Duffus pleads guilty
Dan
Teresa Duffus pleads guilty to two charges of impaired driving causing death and two charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm and gets 4 1/2 years in prison, banned from driving for 10 years and will get in 12 months, day parole and full parole in 18 months, according to the Kingston Whig Standard!
I guess if you get a good lawyer, have money and you own a business in this city you get a minimum sentence. The average " Joe" would get the 15- 25 years and a life time ban from driving.The judge cites, "what do you do with a 50 year old women with no criminal record". What, does her age give her a special get out of jail free card?
Shame on the Clown Attorney Gerard Laarhuis and Judge Richard Byers. The community should call for their immediate removal from their positions.
In no way should have the Crown allowed a plea bargain that would have allowed such a low sentence. This was a outrageous crime that took two lives, injured others and needed to send a clear message that drinking and driving is a crime, that would be no different then if Teresa Duffus had shot these people with a gun. What's the difference, a 2 pound gun as a weapon or a 2 ton car? The same results. For God's sake, the two victims were in their home, the least likely spot of someone being killed by a car and drunk driver. Doesn't that mean something?
My faith in the legal system has been shaken. The police did their jobs, the courts have let the community down. This is a issue that should play into the next provincial election. But for now pressure needs to be applied to the Crown Attorney's office and to those in power, to make sure that this never happens again. If at all possible that the sentencing should be appealed by the Crown and the least, these persons of power be made accountable for their poor judgment in this case.
Dan
Derek MacPhail
* They've had to sell their business at 1/3 its value.
* They've received threatening phone calls and have been forced to move to
a one-bedroom duplex.
* Their daughter has been very ill and required hospitalization because of
all the stress surrounding her mother's case.
<pure sarcasm>
Ontario needs laws that send a stronger message to people who drink and then
intentially get behind the wheel. Drinking and driving isn't accidental -
it's intentional. In my mind, it is no different than walking around with a
half-cocked loaded gun...the consequences of something bad happening -
whether to the person themselves or an innocent bystander - is not
reflective in our current laws. Stiffer sentences are required. Forget the
"three strike" rule: First time offenders need to be treated more harshly.
The Courts need to send a strong message: Drinking and driving will not be
tolerated.
Four and a half years for the loss of two lives? What kind of message is
that?
Cheers, Derek
"Dan" <hd...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ECFCC46...@sympatico.ca...
Neil J. Hubbard
"Derek MacPhail" <macp...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:vd05ghn...@corp.supernews.com...
Drinking and driving isn't accidental -
> it's intentional. In my mind, it is no different than walking around with
a
> half-cocked loaded gun...
while you're drunk....
Regards,
Neil
Clarke
"Neil J. Hubbard" <nhub...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:vd08b2g...@corp.supernews.com...
And smoking.
Seriously, though... it's good to see this stupid woman in jail where she
belongs.
Derek MacPhail
"Clarke" <cla...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:PCWza.7004$h7.7...@read1.cgocable.net...
What are your thoughts on the lawsuit against her by the family of the
deceased passenger?
D.
@lycos.com David D
Let me expand it and include the Ramekin's aspect, as they're also named in
the suit. Is there a liability for proximate cause on the part of the
restaurant, in your opinion?
bandit
driving.The judge cites"
Do you have any examples of an imapred driver getting even close to that
in Canada?
"that would be no different then if Teresa Duffus had shot these
people with a gun. What's the difference, a 2 pound gun as a weapon or
a 2 ton car? "
Mmm, maybe just a tad different, stuff like intent, premeditation and
future threat to society...I wouldn't be at all opposed to harsher
punishment for dui but its not the smae thing as pulling out a gun and
shooting someone. Think about this, if she had behaved exactly the same
way, btu instead had dorve the car into a ditch instead of hitting the
house what would her punishment have been - a fine in the Hundreds$ and
a year or 2 driving prohibition. At the time there wouldn't ahve even
been a requirement for an ignition lock.
"This is a issue that should play into the next provincial election"
It is, check out Eves platform. He proposes to get much tougher on
DUI with lifetime driving bans on 2nd offence and seizing cars. Abotu
time with 1/4 of the 16,000 Ontario DUI charges eachyera going to
repeat offenders
--
Posted via KOS Netforum - http://www.kos.net/chat/
Derek MacPhail
news:ocXza.22981$b67.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
I'm not a lawyer. ;)
I don't agree with the whole aspect of suing people in cases such as
"wrongful death"...seems too American. I especially don't agree in that the
person who died in the car (who the suit is centred around so-t-say)
willingly agreed to be a passenger when they knew the driver had been
drinking.
