Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[Smallc]

You are responsible for the road in front of you. If you hit something, it's your fault. That is standard insurance policy. Is you drive as you're supposed to (none of us do) you can avoid practically any hazard. What she did was stupid, but she never should have been found guilty.

[monty16]

There was no criminal intent and that's not so hard to understand for Canadians. So the main message is, we don't want to follow the rabid right CPC logic that tries to take discretion out of the hands of judges. The crime varies so much that no one punishment suits all. Only extremist righties would have trouble understanding that. I don't think this forum has any Canadians as extremist as that but I think many, if not a majority of Americans are that extremist that they won't be able to comprehend the obvious.

That's their issue but as Canadians we need to understand that Harper and his rabid right conservative lackies in parliament are eager to adopt something similar to US style justice. Just ask a conservative!

[monty16]

smallc, she is guilty of a crime and there's not doubt about that. If we in Canada continue to use sensible forms of punishment then we will continue without having a problem dealing with crime. If we follow Harper's lead then we will become no better than the land of the gun to our south.

Let's, as Canadians, try to understand the distinctions between different degrees of the same crime and let judges treat them accordingly.

[Boges]

smallc, she is guilty of a crime and there's not doubt about that. If we in Canada continue to use sensible forms of punishment then we will continue without having a problem dealing with crime. If we follow Harper's lead then we will become no better than the land of the gun to our south.

Let's, as Canadians, try to understand the distinctions between different degrees of the same crime and let judges treat them accordingly.

So you agree she shouldn't go to jail then.

[jacee]

No, we've discussed that at length as well. If the MC didn't have enough time to stop, or at least follow the SUV into the centre lane then it would indicate they didn't leave sufficient stopping distance from behind the SUV.

Horsesh!t.

Again none of this is absolving the women from doing something completely idiotic. But drivers should drive assuming all drivers around them are going to do something wrong.

Nobody assumes somebody is moronic enough to park in the passing lane.

Time for little miss dipsh!t to go back to kiddie cars for hauling her ducks around ... when she gets out of jail.

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

Nobody assumes somebody is moronic enough to park in the passing lane.

What about an abandoned or broken down car? What about a large dead animal? They're all obstacle a driver should be aware of.

[Bonam]

What about an abandoned or broken down car? What about a large dead animal? They're all obstacle a driver should be aware of.

Obstacles on the road are frequently struck by drivers, that's just what happens. Animals, whether dead or alive, on the road are frequently struck, as I'm sure you well know, despite the best efforts of most drivers to avoid such collisions. Yes in most cases you can avoid them, but sometimes people fail to. Most such obstacles are not placed on the road purposefully by other people. But when they are, then the person placing the obstacle there is responsible.

If I go up on a cliff beside a road and throw down a boulder onto the road for fun (not with intent to kill but simply for the fun of dropping a big rock off a cliff), and then someone later crashes into it and dies, I would rightly be held responsible. And what this woman did is absolutely identical to that action. She placed a potentially lethal hazard on the road for no reason other than that she felt like it, careless of the risks it imposed on others.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Bonam

[Boges]

She placed a potentially lethal hazard on the road for no reason other than that she felt like it, careless of the risks it imposed on others.

I don't think anyone here is debating that. Some might debate the penalty. We still don't know how much time she'll serve, if any.

All people are saying is that a death could have been avoided if the MC was driving more defensively.

[monty16]

No Boges, she shouldn't go to jail in my opinion and if we hold to our Canadian system of justice then most judges could comfortably find that way. It's when judges are forced to deal out punishment in accordance with strict demands of Conservatives and the Harper government that we run into problems.

She deserves punishment for the crime she committed. Why are any having a problem with this concept?

The most useful purpose this thread can serve now is to stay on the topic of judges being allowed to use discretion.

[Bonam]

All people are saying is that a death could have been avoided if the MC was driving more defensively.

Yes and you can also avoid death by moving erratically and unpredictably, dodging and rolling, ducking behind obstacles, when someone is trying to shoot you with a gun. The fact that with sufficient skill someone might survive a deadly situation bears no relevance, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

[bush_cheney2004]

....All people are saying is that a death could have been avoided if the MC was driving more defensively.

Yep....those who think otherwise can go to the victim's graves and tell them about her conviction and sentence...that will make them feel much better!

[guyser]

Horsesh!t.

Actually spot on. They didnt stop in time because they failed to keep a proper lookout and or were following too close.

One cannot discuss that. Its fact.

Nobody assumes somebody is moronic enough to park in the passing lane.

At all times someone should assume the way is not clear and keep a proper look out.

None of which is to absolve her from being dumb and stopping where she did.

Time for little miss dipsh!t to go back to kiddie cars for hauling her ducks around ... when she gets out of jail.

Time for some little dipshit to learn the rules of the road, including the MC driver.

He obviously hasnt now has he?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Guyser2

[Boges]

Honestly we're debating the same arguments over and over again. Perhaps this thread would be best served being locked until the sentence is passed down.

[jacee]

I don't think anyone here is debating that. Some might debate the penalty. We still don't know how much time she'll serve, if any.

LOTS ... and never drive again ... because little miss dipsh!t still thinks she didn't do anything wrong ... by killing two people.

All people are saying is that a death could have been avoided if the MC was driving more defensively.

Only by staying home when little miss dipsh!t's on the loose.

The ones sayng that are idiots too, and should stay home and play with their duck and stay off the road.

She went to trial intead of taking a plea ... because she doesn't think she did anything wrong!

She got two people killed, could have been more, and she doesn't think she did anything wrong?!

She's a dangerous criminal without remorse.

eta ... guys are such suckers for the 'helpless female' act.

