A life lost and a life destroyed

When drunk driving causing death involves a friend

by Nicholas Köhler and Michael Friscolanti with Stephanie Findlay on Friday, January 7, 2011 9:00am - 81 Comments
A life lost and a life destroyed

Brian Tobin and wife Jodean leave court in Ottawa with son Jack, who is charged with impaired driving causing death | Pawel Dwulit/CP

Adam Rabolt and Darren McMullin were both 25-year-old labourers from small-town Shelburne, Ont., and had been best friends since the third grade. On the night of June 15, 2007, Rabolt, who had had a few beers that day while playing in a local golf tournament, was roused from a nap by McMullin, who had also been drinking and who persuaded his buddy to go out on the town. The two friends climbed into Rabolt’s Ford Focus and headed for a strip club about an hour and a half away in Vaughan, just north of Toronto. Some hours later, while driving home on Highway 400, Rabolt’s Ford left the road, travelled across a grassy shoulder and slammed into a grove of trees. Rabolt walked away; McMullin, who was not wearing a seat belt, died at the scene.

When police administered a breath test, Rabolt blew over twice the legal limit. He was later convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg. In considering an appropriate sentence, Justice Cary Boswell faced a myriad of options. There is no mandatory punishment for fatal drunk driving cases, and sentences have ranged anywhere from a few months of house arrest to life behind bars. The Crown sought at least three years in prison, while Rabolt’s lawyer asked for a conditional sentence: two years less a day, to be served in the community.

Yet there was a complicating factor. Instead of siding with prosecutors, McMullin’s mother and two sisters asked for leniency. Rabolt “is like a son and brother to them,” Boswell later wrote in his reasons for sentencing. “They want and need his presence with them at this difficult time in their lives. They say they cannot suffer through the loss of another family member, should he be sentenced to a period of incarceration. They have forgiven him.”

So close was Rabolt to the McMullin family that he grew up calling McMullin’s mother Brenda “mum.” When Brenda attempted to post bail for Rabolt, the Crown prosecutor moved to prevent it—something she resents to this day. “Because I wasn’t willing to crucify this kid, he didn’t want to give me the time of day,” she says of the Crown. “If I would have wanted to put Adam in a noose, he would have been my best friend.” When Rabolt did make bail, he walked into a crowd filled with members of his family and McMullin’s. Rabolt went directly to Brenda and fell into her arms. “When it all happened I was sitting in the police station and I just wanted to die right there,” Rabolt tells Maclean’s. “I didn’t even want to exist anymore. If it wasn’t for Darren’s family, I’d still feel that way. I’d probably just be living life as a ghost.”

Despite the McMullins’s pleas, the judge handed Rabolt 30 months in prison.

The case is eerily similar to one now making headlines—that of John Joseph “Jack” Tobin, the 24-year-old son of former Liberal cabinet minister and Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin, who stands charged in connection with the impaired driving death of one of his closest friends, Alex Zolpis, also 24. High school classmates and one-time roommates during their studies at Dalhousie University, Zolpis and Tobin were living in Calgary and Toronto respectively but had returned to Ottawa for the holidays. Though the details remain murky, Zolpis and Tobin had apparently been drinking in Ottawa’s ByWard Market when they emerged from a bar and walked across the street to a multi-level parkade and Tobin’s rented Dodge Ram pickup truck.

According to early reports, police said Tobin had been stunt driving on the fifth, uncovered floor of the parkade when Zolpis, who was a passenger, somehow became pinned under the truck just before 3 a.m. on Christmas Eve (Tobin’s lawyer disputes this account). One resident of a condo overlooking a portion of the parkade told Maclean’s that he heard moaning and slurred screaming.

Tobin is now charged with several offences, including impaired driving causing death—the death of the same friend who, three years earlier, supported Tobin through a near-fatal knife wound he received while working as a security guard at a Halifax dance. Testifying at the sentencing hearing of the teen who’d pleaded guilty to attempting to murder him, Tobin spoke of how the ordeal, which took a third of his liver, had left him with “a greater appreciation for life and how quickly it can be taken from you.”