As for the restaurant being sued..my personal opinion (call me jaded or
cynical) is that they are named because they'd likely have deeper
pockets/greater willingness to settle out of court.
Where do you stand?
D.
Derek MacPhail
"bandit" <mem...@kos.net> wrote in message news:3ed03fc6$1...@news.kos.net...
>Mmm, maybe just a tad different, stuff like intent, premeditation and
Question: Isn't "manslaughter" murder without intent? Are the penalities
not stiffer?
Another question...am I confused in thinking that "manslaughter" is a
Canadian offence, or is it only in the US (I've watched way too much Law &
Order!). lol
D.
@lycos.com David D
No one wants to be personally responsible anymore. Always blame the other
guy.
In this case, as you say, the Duffus's are purportedly pretty much bust, and
Ramekin's will pay the price if the suit's successful. Now, if the other
family had (or has) sued the Duffus's, that I could understand and agree
with.
Cheers,
David
PS I'm not a lawyer either ... I'm respectable ; )
Derek MacPhail
> PS I'm not a lawyer either ... I'm respectable ; )
Wait until ROB sees that comment! ;)
Cheers, Derek
M Grice
why not ban booze and take true care of this problem??
Just a crazy idea....not quite sure where I've heard it before but I figure
if you have something harmful to society like this, then why not ban it?
M Grice
"Derek MacPhail" <macp...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:vd0i84s...@corp.supernews.com...
kawaka
Agreed. Why is it no one wants to take responsibility for their own
actions anymore? It's atrocious. And Derek, very much, "too American".:)
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Duffus' Funeral Home isn't doing that badly.
They have locations elsewhere. I saw one in Peterborough this winter
and somehow I don't think that one was affected by what happened in
Kingston. At least unless they pool all of their locations resources
but that's not likely. I suspect that they closed the Kingston location
because it was not making any moolah.
But I could be mistaken.
-Grant.
Derek MacPhail
"kawaka" <kawaka@*NOSPAM*kos.net> wrote in message
news:3ed0...@news.kos.net...
> And Derek, very much, "too American".:)
:)
Cheers, Derek
Mike
organized crime started and made the mob rich and powerful. If you control
it, then you make the money plus you cut down on crime.
"M Grice" <mgr...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Nd2Aa.7018$h7.7...@read1.cgocable.net...
bandit
> size="1" color="blue">>Mmm, maybe just a tad different, stuff like
> intent, premeditation and</font>
> Question: Isn't "manslaughter" murder without intent? Are the penalities
> not stiffer?
> Another question...am I confused in thinking that "manslaughter" is a
> Canadian offence, or is it only in the US (I've watched way too much Law
> & Order!). lol
> D.
Yes in Canada we have 1st degree murder where you find the 25 year
sentences (planned murder, any police murder, previous murder
conviction, including a sex assualt and others), 2nd degree
murder(everything not in the 1st definition), and manslaughter. Not
an expert but as I understand there isn't really a different
definition between 2nd and mansalughter, its more the discretion of
the police on the perceived seriousness as to which charge to lay and
often used to get plea bargains. Mansalughter has no minimum sentence
and the 41/2 years isn't particularly light for this type of thing as
the OP suggested. The 25 years suggested for Duffus would be stiffer
then Homolka got. Theres also the high cost of locking people up for
that long.
I like the car siezing proposal the best. You always see the judge
comment that the rela cost is mcuh higher then the $700-$1000 range
fines when the insurance increase/ignition lock rental is included, but
many just arrange fo a car to be owned by someone else or borrow cars to
avoid all additional costs entirely. The fine level doesn't seem hgih
enough for many but greatly increasing it disproportionately affects the
poor and may still not be an additional deterrent to the rich so think
we should look at a system like Finland for traffic offences where the
fine is a % of income.
Now, everyone wants stiifer DUI penalties, but what about cell phones?
Many studies have shown a similar driving impairment to DUI and similar
accident rates while talking/driving. Some places have banned their use
while driving but its not been raised as much of an issue here.
Dan
You are right, the Duffus family apparently owns numerous funeral homes in
Ontario, Peterborough being the first of many. The Whig stated a while back that
they had bought the Tompkins funeral homes in Kingston and odds are still own
them. Papa Duffus will more and likely just set up his son with another one in
another city in the province. These people ( Tom & Teresa Duffus) will be sued but
no doubt will recover nicely with thanks to their families very deep pockets. The
financial costs to everyone else will be more devastating then to the Duffus's.
Still no one has responded to how they feel about the Crown Attorney and the Judge
in this case. Did they do the right thing?
