Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.
- Thread starter Sol Tee Nutz
- Start date
Why do you need to use your imagination and make up a hypothetical scenario? Her car didn't break down, It didn't lose power.
Even if it did, most normal people would immediately steer the car OFF the road so as not to cause an accident. Her actions were intentional and were direct result of 2 deaths.
Maybe we should blame the person who was driving the car with the trailer for not driving slower, therefore leaving the motorcyclist more time to avoid the duck ladies car?
My last post on this. This is just my opinion why she should not get jail time.
Most criminals in jail knew they were committing a crime being either a thief, drug dealer, pedophile, rapist, murderer or whatever. I do not think she knew she was committing a crime.
The other driver was not driving in a safe manner, not saying too bad for the family but it is a point.
If you put people in jail for being stupid why are the people who leave babies in hot cars ( and they die ) not in jail? Does not make this case right but just bring up a point.
Fine the hell out of her, hundreds of hours of community service and take her license away for life if you want.
If there was no accident what would have been the penalty? Jail, no. Loss of license, no. Community service, no. Huge fine, no. Probably not even a demerit off her license. Someone died and that is very tragic but a jail term would not change anything in the present or future. It was a very bad accident.
The end of " my " reasons.
Most criminals in jail knew they were committing a crime being either a thief, drug dealer, pedophile, rapist, murderer or whatever. I do not think she knew she was committing a crime.
The other driver was not driving in a safe manner, not saying too bad for the family but it is a point.
If you put people in jail for being stupid why are the people who leave babies in hot cars ( and they die ) not in jail? Does not make this case right but just bring up a point.
Fine the hell out of her, hundreds of hours of community service and take her license away for life if you want.
If there was no accident what would have been the penalty? Jail, no. Loss of license, no. Community service, no. Huge fine, no. Probably not even a demerit off her license. Someone died and that is very tragic but a jail term would not change anything in the present or future. It was a very bad accident.
The end of " my " reasons.
OMG,
She knew she was endangering lives. Danger was absolute. Some sort of bodily injury, severe injury, and/or death was practically inevitable since she did nothing to take a precaution.
In this attempted association in your scenario there was no choice, and she didn't do anything to cause it. I would not blame her for anything in that case. In reality she was the cause. I'm really surprised you don't seem to see this difference.
Tell me something, have you ever been speeding? Sure you have. So have I. How are you? Not dead yet I see. I'm not dead either, though we both have been speeding. Everyone on this board has done it. They aren't dead either. Why not. No moron broke the law by parking a car in front of us without warning.
I also take it you have not chosen to stop your car in the high speed lane without hazard lights and take in the view.
It's a ridiculous association. First, people who leave babies that die in hot cars do go to prison. It's just tough to prove intent. In the woman's case intent is not necessary because what she did was such a conscious choice of reckless endangerment, a crime of manslaughter.
You keep blaming the speed of the motorcyclist. The fact that he was going too fast probably got her out of manslaughter. THAT'S a lot. But her utterly selfish act killed the people who would not have been dead, like the rest of us and YOU who speeds, without the dangerously stopped car right in our paths.
As for her not knowing it's illegal that's BS. Everyone knows it's illegal to stop in the high speed lane of a highway.
I don't think you've looked at this case on it's facts alone. You keep bringing up unrelated extreme scenarios or crimes in an attempt to lessen her guilt, and you keep on alluding to some personal issues against criminals and what you see as light sentences as justification to excuse the full guilt in a needless death that could not have happened as it did except for her choice. I look at the case on it's merits. She made a sober very selfish choice without care or regard for human life knowing the danger.
Measuring what she should get for a sentence by comparing what others get off with is irrelevant. I look to correct the problem, not extend it by letting everyone off.
I totally agree. Using hypotheticals that have no relation to the facts is an apologists tactic.
Cheers,
Merlot
She knew she was endangering lives. Danger was absolute. Some sort of bodily injury, severe injury, and/or death was practically inevitable since she did nothing to take a precaution.
In this attempted association in your scenario there was no choice, and she didn't do anything to cause it. I would not blame her for anything in that case. In reality she was the cause. I'm really surprised you don't seem to see this difference.
Tell me something, have you ever been speeding? Sure you have. So have I. How are you? Not dead yet I see. I'm not dead either, though we both have been speeding. Everyone on this board has done it. They aren't dead either. Why not. No moron broke the law by parking a car in front of us without warning.
I also take it you have not chosen to stop your car in the high speed lane without hazard lights and take in the view.
It's a ridiculous association. First, people who leave babies that die in hot cars do go to prison. It's just tough to prove intent. In the woman's case intent is not necessary because what she did was such a conscious choice of reckless endangerment, a crime of manslaughter.
You keep blaming the speed of the motorcyclist. The fact that he was going too fast probably got her out of manslaughter. THAT'S a lot. But her utterly selfish act killed the people who would not have been dead, like the rest of us and YOU who speeds, without the dangerously stopped car right in our paths.
As for her not knowing it's illegal that's BS. Everyone knows it's illegal to stop in the high speed lane of a highway.
I don't think you've looked at this case on it's facts alone. You keep bringing up unrelated extreme scenarios or crimes in an attempt to lessen her guilt, and you keep on alluding to some personal issues against criminals and what you see as light sentences as justification to excuse the full guilt in a needless death that could not have happened as it did except for her choice. I look at the case on it's merits. She made a sober very selfish choice without care or regard for human life knowing the danger.
Measuring what she should get for a sentence by comparing what others get off with is irrelevant. I look to correct the problem, not extend it by letting everyone off.
I totally agree. Using hypotheticals that have no relation to the facts is an apologists tactic.
Cheers,
Merlot
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.
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.
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
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
Hi all
Appeal have been filled
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...iction+duck+related+crash/10050181/story.html
Kind Regards
BookerL
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.
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?
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
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
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....
Similar threads
