All for a cup of Tim Horton's coffee

I don’t doubt that Daniel Da Silva is “haunted” by the death of Toronto Police Sergeant Ryan Russell. He should be: he knows in his heart that but for him, none of this could have happened. According to his interview with the Globe and Mail, Mr. Da Silva feels he did all he could to prevent a homeless man from stealing his Chevy truck, which wound up being used to run down Sgt. Russell:

Mr. Da Silva and his plowing partner were lining up for a coffee before 5 a.m. when they saw Mr. Kachkar, shoeless and erratic, dart for the vehicle.

“We chased right behind him,” Mr. Da Silva said. “We were watching the truck. It wasn’t like it was unattended. As he was closing the door, I was right on him.”

Mr. Kachkar managed to put the truck in gear and accelerate north on Parliament Street, but Mr. Da Silva wasn’t ready to give up his truck easily. He wedged his hand through the door as the vehicle picked up speed.

“I held onto the truck for a good 20 or 30 feet,” he said. “I was trying to get him out, but he was smacking my hand off. I was trying to get him out. I was thinking ‘I want this guy out of my truck. That’s my truck!’ The truck sped off….”

He’s acting as though this was a plow-jacking — but of course that’s not what happened.

Near as I can tell from the Globe and Star coverage of the horrible event, Mr. Da Silva and his partner went in to buy a coffee, and left their truck running. You’d think that one of the two of them could have stayed with the truck — isn’t that what a “plow partner” is for? But then who pays for the coffee?

So, there they are, “lining up” I think it was described. Mr. Da Silva wasn’t putting air in the tires at a gas station, 6 feet from the driver’s side door. He was in a store, with at least a glass door and 20 feet between he and his 3 Ton vehicle, getting coffee. He says he was watching the truck while waiting for his double-double; or more precisely: “It wasn’t like it was unattended” is what he told the Globe.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s not the view that my insurance carrier takes. If you go inside your house and leave your car running, the insurance becomes void if a homeless man jumps in and drives off. That’s why they ask for all of the sets of keys when you report a stolen car. If you can’t produce them, and your car wasn’t stolen as part of a house break-in, you have no claim.

How is Mr. Da Silva’s situation any different? It’s not as though he operates an Ambulance or Bell Canada repair vehicle, which might require the engine to be running at all times. Even then the doors are locked. Ask the guy who drives a Refrigerated transport truck; this is not a novel concern. And Mr. Da Silva drives a pick-up with a blade on the front.

I’ll hazard a guess that a parent who goes into Tim’s and leaves their kid in the backseat of a running vehicle, which then gets stolen and wrecked, will be public enemy #1 (even moreso than the nutty hockey Dad). The Children’s Aid society will be on your doorstep, and the Criminal Charge is child endangerment.

I can appreciate that the Crown Prosecutor may not want to seem vengeful, but the next time Mr. Da Silva says: “I don’t know what else I could have done to stop him”, would someone please reply:

You could have taken the keys out of the truck.

MRM