B.C. Highway Patrol dashcam captures consequences of unsafe driving
A patrol officer was driving on Mackenzie Avenue South on July 20 when they noticed two drivers passing them who were not wearing seatbelts.
The officer turned around to pull them over and then watched as the driver of a Toyota Camry drove into the back of the Ford F250 in front as both of the vehicles stopped on the side of the road.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
The 28-year-old man behind the wheel of the Camry failed a breathalyzer test.
'The BC Highway Patrol officer started by checking the driver of the Toyota Camry,' Cpl. Michael McLaughlin with BC Highway Patrol said in a statement.
'His head was bleeding liberally after smashing his own windshield. The driver blew two fail readings on an Approved Screening Device. Those readings were evidence that he was impaired by alcohol.'
Story continues below advertisement
The driver is facing a driving prohibition and two tickets and his vehicle was impounded.
The driver of the truck was ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Donald Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case as well as hold a deposition of Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Subpoena for the Epstein files Story continues below advertisement Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Attorney General Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Will Congress depose Ghislaine Maxwell? Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. Story continues below advertisement In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week. The House wants to subpoena others Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' Story continues below advertisement How will Pam Bondi comply? Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Growing pressure on the Trump adminitration for disclosure Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. Story continues below advertisement 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.
Global News
4 hours ago
- Global News
4 people killed, multiple others injured in Russia and Ukraine aerial attacks
Russia and Ukraine traded aerial attacks overnight, resulting in two deaths in each country and many people wounded on both sides, according to officials. On the battlefield, the Russian military said Saturday that it seized the village of Zelenyi Hai in the eastern Donetsk region that Moscow illegally annexed but only partially controls, and the village of Maliivka in the Dnipro region. There was no immediate comment on the claim from Ukrainian officials. Ukraine's southern Dnipro and northeastern Sumy regions came under combined rocket and drone attack, local officials reported. Head of the Dnipro regional administration Serhii Lysak said at least two people had died and five were wounded in the barrage. In the city of Dnipro, a multi-story building and business were damaged during the strike and outside of the city a fire engulfed a shopping center. In Sumy, the military administration said three people were injured. On Saturday, Russian drones hit a central square in the city of Sumy, and damaged the building of the regional administration. Story continues below advertisement Kharkiv sustained an intense aerial bombardment overnight. Ukraine's State Emergency Situations Service said six people were hurt in Kharkiv, including four rescuers who were wounded in a double tap strike — where a second attack targets emergency workers trying to help people wounded in the initial attack. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy According to the daily air force report, in total Russia targeted Ukraine with 208 drones and 27 missiles overnight. It said according to preliminary data, air defense and electronic warfare took down or intercepted 183 drones and 17 missiles but hits from 10 missiles and 25 drones had been recorded in nine locations. Russia's Defense Ministry on Saturday claimed that it successfully struck military facilities in Ukraine that 'manufacture components for missile weapons, as well as produce ammunition and explosives.' The claim could not be independently verified. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in an online statement that 'there can be absolutely no silence in response to such strikes, and Ukrainian long-range drones ensure this.' 'Russian military enterprises, Russian logistics, Russian airports must feel that the Russian war has real consequences for them,' Zelenskyy wrote. In Russia, officials said that Ukrainian drones targeted multiple regions overnight. A drone attack on the Rostov region, on the border with Ukraine, killed two people, acting governor Yuri Slyusar reported. In the neighboring Stavropol region, drones hit an unspecified industrial facility, governor Vladimir Vladimirov said on Telegram. He added that the attack sparked a brief fire, but didn't specify where exactly. Vladimirov said cellphone internet in the region was restricted because of the attack — a measure authorities regularly take across the vast country that critics say helps widespread online censorship. Story continues below advertisement An unconfirmed media report said videos posted online by local residents showed that the drones hit the Signal radio plant that makes jamming equipment. The Associated Press was unable to verify the claim. Drones also targeted Moscow, but were shot down, according to Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, and an unspecified industrial facility in the Penza region southeast of the capital, Gov. Oleg Melnichenko said. Russia's Defense Ministry said that its air defenses shot down or intercepted a total of 54 Ukrainian drones, including 24 over the Bryansk region on the border with Ukraine, 12 over the Rostov region, six over the annexed Crimean Peninsula, four over the Azov sea, three over the Black Sea and a few others over the Orlov, Tula and Belgorod regions. In Russia's Ingushetia region in the North Caucasus, a woman and three children were injured after a drone fell on a private house, regional health officials said.
