Entitled To Drive
"He just loved life and to be taken like that is unacceptable to me, with this system they have today. The justice system is weak. Very weak." Reg Irvine of Smiths Falls has stark memories of seeing his "son on a slab, with blood on the gurney, blood on the floor", when he presented himself in Ottawa, to identify his son, Thomas Irvine's body.
Death due to a hit-and-run incident that occurred on county Road 29 south of Smiths Falls around 8 in the evening, on Sunday. Thomas Irvine died in hospital. He was accustomed to walking 20 to 25 kilometres each day. He took care to wear fluorescent clothing. But he was struck anyway. And when William Douglas Saunders, 51, struck Thomas Irvine, he fled the scene.
His 62-year-old father contends his son would possibly still be alive had medical attention been administred him immediately after the accident. But the man who struck him, under the influence of alcohol, had no obvious intention of determining the condition of the individual he hit with his vehicle. Nor had he any intention of calling for help. The only help he considered was for himself, to flee the scene.
"It's not fair to me or any other parent that I have to sit in my living room and never see my son again", said the grieving father. And he is so right. He plans to dedicate himself now to speaking out against drunk driving. At every opportunity conceivable. And to insist that current laws be changed to reflect the severity of the danger to the public that exists in the face of how common it is for people to drive while inebriated.
A sense of social responsibility appears to be absent from a fairly large proportion of society. Irrespective of age, of social standing, of professionalism or lack of it, of gender or place of residence, people seem to feel they are in control despite having imbibed. "I have nothing against this person that killed my son. It's the system", declared Reg Irvine.
Well, that's his opinion, of course, and he's entitled to it. But he should 'have something against' the person who killed his son. That person made a judgement call. And obviously felt in control of the situation, that he was entitled to drive a vehicle because he owned one, and that the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol was irrelevant.
It wasn't. His decision was the cause of another human being being deprived of life.
Death due to a hit-and-run incident that occurred on county Road 29 south of Smiths Falls around 8 in the evening, on Sunday. Thomas Irvine died in hospital. He was accustomed to walking 20 to 25 kilometres each day. He took care to wear fluorescent clothing. But he was struck anyway. And when William Douglas Saunders, 51, struck Thomas Irvine, he fled the scene.
His 62-year-old father contends his son would possibly still be alive had medical attention been administred him immediately after the accident. But the man who struck him, under the influence of alcohol, had no obvious intention of determining the condition of the individual he hit with his vehicle. Nor had he any intention of calling for help. The only help he considered was for himself, to flee the scene.
"It's not fair to me or any other parent that I have to sit in my living room and never see my son again", said the grieving father. And he is so right. He plans to dedicate himself now to speaking out against drunk driving. At every opportunity conceivable. And to insist that current laws be changed to reflect the severity of the danger to the public that exists in the face of how common it is for people to drive while inebriated.
A sense of social responsibility appears to be absent from a fairly large proportion of society. Irrespective of age, of social standing, of professionalism or lack of it, of gender or place of residence, people seem to feel they are in control despite having imbibed. "I have nothing against this person that killed my son. It's the system", declared Reg Irvine.
Well, that's his opinion, of course, and he's entitled to it. But he should 'have something against' the person who killed his son. That person made a judgement call. And obviously felt in control of the situation, that he was entitled to drive a vehicle because he owned one, and that the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol was irrelevant.
It wasn't. His decision was the cause of another human being being deprived of life.
Labels: Ontario, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home