Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[jacee]

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

I once rode with a woman who tried to change lanes almost into a car in her blind spot (beside her trunk).

She blamed him. I mentioned "blind spot". She said "But I had my blinker on!"

Never rode with her again.

Took the bus with my broken ankle instead.

I am a woman.

I despise dipsh!t behaviour like that.

They make us all look bad.

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Same scenario:

A man jumps out of his car to chase his hat.

A woman and her daughter are killed.

Check your gender bias folks!

.

[guyser]

Really?

Sadly...yes.

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

Some are , some arent, including you.

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

Juries can play with emotions , this is one case i think they did.

They had all the facts. You don't.

Niether did you, and there is nothing to say she had a lousy lawyer or one who thinks he can ghet this appealed and overturned.

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".

1- she did, ok.

2-so what,

3- So would I have with the knowledge I have and the conditions being the same.

The mc driver had no time to brake or swerve.

Yea we know, too bad he didnt care enough to keep a proper lookout, and not to speed....meaning he could have easily mitigated his loss and that of his daughter.

She created a deadly situation, and people died.

She did, but she didnt kill anyone.

As a matter of fact, the MC driver created a deadly situation too. But that appears to be ok.

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

Yes it has. If he had, likely hed have a daughter still alive.

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

FInd it how you want, but it is a normal and routine hapenstance for me.

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

Hope she gets let off with an HTA ticket. Jail time? Not likely from my experience.

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

.

Would you feel better if it were a log that rolled off a truck? Or her car brokedown?

[guyser]

Same scenario:

A man jumps out of his car to chase his hat.

A woman and her daughter are killed.

Check your gender bias folks!

.

Jacee, if you are to pose these scenarios, give some facts.

Jumping out of a car to chase a hat cannot EVER kill anyone

[jacee]

Jacee, if you are to pose these scenarios, give some facts.

Jumping out of a car to chase a hat cannot EVER kill anyone

Same scenario, hat instead of ducks, man chasing instead of woman, woman killed instead of man.

.

[guyser]

Same scenario, hat instead of ducks, man chasing instead of woman, woman killed instead of man.

.

Never mind, far too many vagaries

[jacee]

Sadly...yes.

Some are , some arent, including you.

Juries can play with emotions , this is one case i think they did.

Niether did you, and there is nothing to say she had a lousy lawyer or one who thinks he can ghet this appealed and overturned.

1- she did, ok.

>Sociopaths lie in court.

2-so what,

>Sociopaths have no remorse

3- So would I have with the knowledge I have and the conditions being the same.

>You wouldn't do anything that negligent and dangerous.

>She lost. Too bad so sad. Two people died and she doesn't care. Pretty sick.

Yea we know, too bad he didnt care enough to keep a proper lookout, and not to speed....meaning he could have easily mitigated his loss and that of his daughter.

She did, but she didnt kill anyone.

>She caused their deaths and doesn't feel any remorse, just self-pity.

As a matter of fact, the MC driver created a deadly situation too. But that appears to be ok.

Yes it has. If he had, likely hed have a daughter still alive.

FInd it how you want, but it is a normal and routine hapenstance for me.

Hope she gets let off with an HTA ticket. Jail time? Not likely from my experience.

>She's facing max 78 years.

>She could have had 5.

>She doesn't think she did anything wrong ... chasing ducks.

Would you feel better if it were a log that rolled off a truck? Or her car brokedown?

I'm feeling pretty good ... she got convicted.

But you mean if it was an UNAVOIDABLE accident?

She wouldn't be guilty.

But she is.

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Jacee, if you are to pose these scenarios, give some facts.

Jumping out of a car to chase a hat cannot EVER kill anyone

Same incident but ... suppose ...

Dipsh!t man stops car half in the passing lane and jumps out to chase his duck hunting hat.

Woman and daughter on motorcycle are killed.

What is dipsh!t man guilty of?

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by jacee

[jbg]

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.

In 1990 I was driving on the Cross County Parkway in Mount Vernon, a road with four lanes at that point. I had cars to my left and right. A golden retriever darted out into the road. I had no choice to but to hit the dog to avoid sideswiping or being sideswiped.

I stopped at a payphone a few exits later (yes payphones once existed) and called 911. The officer asked me to stay at the payphone. Of course I didn't. I just didn't want the dog to suffer any more (even though I assume that the dog was quite vicious).