Dan
Derek MacPhail
"bandit" <mem...@kos.net> wrote in message news:3ed10baf$1...@news.kos.net...
> Now, everyone wants stiifer DUI penalties, but what about cell phones?
> Many studies have shown a similar driving impairment to DUI and similar
> accident rates while talking/driving. Some places have banned their use
> while driving but its not been raised as much of an issue here.
I thought it had been some talk about that here in Ontario (or was it one of
the provinces on the east coast??). I do agree that talking on a cell phone
while driving should be banned.
Perhaps someone in this ng has the answer.
Cheers, Derek
bandit
> size="1" color="blue">> Now, everyone wants stiifer DUI penalties, but
> what about cell phones? Many studies have shown a</font> __<font
> size="1" color="blue">> similar driving impairment to DUI and similar
> accident rates while talking/driving. Some places</font> __<font
> size="1" color="blue">> have banned their use while driving but its not
> been raised as much of an issue here.</font>
> I thought it had been some talk about that here in Ontario (or was it
> one of the provinces on the east coast??). I do agree that talking on a
> cell phone while driving should be banned.
> Perhaps someone in this ng has the answer.
> Cheers, Derek
Newfoundland is the only province so far to enact a ban on hand held
phones while driving. Some countries include hands free talking while
driving too. Its come up here when it's been done in NY and elsewhere
but there hasn't bene much of a push for it.
Derek MacPhail
"bandit" <mem...@kos.net> wrote in message news:3ed14af7$1...@news.kos.net...
> Newfoundland is the only province so far to enact a ban on hand held
> phones while driving. Some countries include hands free talking while
> driving too. Its come up here when it's been done in NY and elsewhere
> but there hasn't bene much of a push for it.
From the Government of Ontario site -
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/quicknotes/cellular.htm
So far, it seems that only "careless driving" is being targeted. In other
words, it is ok to drive and talk on the cell phone...just be careful when
doing so.
And a private member's bill -
http://gateway.ontla.on.ca/library/bills/3374.htm
Second reading was on May 1, 2003 -
"The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of a cellular
phone, car phone, pager, personal data assistant, portable computer, fax
machine or other equipment prescribed by the regulations made under the Act
while a person is driving a motor vehicle. There are exceptions for cases
like emergencies and cases where a driver who is not a novice driver as
defined in the regulation on driver's licences uses the equipment entirely
through a hands-free feature."
Sunstorm
Duffus Family. Mrs. Tompkin's did sell it to them but a few years later
they sold it to Trillium Corporation (the same owner as the Robert Reid
Funeral Home) for a reported $5 million. They signed a contract not to own
or operate a new funeral home in the area for five years. Five years
later, that's exactly what they did, open a new one and try to get the
Catholic business in Kingston. The Duffus Funeral Home in Peterborough is
owned by Tom Duffus' father. There is only ONE Duffus funeral home, not
several. And you can rest assured that Tom's father will NOT set him up in
business again. The family is now living in Peterborough and has been for a
while. Let's hope Tom saved a little of that $5 million, he's going to need
it.
And if the lawyers were so good and well paid as you say, WHY IS TERESA
DOING ANY JAIL TIME??? What kind of Dream Team is that?
Teresa Duffus was just in the driver's seat at the wrong time, it could just
as easily have been Tom driving that night. Perhaps he knew he was way over
the limit and passed his keys to his wife and said "Honey, you drive". The
people in the back seat were there by their own choice. Why is it only now
that they have decided that Teresa was too drunk to drive? Perhaps because
they were in the same condition at the time?
S
Derek MacPhail
"Sunstorm" <suns...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vd2nj4r...@corp.supernews.com...
> Teresa Duffus was just in the driver's seat at the wrong time
Exactly...in the driver's seat after consuming too much alcohol. What
rotten luck she has.
<sarcasm>
Cheers, Derek
Guy Fortier
impertinence to be in her way as she came crashing through their house.
Four fears for a double murder, I guess if your rich in Kingston the
Justice system is a little more lenient than if your social standing is
less than adequate.
Guy F.
DW
This precedent has already been set in Ontario, as the owner's of licensed
establishments will agree as they look at their insurance bills. To often
in the struggle between hospitality and due diligence intoxicated people are
served, and then allowed to leave to drive home. An examination of Kingston
Police records will probably prove out what my listening experience leads me
to believe, very few calls are made to the police from bars reporting
intoxicated individuals leaving to drive home.
I am personally, totally insensitive to any argument that this is not a
responsibility of bar owner's and their staff.
