Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[anon_vlad]

If you shoot at someone and miss, you are guilty of attempted murder.

If your aim is better, you are guilty of murder.

The intent is the same, but your punishment will be much greater in the latter case. It is debatable whether it is fair, but the result of one's action (not just the intent) has always counted in our legal system.

 

[michael99]

Hi Michael
Its seems you do not understand the laws?? Criminal law super seeds ,traffic laws !
The insurance handbook has simply nothing to do with those criminal charges !
You are mixing everything up !
And the Charter of rights super seeds criminal law ,that is the way it works in Canada you learn this in your first year of law !!!!
Hopefully you do understand that certain laws are priorities and our system of law !
If we would be talking insurance claim and no death your explanation would be valid !Witch is not the case here!!
Warmest Regards
BookerL

OK, I'll shut up.

I was looking at this more from a logical and rational point of view rather than from a purely legal point of view (where I can't argue anyway since I'm not a lawyer).
But wasn't there a comment somewhere by some legal person that in this specific case the current laws simply fail................

 

[BookerL]

OK, I'll shut up.

I was looking at this more from a logical and rational point of view rather than from a purely legal point of view (where I can't argue anyway since I'm not a lawyer).
But wasn't there a comment somewhere by some legal person that in this specific case the current laws simply fail................

Hi Michae99
And yes you are right about someone stating that in thid Case law failed !
But its in the context of criminal intent by the person charged it was done by Defense attorney Marc Labelle! ,Witch situation he might use to appeal?
No permission needs to granted to appeal a decisions between Superior Court of Quebec and Appeal Court of Quebec ,Will probably make decision after reviewing ?
Reagards all
BookerL

 

[BookerL]

Emma Czornobaj files appeal of conviction in duck-related crash

Hi all
Appeal have been filled

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...iction+duck+related+crash/10050181/story.html

Kind Regards
BookerL

 

[Halloween Mike]

honestly i think she don't deserve to be severly punished... Prison should be given to people with bad intents, not people making mistakes, even stupid ones. There was no evil intentions at all in her gesture. Maybe give her a year to make sure she understand to never do that again, but she don't deserve that much years in jail for a mistake.

 

[spacecadet]

Well I don't think it should be a reduced sentence. It's either jail time or no jail time. In my opinion, she shouldnt even spend a minute in a jail cell. Our judicial system doesnt take into consideration of if there was intent to cause bodily harm or not. It is more than obvious that were was no bad intentions on her part. Bad judgement, probably. Sending her to jail won't bring back the 2 people that died and won't rehabilitate the girl as she needs no rehabilitation. Maybe just some classes on what's allowed and what isnt while driving.
But if any of us were confronted with the same situation, what would we have done. It was a quick decision with devastating consequences. Why ruin another life,family because of it?

 

[Halloween Mike]

Jail time is not only used as rehabilitation, but as punishment. In that case, if they let her go totally free(wich i would personally agree on) , some people may get angry that 2 person died and the person responsible, even tough accidental, had no punishment for it. I know society life is a big problem. When i look at the rules of today, i realize sometimes even tough we live in probably one of the best place possible that not everything is perfect. I wish we could be allowed to deliver our own form of justice sometimes. But then again if that was allowed, people would abuse it as well...

Also in a smiliar story look at the guys from the MMA train megantic incident... Do you think that Tom Hardy and the others wanted to kill people? Of course not, but they risk time in jail for criminal negligence...

 

[kirkjonas]

I think the key word is negligence, forget about intent because thats impossible to establish in any situation. Maybe her intention was for what happen to have happened, no one will ever know that and what shes saying now is just a cover up. All we can go by is what her actions directly caused and harsh as it sounds she is getting what her actions merited.

Its also important to set and keep precedence consistent as this sends a message to the public people are culpable for their actions not their intent and if you make a stupid decision you must deal with the consequences.

 

[Halloween Mike]

Kirk i so disagree with that... Because what happened is a bad accident. If the motorcyclist was not going so fast, and watch a little bit he might have been able to stop... The thing is the law is broken in cases like that. Remember that father who killed his daughter by slapping her, and something in her brain broke out? He got 2 years... why should he get only 2 year, and he HIT her (wich result in her dying) and that women get more because she made a stupid mistake...? They said the father never intended to kill his daughter... and her neither.

 

[Merlot]

honestly i think she don't deserve to be severly punished... Prison should be given to people with bad intents, not people making mistakes, even stupid ones.

So by your reasoning that people without bad intentions, just making mistakes, even "stupid ones" should not go to prison...all those deaths resulting from drunk driving should be excused. Oh wait a minute. It's not the same because drunk drivers who never intended harm and can't think straight. unlike a sober moron who chooses to endanger all drivers in the light of day.