Now the Zolpis family must struggle with two painful realities: the death of a son and the prospect that he was killed by one of his closest friends. A life lost and a life destroyed. Sadly, in the annals of Canadian case law, Tobin and Rabolt are just two of many. And while the Zolpis family has not commented publicly on their tragedy beyond describing the death as the result of an “accident” in an obituary, they would not be alone if they chose to support their dead son’s friend through the criminal justice system. Many grieving relatives—people who have experienced what the Zolpis family is suffering through—have asked the courts for mercy.

Kevin Magnuson is one of them. Seven years ago, his father Keith—the legendary Chicago Blackhawks defenceman—was killed in a horrific crash near Toronto. The man behind the wheel was Rob Ramage, his dad’s close friend and a former captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The pair had just left a funeral reception at a golf course and were on their way to a meeting of the NHL Alumni Association when their rental car veered into oncoming traffic, collided with two other vehicles and ricocheted into a guardrail.

According to police, Ramage’s blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit, akin to someone who had consumed 15 to 20 beers. He was charged with five offences, including impaired driving causing death. “Obviously, there was shock at first, then anger for maybe a day,” Kevin recalls now. “But since then, every decision we’ve made as a family has revolved around: what would dad want us to do? He would want us to worry about Rob and his family. We know it was an accident, and there is no ill will whatsoever. It very easily could have been dad driving that day and Rob in the passenger seat.”

When Ramage was later convicted on all counts, the Magnusons travelled to Newmarket, Ont., to personally ask the judge not to send Keith’s friend to prison. “We have long ago forgiven Rob for his mistake,” Kevin told the court, flanked by his mother Cindy and sister Molly. “Please understand that as the direct victims of this ‘crime,’ a prison sentence will not be seen as any measure of justice, but will simply exacerbate our pain and create additional victims in Rob’s family.”

Justice Alexander Sosna praised the Magnusons, calling their words “moving and rare.” Yet they weren’t enough to change his mind. Ramage was given four years in jail and, after an unsuccessful appeal, is now serving his term at a Kingston, Ont., prison. “It was very frustrating,” Kevin says. “I know Rob thinks about my dad every day, and that is enough of a punishment.”

In all drunk driving cases, the primary goal of sentencing is general deterrence, not individual rehabilitation. As the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in a landmark 1985 decision, “every drinking driver is a potential killer,” and the punishment should be tough enough to dissuade other impaired motorists from climbing behind the wheel. Today, most cases involving death or injury result in a custodial sentence of two to five years.

But unlike the Magnusons and the McMullins, some victims have managed to convince a judge to approve house arrest instead of jail time. Twelve years ago, after a night of heavy drinking, Matthew Mould of Hamilton drove his car into a light standard, killing Michael Hackett, his friend and co-worker. Hackett’s wife and parents immediately forgave Mould for the “tragic accident” and pleaded with the judge not to send him to prison. “We hold no grudge against this young man and were moved by his overwhelming sense of grief and his feelings of remorse,” the family wrote. “Forgiveness brings healing and our grief would only be compounded if this young man were given a jail sentence.” The judge agreed, handing Mould a 15-month conditional sentence.

James Carr, an Alberta man, was just as fortunate. Just four months after Ramage went to prison, Carr was handed a two-year conditional term for the drunken rollover that killed his best friend, Blake Levall. In an emotional victim-impact statement, Levall’s parents said they considered their dead son’s friend one of their own children, and begged that Carr not be imprisoned. “I’m going to lose another child,” said James Levall, Blake’s dad. “I’ll be torn apart again.” Said the judge: “Perhaps the greatest punishment James will suffer is that the death of his close friend, and the injury and hurt he has caused to others close to him, will always be with him.”

Jack Tobin is no doubt wrestling with the same demons. His friend is dead and his bail conditions prohibit him from contacting the Zolpis family. But in the months to come, as Tobin’s case reaches a courtroom, one thing is certain: if he is convicted he will spend at least some time in jail. Because of recent amendments to the Criminal Code, conditional sentences no longer apply to crimes involving serious bodily harm, regardless of how forgiving a victim’s family may be. In a case of impaired driving causing death, the type of sentences handed to Matthew Mould and James Carr—and requested by the families of Keith Magnuson and Darren McMullin—are gone. A custodial sentence now means just that: in custody, not house arrest.

