Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 139

Thread: Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736

    Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

    I have been kind of following this and did not expect a guilty verdict for criminal negligence. I admit she did a stupid thing but the charge was not fitting the crime, the driver of the motorcycle was speeding, she was parked in the left lane ( to help a family of ducks ). To serve jail time for this is too extreme.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  2. #2
    I followed this case also and I was disappointed by the jury's finding and the outrageous comments by the prosecutor. Basically the prosecutor said not to try to help defenseless animals on the street.

    The first fucking rule you are taught in drivers education is to always have your vehicle under control in case the vehicle in front of you is stopped or comes to a complete stop. She did everything right in how she pulled over and stopped. Personally I have come to a complete stop to let ducks or other fowl cross in front of me and there are a lot of them in my neighborhood. Granted it is a residential street with a low speed limit, but it would just be wrong to run over the ducks and just be wrong if I were criminally charged because a speeding motorcyclist did not notice that I was stopped.

    They must have shown this heartless jury lots of pictures of the pretty 16 year old girl who was killed. If it had just been a middle-aged guy on a motorcycle I think the defendant would have been acquitted.

    Also a shame that she admitted why she pulled over, since it happened pretty quickly. Never talk to the police after something awful happens. If she could have claimed that she had vomiting and vertigo and was running to the side of the road to stabilize herself and call for help everything would have been okay. Even if a witness had noticed the ducks, she could have claimed that they just happened to be there. She could have even said that was one of the reasons she fled her car - she was so disoriented that she thought she saw ducks in the road!

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    That was just to decide if she's guilty or not. It's obvious she did something very dangerous for no good reason. It was a highway and it is forbidden to stop in the driving lane unless you have no other choice. Also it was after a curve and people could not see the car from far enough to stop in time.

    We'll have to see what the judge decides for the sentence, but I hope she doesn't go to jail for that.

    The government is probably going to add a new charge to bill C-36: ''Stopping or impeding traffic and communicating with ducks''
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  4. #4
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,133
    A few year back I was involved in a case in which I defended a woman who swerved into the opposite lane of traffic to avoid hitting a squirrel that ran into the road. The result was that she had a head on collision with a car in the opposite lane, and the 16 year old boy who was a passenger in the other car broke his left wrist. This was a civil lawsuit brought by the kid's mother for her kid's personal injuries and medical bills against my client, which ultimately settled. Basically it was dead squirrel if she did not swerve vs. 2 smashed up cars and broken 16 year old's wrist because she did swerve.

    There is a legal doctrine/defense of "sudden and unexpected emergency" but the response to the "emergency" has to be considered reasonable, and we did not think the jury was going to buy this lady's actions as reasonable.

  5. #5
    EB, that is with 20/20 hindsight. There are countless incidents in which someone stops or swerves to avoid hitting a dog, cat, squirrel, duck, opossum or beaver in which not only is the animal saved but no injuries to people or property occur. Rarely is the driver able to analyze all possible actions of other drivers when avoiding hitting the animal.

    Judgements are always based on the end results and not on the alternative endings when it comes to law and media sensationalism. A few minutes on a Google will reveal heartwarming stories in which traffic is held up as a result of motorists stopping to let a family of ducks cross the road, sometimes with the assistance of an actual police officer. Everyone feels good about that story with a happy ending because there is no speeding motorcyclist who does not have his motorcycle under sufficient control to bring it to a complete stop in an emergency like they teach every driver in Drivers Ed. And who has chosen to subject his child to the dangers of riding on a speeding motorcycle.

    As I said in one of the other threads, I like the judge who said The Law is an Ass. I do not see the benefit of the government bringing criminal charges in this situation. If the government wants to mount a public safety campaign about this issue and force the driver of the car to participate in lieu of filing such charges, that would be reasonable. But what purpose is served by imprisoning her? How will she be rehabilitated? Will she practice running over ducks on a road within the prison grounds instead of stopping to try to save them?

    The criminal justice system in the western world has simply gotten out of control. And it seems to expand constantly - more prisons, more cops and certainly more lawyers. Add the media fascination with it, including the mindless entertainment of the masses every night with law shows on TV, and it will just keep getting worse.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    At cleo's
    Posts
    603
    For most people when they are driving it is a natural instinctive reaction to try to avoid hitting animals that are on the road. I know i do it all the time. I have never had to swerve into the path of another vehicle or anything like that but i have almost gone into the ditch before trying to avoid them.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    When something happens in a split second sometimes we just react without really thinking, like swerving to avoid a squirrel. Once it's over you realize it was an overreaction and dangerous. But stopping the car on the highway lane, walking out and starting to collect ducks goes beyond poor driving.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  8. #8
    No doubt poor and dangerous driving, but this woman is facing a possibility of life in prison. It is the maximum sentence for someone convicted of criminal negligence causing death. I really do not think a prison sentence is appropriate in this case. Yes two people died and that is very sad, but this driver had no criminal intent, no alcohol in her blood and no drugs. So, is a prison sentence really warranted in this case?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Gentlemen,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    I have been kind of following this and did not expect a guilty verdict for criminal negligence. I admit she did a stupid thing but the charge was not fitting the crime, the driver of the motorcycle was speeding, she was parked in the left lane ( to help a family of ducks ). To serve jail time for this is too extreme.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-2-deaths.html

    The financial analyst parked her car on the road with the driver's door open and no hazard lights on


    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06...ilty-in-death/

    Is this the story? So she was looking for the ducklings mother instead of paying attention to the deadly risk to people she choose to make. Ridiculous. Sorry, but I totally disagree. Regardless of the speeding by the motorcycle she could have chose to pull off the road to a safe position then catch them at her leisure in whatever way she was planning to. How many of you speed? What would you say if it was your life suddenly flashing before you? I'd agree she should not get a life sentence, which seems to be mandatory, but 7-12 years would be appropriate IMHO. It wasn't intentional to hurt anyone but she intentionally put the lives of human beings at risk over some ducklings. She has a dangerously neglectful perspective on the value of life and she proved that. Her choice was unnecessary and it cost two lives when there was little chance these ducks were going to take on traffic before she could get to them.

    I know an animal lover who is beyond nuts. I mean planning high winter vacations to viciously freezing Hudson's Bay to pet the wild animals on ice flows NUTS. In any conflict between a human being and animals she puts their lives over people's lives. Hey I love animals, I stopped at some geese crossings before they started to cross (in both places traffic was slow and used to the likelihood of the crossing), I've spent time doing animal photography at odd hours, I've put myself in risk and even dangerous positions at equestrian jumping events to get a better photo angle. But people come first. I get a little freak out for a moment when animals get in the road, but going head on into traffic to save a squirrel or a dog to put my life and others at risk...NOT HAPPENING.

    People like this woman deserve some significant time. What would you say if it had been your child or spouse who was killed over ducklings? Would you say...well mom, you life was worth saving ducklings?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocky69 View Post
    ...no alcohol in her blood and no drugs. So, is a prison sentence really warranted in this case?
    Absolutely. All the worse because she made a sober choice.

    Really

    Merlot

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,133
    The article did not say if she activated her hazard lights. If it was done, this somewhat lessens the recklessness of her behavior.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver View Post
    The article did not say if she activated her hazard lights. If it was done, this somewhat lessens the recklessness of her behavior.
    An article I read said the hazard lights were not on, but a car between her and the motorcycle steered around her since her car was as far out of the lane as possible. The motorcyclist chose not to follow the path of that car and instead slammed into the back of the defendant's stopped car. Had she chosen to run over the ducklings it is not clear whether they would have all been crushed by her and the other car, or whether some of the surviving ducklings might have caused the motorcycle to crash anyway. It is also possible that the motorcyclist would have swerved to try to miss the surviving ducklings and crashed anyway.

    Shit Happens. The government cannot imprison everyone when Shit Happens.

    And when Shit Happens, STFU when the police ask about it. Whether you just saw a hooker or just had your good intentions of saving the ducklings go badly awry. I still say if the defense was Vertigo, the case would never have been brought.

  12. #12
    november
    Guest
    She said she put her hazard lights, but the investigation said other wise.

  13. #13
    She immobilized her car in the middle of the left lane of a major highway and got out. WTF? How this is not criminally negligent in anyone's mind is beyond me...

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    OMG,

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    They must have shown this heartless jury lots of pictures of the pretty 16 year old girl who was killed. If it had just been a middle-aged guy on a motorcycle I think the defendant would have been acquitted.

    I like the judge who said The Law is an Ass.
    You pour out sympathies for ducks but none for the dead people because you have a basic anger with the legal system and the dead father and daughter don't really matter because your own personal grievances are more important than the issue here? So you don't think it's heartless to side with ducklings and lay all blame on a father and daughter dead because of a thoughtless animal lover.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    She did everything right in how she pulled over and stopped.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-2-deaths.html

    "The financial analyst parked her car on the road with the driver's door open and no hazard lights on."

    According to the above she seems to have gotten out of the car on impulse carelessly failing to turn on the hazard signals and taking up more space with the door open.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    Had she chosen to run over the ducklings it is not clear whether they would have all been crushed by her and the other car, or whether some of the surviving ducklings might have caused the motorcycle to crash anyway.
    Oh yeah, the rash of roadway deaths by ducklings has reached epidemic proportions. NUTS!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasey Jones View Post
    WTF? How this is not criminally negligent in anyone's mind is beyond me...
    Yup, talk about heartbreaking.

    Has anyone considered that the view of the cyclist may have been blocked until too late by another vehicle like the endless large SUVs I can never seen around, or perhaps a blind bend in a curved section, or that the stopped car may have been just on the other side of a rise...all of which are very plausible when I consider my own daily highway driving, and which would make the would-be duck rescuer absolutely negligent.



    Merlot

    BTW - I'll bet she gets 3 to 5 years.

  15. #15
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,133
    I think she should do a small amount of jail time. If I was the sentencing judge the evidence of hazard lights being on or not would be critical in my determination. If the evidence suggested she did not have them on, I think 4-6 months or so seems about right. I wonder about the availability of work release programs as I feel that requiring her to work on a highway crew that cleans up roadkill would be a beneficial way for her to pay her debt to society. Send her out with the crew under supervised release, and have her collect up the roadkill.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •