Wendell Maxwell on Drinking and Driving
Related Topics
demibee demi...@post.com
For those who haven't seen it on the news, there was a fatal accident in NB in late October in which two parents were killed and two children injured, one still in hospital. The driver was granted bail a couple of days ago. The family was outraged, and they said so! But what was particularly discouraging was the lawyer's comment...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh good God, there's been people killed in Canada," said Maxwell.
"People talk on cellphones and kill people, people watch a deer in the field and kill people, and people drink and drive and kill people," he said. "It's not going to stop today, and it's not going to stop tomorrow, so I don't see what the big public outcry is." <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/11/15/nb-baildriver...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon hearing this -- especially, "I don't see what the big public outcry is" -- the family was livid and demanded an apology. So, this morning, Canada AM gave Maxwell a chance to clarify his comment. He gave no apology, and said with no hesitation that he stands by his comment.
Geez!... If this attitude is typical of defence lawyers in NB, (or in Canada at large), then it's little wonder the problem never seems to go away.
You'd think by now that any drinking and driving that resulted in injury or death would be punishable by loss of license And vehicle (in addition to whatever prison sentences might be applicable).
db
HGHLNDR hghlndrNOTRAS...@gmail.com
It's time to make drinking and driving a more severely punished offense. If you're over the limit you lose your license immediately and not for a couple months or a year. I'm talking 5 years plus. No more slaps on the wrist. Make those in society who break the law pay dearly for it. The gov't has no hesitation at increasing speeding fines as a deterrent,so it's time to give DUI, or any serious crime, a more severe punishment than what is given now to make it a TRUE deterrent that works. Our gov't and justice system are a joke.
Mr Maxwell is a lawyer. they are just as bad as the criminals sometimes. Not that I wish ill on anyone but wouldn't it be ironic if he or a member of his family were hit and killed by a drunk driver. He could give his quote about it at the funeral and his family would all find the nearest tree and rope. If he was the one killed the quote could be inscribed on his headstone.
"PirateCookies" unholysp...@gmail.com
Wile i agree with HGHLNDR, i still have to agree with what the lawyer said like it or not theres still going to be drinking and driving, i dont see what the big deal is about the comments and i dont see why he should "apologise" for it he only stated a fact of life if you want to stop the drinking n driving dont sell booze to people, it only causes trouble anyhow i have had 3 drinks since i was 19 and im considerably older now, i just never had a tatse for it. i say ban it all together it causes nothing but despair and heartache for alot of people, ...
"efgh" e...@abcd.com
Or at least tax it to the point where it becomes unattainable to all but the elite.
"dodger" milwhee...@yahoo.ca
If nothing else Maxwell was incredibly insensitive.But thats a "defence" lawyer for you...some of the scum they defend....how they do it is beyond me. I know all about the "rights" of the accused..but some of the "accused" are SUCH damn scum....................
anyway.......Maxwell did not need to be so inflamatory in his comments I saw it on TV and thot it was a real slap in the face of all who have died at the hands of a drunk driver or to those family members who surrvive them.
Dodger
Al Smith inva...@address.com
As someone who doesn't drink at all, not even beer, I happen to agree with you that alcohol causes problems and is completely unnecessary, but they tried banning it during the First World War in America, and it was a disaster. It resulted in the rise of the Chicago mobs and widespread bootlegging.
"Not Me" Wouldn...@liketoknow.com
Just look at the guy who killed that girl on the Beaverbank Road a few years ago. He was so loaded out of it he thought he had hit a deer. He was out of prison after something like 5 years AND while he was in prison (because prison is not for punishment but rehabilitation) he got trained in auto mechanics so he could get a job as a mechanic upon his release. So not only was he NOT punished for killing this girl while being drunk and behind the wheel of a car, he BENEFITTED from it!!!
...
"Hawk" kenhamilg...@accesswave.ca
It is absolutely tragic that these two parents were killed by a DUI driver.
I have no sympathy for the killer at all. But it is only one incident in a long line of incidents that have and will happen unless drastic steps are taken to prevent it. Either ban the use of alcohol altogether or make the punishment so strong that nobody would ever again step behind a wheel while drinking. This will not happen because our society will not let it happen; we are too greedy for profit(tax revenue or whatever) and too lenient with convicted criminals( no death penelty and short prison terms) to permit it to happen.
