Fisherman charged after saving his friends

[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

[fishermccann]

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???

[MarkB]

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.

[MikePal]

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.

[rick_iles]

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

[fratri]

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.

[flytyermiller]

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.

[MarkB]

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.

[delmer]

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.

[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.