Haven't figured out that 'helpless females' are sociopaths.

Run over there boys!

She likely needs help washing the blood and guts and brains off her car!

It's icky!

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

LOTS ... and never drive again ... because little miss dipsh!t still thinks she didn't do anything wrong ... by killing two people.

Only by staying home when little miss dipsh!t's on the loose.

The ones sayng that are idiots too, and should stay home and play with their duck and stay off the road.

She went to trial intead of taking a plea ... because she doesn't think she did anything wrong!

She got two people killed, could have been more, and she doesn't think she did anything wrong?!

She's a dangerous criminal without remorse.

.

I don't think she said she doesn't think she did anything wrong, she just doesn't feel she needs to go to jail for doing what she did. Is there a minimum sentence for what she did? Monty seems to think she should go free.

Again I'm not commenting on that. I, like many in this thread, are just trying to say that the MC wasn't completely complicit in his and his daughter's death.

Which I've said like 50 times in this thread.

[jacee]

I don't think she said she doesn't think she did anything wrong, she just doesn't feel she needs to go to jail for doing what she did. Is there a minimum sentence for what she did? Monty seems to think she should go free.

Again I'm not commenting on that. I, like many in this thread, are just trying to say that the MC wasn't completely complicit in his and his daughter's death.

Which I've said like 50 times in this thread.

Well that's crap.

Did you notice she parked on a curve?

Did you clean the blood and guts and brains off her car for her yet?

It's too icky for the poor helpless dipsh!t sociopath to do herself ya know!

She has duckies to herd!

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

You are responsible for the road in front of you. If you hit something, it's your fault. That is standard insurance policy. Is you drive as you're supposed to (none of us do) you can avoid practically any hazard. What she did was stupid, but she never should have been found guilty.

Crap.

I hope you don't drive.

It's really too bad she killed innocent people instead of herself.

Would you say the same if she'd been chasing het hat?

Because that's just as likely for a dipsh!t like that.

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

Crap.

I hope you don't drive.

.

You're starting to get a little worked up regarding with your responses.

How does someone belief that you are responsible for what you hit make him/her a dangerous driver?

And insurance company would see it that way. I suspect if the man and his daughter survived the incidence an insurance company would rule "No Fault".

Edited July 7, 2014 by Boges

[guyser]

It's really too bad she killed innocent people instead of herself.

your attitude is the dipshit one to be honest. She didnt kill anyone. She did however create a bad situation and the MC driver failed to keep a lookout.

The MC driver has fault too, being in my business and the results I know of, he was more cuplable in his and his daughters death than the woman.

Thats the part I dont get.

I sincerely hope she gets to appeal and is let off with an HTA ticket.

[guyser]

And insurance company would see it that way. I suspect if the man and his daughter survived the incidence an insurance company would rule "No Fault".

He would find that out at renewal not now (generally speaking).

He would however get his accident benefits paid for quite some itme.

[Boges]

He would find that out at renewal not now (generally speaking).

He would however get his accident benefits paid for quite some itme.

I was in an accident where I was changing lanes to move around an accident scene. A car side-swiped me. I thought it was open and closed, they hit me! but I clearly didn't check my blind spot sufficiently.

It took like two weeks but the insurance company said that it was no fault. The jerks claimed one of them got injured (THEY HIT ME!!!) seemed fine at the reporting station.

I knew I was going to get burned at the time of renewal.

[guyser]

Boges, no fault or Not at fault?

BIG difference. ONe is a 'system' we have n Ontario, the other is a classification of an accident.

If you didnt chekc your blind spot and went into the others lane, then you are at fault.

[Boges]

Boges, no fault or Not at fault?

BIG difference. ONe is a 'system' we have n Ontario, the other is a classification of an accident.

If you didnt chekc your blind spot and went into the others lane, then you are at fault.

Maybe I'm confusing terms. Essentially my insurance paid for my damages, the other party paid for theirs. Both parties are at fault.

[guyser]

Maybe I'm confusing terms. Essentially my insurance paid for my damages, the other party paid for theirs. Both parties are at fault.

Yes, confused

Even if @ fault, your insurance co pays for your damage, his pays for his. Fault does not matter when determining who pays. Each driver gets his $$ from his/her ins co***....thus 'no fault' is determined for payment matters.

**** = there can be exceptions but lets not go there

[jacee]

your attitude is the dipshit one to be honest.

Really?

People here are speculating about facts they don't know.

The jury had all the facts.

The judge also told jurors they could find her guilty of simple dangerous driving, which has a maximum sentence of five years.

They didn't.

They found her guilty of

2 counts of criminal negligence causing death

- max life x 2

2 counts of dangerous driving causing death

- max 14 yrs x 2

They had all the facts. You don't.

Including ...

She lied about putting her flashers on.

She showed no compassion for human beings, no remorse.

She refused to take a plea offer because she didn't do anything wrong ... just "a mistake".

The mc driver had no time to brake or swerve.

She still thinks the damn ducks are more important than two human beings.

Ducks are dinner, fercrissakes!

She didnt kill anyone.

4 counts of "causing death says otherwise.

She did however create a bad situation

She created a deadly situation, and people died.

and the MC driver failed to keep a lookout.

That's speculation and hasn't been proven here.

The jury didn't agree, and they had all the facts.

The MC driver has fault too, being in my business and the results I know of, he was more cuplable in his and his daughters death than the woman.

I find that disgusting, and the jury didn't agree.

I sincerely hope she gets to appeal and is let off with an HTA ticket.

Fortunately, she'll be in jail where she belongs for years before that ever happens.

Would you feel the same if she'd been chasing her hat?

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee