jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I hit a rock on a small gravel hill. You couldn't see it because of the colouring of the surrounding gravel. I didn't expect it to be there because I had driven though there only five minutes before. In the meantime another car came along and scraped the rock, pulling it out of the ground. It was my fault. I wasn't keeping a proper lookout. This situation is no different, even if what she did is incredibly stupid.That's accidental and minor.She was deliberately negligent and put many people in danger. Two! people! died! And but for luck, there could have been more. . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Boges, on 08 Jul 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:Speculating that if a man did this we'd want him to serve hard time is at the very least woefully presumptive.No one has....well almost no one. Just asking the question. Food for thought. Haven't had a real answer yet. . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 That's accidental and minor. It doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) It doesn't matter.Only in some hypothetical world.In reality, the deaths of two people matters a lot. Criminal negligence ... causing death. Dangerous operation of a vehicle ... causing death. It matters. http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/17/woman-whos-husband-and-daughter-died-after-slamming-into-car-stopped-for-ducks-relived-the-pain-during-trial She testified she stopped her Honda Civic, put on her flashers proved to be a lie, under oath and walked back to where she had seen the birds. I just wanted to pick all those ducklings up and put them in my car, she testified. I know it was a mistake. The ducks were not interested in her help ... Who couldn't have figured that out? . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 She was an idiot...no one is arguing that. The motorcycle driver wasn't doing his job though, and it's questionable why you're arguing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 She was an idiot...no one is arguing that. The motorcycle driver wasn't doing his job though, and it's questionable why you're arguing that. Because this is beating a dead horse. Or in this case a dead MC rider, and his daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Their death doesn't change who is at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Their death doesn't change who is at fault. Correct, the lady is 100% at fault for her negligence and stupidity. People speed and the left lane is typically the fast lane, meaning stopped or slower traffic needs to keep to the right. This lady's idiotic actions contributed to the deaths of two people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change lady to man, and repeat what you just said. Then I'll agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change lady to man, and repeat what you just said. Then I'll agree with you. She is criminally negligent because she broke traffic laws. She was not stopping for an emergency. She was not stopping because her car broke down. She was not stopping because she had no other choice. Her stupid decision of stopping blocking half the fast lane without any indication that she had done so is plain and simple ultimate stupidity contributing to the deaths of two people. People speed often, people do NOT park on the right lane on a divided highway. Most vehicles traveling in that lane are doing 110+. 'Slower traffic keep right.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 It doesn't matter. Yes it does, since it doesn't meet the definition of criminal negligence. It's a bad comparison, even if jacee's argument about gender bias here is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change lady to man, and repeat what you just said. Then I'll agree with you. The jury and the judge that heard the case completely disagree with you. If he was speeding and not keeping a safe distance, then her actions would not have been what caused their death beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof, as I showed way earlier in the thread includes showing that what she did caused their deaths beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence argued that he wasn't keeping a safe distance and speeding. Was he criminally negligent? I already argued earlier why his actions do not meet the definition of criminal negligence thereby putting the responsibility on the woman who stopped her car because her actions were clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt criminally negligent. You guys can make up whatever absurd nonsensical claims you want. The defence tried to pin the responsibility on the motorcycle driver because that would absolve her of causing the death beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were successful she would not have been criminally responsible for their deaths because it would have been his recklessness that caused it. They were unsuccessful in court with that argument, so I find it ridiculous that people on this forum think it's a valid argument here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 She is criminally negligent because she broke traffic laws. She was not stopping for an emergency. She was not stopping because her car broke down. She was not stopping because she had no other choice. Her stupid decision of stopping blocking half the fast lane without any indication that she had done so is plain and simple ultimate stupidity contributing to the deaths of two people. People speed often, people do NOT park on the right lane on a divided highway. Most vehicles traveling in that lane are doing 110+. 'Slower traffic keep right.' It's not even "slower traffic keep right" in Quebec. I posted earlier the law in Quebec that says "keep right except to pass." Clearly the motorcycle driver and the SUV that was in front of him were passing slower moving traffic on the right when the SUV swerved back over suddenly revealing a stopped car. I don't know what kind of supermen we have on this forum that think they would be able to react, at highway speeds, to a suddenly revealed stopped car in the passing lane, but I find the argument absurd and the court wasn't buying it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) In a grotesque act of speciesism, her human peers have ruled that her actions in not placing the safety of her own species above the safety of other species are criminal, and she may be imprisoned ... http://www.thinkhumanimal.com/2014/06/ode-to-emma-czornobaj.html?m=1 "speciesism" ??? oh please! Ok ... some people clearly need to reconsider their priorities. And there need to be some new questions on the driver's tests. Anybody who would put the safety of animals above that of human beings shouldn't drive. In fact ... even if it was a human being stranded on the highway ... putting MORE people at risk wouldn't be the "compassionate" thing to do. Put your flashers on ... move to the right lane & then stop on the right shoulder ... call 911 ... and then go back and try to help the person ... IF you can get across the road wiithout endangering yourself and other people. You haven't done a 'good' thing if someone else gets killed due to your ill-considered actions. Everybody in the passing lane is speeding. She probably was too before she slammed on her brakes. . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change lady to man, and repeat what you just said. Then I'll agree with you. Change "lady chasing ducklings" to "man chasing ducklings" ... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change "lady chasing ducklings" to "man chasing ducklings" ... . This argument is ridiculous. It makes not a damn bit of difference what gender the person was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) This argument is ridiculous. It makes not a damn bit of difference what gender the person was.Not to me, no, nor to you.But I believe some people here are inclined to blame the man on the motorcycle more than the 'soft hearted woman' chasing ducklings. I was replying to one of them. . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Change "lady chasing ducklings" to "man chasing ducklings" ... . I'm saying that they were both at fault - she was negligent, and he wasn't performing his duty as a driver on a public highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The jury and the judge that heard the case completely disagree with you. And in the civil suit, you'll probably see a totally different outcome. As far as an insurance company is concerned, he was in the wrong. She may not even be so, thought she was certainly negligent in her actions. He was not keeping a proper lookout, and he was not obeying the rules of the road. It's extremely simple, and some of you are trying to make it very complicated. The death doesn't change the HTA or insurance rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 And in the civil suit, you'll probably see a totally different outcome. As far as an insurance company is concerned, he was in the wrong. She may not even be so, thought she was certainly negligent in her actions. He was not keeping a proper lookout, and he was not obeying the rules of the road. It's extremely simple, and some of you are trying to make it very complicated. The death doesn't change the HTA or insurance rules. Bingo ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 I'm saying that they were both at fault - she was negligent, and he wasn't performing his duty as a driver on a public highway. Why do you think the jury convicted her? Is it possible they had information we don't have? She lied on the stand about putting her flashers on, a critical action to take. She lied about it because she knew it was critically important. In the eyes of the jury, lying about critically important 'failure to act' ... renders any and all of her testimony suspect, and her claims to "compassion" ridiculous. What "compassion" did she show for the people in the other cars? What "compassion" for the people who died? This wasn't an 'unfortunate' accident. The jury saw through her lies. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Why do you think the jury convicted her? Is it possible they had information we don't have? Because they think she was guilty. But that does not mean they did not think the MC driver was at zero in the liability question. It isnt their job to do that. But, the MC drivers insurance co will attritbute some negligence to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) And in the civil suit, you'll probably see a totally different outcome. As far as an insurance company is concerned, he was in the wrong. She may not even be so, thought she was certainly negligent in her actions. He was not keeping a proper lookout, There was an suv in front of him. He couldn't see her car. No one expects, or is required to anticipate a 2000 lb. stationary object in the passing lane. and he was not obeying the rules of the road. Nor was she ... and in doing so, she created the hazardous situation. The fact that he couldn't react heroically to the hazard she created does not absolve her of blame. . . Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 There was an suv in front of him. He couldn't see her car. No one expects, or is required to anticipate a 2000 lb. stationary object in the passing lane.Why yes , yes they do. All the time in fact. Those who dont generally (virtually universally) get an @ fault accident on their insurance records Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Because they think she was guilty. But that does not mean they did not think the MC driver was at zero in the liability question. It isnt their job to do that. But, the MC drivers insurance co will attritbute some negligence to him. Who really cares who pays for the motorcycle? . 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.