Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[Kasey Jones]

it would make our highways safer for the amount of time she is in jail...


how anybody could think this dumbass doesn't deserve jail time is beyond me... I travel that stretch of highway often and there really is nowhere to go when you come upon a car parked in the left hand lane for no reason.



oh... and the blaming the victim is pretty pathetic as well... Would we be having a discussion about her mini-skirt being too short after she got raped?

 

[gan]

Lose drivers license for 2 years

Surely you are joking Mr. Nutz.

If after all this, if she ever gets to drive again, I would lose hope in humans.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I think she should serve 4-6 months. What is being forgotten in this thread is the deterrence rationale in criminal justice. It is not all about the facts of the case. Since liability for the crime has been established, deterrence looks at punishment as a means of sending a message to would be violators. The next person who sees ducks crossing the road and thinks about stopping the car is going to say, "hell no! I ain't going to fucking jail!" and run the fucking ducks right over. On the other hand, no jail time may send the message that "hey, I can stop and help those poor, poor little duckies, worse case scenario if someone gets hurt, I still won't go to jail." The sentencing judge can never forget that any sentence not only has to be fair to the defendant and the victim or victim's family, but also serve the larger objective of deterring the conduct that has been criminalized and for which the defendant was convicted.

You learn all this in 1st year criminal law class.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

On the other hand, no jail time may send the message that "hey, I can stop and help those poor, poor little duckies, worse case scenario if someone gets hurt, I still won't go to jail." The sentencing judge can never forget that any sentence not only has to be fair to the defendant and the victim or victim's family, but also serve the larger objective of deterring the conduct that has been criminalized and for which the defendant was convicted.

Kind of a good point but if that was the case should we not put pedophiles in jail for 20 years, rapists 20 years ( both in general population, they should be dead in 20 days then ), terrorists well just fucking shoot them, hard drug dealer to kids 20 years.... You get the idea. Fuck, someone who recently was involved with the kidnapping of a 8 year old boy and raped him over a long period of time just got sentenced 2 years and he did have criminal intent.
Just want to add, she had no criminal intent to hurt anyone when this happened, she just did a really stupid move.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Surely you are joking Mr. Nutz.

If after all this, if she ever gets to drive again, I would lose hope in humans.

I was just throwing numbers out but all the combined would be plenty. There are far worse drivers out there, many with DUI ( repeated, one day they may kill someone ) and they get to drive again.

 

[Merlot]

Unbelievable,

Kind of a good point but if that was the case should we not put pedophiles in jail for 20 years, rapists 20 years ( both in general population, they should be dead in 20 days then ), terrorists well just fucking shoot them, hard drug dealer to kids 20 years.... You get the idea. Fuck, someone who recently was involved with the kidnapping of a 8 year old boy and raped him over a long period of time just got sentenced 2 years and he did have criminal intent.
Just want to add, she had no criminal intent to hurt anyone when this happened,...

You say she had no intent to hurt then you compare her crime to vicious inhuman animals with full intent to be savage. That's quite a gross contradiction that doesn't make sense regarding your view she had no intent. A proper comparison would be others who have no intention to harm like drunk drivers who kill defined legally as vehicular manslaughter. Here are the penalties in all 50 states for those who KILL without intent. http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Overview.pdf If you read the specifics they all require years when death results.

she just did a really stupid move.

What I find disturbing is:

You are treating this woman like an idiot. An idiot who knew nothing of the law and had no intelligence at all to realize the danger of what she was doing.

You devalue the death of the father and daughter as no more than a "stupid move". It's just a "stupid move" that two people lost their lives in a brutal way inferring the woman had no way of knowing stopping in the high speed lane or on the highway at all was dangerous.

You forget the reason for this tragedy, chasing ducklings on the highway, as if that somehow could ever make these deaths less tragic.

You concentrate 99% of your arguments on anything that excuses this woman from serving time in prison...and offer nothing about paying for the crime leading to the deaths of innocent people...except her poor guilty conscience. "Emma" wanted to save ducklings but killed two people. Is that how you balance lives? Justice? With a guilty conscience! OMG!

Oh right, she'll suffer the pain of what she did to two people she didn't know and didn't care about. That's fair in comparison to the mother's loss of a husband and daughter? Fair to the family? Oh yeah, let all the drunk driving killers out too because they had no intent and suffer so much for what they did. Right....have a drink.



Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

You are treating this woman like and idiot. An idiot who knew nothing of the law and had no intelligence at all to realize the danger of what she was doing.

It's the new rule in Canada. Women are not legally competent to make decisions and cannot be held accountable for participating in an illegal activity. She probably had an abusive man who beat her if she did not collect enough ducks every day.

 

[anon_vlad]

She probably had an abusive man who beat her if she did not collect enough ducks every day.

Absolutely hilarious! I nominate this as the funniest line of the year so far.

 

[BookerL]

Are we so more civilized now then before ? Our governing laws are they adapted?

Kind of a good point but if that was the case should we not put pedophiles in jail for 20 years, rapists 20 years ( both in general population, they should be dead in 20 days then ), terrorists well just fucking shoot them, hard drug dealer to kids 20 years.... You get the idea. Fuck, someone who recently was involved with the kidnapping of a 8 year old boy and raped him over a long period of time just got sentenced 2 years and he did have criminal intent.
Just want to add, she had no criminal intent to hurt anyone when this happened, she just did a really stupid move.

Yes if the idea is to have right punishment for a criminal act with intent !
What about the ones without intent our system of law and precedence still punishes the individual like the duck lady !
Far long ago there was a special treatment for the people committing manslaughter here is the law
I quote
Cities of Refuge Deuteronomy 4:41
41Then Moses set apart three cities across the Jordan to the east, 42that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live: 43Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites.
Deuteronomy 4:42
to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if they had unintentionally killed a neighbor without malice aforethought. They could flee into one of these cities and save their life.
This is part of History where they more civilized or are we ?

deterrence looks at punishment as a means of sending a message to would be violators. The next person who sees ducks crossing the road and thinks about stopping the car is going to say, "hell no! I ain't going to fucking jail!" and run the fucking ducks right over. On the other hand, no jail time may send the message that "hey, I can stop and help those poor, poor little duckies, worse case scenario if someone gets hurt, I still won't go to jail." The sentencing judge can never forget that any sentence not only has to be fair to the defendant and the victim or victim's family, but also serve the larger objective of deterring the conduct that has been criminalized and for which the defendant was convicted.

You learn all this in 1st year criminal law class.

The message ! So important for dissuasive purposes !!!
After sentencing if there is no appeal but it looks more probable there will be here a comment from Criminal Lawyer representing the defendant !Labelle may file an appeal, considering that usually criminal negligence convictions involve elements of criminal intent on the part of the convict, he told reporters after the verdict was delivered.

“This was not a race. This was not a person who took a chance and drove drunk. This is not about someone who was speeding and took a risky maneuver,” Labelle told reporters.
And the link to the article
http://rt.com/news/167644-canada-duckling-motorist-sentence/,
After conviction when there is jail time ,there is in Canada Parole Board of Canada
http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/index-eng.shtml
Rehabilitation is also required for people serving time many questions? not necessarily easy and simple answers !!
Regards all
BookerL

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Unbelievable,
You say she had no intent to hurt then you compare her crime to vicious inhuman animals with full intent to be savage. That's quite a gross contradiction that doesn't make sense regarding your view she had no intent. A proper comparison would be others who have no intention to harm like drunk drivers who kill defined legally as vehicular manslaughter. Here are the penalties in all 50 states for those who KILL without intent. http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Overview.pdf If you read the specifics they all require years when death results.

What I find disturbing is:
You are treating this woman like an idiot. An idiot who knew nothing of the law and had no intelligence at all to realize the danger of what she was doing.

You devalue the death of the father and daughter as no more than a "stupid move". It's just a "stupid move" that two people lost their lives in a brutal way inferring the woman had no way of knowing stopping in the high speed lane or on the highway at all was dangerous.

You forget the reason for this tragedy, chasing ducklings on the highway, as if that somehow could ever make these deaths less tragic.

You concentrate 99% of your arguments on anything that excuses this woman from serving time in prison...and offer nothing about paying for the crime leading to the deaths of innocent people...except her poor guilty conscience. "Emma" wanted to save ducklings but killed two people. Is that how you balance lives? Justice? With a guilty conscience! OMG!

Oh right, she'll suffer the pain of what she did to two people she didn't know and didn't care about. That's fair in comparison to the mother's loss of a husband and daughter? Fair to the family? Oh yeah, let all the drunk driving killers out too because they had no intent and suffer so much for what they did. Right....have a drink.



