Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

Smallc · July 11, 2014

I speed and tailgate regularly. I lived in a city too long for that to not be the case. That doesn't mean I'm driving prudently when I do.

Yes she created a hazard. His driving caused him to hit the hazard. That would have been the case no matter what the hazard was. That's why he's at least partially at fault.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Smallc

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

More importantly, the defence lawyer wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he would have been able to avoid the obstacle were he not driving the way that he was. If he was able to avoid her car, driving as any reasonable person would on that highway at that time of day, then her actions didn't cause his death. His reckless driving did and the Crown would have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what she did was the cause of his death. Anyone that's sitting here arguing that it was his actions that caused his death are not taking into account that the burden of proof in this case is on the prosecution to show that it was what she did that caused his death. The defence brought up his driving. It failed to persuade anyone that his driving was to blame for the accident. So you all can sit here and pretend you have some arcane knowledge of the situation, but this was all brought up in the case already. It failed because nobody was buying it. The way he was driving was not out of the ordinary for that stretch of road at that time of the day and even if he was going over the limit and not following exactly 3 seconds behind the car in front of him, he was not driving in such a way as to be considered reckless. What she did, on the other hand, was completely reckless and unconscionable to anyone capable of reason. It's something that could cause serious bodily harm or death to people who are following the rules of the road to the letter. And that's why she was convicted.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that his driving caused him to hit the hazard. It's not enough to say he was driving and he hit the hazard, therefore his driving caused him to hit it. We know that the SUV swerved at the last second, revealing the parked car seconds before it was hit. There is nothing in those few seconds anyone could have done to avoid that car.

Edited July 11, 2014 by cybercoma

guyser · July 11, 2014

The problem with what you're saying, and you've ignored this from page one, is that he wasn't negligent in any way whatsoever. He wasn't driving recklessly. He was driving in the exact same manner as others on the highway around him at the time. If you can't see that, then I have to wonder whether you actually have a license or not.

cybercoma, sorry dude, but that is complete BS.

guyser · July 11, 2014

Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that his driving caused him to hit the hazard. It's not enough to say he was driving and he hit the hazard, therefore his driving caused him to hit it. We know that the SUV swerved at the last second, revealing the parked car seconds before it was hit. There is nothing in those few seconds anyone could have done to avoid that car.

You answered your own question, not to mention contradict yourself.

His driving caused him to hit it precisely because his driving habits were such that he failed to either keep a proper lookout, tailgating or both.

The SUV swerved and missed it, so too did some other cars. But he didnt.

The is plenty that he could have done (and again, her too mostly)....he could have increased that gap to 3 or more seconds. At his speed he would have had lots of time to stop, avoid, swerve.

But HE didnt, the SUV DID.

Reconcile that conundrum first.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

If his actions CAUSED his death, then there would have been reasonable doubt cast around one of the key factors in determining guilt in a criminal negligence case. Namely that what she did caused his death. If that's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then there can be no conviction. The judge would have instructed the jury on this, as I posted earlier in the thread. If it's unclear whether it was her parking the car in the fast lane or his reckless driving that killed him, then she would have to be found not guilty.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

You answered your own question, not to mention contradict yourself.

His driving caused him to hit it precisely because his driving habits were such that he failed to either keep a proper lookout, tailgating or both.

The SUV swerved and missed it, so too did some other cars. But he didnt.

The is plenty that he could have done (and again, her too mostly)....he could have increased that gap to 3 or more seconds. At his speed he would have had lots of time to stop, avoid, swerve.

But HE didnt, the SUV DID.

Reconcile that conundrum first.

Is it really that difficult to understand how someone on a motorcycle behind an SUV didn't see her car until it was too late? Are you honestly having this much trouble seeing that?

guyser · July 11, 2014

If his actions CAUSED his death, then there would have been reasonable doubt cast around one of the key factors in determining guilt in a criminal negligence case. Namely that what she did caused his death. If that's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then there can be no conviction. The judge would have instructed the jury on this, as I posted earlier in the thread. If it's unclear whether it was her parking the car in the fast lane or his reckless driving that killed him, then she would have to be found not guilty.

For the most part , true.

But she could have had a shitty lawyer ya know.

HIs actions did not CAUSE his death, they contributed to it. No one is saying he is 100 @ fault (smallc corrected himself)

Ive searched for a transcript but cannot find one. I used to get hem mailed to me but that stopped a while ago.

guyser · July 11, 2014

Is it really that difficult to understand how someone on a motorcycle behind an SUV didn't see her car until it was too late? Are you honestly having this much trouble seeing that?

No, it s you who cannot see the forest for the trees !

He was taligating and not keeping a proper lookout. There is no escaping that simple issue.

Look, we all agree she was dumb and will pay. What some of us cant fathom is how she is made to pay the whole she-bang, no contributory negligence for his actions that lead to his demise.

