Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[Merlot]

Hello all,

It is not solely about her criminal intent...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vehicular+manslaughter

Yes, I have to point out that using the mindset of intent as an escape for legal criminal responsibility does not hold water. The offense of Vehicular Manslaughter is dependent on gross negligence and illegal driving.

IMHO, I respectfully disagree.

As I said, "intent" is not required for a serious crime in cases where death(s) results. The main questions for me are:

1) Was the woman grossly negligent in the operation of her vehicle??? Yes, anyone in this world knows simply stopping in the high speed lane with traffic and failing to turn on danger signals while leaving the door open is very dangerous. People still get killed pulling over to the side of the road and setting up warning indicators. Police get killed at the side of the road with their flashing lights on. How much worse can any reasonable person presume automatically about the greater danger of being in the middle of the road if going off to the side can be deadly. There is no lucid person who doesn't know that the act of leaving a car stopped in the middle of the highway with no warning is putting the lives of themselves and everyone else at risk.

2) Did she handle the situation illegally??? No question here. She knew the law, never mind the insanity of doing such a thing. Remember, it wasn't a matter of not having options as if the car had broken down and stopped. She could have pulled over off the road (probably to either side) or she could have gone to the next exit and turned around then pulled off to get the ducks. She made a conscious choice to commit a knowingly illegal act, death resulting.

At the very least she is guilty of Reckless Endangerment:

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Reckless_Endangerment

Reckless Endangerment is a criminal offense in which an individual recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or grievous bodily harm to another individual. Neither death nor grievous bodily harm actually have to have been inflicted on another person for reckless endangerment to be proven. The term reckless is seen as a blatant disregard of foreseeable consequences to other individuals.

Yeah, it's pretty damn obvious that stopping in the high speed lane of a highway and failing to use signals or any caution creates a "substantial risk of death or grievous bodily injury". The typical sentence for this would be a minimum of 6 months.

Lack of criminal intent doesn't mean shit.

If I'm playing with a loaded gun and shoot my son accidentally, that's a crime. If I forget my baby in a closed car and the baby dies of suffocation, that's a crime too. This girl was criminally negligent. I agree with EB. Depending on whether she activated the hazard lights, this lady should get anywhere from a few months to a few years. Let her care about all the rats/insects in the prison. Personally, I think 6 months + community service + life time ban on driving should be enough.

I agree completely. What's the principle you guys who think she should go free are setting up? Anyone can stop in the middle of the highway to take a coffee break, read a map, change diapers, see ducks, collect flowers, admire the view, take a piss...anything without using any caution or signals for others...and if anyone gets killed because of it it's just SHIT HAPPENS as someone said. Of course if it's your mother, spouse, or child that gets killed your dismissive principle dies with them. It's a ridiculously unsupportable position.

She engaged in a recklessly dangerous illegal act where the consequences and probabilities were 100% foreseeable, more negligent because she didn't use any precautions by the gross misplacement of her vehicle death resulting. This meets the definition of Vehicular Manslaughter to a high degree. The absence of intent only mollifies the level of guilt. She should do time...3 to 5 years or more.

BTW: I knew a guy who got run down in a parking lot right in front of his family by two drunk young adult girls just as he was getting out of the car and dragged under the vehicle. There was no intent. The driver got 15 years. SCREW HER!

:thumb:

Merlot

 

[gan]

http://9to5.cc/i-was-a-juror-for-emma-czernobajs-trial/


Audio interview of one of the jurors of the trial. Quite long but does explain more details for those who are interested. He said that the opinion of the expert witness was that the motorcyclist was distracted by the defendant walking on the highway.

So in addition to the stopped car, the fact that she got out of it and was walking on the highway which lead to the motorcyclist being distracted was also a factor that the jury considered.

 

[PSEfreak]

I remember a while back seeing a short clip on how motorists tend to focus on object on the side of the road and in some cases start to steer in that direction (ever so slightly) without knowing it.

