bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Optimistic thinking on no jail time. It's not like she only had underage sex with a teenager ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Negligence. Who says she's going to jail anyway? She hasn't been sentenced yet. Who knows what they'll give her. I suspect she won't receive any jail time at all. Negligence for sure. I'm not a lawyer so I don't exactly know what the formula is to determine if it's criminal. I heard her lawyer interviewed saying he was going to ask for community service. I would expect her own conscience will punish her for some time to come in any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Negligence for sure. I'm not a lawyer so I don't exactly know what the formula is to determine if it's criminal. I heard her lawyer interviewed saying he was going to ask for community service. I would expect her own conscience will punish her for some time to come in any case. Why would you think her conscience will punish her? She pleaded not guilty because she doesn't think she did anything wrong, she's admittedly shocked that she was found guilty. i don't think she has any guilty conscience whatsoever. Most of us would take whatever plea deal we could, spare the victims families the court trial and beg forgiveness to whoever will listen - not this chick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Why would you think her conscience will punish her? She pleaded not guilty because she doesn't think she did anything wrong, she's admittedly shocked that she was found guilty. i don't think she has any guilty conscience whatsoever. Most of us would take whatever plea deal we could, spare the victims families the court trial and beg forgiveness to whoever will listen - not this chick! And you are of course entitled to your opinion. I know my conscience would drive me nuts. But again, with regard to the law, I'm not totally convinced of the criminality. I tend to side with Cyber on this one that she see's no jail time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Optimistic thinking on no jail time. It's not like she only had underage sex with a teenager ! Yeah I guess if she would have been in Florida they would have put her to death by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 On June 27, 2010, a Quebec woman stopped her car on Highway 30 in Candiac in an effort to rescue some ducklings. Seconds later, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle struck her Honda Civic. The driver and his daughter died as a result of the collision. She was arrested and charged with 4 different vehicular crimes. On its fourth day of deliberation, the jury found the 25-year-old woman guilty on all four charges she faced, including criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/20/jury-finds-woman-guilty-for-causing-deaths-of-two-bikers-when-she-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway/ Yes, two people died because of her actions but is “intent” not to be considered in a verdict? She is an animal lover and tried to save a duck and her ducklings from being killed. Was this an accident? What if the animal on the road was a dog? What if it was a moose? Wanton negligence can equal intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 And you are of course entitled to your opinion. I know my conscience would drive me nuts. But again, with regard to the law, I'm not totally convinced of the criminality. I tend to side with Cyber on this one that she see's no jail time.There was criminality. She was criminally negligent. She should have known that parking her car in the passing lane on the highway was extremely dangerous and could have seriously injured or killed someone, including herself. Most people aren't stupid enough to park their cars in the passing lane on a highway. People usually pull over onto the shoulder when they need to stop on a highway. Even then it's still not entirely safe, but also wouldn't be negligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 There was criminality. She was criminally negligent. She should have known that parking her car in the passing lane on the highway was extremely dangerous and could have seriously injured or killed someone, including herself. Most people aren't stupid enough to park their cars in the passing lane on a highway. People usually pull over onto the shoulder when they need to stop on a highway. Even then it's still not entirely safe, but also wouldn't be negligent. Of course you make a very good case and I don't disagree. The lady obviously wasn't thinking straight. However I wonder how a long jail term would serve the concepts of public safety and rehabilitation in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Wanton negligence can equal intent.there doesn't need to be intent here. The crown only has to prove in this case 1) that she parked her car in the passing lane, 2) that parking her car in the passing lane on a highway shows a wanton disregard for the lives OR safety of others, and 3) that parking her car in the passing lane caused someone's death.Her intent is completely irrelevant under s.220. As for item 2, the crown just has to show that parking her car in the passing lane on a highway is not something that a reasonable person would do and that a reasonable person could foresee parking their car in the passing lane as posing a risk of bodily injury. I think it goes without saying that people don't park their cars in the passing lanes on highways and it's because this would be a dangerous thing to do. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that what she did is something a reasonable person would have seen as being dangerous and risky. For item 3, did her actions result in someone's death? If she did not park her car in the passing lane, the motorcyclist would not have hit her vehicle and died. So in short, yes. This is the right decision. She did something a reasonable person wouldn't do because a reasonable person would foresee that parking their car in hone passing lane on a highway could cause an accident. Her actions resulted in the death of two people. Therefore, she's criminally negligent which means intent is unnecessary. If there was intent to harm, then it would have been vehicular homicide instead. In this case, there was no intent, just negligence. Edited June 22, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Of course you make a very good case and I don't disagree. The lady obviously wasn't thinking straight. However I wonder how a long jail term would serve the concepts of public safety and rehabilitation in this case.i suspect she will get something like a suspended sentence with community service and parole. She will probably also lose her license for awhile, probably 2 years. Edited June 22, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 i suspect she will get something like a suspended sentence with community service and parole. She will probably also lose her license for awhile, probably 2 years. That seems a little more reasonable than 25 years pounding rocks in the hot sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 That seems a little more reasonable than 25 years pounding rocks in the hot sun. I don't think anyone figures she'll get "25 years pounding rocks in the hot sun". I think she should get a decent prison sentence, but I'd be foolish to think she'll get even a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Heard a lot of arguments back and forth on this one. Quebec seems to be a hot bed for some controversial cases lately. Anyways, I find it odd that someone was able to stop there vehicle to help a distressed animals, but another person, driving on the same freekin road, couldn't even stop to save their own stupid life! Now, I'm not entirely sure of all the conditions, but this sounds like a very odd case again. Also, these odd cases seem to be a magnet for debate! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Of course you make a very good case and I don't disagree. The lady obviously wasn't thinking straight. However I wonder how a long jail term would serve the concepts of public safety and rehabilitation in this case. That seems a little more reasonable than 25 years pounding rocks in the hot sun. I don't think anyone figures she'll get "25 years pounding rocks in the hot sun". I think she should get a decent prison sentence, but I'd be foolish to think she'll get even a day. She can still appeal the first ruling. Or did she? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Anyways, I find it odd that someone was able to stop there vehicle to help a distressed animals, but another person, driving on the same freekin road, couldn't even stop to save their own stupid life! How experienced are you with motorbikes? Slamming on the breaks is not as easy as it would be in a car. I've locked up my back tire a couple times and there are some techniques you learn to stop from high speeds. But not everything goes according to plan. It's easier to lose control of a bike while hard breaking. If you stop in the LEFT lane and have no hazard lights on, or flares or those reflective triangles you are putting other lives in jeopardy. If you cannot make it to the right side of the road to safely pull over, then you need to make sure your car is visible to other motorists. Alright so I checked out some of the pics and something does not quite make sense to me. If you are riding in the left lane on a motor bike, typically you should be riding on the right part of the lane to prevent being cut off and other things. But it looks like a direct hit on the middle of the car. So unless they were riding with another or a group, this should not have happened. But in any case the lady is at fault for stopping where she did without hazards or any indication to other motorists that she was stopped. On most divided highways there is a lane on the right, but in many cases it is not wide enough for a single vehicle. So even if you must pull over there, and have all the safety things in place, the risk of another car smashing into you is greater on the left than it would be on the right. We expect cars on the right side of the road if they are in trouble. Not on the left. A very very important point to make when determining negligence here. I admire her compassion for the animals, but this was a really dumb move on her part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Perhaps she should have slapped both those people, then she'd only get a few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Perhaps she should have slapped both those people, then she'd only get a few months. In the end, only one can get slapped. The other got something a little more serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Heard a lot of arguments back and forth on this one. Quebec seems to be a hot bed for some controversial cases lately. Anyways, I find it odd that someone was able to stop there vehicle to help a distressed animals, but another person, driving on the same freekin road, couldn't even stop to save their own stupid life! Now, I'm not entirely sure of all the conditions, but this sounds like a very odd case again. Also, these odd cases seem to be a magnet for debate! WWWTT So if someone is going say 100 km in the passing lane they're supposed to be ready for some freakin' idiot to be parked in the lane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) How