Failing to leave enough space for emergency manoeuvers/escape routes is a recipe for bad things to happen.

We all agree we speed, we all agree that at some times we fail to leave enough room (aka tailgate), we all agree we fail at times to keep a proper lookout, and we should all agree we hits things when we fail to correct those 3 things.

And when we do, we are all likely looking at an @ fault accident

guyser · July 12, 2014

Heres the law in Quebec.

The driver of a road vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is prudent and reasonable, taking account of speed, traffic density, atmospheric conditions and the condition of the roadway

And addendum to the above, posted not as law, but....common sense.

We cannot see what hazards may face the driver in front of us so we should follow far enough behind to stop suddenly

jacee · July 12, 2014

More importantly, the defence lawyer wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he would have been able to avoid the obstacle were he not driving the way that he was.

Point.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Yup.

I'd like to see the PROOF that he could have avoided the obstacle.

Speed, distance, etc ... come on folks ... show the PROOF that his behaviour made any difference whatsoever.

Because her lawyer couldn't prove that.

.

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2014

Speed, distance, etc ... come on folks ... show the PROOF that his behaviour made any difference whatsoever.

He (and his daughter) are dead....she is not.

Smallc · July 12, 2014

Exactly. Other vehicles avoided it. He didn't. That seems to be proof enough.

jacee · July 12, 2014

Exactly. Other vehicles avoided it. He didn't. That seems to be proof enough.

Wasn't proof enough for the jury.

.

Smallc · July 12, 2014

Wasn't proof enough for the jury.

.

Which is really head scratching to be honest.

jacee · July 12, 2014

Which is really head scratching to be honest.

Not really.

As cybercoma said, her defense lawyer didn't prove that - even if he wasn't speeding and left the required distance - he would have been able to avoid her car.

The burden of proof was hers, and it wasn't met.

That's how the law works.

And the law certainly doesn't excuse her negligent and dangerous act, that put many people at risk.

.

Edited July 12, 2014 by jacee

Smallc · July 12, 2014

No one is excusing her negligence. Many are excusing his.

jacee · July 12, 2014

No one is excusing her negligence. Many are excusing his.

You (nor the defense lawyer) haven't proven that he 'could have' stopped.

So it isn't clear that anything he 'could have' done would have made any difference to the outcome at all.

She'll have to show remorse (hasn't yet) and beg for the court's mercy in sentencing to get a deal anything like the plea deal she turned down.

Why would she lie in court about her flashers?

Because she knew she was in the wrong.

.

Edited July 13, 2014 by jacee

cybercoma · July 13, 2014

No one is excusing her negligence. Many are excusing his.

his negligence hasn't been proven. In fact if he as negligent then there would be reasonable doubt about whether her actions were the cause of his death. If there is reasonable doubt about the cause then she can't be convicted for negligence causing death.

But No one has proven that he was negligent. Not anyone in this thread and most importantly not the defence.

Edited July 13, 2014 by cybercoma

Smallc · July 13, 2014

It has been shown in this thread many times. The fact that everyone speeds and tailgates is no excuse for speeding and tailgating.

jacee · July 13, 2014

It has been shown in this thread many times. The fact that everyone speeds and tailgates is no excuse for speeding and tailgating.

It has not been shown that it made any difference.

.

jbg · July 13, 2014

Wasn't proof enough for the jury.
Which is really head scratching to be honest.

There is stuff we don't know about the trial. For example, had t his lady pulled similar stunts before? And did she come across on the witness stand as caring more for ducks htan people?

cybercoma · July 13, 2014

It has been shown in this thread many times. The fact that everyone speeds and tailgates is no excuse for speeding and tailgating.

Then you have no idea what negligence means. His actions do not meet the criteria for criminal negligence. He has to be shown to be doing something a reasonable person wouldn't do because they know it would cause serious bodily harm or death. People travel upwards of 10-20km/h over the speed limit all the time, especially when the flow of traffic is going that fast. This is not criminally negligent. This is not even negligence. It's against the law to speed, but that is not sufficient to meet the criteria for negligence. It's not even necessarily driving recklessly. Parking your car in the passing lane on a multilane highway with no indicators and no reason that's beyond your control does meet the criteria.

Smallc · July 13, 2014

No one said his negligence was criminal (though he was breaking the law). His negligence has todo with his duty as a motorist. He shares some of the blame for what happened. That's the point here, and it something that everyone, including the jury, seems to have missed.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Smallc

cybercoma · July 13, 2014

He doesn't share some of the blame because he wasn't negligent. That's the point. What he was doing wasn't something a reasonable person wouldn't do; what she did was. It's patently obvious why someone wouldn't do what she did. It's also obvious why reasonable people will drive above the speed limit on Montreal highways, especially in the passing lane. In fact, one could argue that sticking strictly to the speed limit in the passing lane could create a dangerous situation itself which is why the vast majority of people don't do it.