This girl made a dangerous situation worse.

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
In Canadian Criminal law same crime can produce different results (verdicts )
Many things are to be considered
Such as rules of evidence ,admissibility or not
Credibility of witness
Expert witnesses
The prosecution as the onus of proof, while the defendant as presumption of innocence until proven guilty !
The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

Lack of criminal intent doesn't mean shit.
If I'm playing with a loaded gun and shoot my son accidentally, that's a crime. If I forget my baby in a closed car and the baby dies of suffocation, that's a crime too.

The law is also in constant evolution or some will say devolution ! It doesn't stand still ! The new bill C-36 is showing it right now !
New Courts decision or jurisprudence or precedents or also in constant movement the successful challenge of the old prostitution law is there to remind it .
If all similar crimes would have equal endings the court system would no longer be necessary, we would live in a "judge Dredd" era Police,judge and executioner !! Bye Bye escorting ????
But luckily even if we charge with a crime such as this one ,we still have the possibility of a defense,to be represented by a lawyer . And to be judge by a impartial tribunal also the right to be heard by a jury of her peers!
What we know from many court cases is hearsay second,third hand and more information diluted, interpreted by the medias the reporters ..... !!
Even in cases where I was personally involve it was difficult to make the right assessment until I had received the disclosure of the evidence.
Is there a difference between what is said and what we understand ?
Even if that young lady did not live a life of crimes ,the actions or non action for which she was charge are criminal !!!!
Sentencing recommendations by the crown attorney and the defense lawyer ,the applicable law and obviously other court precedents are all weighed factors for the is Honor the Judge !

Oh yeah, the jury seems to have agreed. What are the qualifications of the members of this jury? Juries is something that I fail to understand in this North American "justice" system. Obviously, the jury is always the weekness of this whole system.

In Canada the accused can be tried by judge alone or and it is also is right for trial by jury in those types of cases !
Is it more difficult for the crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people or just the one Judge ?????
Reading your statement you would have selected a judge trial ?????
Is there any better way ????

And then the appeal process !!!
Where there is no right to appeal, permission or "leave" to appeal must be sought.
Between Superior Court of Quebec and Court of appeal no permission is required !!!
Artical from the Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...rges+duck+linked+collision/9958641/story.html

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

After reading the many posts I can see where some jail time is warranted. Sucks to be her but I guess she did a major fuck up...

 

[Doggyluver]

Only in America.......the free ! Anyone who would stop to save some ducks is suffering as a result of the deaths that were caused, she will pay a hefty psychological price for the rest of her life, that is enough for anyone. Jail time is NOT warrented here.

 

[charmer_]

Only in America.......the free ! Anyone who would stop to save some ducks is suffering as a result of the deaths that were caused, she will pay a hefty psychological price for the rest of her life, that is enough for anyone. Jail time is NOT warrented here.

Just remember that while she's able to walk away from this alive, two others aren't. She definitely should do at least some time for this.

 

[michael99]

I just listened to the podcast of one of the jurors.
Rather lengthy but a few interesting points came out of that.
1. The motor cyclist was speeding, going anywhere between 109 and 129 km/h
2. On top of that he was distracted and not watching the road even at that sped - only started to brake 7 meters or so from the car.
3. A lady who was driving ahead of him with a trailer managed to avoid the stopped car by swerving - if the motorcyclist had paid attention or was going slower he should have been easily able to do the same thing.
4. Wife on second motorcycle behind him managed to stop
5. Highway design itself is very poor as are many highways in Quebec. The left shoulder was only about 70cm wide; a shoulder should always be wide enough to be able to stop a car there without infringing in the driving lanes

Emma stopping on the highway for ducks was not a very smart move, no question about that, but based on the above facts quoted by the juror, the motorcycle driver has to assume at least some of the blame. If he had driven at the speed limit and/or had passed attention to the road, he should have been able to avoid hitting the car the same way as the lady driver, with a trailer no less, managed to do just before him.

The way I see it after listening to the podcast.

BTW - Basic determination of fault for insurance purposes in accident situations - if you hit someone from behind you are automatically at fault.
Also relates to the fact posted at the beginning of this thread that one has to be in full control of their vehicle at all times and be able to stop if required.
And there was no "blind curve" as some media reported.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

...she will pay a hefty psychological price for the rest of her life...

This is a very logical and almost certain presumption for people who have some normal caring humanity, which I think the posters in this thread do. And still, I look at the dismissive attitude towards the deaths of two people in this thread because...they were riding a perfectly legally motorcycle...going too fast...or the woman was just trying to save some (key in the awe shucks music) cutesy cuddly darling baby ducks...and their deaths are only part of "shit happens."

Then I think about my own experiences with an addicted animal lover, the one who goes on ice flows in Hudson's Bay in mid-winter to pet seals. Over years we had many discussions and agreed on many things. But when it came to human harm, injury, and deaths due to animals she always sided with the animals regardless of the any fact no matter how egregious against the animal. Sure the woman in this case will suffer, but maybe not in the way or nearly to the extent you think.

On the other hand whatever suffering the guilty woman might endure...all of her life...many seem to be unaware of the more certain suffering of the widow who has lost her husband and her child, and the widowed wife is just the first of the rest of the many family relations who will suffer just as much.

So this animal lover who got two people killed will suffer for life? Are you sure she isn't giving herself the same excuses to dodge responsibility some of you have given her? Are you sure she really connects to people more than cute animals? If she does suffer as much as some claim she will, does that really make up for the suffering of the widow and all the families connected to the dead???

The guilty woman's feelings cannot make up for the loss and heartbreak done to all those family members who feel the loss. In my view her feelings are are a non-issue, otherwise let out from prison all those who irresponsibly killed people without intent because they just...feel bad about it.

2. On top of that he was distracted and not watching the road even at that sped - only started to brake 7 meters or so from the car.
3. A lady who was driving ahead of him with a trailer managed to avoid the stopped car by swerving - if the motorcyclist had paid attention or was going slower he should have been easily able to do the same thing.
4. Wife on second motorcycle behind him managed to stop

So he was distracted BY THE DUCK LADY...and his view would have been blocked by the trailer, both explaining why he began to stop so late.

He was going 67 to 80 MPH? Do you know how many people pass me when I'm driving around 70 as I approach Montreal. A lot. How many of you drive near or at 80. I've seen you guys write about how you scheme to do that and get away with it. So if you get killed at that speed because of a lady like this...it's your fault huh?

Emma stopping on the highway for ducks was not a very smart move,

Again what is it in people's heads that allows them to forget the ease of just pulling off to the side of the road. I'm stupefied by the NONSENSE that implies she had to stop in the middle of highway traffic right near a merge with another highway which is more dangerous. "NOT VERY SMART". IT WAS RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT! OMG!

The wife saw her husband and daughter get killed right in front of her and some think the duck lady's suffering will make up for THAT?

Pfffffssssst,

Merlot

 

[rocky69]

Merlot,

I am sure that the woman who lost her daughter and husband will suffer her losses for a very long time, but there is nothing that will take away that suffering. Not even having the woman who was convicted got to jail. She has been quoted that she doesn't want anyone to suffer any more harm. I believe she is referring to the woman who was convicted. I think what this woman did was absolutely dangerous and blatantly stupid. However, the question I have is what will jail time accomplish? I think the person who was convicted should do some community service, a long time on probation and should never be allowed operate a motor vehicle ever again.

I agree with you that she should not have stopped to try and save the ducks, considering that it was not safe to stop. As a matter of fact it was extremely dangerous to stop.

It is now going to be up to the judge to decide the punishment that she will get. I am certain that the judge will take a lot into consideration.

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
Mixing Criminal law with emotions makes just more complicated?
But its human!
2 Deads on many lives ruined ?

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

The guy who cut off the persons head on a greyhound bus in 2008 is out already ( insanity plea ) so hopefully this person will get less than a year. Our judicial system really sucks.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/sentencin...d-sexually-assaulting-confined-100057527.html

If this prick only got 2 years the duck lady should get way less.

 

[michael99]

So he was distracted BY THE DUCK LADY...and his view would have been blocked by the trailer, both explaining why he began to stop so late.

Something similar happened to me many years ago when the Montreal to Ottawa road was still only two lanes, one in each direction.
Car in front of me suddenly and without warning swerved to the right onto the shoulder going about 70 mph and then I saw a car coming at me at about that same speed in my lane (that car was passing a steady stream of cars in the oncoming lane)
I managed to get my car out of the way onto the shoulder on time, the cyclist should have been able to do the same if he had paid attention to the road and not the "Duck Lady"
Actually do it easily since the car was not coming at him and a bike is a lot more agile than a car when it comes to avoidance maneuvers.

He was going 67 to 80 MPH? Do you know how many people pass me when I'm driving around 70 as I approach Montreal. A lot. How many of you drive near or at 80. I've seen you guys write about how you scheme to do that and get away with it. So if you get killed at that speed because of a lady like this...it's your fault huh?

I never said it was all his fault but after listening to the "facts" quoted by the juror he was partially responsible.

 

[gan]

Michael, the juror clearly mentioned that there were 4 charges.
2 charges for each person dead.

1. Criminal negligence resulting in death
2. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death.

The fact that she stopped the car in the left lane for no good reason justifies charge 2.
The fact that she got out of the car and walked on the highway which distracted the motorcyclist is charge 1.

BTW, he also mentioned that for the motorcyclist's speeding to be considered a factor, it had to be extraordinarily high. The expert witness - crash re-constructionist - narrowed down the likely speed of the motorcyclist between 109-115 kmph. This was not challenged by the defense lawyer. 109-115 kmph is not extra ordinarily high speed.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this.

Was the motorcyclist speeding and thus at fault? Yes.
Was Emma at fault? Yes.
Was the motorcyclist's daughter who was sitting behind him at fault? No.
Was the motorcyclist's wife at fault? Partially, for letting her husband break the speed limit.

Pain/punishment received by the persons involved.

Motorcyclist : Dead on the spot due to direct impact with the car.
Motorcyclist's daughter : Dead because of getting crushed under the car. A particularly gruesome way to die considering she was not at fault. Such is life. For most people, it is not fair. And for many others, it doesn't even end fairly.
Motorcyclist's wife: Life of long pain of witnessing loved ones die in front of her eyes and dealing with their early death. Will probably be never able to form loving romantic relationships again. Will probably be never able to drive again.
Emma : A few months to a few years in jail. Feelings of guilt and remorse. Will not be able to get a good job. Will not be allowed to drive again.

I think Emma is very lucky. Considering how much of this was her fault,, she is going to get a pretty good deal either way.

 

[BookerL]

1. Criminal negligence resulting in death
2. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death.

Emma : A few months to a few years in jail. Feelings of guilt and remorse. Will not be able to get a good job. Will not be allowed to drive again.
.

Hi all
A very well structured exposer compliments gan!!
However is does leaves many door open for questioning ?

Feelings of guilt and remorse

Does a person who pleads not guilty too

1. Criminal negligence resulting in death
2. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death.

Can really feel guilt ? Or tries to negotiate a lesser charge with the Crown prosecutor and Police to avoid consequences of there act really feels guilt ?

Will not be able to get a good job

This is consequences of having a Criminal record its not reserved for her !!

Will not be allowed to drive again.
.

Are roads really safe with people doing dangerous operations ?Lets not forget the result

death.

of two criminally innocent victims!

Emma : A few months to a few years in jail

What ever or sentence maybe ?Months or years?
The deceased are gone forever !

I think Emma is very lucky.

Dictionary definition of Luck if you are interested in the meaning
luck·y1 [luhk-ee] Show IPA
adjective, luck·i·er, luck·i·est.
1.
having or marked by good luck; fortunate: That was my lucky day.
2.
happening fortunately: a lucky accident.
3.
bringing or foretelling good luck, or supposed to do so: a lucky penny.
Origin:
1495–1505; luck + -y1

Related forms
luck·i·ness, noun

Synonyms
1. favored. See fortunate. 3. auspicious, propitious, favorable.

Antonyms
1. unfortunate.
The antonym is unfortunate doesn't describe better Emma situation?
Regards all
BookerL

 

[gan]

I said she is lucky because the punishment she is going to receive in comparison to her contribution in causing the accident is nowhere near to the punishment other persons involved in this accident received for their relative contribution in the accident.

 

[BookerL]

I said she is lucky because the punishment she is going to receive in comparison to her contribution in causing the accident is nowhere near to the punishment other persons involved in this accident received for their relative contribution in the accident.

Hi gan
A word is used to vehicle a idea !
Emma herself would the best person to answer the choice of word ? She must definitely feel very lucky right now ?
I guess you would too being in the same situation?
The rest of my posting doesn't seem relevant since you did not rebutt ?Or you are admitting the rest ?
Regards
BookerL

 

[gan]

lol man..i just type out what comes to mymind.. u made good points abt tat guilty feeling thing. rest i don't know. didn't quite understannd.

 

[BookerL]

Ok thanks gan
Don't want to be to formal just informative !!
Regards
BookerL

 

[michael99]

Michael, the juror clearly mentioned that there were 4 charges.
2 charges for each person dead.

1. Criminal negligence resulting in death
2. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death.

The fact that she stopped the car in the left lane for no good reason justifies charge 2.
The fact that she got out of the car and walked on the highway which distracted the motorcyclist is charge 1.

BTW, he also mentioned that for the motorcyclist's speeding to be considered a factor, it had to be extraordinarily high. The expert witness - crash re-constructionist - narrowed down the likely speed of the motorcyclist between 109-115 kph. This was not challenged by the defense lawyer. 109-115 kph is not extra ordinarily high speed.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this.

Was the motorcyclist speeding and thus at fault? Yes.
Was Emma at fault? Yes.
Was the motorcyclist's daughter who was sitting behind him at fault? No.
Was the motorcyclist's wife at fault? Partially, for letting her husband break the speed limit.

gan,

What you write is technically correct IMHO, well except for the very last part...I wouldn't attribute any fault at all to the cyclist's wife, not even a partial one.
She had no control of howe fast her husband was going or that he broke the speed limit.

But if you look at the overall picture, the lady with the trailer was able to avooid the stopped car, so was the cyclist's wife travelling at the same speed as the husband right behind him.
The very short skid marks of the husband's cycle, 7 meters something if recall correctly vs tens of meters for the wife's skid marks, makes it pretty clear that the husband's distraction played a major role in what happened and contributed to his and his daughter's death.
I don't see how one can blame Emma for that part - there are distractions on the highway all the time causing accidents and nobody can use that as a defense...like, oh, was distracted by that hitchiker standing by the side of the road and slammed into the car in front of me...

I was actually surprised by the comment that the speed would have to be excessive to be taken into consideration.
What exactly is "excessive"?
I assume the speed limit of the road was 100 kph but since it was close to an interchange it could also have been less.
In any case, it sounds as if the judge is rewriting traffic laws
One could even argue had the cyclist gone 15 kph slower he would have either hit the car with much less force (kinetic energy varies with the square of the speed) which would have caused the car to roll a much shorter distance and thus maybe not have crushed the girl or even give the cyclists the split second required to avoid the stopped car.
With the data collected at the accident scene it would have been easy to calculate several scenarios to determine the potential outcome had the cyclist been travelling at or below the speed limit.