Merlot

For your first paragraph, you did not understand what I was trying to get across. I agreed that jail time in offences would deter persons from committing a crime so why not increase time for rapists etc.... meant nothing more in that statement, sorry you took it the wrong way, not my intent.
For the rest of it... I do not even put the ducks into the equation...... She stopped in a stupid spot on the hwy, a person was speeding 30% or more and hits her from behind and eyes not on task ( brakes 7 meters from impact ). If there is an accident in the city or on the hwy and a car rear ends someone it is the fault of the car in the back as you are " supposed to have enough room in front of you in case of an emergency "
Lets say you are driving in a city and ahead of the car in front of you a dog runs out ( ugly mutt so cute ducks can not be mentioned ) the car in front of you slams on the brakes and you hit the person from behind, who is at fault?
YOU.
I do not really care that people speed all the time and people follow too close all the time, that does not make it right.

 

[michael99]

"Emma" wanted to save ducklings but killed two people. Is that how you balance lives? Justice? With a guilty conscience! OMG!

Come on now.............
You make it sound as if Emma stood there thinking.......should I save the ducklings or two people.................
...and she decided to save the ducklings

 

[michael99]

Lets say you are driving in a city and ahead of the car in front of you a dog runs out ( ugly mutt so cute ducks can not be mentioned ) the car in front of you slams on the brakes and you hit the person from behind, who is at fault?
YOU.

I'm surprised that this didn't come up during the trial - at least the juror who commented on it didn't mention it.
With the "no-fault" laws in Canada, when an accident occurs and you get hit from behind (or either of the back quarters) you are always automatically at fault - either 100% or another large percentage based on the circumstances. All spelled out in nitty, gritty detail in the insurance handbook.

 

[BookerL]

I'm surprised that this didn't come up during the trial - at least the juror who commented on it didn't mention it.
With the "no-fault" laws in Canada, when an accident occurs and you get hit from behind (or either of the back quarters) you are always automatically at fault - either 100% or another large percentage based on the circumstances. All spelled out in nitty, gritty detail in the insurance handbook.

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

 

[EagerBeaver]

No Fault is a civil law, in the jurisdictions which have it. We had No Fault in Connecticut until 1993, when it was repealed due to the political power of the CTLA (Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association). It has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law, it has to do with insurance paying for the consequences of accidents (personal injuries or property damages) regardless of negligence or fault.

New York and Quebec are both No Fault jurisdictions. Connecticut is not. In Connecticut there is a system of modified comparative negligence in which the parties' negligence is apportioned although the plaintiff may not be more than 50% negligent or else is barred from recovering. Insurance companies often use "intercompany" arbitrations to determine payments on property damage, whereby a % of negligence is assigned by an arbitrator based on an assessment of police reports, statements of the parties, photographs, and whatever other evidence is submitted.

No Fault has absolutely no bearing on criminal justice or the criminal penal code. Criminal penal codes and insurance laws are separate animals. When I mentioned "comparative negligence" earlier in this thread that is typically a civil law concept and defense, that occasionally is used in criminal sentencing, but not necessarily using that same name or terminology.

 

[EagerBeaver]

By the way, regarding rear-end accidents: most jurisdictions, probably including Quebec, have a traffic law (not a criminal statute!) requiring drivers to keep a reasonable distance apart. Here is Connecticut's statute- note it is an infraction, and it's violation is typically pled in civil complaints:

Sec. 14-240. Vehicles to be driven reasonable distance apart.

(a) No driver of a motor vehicle shall follow another vehicle more
closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the speed of such
vehicles, the traffic upon and the condition of the highway and weather
conditions.

(b) No person shall drive a vehicle in such proximity to another vehicle
as to obstruct or impede traffic.

(c) Motor vehicles being driven upon any highway in a caravan shall be so
operated as to allow sufficient space between such vehicles or combination
of vehicles to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy such space
without danger. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to
funeral processions or to motor vehicles under official escort or traveling
under a special permit.

(d) Violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be an
infraction, provided any person operating a commercial vehicle combination
in violation of any such provision shall have committed a violation and
shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one hundred
fifty dollars.

 

[BookerL]

Hi all
Hi EB
Very nice to hear from a lawyer ,the application of no fault ,hope it will end the confusions !
Thanks
Warmest Regards
BookerL

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

She probably had an abusive man who beat her if she did not collect enough ducks every day.

Luv it. We jump to the conclusion she wanted to save the ducklings. But for what? Duck Stew? Not everyone is an animal lover in the same way.

