Crown drops manslaughter charge against driver who ran over man to save woman’s life

[Tennis]

The Crown has withdrawn a manslaughter charge against the driver who ran over a man to save a woman who was allegedly being attacked.

Anthony Kiss ran down Dario Romero with his car on June 7 when he saw Alicia Aquino being attacked with a knife at Black Creek Dr. and Eglinton Ave. W. Romero, 37, died at the scene.

Kiss, 31, fled before he was arrested on his way to his Wasaga Beach home.

He was charged with manslaughter, impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, over 80 mgs operation of a motor vehicle causing death and failure to stop at the scene of accident causing death.

The incident prompted public debate on whether Kiss acted appropriately, while his blood alcohol level and the fact he fled the scene added layers of complication to the case.

It also brought tearful gratitude from Aquino who said Kiss saved her life.

The Crown withdrew the manslaughter charge in court on Tuesday.

Michael Lacy, a lawyer for Kiss, told the Star that the Crown will put forward new charges to the court on Nov. 21, which will exclude the manslaughter charge, remove the “causing death” element from the other charges, and add a dangerous driving charge.

Kiss’s maximum penalty with the new charges would be six months in jail, whereas he could have faced a life sentence under the prior charges, Lacy said.

“We support the decision that the Crown came to (Tuesday), our client has always maintained that he acted in lawful self-defence of someone else,” Lacy said in an interview. “Someone tragically lost their life here. This has been weighing on our client pretty significantly, and we’re glad to see that the Crown didn’t persist in prosecuting this case in light of the facts and the legal context.”

Michelle Adams, Kiss’s girlfriend who was with him in the car in June, said the withdrawal of the charge is “definitely relieving for our family.”

A friend of Aquino’s family said they were “ecstatic” and that it gives them “peace of mind.”

Kiss declined to comment when reached Tuesday by the Star. The Crown couldn’t be reached for comment.

In an interview with the Star in July, Aquino alleged that Romero, who she had never seen before, pulled out a knife and tried to slash at her while she was waiting at a bus stop. The 59-year-old Aquino ran into the street and reached the median, realizing soon after that a car had hit Romero.

Aquino said Kiss “put his family on the side to save me.” She said she yelled “You’re my angel, you saved me!” at his car as Kiss drove away.

Kiss defended his actions in an earlier interview with the Star.

“I didn’t want death, that’s why I was trying to do this, do what I did, to prevent death,” Kiss said at the time.

Romero’s family said he was a wonderful father to a young son, and that he had been diagnosed with extreme paranoia.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...mans-life.html

Is this the right choice? Or should charges have been laid here.

[Elba]

Lethal force in defense of someone's life. Seems alright.

[AeneasBK]

Lethal force in defense of someone's life. Seems alright.

Not sure that "being drunk behind the wheel" is necessarily the most "risk-free" use of lethal force I'd want to be defending. Tricky situation. I'd probably maintain all the charges, but I'll freely admit to being biased against people who drink and drive. Sure the guy he killed just so happened to bea knife wielding maniac not some friends fooling about or something equally hard to distinguish.

[Deleted]

No he should have got manslaughter

[McFuu]

UK uses a peer jury trial or is it always a "Judge" (whatever that may be called in the UK)?

If it's jury I can't see this guy getting convicted of anything. If its a judge, well he is pretty damn guilty unfortunately. Unless it turns into a case of the Judge agreeing that without his intervention in the near stabbing he would have likely never been pulled over for a DUI meaning he can't be charged with it.

Circumstances like that occur in the US, IE someone gets pulled over for a bogus reason and they find drugs or whatever in the car. The whole thing gets thrown out sometimes because the stop wasn't legitimate.

Granted his best course of action was to stay at the scene, the cops may have just let him go home and not charge him with anything at that point.

[callipygoustp]

Looks like "the right choice" to me.

[I Push Buttons]

Not sure that "being drunk behind the wheel" is necessarily the most "risk-free" use of lethal force I'd want to be defending. Tricky situation. I'd probably maintain all the charges, but I'll freely admit to being biased against people who drink and drive. Sure the guy he killed just so happened to bea knife wielding maniac not some friends fooling about or something equally hard to distinguish.

While I agree the guy is a piece of shit for driving drunk...

Throwing the book at him over that when he saved someone's life sets a bad precedent. Basically says "if you are drunk driving and see someone who needs help, don't help them because you will get trouble..."

[Deleted]

While I agree the guy is a piece of shit for driving drunk...

Throwing the book at him over that when he saved someone's life sets a bad precedent. Basically says "if you are drunk driving and see someone who needs help, don't help them because you will get trouble..."