The way I interpreted Mr Maxwell's comments is that he was more or less saying what I just said. It is callous and insensitive, but it is very close to the truth.
He was not defending the driver's actions, but merely stating that such things happen all the time, and public outcry has done little to change it.
This guy may well be the needed catalyst to finally get something rolling to eventually prevent this sort of thing from happening.
BTW--where do you place drivers using cellphones when compared to DUI?????
Using a cell phone while driving is also a conscious act, and is probably every bit as hazardous.
"Rick Walker" R...@WR.com
No sympathy from me either, Hawk.
It is the truth. He could have phrased it better, rather than coming off looking like a horse's *** though.
Which is true. He's a defence lawyer who has one hand in Hell anyway, so why not spit the truth out ? I don't agree with how he said it, and why the bastard is "out on bail" when everybody knows he did it is yet another thing. Our court/legal system needs to keep up with the times.
One Hell of a way to gain notoriety.
Rick
"novascroller" novascrol...@gmail.com
it was his opinion, no matter how stupid it may be. he was right on about the cellphone comment though. i bet cellphone users kill more people than drunk drivers do.
"Jack" bigcle...@yahoo.com.com
A lawyer's only duty is a zealous defence of his client. Sometimes that means saying things that the public do not like. I don't agree with what he said, but I understand it.
"Jack" bigcle...@yahoo.com.com
">> yep bans (of anything) really work, don't they
Picasso Pica...@gmail.com
Uhhm, he did lose his licence, and was ordered not to drink, and he is going to trial.
DO you have any understanding of the legal system? It's not just in the US That people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Picasso Pica...@gmail.com
If you want a true deturant that works, increasing fines is not it.
Do you think people are REALLY HONESTLY less likely to speed because the fines are double? Not likely.
You need a whole culture change to get people to stop doing these acts.
"Troy Jollimore" tjollim...@nospam.sympatico.ca
Odd. I interpreted him as saying, "People get killed in car accidents. The drunk driver is just another cause of accidents, so why get upset?" There are unpreventable accidents, like when we license most people in the first place who can't drive or think worth a whit. Or when a deer darts in front of your car (or as the lawyer said, someone was busy staring at one).
It's like my take on overprotective parents. You can't stop EVERYTHING, you can only do so much.
But these are 'preventable' accidents. I can still drive better than most even with a ton of alcohol in my system. I don't do it, because that would be irresponsible. I applaud the 'zero-tolerance' push the same as I do speed limits because, although they wouldn't affect me so much, they WILL save me (or more importantly, someone else) from an accident that WILL happen because of another driver that has much lower limits than I.
People are all different, but it's impratical to make different rules for those few they wouldn't apply to (think public speed limits for a racecar driver, or the alcohol ban for someone with fast reflexes despite a high Blood/Alcohol index) as well as impossible to enforce. So you apply a law to the m***es, and ENFORCE it within reason.
But to say that it 'just doesn't matter'? That's downright irresponsible and stupid. I would love it if this particular lawyer found most of his clients just 'went away'.
...
<http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/11/15/nb-baildriver...>
"Troy Jollimore" tjollim...@nospam.sympatico.ca
Be sure I am? I'm sure I'm *not*. :) And what's wrong with knowing one's limits?
I was flying an aerobatic stunt plane through a few routines 2 weeks ago.
Could you do that? Don't judge people against your own standards...
And I'm trying to SUPPORT you here! :) ...
"Shmiley Von Shphinxterhousing" unholysp...@gmail.com
lucretia wrote "I agree. Culturally it was acceptable to drive drunk years ago, now we have come a long way in how drinking and driving is viewed. Not far enough yet, but a long way, we need to keep working on it." when the hell was it ever acceptable to drive drunk? are you 100 yrs old?
i think you should watch more tv
"novascroller" novascrol...@gmail.com
its quite possible seeing as its something the news wouldn't bother covering because drunk driving deaths are more sensational.
| To Top |