Adam Rabolt has served his time: he spent just under a year in prison for his role in Darren McMullin’s death and he is now out on parole. Yet his sentence is so much deeper than a prison term—it will last him the rest of his life. “He wasn’t just my best friend, he was a brother,” he says. “That one buddy who knows everything about you, no matter what—even stuff you forgot, he’s the guy that knows. For me, that’s gone.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Bill Simpson

    Tool for what? What is the government (State) trying to achieve? There is no "deterrence" against people killing their friends in a foolish possibly drunken moment, any more than there may be a deterrence against people killing their children in similar circumstances.

    Jail time is completely pointless for these guys, and is used only to satisfy some mean-spirited individuals who like to see punishment administered. If the judges cannot exercise their judgement intelligently in these cases, and see the difference between persistent offenders and what are clearly terrible tragedies, then they are not dishing out justice.

    • Pat

      Jack Tobin driving record:

      - Tobin was ticketed for allegedly going 149 kilometres per hour in a 100-kilometre-per-hour zone on Highway 401 in March

      - Tobin was also sentenced in absentia last May for driving 75 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre-per-hour road

      - Entered guilty pleas in October and November for failing to proceed on a green light as directed at two different Toronto intersections

      All infractions occuring in 2010.

      • SLB

        You've GOT to be kidding me…speeding…failure to proceed on a green. Have you never sped while driving? 15km over the limit…149km is excessive, but so is everyone else on the 401…He's a kid that will be living with this guilt the rest of his life. Do you have a son with a best friend? Do YOU have a best friend. S*it happens and its terrible and tragic for everyone involved but if you seriously think the judicial system should come down and hammer this kid because of THOSE previous infractions, you're dreaming. The next time I drive 15km over the limit I'll be glad you're not driving beside me, cell phone in hand. Perhaps you don't have a 'criminal' driving history, but I am sure you've committed a traffic crime a time or two in your life. If the system does come down hard, it should be for current circumstances..not a speeding ticket and failure to proceed.

        • Pat

          Ok, I agree, the other charges are minor…BUT, how many people do you know with a 49km over the limit charge? Geez, that's beyond dangerous, give me a break.

    • dave

      so if they are, like, really sorry about their crime that took a life, thy shouldn't be punished? is that what you are suggesting? and that if I think a criminal should be punished, I'm mean?

      really?

  • Amateur Hour

    Like the others in this article, Rob Ramage got behind the wheel and drove drunk. He killed someone. The crime was driving drunk and causing death. It was not driving drunk and "accidentally killing my buddy, whose family really feels for me now." If the victim hadn't been his friend, but rather a stranger, there would be no question of his sentencing and incarceration.

    It's absurd to suggest that killing your friend via drunk driving should be seen in a different light than killing a kid crossing the road or a stranger in another car. Frankly, the members of the families of victims should not have a say in whether or not a criminal pays the price for recklessly endangering the lives of everyone else out on the roads that night. Their acts of grief and atonement are their personal right, but these criminals endangered the whole public — not just their family member — and should pay.

    This article is poorly reasoned.

    • kim

      Bravo. Couldn't have said it better

    • YYZ

      I agree with your statement but I don't think the article was advocating anything – just raising an interesting perspective (rather nicely I thought).

      • southoftheborder

        Well said. Ive seen many brag about how they evaded a spot check or how they could drink and drive home without and incident. They dont seem to get the point that it only has to happen once and then you have to live with it forever. If I killed any of my friends because I was drunk at the wheel, then I would want to do the jail time just to make me feel that at least paid some price for killing my buddy.

  • Amateur Hour

    "A life lost and a life destroyed"

    This article goes off the rail right from the start. The person who got behind the wheel drunk committed a crime against ALL of us, not just themselves and their friend. Their reckless disregard for other's safety — resulting in death — endangered EVERYONE on the road and on the sidewalks.