experienced are you with motorbikes? Slamming on the breaks is not as easy as it would be in a car. I've locked up my back tire a couple times and there are some techniques you learn to stop from high speeds. But not everything goes according to plan. It's easier to lose control of a bike while hard breaking. If you stop in the LEFT lane and have no hazard lights on, or flares or those reflective triangles you are putting other lives in jeopardy. If you cannot make it to the right side of the road to safely pull over, then you need to make sure your car is visible to other motorists. Alright so I checked out some of the pics and something does not quite make sense to me. If you are riding in the left lane on a motor bike, typically you should be riding on the right part of the lane to prevent being cut off and other things. But it looks like a direct hit on the middle of the car. So unless they were riding with another or a group, this should not have happened. But in any case the lady is at fault for stopping where she did without hazards or any indication to other motorists that she was stopped. On most divided highways there is a lane on the right, but in many cases it is not wide enough for a single vehicle. So even if you must pull over there, and have all the safety things in place, the risk of another car smashing into you is greater on the left than it would be on the right. We expect cars on the right side of the road if they are in trouble. Not on the left. A very very important point to make when determining negligence here. I admire her compassion for the animals, but this was a really dumb move on her part. I have no experience with motorcycles. I would assume that if you know that your stopping distance is farther than that of a car then why would you be speeding on a highway? "A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h. The jury was told the speed was higher than the prescribed 90 km/h limit on the road." It is a tragedy - but why would someone on a motorcycle with his daughter on the back be going "from 113 km/h to 129 km/h" on a highway? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-guilty-in-2-highway-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200 Edited June 23, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) So if someone is going say 100 km in the passing lane they're supposed to be ready for some freakin' idiot to be parked in the lane?Right ... especially when there's an SUV in front of you so you can't see the parked car (with no hazard lights on) and the SUV quickly swerves around the parked car leaving no time for the motorcyclist to respond.Unfortunate accidents happen, but this wasn't one of them. This was caused by criminal negligence. It is tragic that 2 people died, but miraculous that more vehicles weren't involved, and more injuries. Edited June 23, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 You know they teach you, when learning to drive, to assume everyone else is a bad driver. I'm honestly shocked that some guy who kills his daughter because she didn't clean gets off with a few weeks while this girl does something very foolish and faces years in prison? Makes no sense whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 You know they teach you, when learning to drive, to assume everyone else is a bad driver. I'm honestly shocked that some guy who kills his daughter because she didn't clean gets off with a few weeks ??? while this girl does something very foolish and faces years in prison? Makes no sense whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 If you are unable to control you vehicle and come to a full stop, slow down or take a bus.Just because the speed limit is 90 kmh, it doesn't mean you have to go 90 kmh. Impatience causes more accidents than alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 ??? Did you not see the thread about the Muslim man getting a slap in the wrist for hitting/killing his daughter? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23620-man-kills-his-daughter-only-gets-60-days/ Also happened in Quebec. In both that and this case, the sentence seems, to most rational people, to be completely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I have no experience with motorcycles. I would assume that if you know that your stopping distance is farther than that of a car then why would you be speeding on a highway? "A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h. The jury was told the speed was higher than the prescribed 90 km/h limit on the road." It is a tragedy - but why would someone on a motorcycle with his daughter on the back be going "from 113 km/h to 129 km/h" on a highway? It's not so much stopping distance as if you lock up the back end, you need to keep it locked until you stop. If you suddenly let go, the tire grips again and can send you flying off the bike. I've locked it up once and that was a very scary situation. Edit, while driving a car....On two separate occasions I was being tailed doing 120kph in the fast lane in the Toronto area. One was an ambulance, no sirens, no lights, came up on my ass, flashed his lights, I changed lanes and he sped off at 130+. Another time it was an OPP who flashed the lights to get me to move. Both occasions they were NOT answering a call. You do 100kph in these fast lanes and you are going to cause accidents. It's a catch 22, when you should do the speed limit but also keep up with traffic. I do 110-130kph here in Ottawa and that is not fast enough for many. Most of the times, you can do 110 to 120 kph on the major city highways and not get pulled over. The police tend to drive a little faster. Edited June 23, 2014 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.