All this being said, one person is ultimately responsible for this tragedy,
and in my opinion she is getting off the hook with less than she deserves.
She single-handedly moved this issue from safety on the highways to safety
in our own living-rooms.
While I don't know whether manslaughter is a Canadian offence either
(another thread in this ng) I do know that it should be applicable here, as
this is a definite case of death resulting from action or inaction with
reckless disregard for human life.
bandit
> "David D" <crumbl @ lycos.com> wrote in message news:ocXza.22981$b67.30-
> 01...@read2.cgocable.netnews:ocXza.22981$b67.3...@read2.cgocable.net-
> ... __<font size="1" color="blue">> Curiosity leads me to ask ... what
> are your thoughts on that lawsuit,</font> Derek? __<font size="1"
> color="blue">> Let me expand it and include the Ramekin's aspect, as
> they're also named</font> in __<font size="1" color="blue">> the suit.
> Is there a liability for proximate cause on the part of the restaurant,
> This precedent has already been set in Ontario, as the owner's of
> licensed establishments will agree as they look at their insurance
> bills. To often in the struggle between hospitality and due diligence
> intoxicated people are served, and then allowed to leave to drive
> home. An examination of Kingston Police records will probably prove
> out what my listening experience leads me to believe, very few calls
> are made to the police from bars reporting intoxicated individuals
> leaving to drive home.
> I am personally, totally insensitive to any argument that this is not a
> responsibility of bar owner's and their staff.
> All this being said, one person is ultimately responsible for this
> tragedy, and in my opinion she is getting off the hook with less than
> she deserves. She single-handedly moved this issue from safety on the
> highways to safety in our own living-rooms.
> While I don't know whether manslaughter is a Canadian offence either
> (another thread in this ng) I do know that it should be applicable here,
> as this is a definite case of death resulting from action or inaction
> with reckless disregard for human life.
"I am personally, totally insensitive to any argument that this is not a
responsibility of bar owner's and their staff."
I'm unsure on how I feel about this. A restaurant like Ramekins with
their own parking is expected to ensure no one drives impaired, but what
about downtown places where there is no possible way for the bar to know
if someone is parked around the corner? hundred sof people walk out of
bars in the hub, many extremely impaired with no way for the bar to know
where they are headed. the only way they could ensure no one was going
to drive would be to prevent everyone in the bar from drinking to
impairment?
bandit
> Rotten luck, no less than the two people she killed. Imagine the
> impertinence to be in her way as she came crashing through their house.
> Four fears for a double murder, I guess if your rich in Kingston the
> Justice system is a little more lenient than if your social standing is
> less than adequate.
> Guy F.
> <suns...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vd2nj4r...@corp.superne-
> ws.comnews:vd2nj4r...@corp.supernews.com...</font> __<font size="1"
> color="blue">></font> _____<font size="1" color="darkred">>>Teresa
> Duffus was just in the driver's seat at the wrong time</font> __<font
> size="1" color="blue">></font> __<font size="1" color="blue">></font>
> __<font size="1" color="blue">> Exactly...in the driver's seat after
> consuming too much alcohol. What rotten luck she has.</font> __<font
> size="1" color="blue">></font> __<font size="1" color="blue">>
> <sarcasm></font> __<font size="1" color="blue">></font> __<font size="1"
> color="blue">> Cheers, Derek</font> __<font size="1"
> color="blue">></font>
"guess if your rich in Kingston the Justice system is a little more
lenient than if your social standing is less than "
Can anyone asserting the "preferential treatment for the rich" arguement
in this case provide anything to back it up, any case of a similar
nature - DUI causing death, in Canada, no priors, where there was a
substantially harsher sentence then 4 1/2 years? You can find cases
where the sentence was conditional with no time at all!
bandit
but the notion that this was light because of Duffus wealth is wrong.
That sentence is inline with the norm.
WHITBY - A drunk driver who killed a highly respected veteran Durham cop
will have three years in a penitentiary to think about what he did.
http://www.madd.ca/news/n030215.htm
The Sebright man was sentenced yesterday to three years in prison with
an 8-year driving prohibition for impaired and dangerous driving causing
death and three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.
http://www.madd.ca/news/n030329.htm
fuzzy
actions they can't control, but the "Beer Stores and LCBO's" don't seem
to be held in the same reguards. I find that really funny. Would anyone
try to sue a LCBO if a person who was drunk ran into a house, but wasn't
in a bar at all ??? I think it is the job of a bar to get one impaired,
thats why they exist, so how can you hold an establishment responsible
for a person's bad judgement ??? I could tell the barkeep that I live
around the corner, and crawling home, but live in Gan and drive home.
