Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[Muammar Gaddafi]

Ten years no drivers license, a criminal record and restricted travel to some countries. She is fucked.

 

[BookerL]

Ten years no drivers license, a criminal record and restricted travel to some countries. She is fucked.

In reality you do not really need that much to be fuck .
A friend of mind this week was denied a mortgage loan because he has a pending count of assault ,which in reality never occurred!Hummmmm
Presumption of innocence applies only in Criminal court not in life



Cheers



Booker

 

[Merlot]

:noidea:

In reality you do not really need that much to be fuck .

Cheers

Booker

"Defence lawyer Marc Labelle said afterward that he does not find the prison term unreasonable, and probably won’t appeal it, but he does take issue with the driving prohibition."

Her defense lawyer clearly recognizes how extremely easily she got off...and don't forget this, she gets to live too. The two people her mindlessly insane act killed are RESTRICTED from doing anything.

The funny part of this is if a business caused an injury by some sort of neglect in a product or store area the victim could sue for many thousands. In 1994 a woman won $2.86 million only because an inadequate coffee cup was said to cause an unnecessary dangerous risk. This fool woman creates a danger that killed and she loses her license and weekends for a time.

:crazy:

Merlot

 

[michael99]

I'm somehow stuck on page 9.
When I click on page 10 or the forward arrow or the "last" button I keep ending up on page 9
What gives?

 

[Siocnarf]

In that case it's different. People can have the bad reflex of braking or swerving around an animal that is right in front of them. Someone could do it without any counscious thought; it's not the same as stopping your car in the lane to get out. I think it would be much less likely to convict someone who caused an accident for that

 

[Nebs]

Right the situation here is different. They have plenty of room to avoid the ducks despite of that, three of them did stop completely.

They were very lucky nobody get hurt, hit or killed.

Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse had a message for motorists.

'What we hope is that a clear message is sent to society that we do not stop on the highway for animals. It's not worth it,' she said.


Question:
If someone meet a moose on the road but manage to break in time but can't continu, then something bad happens like that tragedy, I guess they wont be accused, right? Same thing if its a deer. Same thing if its a bear. But what if its a goose, dog, cat, fox, wolf, sheep, ? What if I cross one of them and can't do anything else than stop completely or to hit them? Seems like I will have to crush those animal just because i don't want to be accused like that woman. I won't have much time to decide if i stop or not. Thing happens to fast. To bad for them....The law is the law and people are looking for guilty in every death.

 

[BookerL]

Question:
If someone meet a moose on the road but manage to break in time but can't continu, then something bad happens like that tragedy, I guess they wont be accused, right? Same thing if its a deer. Same thing if its a bear. But what if its a goose, dog, cat, fox, wolf, sheep, ? What if I cross one of them and can't do anything else than stop completely or to hit them? Seems like I will have to crush those animal just because i don't want to be accused like that woman. I won't have much time to decide if i stop or not. Thing happens to fast. To bad for them....The law is the law and people are looking for guilty in every death.

You are talking of very very different scenarios ,then with the duck lady .
Sadly in her situation because of her high negligence people died .
If there is a Moose on the highway everyone needs to avoid because the Moose body would destroy the car you are on board .




Cheers




Booker

 

[Nebs]

There was not a lot of room to avoid the ducks in this video,

I meant versus the situation that happened here. See the photos

Actually, now that I read the article again, the police say that if the person who stopped had caused an accident, he could face criminal charges. That rule they taught us in drivers ed about rear-ending someone being the fault of the trailing car apparently no longer applies in either the U.S.or Canada.

That's the point of my intervention in my first post. I thought laws were based on facts and actions, not from consequences. But looks like I'm wrong.

Other thing, if you drive in the center lane of an highway and someone on the other lane is suddenly changing track and getting right into your car. Don't try to avoid the collision if your not sure the other lane is free from any potential contact because if its not and you made contact, you'll be responsible. Then pray that you didn't kill anyone with that accident.

PS to any readers: If you didn't know already, reflex for breaking takes at least 1 sec before the break pedals get even touched by your feet. So the reflex of anyone is to avoid side collisions with the steering wheel.