Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

Smallc · July 10, 2014

You have got to be trolling me. Get out of here with this nonsense.

I'm serious...the moving vehicle is the one with the responsibility. You have to forget that people died. That's irrelevant to what actually happened. She did something stupid and he hit her...because he was driving in a way that wasn't safe or proper, especially given the vehicle he was operating.

jacee · July 10, 2014

I'm serious...the moving vehicle is the one with the responsibility. You have to forget that people died. That's irrelevant to what actually happened. She did something stupid and he hit her...because he was driving in a way that wasn't safe or proper, especially given the vehicle he was operating.

Cite?

Because apparently the police charged her, and the jury convicted her, finding her responsible and guilty.

So you're going to have to find some pretty good evidence to prove the justice system wrong.

.

Edited July 10, 2014 by jacee

Smallc · July 10, 2014

You should have learned that many years ago. It's part of basic study for getting a license.

jacee · July 10, 2014

You should have learned that many years ago. It's part of basic study for getting a license.

What, me drive? With such looney-toons parked on the roads and others defending her right to? No thanks.

Are you really saying that the police, Crown attorney, judge and jury got it wrong, and you're right?

Did your imaginary friends tell you that, or can you provide a link to a credible source?

Seriously ... don't confuse insurance liability (car damage) with criminal liability (causing death).

But even just with insurance ... do you really think the dead man has to pay for i-love-ducks-more-than-people girl's car?

Really?

.

Edited July 10, 2014 by jacee

GostHacked · July 10, 2014

Cite?

Because apparently the police charged her, and the jury convicted her, finding her responsible and guilty.

So you're going to have to find some pretty good evidence to prove the justice system wrong.

.

You have seemed to change your view on this incident.

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

I'm serious...the moving vehicle is the one with the responsibility. You have to forget that people died. That's irrelevant to what actually happened. She did something stupid and he hit her...because he was driving in a way that wasn't safe or proper, especially given the vehicle he was operating.

You need to go back earlier in this thread and read what has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal negligence causing death conviction. You should also keep in mind that the defence tried to pin the cause on the motorcycle driver to defend their client. To say he was MORE in the wrong is so completely wrong that I don't even know why I'm still responding to you.

Edited July 10, 2014 by cybercoma

Smallc · July 10, 2014

You are responsible for any road hazard that you impact, no matter what that hazard may be. It's that simple, and for the life of me, I cannot understand this conviction.

Yes, she stopped in a very stupid place.

But he was a ) speeding

b ) following too closely behind

c ) not keeping a proper lookout

d ) not operating his chosen vehicle in a safe manner

Leaving everything that she did aside, those things are still true, and would have still been true. Simply put, he was very much in the wrong.

People here keep saying that you don't expect a vehicle to be parked in the passing lane of a divided highway. People here don't seem to understand that such a thing is what you should expect, and is in fact exactly what you're required to expect.

Edit to add: I realize she was also required to not stop on the highway. The blame is definitely partly hers, but to place all of it on her is an unfair burden, and I would hope that this gets overturned on appeal. Neither party was being 'reasonable and prudent'.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Smallc

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

You are responsible for any road hazard that you impact

No you're not. Let me know when you realize that. You can get into an accident and it not be your fault at all. Some suicidal idiot jumps in front of your car at the last second, it's not your fault...even if you're speeding. Someone runs a red light and you don't have time to stop, it's not your fault. I don't know where you get this ridiculous notion that you're responsible no matter what if you get into an accident.

And it's not at all an unfair burden on her to take all the blame. She did something that no reasonable person would ever do, while he was driving exactly like everybody else does around Montreal. Of course it's her burden.

Edited July 10, 2014 by cybercoma

Smallc · July 10, 2014

No you're not.

Yes you are. A road hazard is any stationary object in your path. If you hit one, it's your fault. As I said, she was also at fault, but he was breaking the law in so many ways, it isn't even funny. This verdict is completely wrong.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2014

Vehicle stoppages in the left or passing lane are hardly rare, mostly because of stalls or crashes. Even in Montreal.

guyser · July 10, 2014

No you're not.

Yes you are. There is nothing new about this.

Let me know when you realize that.

Just did. I am sorry, but your thoughts are skewed exactly backwards on this . And so is that conviction.

You can get into an accident and it not be your fault at all. Some suicidal idiot jumps in front of your car at the last second, it's not your fault...even if you're speeding. Someone runs a red light and you don't have time to stop, it's not your fault. I don't know where you get this ridiculous notion that you're responsible no matter what if you get into an accident.

He didnt say that. He said road hazard.

And it's not at all an unfair burden on her to take all the blame. She did something that no reasonable person would ever do, while he was driving exactly like everybody else does around Montreal. Of course it's her burden.

Apart from stupidly parking her car there, the road hazard existed for some time before the speeding and careless MC driver came along

guyser · July 10, 2014

You are responsible for any road hazard that you impact, no matter what that hazard may be. It's that simple, and for the life of me, I cannot understand this conviction.