I relay this story to show that in my opinion protecting human safety trumps the rights of animals.

[jacee]

No sh!t Sherlock!

[monty16]

We're debating the same arguments again and again because Americans don't understand the situation as being one of a judge's ability to look at each individual man slaughter or murder or whatever crime, on it's own merits or lack thereof.

The US has already gone down that road to corruption and we need to discuss this further because there is little doubt that Harper is trying to take Canada down the same road.

Contnue to join in Americans and rabid righties, but just keep in mind that good Canadians understand your objections to our common sense approach as a comedy routine.

[jacee]

We're debating the same arguments again and again because Americans ...

Stop that ugly bigoted crap.

You are derailing every thread to bash Americans with negative stereotypes.

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/story.html?id=9958641

Two months before the jury trial began, Labelle stated in open court that his client was willing to plead guilty to at least some of the four charges but a plea bargain was not possible because the Crown wanted her to serve jail time. Czornobaj took her chances with a jury and the gamble did not pay off.

.. .

Labelle said that a change in the Criminal Code, made in 2007, does not allow for a sentence to be served in the community for a person convicted of criminal negligence causing death. The only options for a sentence are jail, a prison term combined with a fine or a suspended sentence with community service, Labelle said.

Hmm ... seems contradictory ... "suspended sentence" is "in the community".

Annie-Claude Chassé, the prosecutor in the trial, was also the prosecutor when Labelle turned down a plea offer that involved jail time in April.On Friday, Chassé declined to comment on what kind of a sentence she will seek.(The jury) did not have an easy question to answer, but what we hope is that a clear message was sent to society that we dont stop for animals on the highway. Its not worth it, Chassé said.

One other thing: Some people - who don't bother to actually read the links - assume that the ducks were in her lane 'obstructing' her car.

They weren't.

In fact they were in oncoming lanes on the other side of a barrier, which she climbed over to chase (and scatter) the ducklings.

No ducklings were 'saved' and none were injured.

A man and his 16 year old daughter were killed.

Sentencing August 8.

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by jacee

[jbg]

Hmm ... seems contradictory ... "suspended sentence" is "in the community".

You forgot about the "combined with" part. The requirement of jail time seems harsh. However I'd have to see her driving record to know for sure.

[GostHacked]

I think we got that, but many in this thread think that those TWO PEOPLE! or at least the driver could have done more to ensure their safety.

One can always do more to ensure their safety. Wild cards happen all the time. Like this one.

[guyser]

Same incident but ... suppose ...

Dipsh!t man stops car half in the passing lane and jumps out to chase his duck hunting hat.

Woman and daughter on motorcycle are killed.

What is dipsh!t man guilty of?

.

Not tieing his hat under his chin.

[jacee]

Not tieing his hat under his chin.

IF a woman and her daughter died slamming into his car parked half in the passing lane, and he said ...

"But I had to TRY to get my hat!"

... What do you think the court should say about that?

.

[guyser]

IF a woman and her daughter died slamming into his car parked half in the passing lane, and he said ...

"But I had to TRY to get my hat!"

... What do you think the court should say about that?

.

Tie your hat tighter next time

[Boges]

What type of hat are we talking about?

[guyser]

Probably a Tilley , only old men and skinny teachers of both sex with lousy fashion sense wear the dumb looking things

[jacee]

One can always do more to ensure their safety. Wild cards happen all the time. Like this one.

A deliberate act of negligence like this ... whether by a man or woman, to go after a duck hunting hat or ducklings ... is not an unavoidable accident.

If no remorse is expressed, only excuses and self pity, the court/jury has to conclude that she may reoffend and is thus a danger to society.

If she is considered blameless one of the victims is blamed, I call gender bias.

Women are not weak helpless ditz's, slaves to our emotions.

We can take responsibility for our actions, stupid, negligent, dangerous or otherwise.

When we do wrong, we don't need sympathy and excuses, thanks.

That's patronizing gender bias.

.

[guyser]

That's patronizing gender bias.

You are the only who sees this.

[Boges]

That's patronizing gender bias.

That statement is a reach. I have not minimized the stupidness of what this woman has done.

Speculating that if a man did this we'd want him to serve hard time is at the very least woefully presumptive.

[guyser]

That statement is a reach. I have not minimized the stupidness of what this woman has done.

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.

[Smallc]

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.

.

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. Edited July 8, 2014 by Smallc