    Why should Ron Ramage's sentence be any lighter because the victim of his crime happened to be a buddy? (If he had been building a meth lab and it exploded killing his friend — as opposed to the mailman at the door — should his sentence be lighter?) Why should the family's sympathy for his plight reduce by one day the sentence he should serve for endangering the rest of us? I guarantee there would be no outpouring of support if Ramage had run over a 10 year old kid or if the others in this article had killed a parking attendant or a bus driver instead of their hapless and inebriated friends.

    This article's reasoning is horribly flawed. The sentence shouldn't have anything to do with the attributes of the victim (friend or stranger) or the personal philosophies of the victims' families (as they don't speak for the rest of the community). Sentencing should be driven by the evidence and the consequences of criminal acts: driving while intoxicate and drunk driving causing death.

    • 2000GG

      I couldn't have said it better myself, Amateur Hour. Thank you for doing it so well on behalf of many of us I am sure. Once again these criminal incidents are still erroneously referred to as accidents.

    • Mary quite contrary

      I totally agree with this writer. There seems to be two measures here. If people don't forgive, you get jail time. If they do or are friends, nothing. Jail time should even be longer. There were 40 + drunk driving charges in Eastern Ontario during the ride program before Xmas. Who is going to be the next person to be killed?

  • Mike

    This article proves nothing of the sort! It is an article about compassion and forgiveness, not about money!

    • Pat

      haha of course macleans deletes my comment. Proves what i said was right. lol

  • Jepne

    Guest – Yes, it seems apparent the young man has an ingrained lifestyle that needs to change but we have a grandson who, each time he is released from jail, gets meaner.

    Prison in itself is not really a deterrent. It is punishment that makes the populace feel good that the criminal is getting what he deserves, and for sure some folks need to be ''off the streets, but as a blanket solution, I do not see that it helps. In the States they are just having to build more and more of them.

  • Mary in Calgary

    The people involved are going to feel the way they feel. Forgiveness is instrumental in healing; and
    expecting to do hard time for this type of offense is instrumental as a consequential punishment and a warning deterrent.

  • Bernadette Bradley

    I don't know what I would do and neither do any of you, unless you were in that situation.But one thing is for sure, the anguished look on Jack Tobin's mother's face says it all.

    • Guest

      The anguish may not be for what her son has done as the family is doing its best to get him off with the least punishment possible but for the possibility that they may not succeed and her son may have to pay the full penalty for his crime.

      • YYZ

        I think it's safe to say that Mrs. Tobin does not have a heart of stone and has anguish on all fronts.

  • western anti-liberal

    What a lot of HOGWASH. Killing is killing. Dead is dead. If a person kills another person, their own life should be totally forfeit. 'Drunk' is no reason for leniency – indeed, it should double or treble the guilt – taking the first and subsequent drinks is/was a totally voluntary action, done with full knowledge of its effect.

    Kill anyone while drunk, and you should
    - be deprived forever from owning or driving any vehicle.
    - be compelled to pay to the family of the victim at least one-third of
    your total income for the rest of your life
    - be required to take random medical tests for
    alcohol consumption. If the test at any time shows you've had a
    drink, you would be jailed for a period of years
    - Drunk-driving is NOT a joke – the murderer
    should be treated as a deliberate cold-blooded
    killer, and should remain so always.

    Thus endeth the lesson for today.

    • Gordon

      Thanks for taking the time to enlighten us. In spite of the high-handed attitude, it is difficult to argue your thoughts. I definitely don't agree as far as the firing squads (seperate post) but your other reccomendations are sound and solid. They are serious and severe – just as they should be for anyone who kills another person while drunk.

    • true blue

      Right on.

    • kim

      YES! Keep saying it! Run for office and I'll vote for you.

  • Bernadette Bradley

    Losing a child would be unbearable. The only thing that would be almost as bad for the all the parents involved is this situation right here.

  • western anti-liberal

    Of course, if we weren't such a bleeding-heart, namby-pamby, gutless society, a drunk-driving-killer would be taken immediately from the court-room where he/she was convicted and within 2 hours be publicly executed by hanging or firing-squad.

    A drunk driver causing permanent injury should be required to pay for the full support of the injured person for as long as that person suffered from the injury.

  • Healthcare Insider

    In Calgary a drunk driver in a cement truck drove over a family stopped in a car at a red light. He killed all of them including a baby. He had an open bottle of alcohol in the vehicle with him. He had been driving irratically and had a record of dangerous and fast driving. How many times do impaired drivers drive drunk before they have that accident that takes a life? Do you think this was any of these peoples' first time driving drunk?

    • Havanoo

      Just one question,"Who profits the most from alcohol sales?" They try banning smoking so why not drinking? Follow the money trail !

  • psh

    Reading all the variety of comments on this posting has moved me to respond. A thinking of "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls" is not relevent anymore in these times. As a society, we have adopted a lifestyle that embraces compassion with risk, fun with risk, experience with risk, adventure with risk and all other behaviours associated with being human. Unfortunately, there are casualties in the process as has always been in our history. There are impaired drivers and incompetent drivers, and driver's without insurance or license. Pick your target! Today's was the casualties of impaired motorists and the havoc they reek on innocent people. I feel badly for all concerned parties but admire their strength in accepting what is part of living and knowing the cause of their grief. Not like a child or loved one who is unaccounted for . Accidents and poor judgement are inherent in our makeup. I don't think these are premeditated events. Reoccurrent incidences, however, are another matter

    • wendi

      accidents are not poor judment – look up defination of accident – albeit you say not premediated – drinking and driving is premediated – its a choice — we all know what "can " happen when you drink and drive – but even putting that aside – it's illegal! If he had a gun he was shooting in a firing range and his friend was standing down by the target and he "choose" to fire the gun – what then – oh darn, what a stupid thing for him to do, he should have know what "could" happen. If we start as a society start giving tougher sentences in these cases then the next young man or woman who thinks about drinking and driving may think twice and "choose" not to! Its a choice to go behind the wheel, if you think you MAY get caught and you MAY loose your license it just MAY be a risk you are willing to take. However, if JUST if the sentence for driving while imparied was an automatic even 3 months in prison – irregarless of the who, what and when then I bet 99.9% would think MAY be not – not worth it…..

  • madeyoulook

    I really don't get the argument that my reckless and criminal conduct should be glossed over if my victim was such a close friend that he "was like a brother to me." What, if I killed my actual brother I should just go free, too?

    The crime begins when I get myself intoxicated while possessed with the intent to drive. The result is NOT AN ACCIDENT. Can we please stop calling the results of these crimes accidents?

    The sympathy induced by the relationship I may have had with my victim has no place in the criminal justice sphere. Or maybe I can cut a nice deal because I was drunk when I slit my wife's throat?

    The overall theme expressed above, that somehow the remorse is punishment enough, is disgusting. Amateur Hour nails it: the crime of drunk driving causing death is a crime against all of us.

    • Keith in Brampton

      On the other hand, one could argue that the fact that the victims here were willing participants in the misadventures serves as a mitigating factor.

  • Lisa

    I worked as a bar waitress through university and now I teach high school and it seems to me as though Canadian society depends on alcohol nearly as much as they depend on oxygen. I am surprised there are not more drunk driving fatalities but there are too many incidences involving alcohol and not enough being done about it; Canadian laws are way too lenient. We should adopt the drunk driving – zero tolerance laws they have in countries such as Japan and Germany and then we wouldn't have these bleeding-heart sob stories of losing a best friend. It is a tragedy but we are an educated country and the message of the consequences of drinking and driving is not being heard; something else must be done.

    • Tony LaJeunesse

      Waitresses are supposed to refuse alcohol to people who are obviously drunk because the bar could be held liable for serving alcohol to somebody who gets behind the wheel of a car. If you have ever knowingly served anybody who was drunk, then you broke the law, even if you faced the possible of being fired by your boss if you didn't do it. However, waitresses obviously can't tell that someone is drunk in all cases. Otherwise, they would never serve drunks. We don't tolerate drunk driving in Canada. Otherwise, there would be no penalties for it. Okay, something must be done? LIke what? Stricter penalties? The problem with that idea is that criminals always think themselves capable of committing the perfect crime. How about a bloody vengeance? How about mob justice? How about Canadians losing more and more of their rights until we have none left because we don't live in a perfect world and God has given Caesar the power of the sword?

