Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[Sol Tee Nutz]

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.

 

[Siocnarf]

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''

 

[EagerBeaver]

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.

 

[jeff jones]

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.

 

[Siocnarf]

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.

 

[rocky69]

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?

 

[Merlot]

Gentlemen,

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/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-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/2014/0...car-on-highway-to-help-ducks-guilty-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?

...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

 

[EagerBeaver]

The article did not say if she activated her hazard lights. If it was done, this somewhat lessens the recklessness of her behavior.

 

[november]

She said she put her hazard lights, but the investigation said other wise.

 

[Kasey Jones]

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...

 

[Merlot]

OMG,

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.

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.

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.

:lol: Oh yeah, the rash of roadway deaths by ducklings has reached epidemic proportions. NUTS!

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.

 

[EagerBeaver]

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.

 

[EagerBeaver]

According to this some factors that could be considered at sentencing are her lack of criminal record and she was also on the Dean's List at Concordia:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...rs-when-she-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway/

The witness really killed her, however, testifying that she did not have the hazards on and she was completely reckless in her actions. If the jury believes a witness like that who has nothing to do with the victims or the accused, and is compelling in her testimony, then a defendant is dead meat. They may have known this.

I am guessing that they decided to roll the dice with the jury because the prosecutor wanted a guilty plea to a lesser charge AND jail time. In this case you are basically incentivizing the defendant to roll the dice. I have had my share of prick prosecutors who overcharged the shit out of cases. One I remember well was a greatly overcharged road rage case in which my client was offered a plea deal to one of the overcharges. I recommended requesting a speedy trial because i would then have moved to dismiss the bogus overcharge, but the client overruled me and accepted the plea deal over my advice. But no jail time was on the table for him. If 6 months was what they were looking for from this lady, she ought to have rolled the dice and taken her chances with the jury and the judge at sentencing.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Merlot, What I meant was that motorcycles are inherently more dangerous than cars and motorcycle drivers and riders assume a greater risk of death. And even motorcyclists have an obligation to be able to stop unexpectedly..

This is true. I personally have been involved with some motorcycle death cases and many of them involve excessive speed by the motorcyclist even if the other party's actions primarily caused the accident. I recall one where a pickup truck pulled out in front of the motorcyclist who was unhelmeted and racing at the leading edge of a pack of motorcyclists. These guys were going 70 MPH plus. The guy who was killed went head first into the side of the pickup truck leaving an enormous dent on the side of the truck. I (unfortunately) looked at the autopsy photos of this unfortunate young man. He essentially bled out (completely) and his skull was shattered into smithereens. Wearing a helmet would not have helped. At that speed if a car pulls out in front of you IT IS ALL OVER, you going to meet your maker. Your body is simply exposed, and at that speed, if a car unexpectedly pulls out in front of you, death is almost certain. I did one time have a client who was launched over the vehicle in the exact same situation and landed in the road 35 feet away with a torn rotator cuff as his only serious injury. His shoulder took the hard landing. But he was only going 35-40 mph and had a fortuitous landing.

I recall another case involving my client pulling out of a driveway in front of a motorcyclist who was rounding a turn. This one was lower speed and motorcyclist lived. He chose to put the bike into a slide and ended up with severe road rash on his ass and a broken ankle when he slid into my client's vehicle. A second motorcyclist came around the turn a split second later, saw the 1st guy go down and then went into the other lane and avoided hitting my client's car, fortunately no cars in other lane. I used the second motorcyclist's successful evasive action as a defense to the claim of the injured cyclist, but that did not work out too well. Remember that when you do defense work you have to argue something.

 

[b_cup_lover]

According to this some factors that could be considered at sentencing is her lack of criminal record and she was also on the Dean's List at Concordia

So making the Dean's list grants you the right to act stupid.

Sorry but you just don't stop your car on an highway left lane, period!

 

[EagerBeaver]

So making the Dean's list grants you the right to act stupid.

It gets no consideration on liability - but it does on sentencing. Read what is posted! Liability has already been determined in this case. We are now on to sentencing.

 

[Merlot]

Patron,

Okay, but your previous post doesn't read with much if any sympathy for the dead. Sorry, I'll let up on it. But when it sounds like people are taking a death lightly, especially in situation where some person created a very dangerous condition that caused two deaths because of what...cutesy ducklings, doesn't it also sound like animal rights publications, shows and movies are doing the same thing to people you say the media is doing with the law.

If she had just done it in a reasonably safe way the people would be alive, a young girl and her father. Okay so dad was speeding. He was on a motorcycle, a fact that means nothing regarding anyone else's legal responsibility to use the road. It also doesn't mean he's at fault if some fool gets excited about cutesy ducks and illegally stops leaving a deadly barrier like a car in the high speed lane with no signals and the door open? This isn't about rehabilitation. It's about what you get when you chose to make a very dangerous sober choice with death resulting. As I said I'd go 7 to 12 years, but I bet she gets 3 to 5.

Okay, back to my Canard a la Presse. Oh waiter, I'll take seconds. Just funnin...quack quack.



Merlot

 

[Kasey Jones]

But Shit Happens, even Bad Shit, and the criminal justice system will not eliminate tragedies by putting people like her in jail. There has to be criminal intent in any reasonable criminal justice system.

So if I'm doing 80km/h in a school zone and run over a little kid its all cool because I didn't actually mean to run anyone over? I was just in a hurry?

You do realize that it is illegal to immobilize your car on a highway without cause? (Sorry, ducks don't count... A deer or a moose would because you would be in physical danger if you hit one.) Its not a bloody parking lot... The guy on the bike can have no reasonable expectation of an immobilized car on the highway.

Good riddance to this dumb ass. She deserves whatever she gets and more.

 

[HornyForEver]

I simply find that our media exploitation of the criminal justice system seduces prosecutors into bringing charges against those who do not have criminal intent, because the prosecutor gets to try a highly publicized case and gets to be on TV and might get a more lucrative job later at a law firm that would not have hired him or her out of law school.

Very well said. A few years ago, an ambitious young prosecutor has ruined the life of many innocent people in a French town, accusing them of Pedophilia. Pedophilia was the talk of the country in late 90s and early 00s in France. Investigation ultimately showed that these people were innocent. This mother f..ing prosecutor should have been arrested for destroying so many peoples' lives. But nothing of that happened. I smell a stinky carreer plan in this case too.

 

[Kasey Jones]

I smell a stinky carreer plan in this case too.

And you base this on what? Do you know anything about the prosecutor? Maybe he is just doing his job prosecuting someone who was criminally negligent in her actions. The jury seems to have agreed.