read the article correctly that rescuers in a airboat were there? why didn't one of them drive him back? instead of hoping on a sled KNOWINGLY drunk and risk others by driving yourself to shore????

MANY mistakes were made here... none by the police that charged him. He's lucky he didn't kill someone driving back drunk to top the day off.

he deserves this charge.

It's a sad sad case. i've been through the ice 6 times in my life, ice fishing and trapping. not always alone, but twice i was. Thank the lucky stars that i wasn't drunk.

---

So you've been through the ice 6 times. Well that explains a lot. You sure do like to assume a lot of things, including that must be good ice or how drunk he actually was. I'm sure glad you're not in power with an attitude like that.

So you've been through the ice 6 times. Well that explains a lot. You sure do like to assume a lot of things, including that must be good ice or how drunk he actually was. I'm sure glad you're not in power with an attitude like that.

Smitty

Straight shooter

Straight Shooter indeed, two thumbs up ldub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Lets not forget, the individual charged for drinking and driving only did so to try and save his friends life.
From the story I read (not from speculation) he was a passenger, saved a few lives, couldn't help the others so went to get help. Was he to stand there and say, I can't go for help because I was drinking and watch his friend die?

From the story he is a hero first. From the story......Drinking and driving had nothing to do with his friends death.

---

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was just stating a fact that simply in this day and age police don't look the other way. His condition and the tragic situation precipitated the constables reaction. Also if you read the story he went for help then went back to the scene then went back to the police station.

I think also drunk and drinking (possibly over .08) are not interchangeable. I am sure a few people have heard someone say...I wasn't drinking I took it easy and had just a couple.

The story lacks a real dearth of facts and information like why didn't the 2 guys who fell in go together on the snowmobile to shore for help and warmth.

I have done it myself but the reality is when something goes wrong only a fool is going to argue that drinking and ice fishing are a good fit...whether your driving or not. Especially given the erratic ice conditions we have experienced. For every tragic story there is dozens and dozens of very close calls because drinking caused poor judgement.

I respect the fact they are protecting their friends memory because at the end of the day they were just some regular guys that just didn't catch a break on that given night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty55

So you've been through the ice 6 times. Well that explains a lot. You sure do like to assume a lot of things, including that must be good ice or how drunk he actually was. I'm sure glad you're not in power with an attitude like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ldub

So you've been through the ice 6 times. Well that explains a lot. You sure do like to assume a lot of things, including that must be good ice or how drunk he actually was. I'm sure glad you're not in power with an attitude like that.

Smitty

Straight shooter

Straight Shooter indeed, two thumbs up ldub

---

I think you need to look up the word "assume" my post is the opposite of an assumption, there are literally zero assumptions in it.
What i did was offer alternative possibilities that the police must consider.
My entire post was a statement saying that we can't make ANY assumptions, including assuming that the survivors story is 100% true, given that his story removes all blame from himself.
Skepticism yes, assumptive? not one bit. that's how policing works my friends. you have to question everything and this article is filled with holes in the story, and lacking information. you can't judge anything based on this article.

As for me going through the ice, i'm not sure how that has anything to do with my statements here or their credibility from your perspective, since you have no idea the circumstances that led me to go through. You're the one making assumptions on that point, and it only proves that your points are worthless. how does me going through the ice "explain a lot"? when you don't know how those incidents happened?
You're proving my point here, you hear i've been through the ice and assume it "says a lot about me"?
Your assumptions only speak to your state of mind and mentality, not mine.
use some critical thinking, apply some logic and try to see things from the perspective of an officer question a man that came back from a trip with a bunch of dead buddies with booze on his breath while driving. they have to be skeptical and uphold the law. A judge does his/her job from there.

I think smiity55 is assuming you may be a bit reckless or forgetful being you've gone through the ice 6 times. But seriously without being there none of us can truly know the facts. If you look at things from your point of view you should never drink alcohol because something could go wrong and you may be put into an emergency situation and have to perform.

Well looks like the charges were dropped:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/26...charge-dropped

Can't comment why charges were dropped. That's what's wrong with this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

Well looks like the charges were dropped:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/26...charge-dropped

---

....and that,folks,is the end of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

Well looks like the charges were dropped:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/26...charge-dropped

---

This story brings tears to my eyes.....very sad, feel for him, his friends and the dead mans dad the most....
Rest in peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flytyermiller

I think you need to look up the word "assume" my post is the opposite of an assumption, there are literally zero assumptions in it.

---

Really? Ok lets see...

1." It's hard to use the word lucky in this situation. However, everyone is lucky that this drunk guy on a snowmachine didn't kill someone else while driving to safety. Would you be defending him if he ran over a child while drunkenly driving that snowmachine?"

Hmmm. You seem to know how drunk he was, or are you just assuming? He was certainly sober enough to save the lives of his buddies without falling in himself. He was the one who managed to calm his buddies in the water as they were becoming hysterical. Doesn't sound drunk to me. I guess you are also assuming how lucky everyone everyone else was as this drunk madman was racing around on the ice as you are assuming how bad his driving was.

2."had a few drinks"? what does that mean? 3, probably not, it never does."

Well if that isn't assuming you know how much he drank, what else can you call it? You also assume everyone lies about it.

3."So given that A) We can't believe his story until we talk to everyone and investigate, and B) He risked public safety to save himself."

So again, you are assuming he was lying when you really don't know do you? You are also still assuming he was a public risk when you don't even know how many people were out there on the ice. It was late in the day, remember.

4."And as a follow-up, everyone that believes his story, can i ask why you're giving him the benefit of the doubt,"

Why wouldn't folks give him the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming like you that he's guilty? The guy risked his life to save some buddies.

5."MANY mistakes were made here... He's lucky he didn't kill someone driving back drunk to top the day off."

Again you are assuming you know how drunk he was. Do you? This guy saved two buds and then went to get help to save the third guy and you call that a mistake. The mistake would have been if he didn't try and go for help.


The word drunk is a very relative term. Just because someone may blow .08 doesn't mean they are stumbling drunk by any means. I/we all probably know plenty of folk who have had three or four beer and we wouldn't consider them drunk at all or even could tell if they had been drinking if we didn't know. There are guys out there that could put back a dozen pints and you wouldn't call them hammered by any stretch. Specially real big guys.

So now after all this the police have dropped the charges, so I will make an assumption that he wasn't drunk after all like you assume he was. In the end I guess all your assumptions were wrong.

Maybe you're the one who should consult a dictionary and stick to tying flies instead of jumping all over a hero. You know what they say about assuming things.

Well charges were dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty55

Really? Ok lets see...

1." It's hard to use the word lucky in this situation. However, everyone is lucky that this drunk guy on a snowmachine didn't kill someone else while driving to safety. Would you be defending him if he ran over a child while drunkenly driving that snowmachine?"

Hmmm. You seem to know how drunk he was, or are you just assuming? He was certainly sober enough to save the lives of his buddies without falling in himself. He was the one who managed to calm his buddies in the water as they were becoming hysterical. Doesn't sound drunk to me. I guess you are also assuming how lucky everyone everyone else was as this drunk madman was racing around on the ice as you are assuming how bad his driving was.

2."had a few drinks"? what does that mean? 3, probably not, it never does."

Well if that isn't assuming you know how much he drank, what else can you call it? You also assume everyone lies about it.

3."So given that A) We can't believe his story until we talk to everyone and investigate, and B) He risked public safety to save himself."

So again, you are assuming he was lying when you really don't know do you? You are also still assuming he was a public risk when you don't even know how many people were out there on the ice. It was late in the day, remember.

4."And as a follow-up, everyone that believes his story, can i ask why you're giving him the benefit of the doubt,"

Why wouldn't folks give him the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming like you that he's guilty? The guy risked his life to save some buddies.

5."MANY mistakes were made here... He's lucky he didn't kill someone driving back drunk to top the day off."

Again you are assuming you know how drunk he was. Do you? This guy saved two buds and then went to get help to save the third guy and you call that a mistake. The mistake would have been if he didn't try and go for help.


The word drunk is a very relative term. Just because someone may blow .08 doesn't mean they are stumbling drunk by any means. I/we all probably know plenty of folk who have had three or four beer and we wouldn't consider them drunk at all or even could tell if they had been drinking if we didn't know. There are guys out there that could put back a dozen pints and you wouldn't call them hammered by any stretch. Specially real big guys.

So now after all this the police have dropped the charges, so I will make an assumption that he wasn't drunk after all like you assume he was. In the end I guess all your assumptions were wrong.

Maybe you're the one who should consult a dictionary and stick to tying flies instead of jumping all over a hero. You know what they say about assuming things.

---

Lets not hang our coat on this one but jeez let's make do our best to make sure everyone comes home and at the end of the day these guy did.

It was a unfortunate incident and I hope those guys are okay.