      • Vatro

        True. But it really isn't the waitresses responsibility to ensure a person is operating a vehicle within the given laws. How about real penalties attached to the laws we already have? Like confiscation and sale of vehicles for people caught multiple times etc. I think its a real stretch to go from outlawing drunk driving (something already existant) to Urban Cohorts enforcing the Ceasers political will.

  • Western NL

    I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this already or not, but in a young man in his early 20's was killed this week in western Newfoundland by a drunk driver fleeing the police. Like Tobin, the main quickly apologized (http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-01-06/article-2094774/Update%3A-Man-apologizes-in-court-for-hitting-pedestrian-/1). Although I did not know the victim, it happened in a nearby community and on roads I frequently use. I feel more strongly than ever that drunk drivers (especially those well over the legal alcohol limit) need certain punishment. These crimes are completely avoidable and therefore all the more tragic.

  • thiscountry

    As I see it, there is nothing "accidental" about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle when impaired (by alcohol or drugs). How is it any different than standing in the middle of the road with a loaded shotgun and randomly firing rounds? You may or may not kill someone ……

    • western anti-liberal

      If the person with the shotgun was drunk while randomly shooting, he/she would likely have the bleeding hearts feeling so sorry for him. However, if he was sober, he'd have the book thrown at him.

      The bottom line needs to be "take a life – give a life". Give it in fact wsith a quick public execution following conviction. Or give it [as long as we are governed by gormless [lacking balls] people and parties] symbolically by enforced financial and personal life-time service to the family whose member was killed.

  • Tony LaJeunesse

    The difference is that someone firing live rounds into a crowd is undoubtedly attempting to kill or wound somebody while people who drive home from a bar while drunk are usually hoping to get home safely and without incident. That's a huge difference, though the outcome of both actions may result in death and tragedy. The reason why we make distinctions in degrees of murder is because only a primitive and barbaric society would treat murder with premeditation the same as it would an accidental death through another person's carelessness and lack of foresight. People who think that harsher penalties will be a deterrent make the fallacy of thinking that the hindsight of a convicted felon will lead to foresight in someone who has had too many drinks. Now, if you just want the satisfaction of punishing evildoers, even if it accomplishes nothing, then you should just say it, but we reap what we sow. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

    • wendi

      "a person's carelessness and lack of foresight" — it's not lack of forsight, how can it be. It's illegal to drink and drive, regardless if you cause damage to anything – if you drink and drive then you have just made a choice to break the law – so now you are involved in an illegal activity, and its illegal for a reason – can you guess what that is? You are operating a 4000 + lbs of metal while every sense you have is impaired. Every DAY in Canada 4 people die as a result of NOT a person's carlessness and lack of foresight but a choice to drive while impaired. Tougher sentences means people may think LONG and hard before the "choose" to drink and drive — http://www.madd.ca – see for yourself, its fact -

      • wendi

        what Tobin did was not an accident -I am sure he feels unlike anything I can ever imagine, I am sure he could take it all back, I am almost just as sure he would tell you he thought if he ever got caught drinking and driving he would loose his license for "awhile" – that was it — what if when you drink and drive – regardless of the outcome, you automatically go to prison – IMAGI NE the different choices we would make – forget hindsight – lets make it the forseeable future and it just might work!

    • Healthcare Insider

      Tony, I understand what you mean. Perhaps it is more like putting one bullet in the chamber of a handgun and standing out in the street and pulling the trigger. Chances are the bullet won't be discharged and no one will be hurt but what if it is? That is the chance you take when you drink and get behind the wheel. If you truly want to get home safely and without incident, you call a cab. You realize when you go into the bar with your car and car keys and order the first, second, third drink….you can't drive safely…you are playing russian roulette with your life and other peoples. Is that "careless and lack of foresight" or are just not being honest with yourself and selfish and negligent? Even if a person has made bad choices in the past, it is never too late to make better choices. The threat of prison is supposed to make people make the right choice – not to take chances by drinking and driving.