He didn't really help, he ran a guy over and drove off... He could've pulled over and shouted

[Cerus]

While I agree the guy is a piece of shit for driving drunk...

Throwing the book at him over that when he saved someone's life sets a bad precedent. Basically says "if you are drunk driving and see someone who needs help, don't help them because you will get trouble..."

It sets a precedent the other way too. Driving drunk is ok as long as you do something good in the process. Sorry but he could have easily misinterpreted the situation and killed an innocent person.

[I Push Buttons]

It sets a precedent the other way too. Driving drunk is ok as long as you do something good in the process. Sorry but he could have easily misinterpreted the situation and killed an innocent person.

No it doesn't it simply excuses wrongdoing in the face of good deeds...

Its the same thing as Good Samaritan laws protecting people from liability if they accidentally harm someone while trying to help them... Do those laws encourage people to harm others when they need help since they are shielded from liability? Of fucking course they don't... But they do encourage people to help each other when previously they may not have helped for fear of being sued.

[jackofwind]

Shouldn't have been drunk and shouldn't have driven away. If you're going to defend someone you need to act responsibly and show that it wasn't just dumb luck.

Other than that, fine.

[rayvio]

"lawful self-defence of someone else" is very poorly worded (presumably because of the legal terminology though) since it's just "defence of someone else" rather than self... but that's my pedantic nature

seems right to charge him for drunk driving but not for his (fatal) intervention under the circumstances

It sets a precedent the other way too. Driving drunk is ok as long as you do something good in the process. Sorry but he could have easily misinterpreted the situation and killed an innocent person.

in certain circumstances it could be argued that driving drunk WOULD be ok. say if a person needed urgently taking to hospital and an ambulance wouldn't get there for at least an hour (sadly a realistic circumstance) and the only available driver is over the legal limit. should that driver, despite being intoxicated, risk driving the person to hospital? assuming they were reasonably close to sober (the legal limit is designed to err on the side of caution and some people do have much higher alcohol tolerance, though obviously nobody is really fit to judge their own capability especially while intoxicated) and careful it's arguable that the risk of doing nothing is worse than the risk of driving (although of course driving puts a greater number of people at risk, even if the overall risk is lesser)
it's obviously much easier to answer such questions in hindsight by taking into account whether or not the risk taking paid off. if the potential driver did nothing and the person died then obviously they're going to feel guilty (although highly debateable whether they should) but would not be legally liable. if they do drive and get the person there without anyone being harmed then obviously it's easy to say that they did the right thing, but it's much more difficult to judge if, for example, they get the person there safely to the hospital but cause a traffic accident that injures several people

[Uselessrouge]

killing a sick guy trying to kill an inocent woman? nothing wrong there , any time of the day someone like this deserves to die if it saves an inocent life .

[Kelathos]

It may be dumb luck that he hit this person and none other. Yet he did end up saving a woman's life. That warrants dropping the more serious charges and giving him a second chance in life.

[Ripster42]

He didn't really help, he ran a guy over and drove off... He could've pulled over and shouted

I'm not gonna pull over and shout at an angry person with a knife who is already attacking someone.

[Serpha]

UK uses a peer jury trial or is it always a "Judge" (whatever that may be called in the UK)?

If it's jury I can't see this guy getting convicted of anything. If its a judge, well he is pretty damn guilty unfortunately. Unless it turns into a case of the Judge agreeing that without his intervention in the near stabbing he would have likely never been pulled over for a DUI meaning he can't be charged with it.

Circumstances like that occur in the US, IE someone gets pulled over for a bogus reason and they find drugs or whatever in the car. The whole thing gets thrown out sometimes because the stop wasn't legitimate.

Granted his best course of action was to stay at the scene, the cops may have just let him go home and not charge him with anything at that point.

What's this got to do with UK?

[Underverse]

Yes, he was driving drunk. I have no sympathy at all for drunk drivers. But if you charge someone for criminal activity at the time of aid, you're just giving them an incentive to walk away instead of helping.

The second part of this line of thinking is that drunk driving is a risk, and not a harm in and of itself. If he had caused an additional harm - such as killing both of them - then he should absolutely go to jail. But since he was only taking a risk, he shouldn't be punished for positive outcomes.

[McFuu]

What's this got to do with UK?

Lol it said the "Crown" and I didn't see mention of any other location, just street names, so I assumed.

[bladeXcrasher]

Wow, Toronto is pretty unsafe place. You can get attacked at the bus stop just waiting or get run over and it's a-okay.

[Deleted]

What's this got to do with UK?

Does the article mention Canada?