Global News
9 hours ago
- Global News
World juniors case raises consent questions, but appeal unlikely: experts
An appeal by Crown prosecutors of Thursday's acquittal of five hockey players in the high-profile world juniors sexual assault case is unlikely, legal experts say, despite questions about whether consent was properly considered. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote were found not guilty of all charges after a weeks-long court case that centred on an alleged group sexual encounter in London, Ont., in 2018, in which the players had been accused of non-consensual sex. The Crown has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to a higher court. In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she did not find the female complainant, known as E.M. in court documents due to standard a publication ban, 'credible or reliable.' She also dismissed the Crown's argument that E.M. had only consented out of fear. Story continues below advertisement 'This case, on its facts, does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent,' she said in her decision. While those statements and others made by Carroccia have been criticized, even legal experts who take issue with them say they may not be sufficient grounds for an appeal. 'I don't agree with the way that the judge came to her decision, but the decision is really well-reasoned,' said Daphne Gilbert, a legal professor who teaches courses on sexual assault law at the University of Ottawa. 'Appeal standards aren't just that you disagree with the result. You have to to show an error in law. And I don't see an error in law in the decision itself.' 3:56 Why the judge acquitted all 5 former Hockey Canada players in sex assault trial How the legal definition of consent factors in Melanie Randall, a Western University law professor whose research includes women's autonomy rights, said Canada's 'extremely progressive statutory definition of consent' in criminal law means 'we're not looking for the 'no,' we're looking for the 'yes.'' Story continues below advertisement In other words, she said, a judge or jury must take into account the female complainant's own mindset behind her decision to consent to a sexual act, and determine if that consent is truly voluntary, which can be a subjective assessment. The court heard during the trial that E.M., who testified she was drunk and not of clear mind, was in the washroom after she had consensual sex with McLeod on the night in question and came out to a group of men in the room allegedly invited by McLeod in a group chat. It was then that the Crown alleged several sexual acts took place without E.M.'s consent. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Defence lawyers suggested E.M. wasn't as drunk as she said she was, wanted a 'wild night' with the players, was 'egging' them on to have sex with her and accused her of having a 'clear agenda' during the court process, which was a judge-only trial. E.M. pushed back against those claims and at points outright rejected them, saying she was coaxed into staying in the room and was disrespected and taken advantage of by the group, who she said 'could see I was out of my mind.' 'E.M. was unwavering in telling the court that she did not consent, she did not want this, she did not provide her voluntary agreement,' Randall said. Story continues below advertisement 'She explained in excruciating detail why it was complex for her to cope in that situation where she felt threatened and unsure of how to respond, and I think used a lot of strategies of appeasement and acquiescence.' 2:36 World junior trial: Players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault case Although Randall agreed that the decision itself was legally sound, she believes Carroccia 'went much further than she needed to' in the analysis of consent by ruling E.M.'s consent was voluntary. 'The judge basically said one of two things: either she knows better than E.M. does what her own subjective state was, or E.M. is a liar,' Randall said. 'I think those are two very unfortunate and damaging consequences of this decision.' Gilbert said a possible appeal could be launched on the allegation the judge was biased against E.M., but called that 'kind of a nuclear option.' Story continues below advertisement 'Usually you wouldn't accuse a judge of bias from what they write in a judgment, because they're actually making explicit the reasons upon which they made their decision,' she added. 'Bias arguments are more likely to come from attitudes in the courtroom or things that were said in the courtroom that then you felt contributed to a wrongful verdict.' She suggested the judge could have done more to rein in the defence lawyers in their cross-examination of E.M., which the complainant's lawyer Karen Bellehumeur said after the verdict Thursday was at times 'insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful.' 'A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality and privacy rights of the victim, as well as the accused persons,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham told reporters outside court Thursday. Toronto lawyer Lorne Honickman told Global News the Crown will likely look 'very, very closely' at the issue of consent in the judge's ruling as it determines its next steps. 'If they believe that there may have been an error there in law, they will take this 30-day appeal period or review period to determine whether or not they want to appeal,' he said. 'Perhaps — and I underline 'perhaps' a hundred times — a higher court will be looking at the issues here and making further determinations.' Story continues below advertisement 2:26 Protestors gather as judge gives ruling in World Junior hockey sexual assault trial Scientific context missing in consent argument In her ruling, Carroccia noted the Crown did not present any scientific evidence or testimony she could consider that would support its claims that E.M.'s had only consented under fear or duress — something scientific experts were also puzzled by. 'I think the complexity of how the complainant responded isn't well understood,' Dr. Lori Haskell, a Toronto-based clinical psychologist who specializes in trauma and abuse and has served as an expert witness in previous trials, told Global News. Story continues below advertisement Haskell cited neuroscientific research that has shown how the brain can shut down parts of the prefrontal cortex that affect decision-making, logic and reasoning in stressful or threatening scenarios. 'They're now in survival brain,' she said of people during situations of real or perceived threats. 'It's easy when you're not in that situation to assume you could (fight or run away), but I think we need to look at, what are similar situations? How do people respond?' She continued: 'I mean, how do men respond to hazing on sports teams? We know young men in universities have been quite traumatized with things done to them.' Without that further context, experts like Gilbert and Randall said the judge's ruling appeared to accept some of the most widely-held myths regarding sexual assault, including arguments made by the defence lawyers that E.M. had 'created a lie' out of regret and embarrassment. 'Although the slogan, 'Believe the victim,' has become popularized as of late, it has no place in a criminal trial,' Carroccia wrote at one point in her decision. 'To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence.' Story continues below advertisement 0:49 All 5 former World Junior players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault trial London, Ont., defence lawyer Phillip Millar told Global News he felt 'relief' to see that sentiment expressed in the decision. 'I was worried our judicial system has (been) going too far in terms of buying into the 'believe all victims' (idea) before the person has been determined to be a victim by the justice system,' he said. 'What was done is the law of consent was properly applied. You can't redefine consent because it's inconvenient to you, or because you want to retroactively retract it. Just because you're not proud of what you did on a day doesn't give you the ability to redefine what is consent.' Randall and Gilbert noted that acquittals mean the threshold of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt was not met by the Crown, but how Canadians and those in the public realm view the details laid out during the court process may be another question. Story continues below advertisement 'I don't think an appeal is the only strategy here,' Gilbert said. 'I think there's lots of things we can respond to this judgment with that are, you know, powerful things to respond with that aren't necessarily appealing.'