  • Douglas in Vancouver

    Go to jail and shut up. I have no remorse for people who drink and drive. Zero tolerance I say.
    As the article says: A custodial sentence now means just that: in custody, not house arrest.
    In all drunk driving cases, the primary goal of sentencing is deterrence, not individual rehabilitation.
    As it should be. No excuses. ZERO tolerance.

  • Tori

    Sorry, but friend or not, these people got behind the wheel of a car, intoxicated and were responsible for not only the passengers in their vehicle but all other motorists out on the road. In the above cases the impaired driver lived and friend died and fortunately no one else (another motorist) was killed. Although the 'intent' to kill the friend may not have been there and the family of the victim has 'forgiven' them the driver/friend still got behind the wheel of car, intoxicated which is criminal, and rightfully so. As it was indicated earlier, there was nothing accidental about the driver's actions when he got behind the wheel of the vehicle while impaired. For justice to have not been served because the driver was a 'family friend' would have been criminal. We are not asking for punishment for the driver because his intention was not to kill his friend what we are asking is for punishment of his action, the one sole action of getting behind the wheel of the vehicle while intoxicated and putting EVERYONE at risk of harm/death including the passengers of his own vehicle.

  • Carol

    If the guilty drunk driver is in jail, he/she is off the streets. Any one that drives a car while drunk is automatically guilty by law of putting themselves in danger or an innocent bystander. Stiffer laws need to be brought in to keep these useless drunks away from vehicles and locked up longer. I recommend life sentences without a chance of parole for 25 yrs. if they have killed someone! It is premeditated once they get behind the wheel; they are the one pulling the trigger.

  • Karen

    it's a sad situation , driving drunk should never be tolerated and killing your best friend must feel like hell on earth . Would it be any different if any of them had killed a stranger ? Driving and drinking is a recipe for disaster and some family or families are going to be in pain and it is all so unnecessary . If you drink – don't drive . If you do you should be charged whether you killed or injured a friend , a stranger , a pet or no one at all .
    It isn't any secret that driving while drinking is like waving a loaded gun around . My heart aches for all who have lost a loved one caused by drunk driving . The ultimate price the driver faces is killing their best friend and destrying that friends family and their own .such a stupid waste .

  • Birdie

    Alcoholism is a disease. Those people who have it cannot take the first drink without having a plan in mind. They cannot drive, Is there any way that drinking establishments can cut patrons off sooner, or have a test for them to take before getting back their keys that are deposited at the desk. Didn't they try this at one time? Every one involved with the drinker has to know that they cannot be depended upon. Back up plans are a necessity. Very tragic and heartbreaking.

  • Guest

    These are not accidents. They are crimes resulting from willful misconduct. The punishment of hard jail time fits the crime. Too bad, he was a friend. So what? You killed him, you go to jail and society sends the proper message about the value of the victim's life and cost for such misconduct.

  • gar

    As a young man I have driven impaired and I have driven with my friends driving who were impaired.today.I look back and thank god that none of us ended our lives or others from this stupidity.We still make the same weak excuses when we tell kids we did the same and why they shouldn't do it.Always of course there was less traffic on the roads in those days.The ditches were just as deep and rock walls just as hard.the only redeeming feature is that a 48 Plymouth Club Coupe was built like a tank is today.

  • Trev_G

    There's nothing accidental about drinking and driving. It's a crime, plain and simple and more than preventable. Articles like this make my blood boil. Whether you killed your best friend or a complete stranger, a life is both lost and destroyed, and you should expect to do time. These families are entitled to forgive their child's killer if they want, but this shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence these drivers receive.

    To suggest that it should is ridiculous. People have to know that there are consequences to their actions. If we started given people reduced sentences because they killed a friend, what precedent would that set for drunk drivers who are arrested by a random stop and haven't killed anybody? If you drink and drive, and kill someone, be it a friend or not, you should do time. And be it a friend or stranger, you still will have to live with the fact that you took a life.

From Macleans