Why should he get sued ??? Also, there are a lots of people who can be
way over the limit, and appear sober, how to control them ???
I do like the Gan Casino's rules. No more than three an hour, and a
maximum of 8 total. but whats to stop me from leaving there, and
getting more into me elts where??
Frankly. I think a bigger sentance should have been imposed. This
should have at least brought 2 years behind bars before a chance of
parole. I mean it is one thing to hit a car or tree, But you have to be
really good to hit and destroy an entire house !!!
In cases like this I wish we had a death pelanty, How many people now
don't have a licence, insurance, and will drive anyways. When a killer
is 6 feet under, you know it won't be getting behind a wheel again.
Also there are a few people who like vacationing/parting with all thier
friends in jail, but some of these people might not be so keen on
dieing. That is a slightly more effective deteraint
--
When mankind refuse's to see the truth, it denies it's own destiny to prevail
vancat1
Bandit I agree with you completely. While I see the standpoint of other in
this thread, I must say I think there's a bit of a witch hunt in progress
here.
Folks lets not lose sight of the big picture here, I feel that everyone is
concentrating too much on the person and her place in society. We should be
concentrating on the crime and the punishment. For thousands of dollars
worth of damage, 2 deaths, 3 familys torn, a local business that has been
humiliated and caused to loose moneys that would have been tax generating
dollars for our comunity(loss of liquor license), the cost of this case in
our judicial system, the anger and outrage we feel in our own homes at the
end of an already tiresome day.....Is 4.5 years enough...WHY is it enough???
Is it NOT enough?????.....WHY is it NOT enough?????
"bandit" <mem...@kos.net> wrote in message news:3ed2410e$1...@news.kos.net...
Dan
no business interests in the Tompkin's Funeral Homes. Still their is no
guarantees that Papa Duffus doesn't financially assist his son and
daughter-in-law, after all they are family ! I don't feel the least bit sorry if
they (Tom and Teresea) have to apply for welfare!!! They did it to themselves
and deserve to pay.
The lawyers being good? The minimal time she will be receiving is a cake
walk, 12 - 18 months, out earlier for good behavior. A bargain deal in
comparison to the laws that could have been enforced at a maximum level.
Either one that would have drove, would have been just as guilty. That
doesn't absolve them from responsibility of their passengers who yes, share
some of the responsibility, but not all. Again that is what the courts are for.
Dood
Well, NOT on shooting DUIs, but the Big Brother aspect of charging bars. The
Remekins' charge boggles my mind. We are SO going too far as a society
protecting itself from itself. These are adults, after all, and should be
accountable for their own actions. We make informed decisions every day,
yet, when we make an unsound one, we need to blame someone else. Maybe bars
should put us in diapers before sending us home. Freakin' awful.... Right up
there with suing a fast-food joint for letting us burn our lips on hot
coffee. I'm not a frequent bar-goer, but my heart goes out to Remekins.
Mike
is because if you crash and kill someone and they find the recept, they have
proof they ID'd you.
"fuzzy" <mem...@kos.net> wrote in message news:3ed24816$1...@news.kos.net...
Bucshott
like saudi arabia ...........i am sure the chick aint gonna be driving drunk
anymore when she gets out of jail............cuz i doubt she is gonna lke
being the lil jailhouse whore and gettin raped by all the big fat fuckin
dyke bitches in there..... hahah maybe thats what it will take to deter
her......the smell of some big fat bitches rotten ass CUNT . guess we will
see
now i know u are trying to visualize that ...(DONT IT IS A NASTY SITE I AM
SURE)
"Mike" <mikero...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:nkHBa.23997$b67.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
TMDL
A bartender or waiter makes less than minimum wage. They need their tips to
survive financially. To tell a customer that they're not giving him his next
drink is risking their tip. It's an akward situation that can cost them some
bucks. That's why so many people in the serving industry don't follow the
serving rules.
I'm not saying that servers and bartenders shouldn't own some
responsibility, I'm just explaining why they don't cut people off of alcohol
when intoxication is apparent. You have to admit though, there's a lot of
responsibility and accountability put on servers and bartenders for the tiny
little paycheck they bring home!
Emma Chase VanCott
: Here's what happens...
: A bartender or waiter makes less than minimum wage. They need their tips to
: survive financially. To tell a customer that they're not giving him his next
: drink is risking their tip. It's an akward situation that can cost them some
: bucks. That's why so many people in the serving industry don't follow the
: serving rules.
It has never been published how many drinks Mrs. Duffus had at Ramekins,
or how many drinks the table ordered.
Anyone know?