Yes, she stopped in a very stupid place.

But he was a ) speeding

b ) following too closely behind

c ) not keeping a proper lookout

d ) not operating his chosen vehicle in a safe manner

Leaving everything that she did aside, those things are still true, and would have still been true. Simply put, he was very much in the wrong.

People here keep saying that you don't expect a vehicle to be parked in the passing lane of a divided highway. People here don't seem to understand that such a thing is what you should expect, and is in fact exactly what you're required to expect.

Edit to add: I realize she was also required to not stop on the highway. The blame is definitely partly hers, but to place all of it on her is an unfair burden, and I would hope that this gets overturned on appeal. Neither party was being 'reasonable and prudent'.

I quote this whole post becuase it is spot on.

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

If he was speeding and driving recklessly, she would not have been the cause of his death and therefore she would not have been convicted as causing his death would not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt that she caused his death, if your arguments are to be believed, would come from his recklessness. The defence attorney argued this already.

He or she lost.

Why do you think that is?

Edited July 10, 2014 by cybercoma

guyser · July 10, 2014

If he was speeding and driving recklessly,

If? That was shown in court to be fact. (the speeding partthat is)

she would not have been the cause of his death and therefore she would not have been convicted as causing his death would not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt that she caused his death, if your arguments are to be believed, would come from his recklessness. The defence attorney argued this already.

He or she lost.

Why do you think that is?

They put the onus on her, all of it, and as has been said numerous times already, its very hard to understand why. Quebec law is different and maybe thats part of it.

If this were Ontario the result would be vastly different.

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

I don't pretend to know why it's so hard for you guys to understand something so plainly simple.

guyser · July 10, 2014

I don't pretend to know why it's so hard for you guys to understand something so plainly simple.

Because it doesnt make sense from many angles.

But the fact is, had this happened in Ontario, this discussion would not take place.

He would be at fault, she would get an HTA ticket.

Let me ask you and Jacee (or anyone else)a question.

You drive on the highway, traffic slows and you are number 6 in a line of 10 cars. Car 11 comes barreling into #10 and bunches the other 10 cars into each other.

Whos at fault? Are you at fault with your #6 car?

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

If it happened in Ontario it would have been the same. She was convicted under federal law, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited July 10, 2014 by cybercoma

guyser · July 10, 2014

If it happened in Ontario it would have been the same. She was convicted under federal law, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOt in your lifetime would nshe be treated the same.

I deal with this all the time, and can tell you not a chance.

Hal 9000 · July 10, 2014

Why do people want to draw similarities between natural occurrences such as heavy traffic or emergent situations such as breakdowns etc? None of these things happened, if they had happened, had she been in heavy traffic or her car broke down, i'd be in her corner, but that isn't the case. The issue is that she willfully stopped her car for no good reason in a passing lane endangering many people and causing the death of 2 people.

I can't believe how many people here actually feel sorry for her! Wow!

cybercoma · July 10, 2014

Emphasis on willfully. It was not beyond her control.

guyser · July 10, 2014

I can't believe how many people here actually feel sorry for her! Wow!

If one has the knowledge of how these things play out, then its easy to feel sorry for her sentence that hopefully is not coming barring an appeal.

I have no sympathy for her dumb actions and think she should pay a price, but certainly nothign that is being proposed.

Appeal overturn and a fine is what I hope happens

Hal 9000 · July 10, 2014

If one has the knowledge of how these things play out, then its easy to feel sorry for her sentence that hopefully is not coming barring an appeal.

I have no sympathy for her dumb actions and think she should pay a price, but certainly nothign that is being proposed.

Appeal overturn and a fine is what I hope happens

A fine for what?

guyser · July 10, 2014

A fine for what?

I have no problem with a careless driving charge.

Bonam · July 11, 2014

1) Do you guys know what negligence is? Yes or no?

2) Was the woman negligent in leaving her vehicle stopped in the left lane when it was not absolutely necessary to do so? Yes or no?

3) Did the presence of the unlit stopped vehicle in the left lane create a hazardous situation for others? Yes or no?

4) Did this hazardous situation result in death? Yes or no?

If you answer yes to the above questions, then she is guilty of "criminal negligence causing death" and deserves the applicable sentence.

If you answered no to question 1 or 2, please read up on the definition of negligence. If you answered no to question 3, I don't want to be anywhere close to where you're driving. For the answer to question 4, read the news article. That's ALL that is relevant in this case.

You can argue about insurance claims all you want but that has nothing to do with the topic of if the woman is guilty of criminal negligence causing death.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Bonam

Hal 9000 · July 11, 2014

Careless - not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors.

"she had been careless and had left the window unlocked"

synonyms: inattentive, incautious, negligent, absentminded, remiss;

Ok, so you agree she was careless (or negligent), she did cause the deaths of 2 people so...why should they overturn a verdict that reflects exactly that.