I'm totally at a loss to understand how anyone can suggest she get off without doing time. Every time I look over the facts I see a woman who totally failed to act responsibly and make the most basic rational safe decision to get off the road...death resulting...ie...negligent homicide. The only answer I can come up with to excuse this lack of consideration is 1) she wanted to save cute ducks, 2) she's fairly hot looking, 3) you blame the victims alone for speeding, 4) there's no consideration for the consequences to the family of the dead because you have no connection to them. Honestly, I think that if 1) she was clubbing ducks for a meal, 2) she was some dumpy broad or a guy, 3) you put the responsibility for the events evenly, 4) it was your spouse and kid on the bike...the excusers would be singing a very different song about her responsibility.

In the second scenario none of the basic factors have changed. There's no intent, the driver still made a very dangerous choice and got out for selfish reasons, the bikers were still speeding, it's still just two very real people who died no matter if they were yours or not. I don't see the sanity of letting her off no matter which way it was.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[kirkjonas]

Kirk i so disagree with that... Because what happened is a bad accident. If the motorcyclist was not going so fast, and watch a little bit he might have been able to stop... The thing is the law is broken in cases like that. Remember that father who killed his daughter by slapping her, and something in her brain broke out? He got 2 years... why should he get only 2 year, and he HIT her (wich result in her dying) and that women get more because she made a stupid mistake...? They said the father never intended to kill his daughter... and her neither.

Their both involuntary manslaughter acts in the end. In one case you have a parent either abusing or disciplining their child however you want to look at it. In another we have an adult who stops on the left lane of a highway for ducks. There does come a point where people are so stupid its criminal, case and point this woman.

I'm not disputing the fact that its an accident possibly but should that even matter? Do we want to live in a world where if murder is an accident someone should get a free pass? That's a dangerous slippery slope of what constitutes an accident and proving intent. In the end the law needs to be objective, the problem with emotion and subjective opinions is that you can argue either side and I honestly see the merit of both arguments.

I'm not removing blame from the motorcyclist who was stupidly reckless in his own right, but this accident required his recklessness and hers to occur, he's already paid the ultimate price, she should have to bear some of the responsibility and a genuine heartfelt apology isn't enough.




And bump for Merlot post, perfect example with drunk drivers as well.

 

[hungry101]

I'm not disputing the fact that its an accident possibly but should that even matter? Do we want to live in a world where if murder is an accident someone should get a free pass?

No, we live in a world where you absolutely have to find a scapegoat to pin blame on.

 

[kirkjonas]

No, we live in a world where you absolutely have to find a scapegoat to pin blame on.

True she was just an innocent bystander and we're making her a martyr and scapegoat cause she did absolutely nothing wrong right.......... Really? She's charged with criminal negligence, which is exactly what this was I don't even see where the debate is really, seems pretty straight forward cut and dry guilty.

Where I do understand there can be a debate is not about her guilt but her sentencing, of which I agree our judicial system may be ill equipped for situations like this. Is society or the victims family better served having this women spend the rest of her life "paying her debt" in prison on the tax payers dime? Probably not but like so many other archaic laws and practices we have its all we got and nothing better really exists.

Prison system in North America (more so USA) is another conversation of broken logic and practices, but I have a lot of problems with that shit show.

 

[Siocnarf]

Merlot, I don't have the answer, but I don't see how jail will turn stupid people into better people. I would think that a long period of community service where she has to take care of hospital patients or something might be more useful than just locking her in a cell for a few years. In my mind jail should only be used for people who are too dangerous to be left free.

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
There is many possibility that this file will be debated in the SCC, it is of National interest, how must criminal intent, should be interpreted by the courts
The crown did not want to negaciate a no jail plea and accused does want jail time
Whatever the Quebec Court of Appeal decides someone will be unhappy !
Warmest Regards
BookerL

 

[Halloween Mike]

So by your reasoning that people without bad intentions, just making mistakes, even "stupid ones" should not go to prison...all those deaths resulting from drunk driving should be excused. Oh wait a minute. It's not the same because drunk drivers who never intended harm and can't think straight. unlike a sober moron who chooses to endanger all drivers in the light of day.

Drunk Drivers knows very well what may happen, there so much campaigns and such, and you don't need to be a 100 watts to know when you drink your senses are altered... Hell i can't even play xbox on my full potential when i am too drunk... and its a freaking video game, so of course driving a car would be an absolute no go.

Here we are talking about a woman who stop on the wrong side... You know what? I could actually had done this mistake as well... I don't drive, but lets say i see some people in need for assistance, i could had do that, being not used too much to the driving code. This is a MISTAKE. Thats why im saying screwing her life for a mistake is not right, plan and simple. Im not saying everything should be forgiven if your intention where not to kill. But a mistake like this one,YES YES AND YES.

It was just a bunch of bad coincidence that result in death. If that would had been a car behind her, with people wearing there seat belt, it may had been just a minor accident... If the motocycliste, with HIS CHILD with him, didn't speed up too much, he could had stop or do something. I see so much motoclyste speeding up on the highway it really make me cringe... mostly speed bikes but still... its fucking dangerous.

And as Siocnarf mentioned, jail should be reserved for dangerous people mostly, the ones you can't let outside because they could do crimes again. This women had her lesson, if something just remove her driving liscence for life, she won't ever do that again, problem solved... Jail for her is stupid, and when i read she could get 20 years or something im like "WTF KIND OF A BROKEN SYSTEM WE LIVE IN". I gues she should had drink some windex after it happen....

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
How does the judicial system should look at it is more the question without emotions .
No jail time for two deaths what type of message would that be sending it might open a way for people to kill others without jail time ,A bad precedent would be set .
It is not black or white many consequences may be triggered out of this decisions how do we consider Criminal intent a car accident when no speed is involve no impaired driver ?
How should the trial judge instruct the jury ,
The laws are there so people will conduct themselves in a proper manner and so other people will not repeat the same actions .If there is no consequences to the killings what gap are they opening in the judicial system ?
Sadly for the person involve even if she is not of a criminal life style others are looking at ways to commit murders without consequences ?
Black widows do exist and organize crime and hit mans
It is a question for the Wise man and Women in the higher courts system to consider .
I much prefer in this case to be in back seat than the ones deciding because it is not only the fate of one person are at stake ?
The hole criminal system is being tested on the Criminal intent causing death ,the answer they will provide will set precedent on witch other similar cases will be judge and decided !
Warmest Regards
BookerL

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

Drunk Drivers knows very well what may happen, there so much campaigns and such, and you don't need to be a 100 watts to know when you drink your senses are altered......of course driving a car would be an absolute no go..

Here we are talking about a woman who stop on the wrong side

C'mon, how many watts does anyone need to know it's dangerous to stop in the middle of the highway, not the wrong side, during rush hours. Would that be 1...or 2. Really, how many times have you or anyone else just stopped in front of traffic. Try ZERO!!!

This was not "a mistake". A mistake is something you failed to realize, a judgment call in error, a poor choice when you did not know the answer. In this case any moron with 1 IQ point knows it's dangerous to just stop in the middle of the highway and knows it will cause risk to others. Parking in the high speed lane wasn't questionable like a mistake, it was deciding to create the danger.

...I don't see how jail will turn stupid people into better people.

There's all kinds of incredibly stupid people doing hard time. Do you suggest the doors be opened for theft, rape, murder, larceny, arson, blackmail, etc, because the criminals are stupid.

Some people have been saying, well, criminals who have done much worst got away with little time or none so you can't put this woman in prison because it would be unfair to make her pay when killers didn't. According to that line of logic we should eliminate any justice system because Al Capone and OJ Simpson got away with murder. We know there are big holes in the system so because not everyone gets there due punishment we should abandon any punishment for anyone????? Ohhhhhhhhh puuuullleeeeeze. How ridiculous!!!

The woman KNOWINGLY endangered lives and got two people killed by creating the danger. The dead father and daughter paid a very heavy price, with their lives, just for going too fast. No one has offered any credible reason why the woman shouldn't pay a little time for her part in getting them killed...certainly a much, MUCH smaller price.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Halloween Mike]

I heard she stoped on the side of the left side, not in the middle?

 

[Merlot]

Gents,

I heard she stoped on the side of the left side, not in the middle?

Okay, you misunderstood. Sorry but I'm passionately angry about lives being lost because of utterly gross stupidity.

http://wgntv.com/2014/07/07/woman-faces-life-in-prison-after-saving-ducks-on-the-highway/ "According to the Canadian Press, on June 27, 2010, 25-year-old Emma Czornobaj stopped her car in the left lane of a Montreal highway and got out to help the ducklings that were on the median." If she had pulled off to the side or into the median, where it would have made sense to protect the ducks, the father and daughter would be alive and the duck savoir wouldn't be facing prison. This is what I find inexcusable because it was the most obvious thing to do to protect her own life as well as these ducks, and not create danger to others too. Two lives...quite a high price for failing to do the most obvious and safe thing for her and the others.

:noidea:

Merlot