For the rest of it... I do not even put the ducks into the equation...... She stopped in a stupid spot on the hwy...

"A stupid spot"..."A STUPID SPOT"??????????

You say you don't put the ducks into the equation. Okay, let's do that. No ducks. Now she just stopped in the high speed lane of the highway. How many times have you ever considered just stopping like that? Never? How many times have you heard of anyone considering that, or doing that? Never? But why not? "A stupid spot". It isn't done because it's extremely dangerous and insane...yet you're dismissive of the choice by calling it just a "stupid spot".

If anyone told you to just stop in the highway without using any precautions you'd either tell them where to go without thinking about it...or...tell them try it yourself if you're that NUTS!.

You are still treating her like a brainless idiot who had no clue about the danger. At the very least survival instinct should have told her how dangerous it was. Experience should have impressed upon her the danger 100 fold. Yet you treat her like she is from Mars and never heard how dangerous stopping a car in traffic is even though she was driving one.

..."supposed to have enough room in front of you in case of an emergency "
Lets say you are driving in a city and ahead of the car in front of you a dog runs out ( ugly mutt so cute ducks can not be mentioned ) the car in front of you slams on the brakes and you hit the person from behind, who is at fault?
YOU.

I'm surprised that this didn't come up during the trial...

It didn't come up because it has nothing to do with the facts. The scenario has no relation to what she did. The car in front in your story is dealing with a sudden unexpected emergency they had nothing to do with creating, not some kook who sees ducks by the side and chooses to create the danger.

I never said driving significantly over the speed limit is right. I said it was a normal expectation, quite different from someone planting a dangerous hazard in everyone's path. On the way home from work today I was driving about 65 MPH. A car zipped right by me. considering my speed he/she must have been going near 80 mph. No one got hurt. No one left a car stopped on the highway. That's the point.

...a person was speeding 30% or more and hits her from behind and eyes not on task ( brakes 7 meters from impact ).

You keep harping on this 30%, a high end estimate, but let's leave it there. You've never mentioned once the choice she should have made, and indeed was the only choice if she wanted to stop. PULL OVER OFF THE ROAD and save everyone a tragedy. Again, you're treating her like an idiot who had no idea there was another choice...the ONLY one that showed any sanity.

"Emma" wanted to save ducklings but killed two people. Is that how you balance lives? Justice? With a guilty conscience! OMG! Come on now.............

You make it sound as if Emma stood there thinking.......should I save the ducklings or two people.................
...and she decided to save the ducklings

Anyone with sense knows instinctively, even if they don't define it that way, that by choosing to do as she did she was creating a very dangerous situation for people and herself in order to save ducks.

At the very least her choice shows a lack of capacity for rational thinking to the point of recklessly endangering her life and the lives of others. If she can't do any better than that...instead of chasing ducks on the highway she should be locked up with crayons to color ducks in a picture book.

Quack, quack, quackers, :noidea:

Merlot

 

[John_Cage]

You can think of this subjectively and emotionally (how did she FEEL at the time) or objectively and logically (what were the results and the quality of trade-off).

So in essence, it comes down to a family's lives ruined vs an animal lover's need to feel "Awww, I must save these cute ducks."... I will say she was the most selfish person I have ever heard of; she risked OTHER PEOPLE'S lives for her to "feel good about herself".

Of course she needs to go to jail. She's not a "bad person" per-se, but she sure as hell made a bad choice. People are not punished for being bad people but rather for their actions and consequences.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Instead of quoting the post I will just say Merlot:

It was a stupid spot, you make it sound like she planned to kill someone. Plus it is obvious that she was a brainless idiot at the time who had no clue about what was about to happen.
Use your imagination and pretend that her car broke down and all electrical power was off so no hazards lights plus she was walking down the shoulder of the road getting help ( the distraction ). The motorcycle driver would still be dead because he was speeding, did not leave enough room in front of him and did not have his eyes on the road. A car pulling a trailer managed to avoid her probably because he/she was not speeding and had their eyes on the road.

 

[BookerL]

Relevancy in a criminal case

Hi all
In a criminal case we cannot use civil law markers to create a valid defense or arguments !
Even you Honors the Judges are subject to review for interpretation of facts or laws and there relevancy ,by appeal Courts and Supreme Court of Canada even at that level the 9 wise those not necessarily agree split decision 5to 4 does happen!
Regards all
BookerL