Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[Smallc]

But it doesn't make what they do legal or prudent - that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp.

[jacee]

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.

The jury didn't 'miss it' at all.

Her lawyer tried to make the case that you are trying to make.

The jury rejected it because her lawyer couldn't make the case:

He could not prove that his speed made any difference to the outcome.

The factor that you fail to appreciate is ... the SUV.

For some reason - maybe the jury knows - the SUV driver didn't realize that her car was stopped (no flashers, parked on a curve) until the last seconds, and swerved around it, no brake lights, no warning.

From behind the SUV, essentially driving blind as smaller vehicles are behind bigger ones, the motorcycle was suddenly faced with a parked car in his path ... too close, too late even if he had been going slower.

The jury doesn't have it wrong. You do, and you haven't even bothered to read enough to know all the info.

It wasn't an act of 'compassion' for her to try to save the ducklings.

She scared them back into traffic!

Who couldn't have forseen that?

She was grandstanding.

Dangerously, negligently, and without remorse, putting many people at risk for her moment of fame, the 'woman who tried to save the ducklings'.

And there are suckers born every minute who fall for that crap.

But the jury saw through her.

.

Edited July 13, 2014 by jacee

[cybercoma]

But it doesn't make what they do legal or prudent - that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp.

It doesn't matter that he was committing a summary offence. She committed an indictable criminal offence with her negligence. He was not negligent and he was being by the very definition prudent. He was acting just as anyone else does in the passing lane on a Montreal highway.

[bush_cheney2004]

Motorcyclists routinely encounter obstructions and stopped vehicles in the "passing lane"....with and without hazard warning lights.

Ride smarter or die, as in this case.

[waldo]

...and yet it happens with regularity for a myriad of reasons and other motorists are able to avoid hitting the vehicle. Amazing !

mother killed in Tampa Florida, USA! Killed dammit!

.

[Smallc]

It doesn't matter that he was committing a summary offence. She committed an indictable criminal offence with her negligence. He was not negligent and he was being by the very definition prudent. He was acting just as anyone else does in the passing lane on a Montreal highway.

And obviously he was acting inappropriately as he wasn't able to avoid a hazard that others did.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. No big deal, parking in the passing lane. Motorists should be able to avoid it no problem. Therefore, what she did wasn't negligent because any reasonable person would stop their car int he passing lane and get out to run around on the highway. As long as nobody else is negligent, everything will be fine. The act of parking your car in the passing isn't dangerous at all because it's easily avoidable.

[Smallc]

It's incredibly dangerous. No one has said otherwise. What has been said, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that he bares responsibity for what happened as well.

[jacee]

It's incredibly dangerous. No one has said otherwise. What has been said, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that he bares responsibity for what happened as well.

Irrelevant to her charges and convictions.

.

[Smallc]

Irrelevant to her charges and convictions.

.

I'm not sure it's irrelevant...because without his failure as a driver, her stupid action would not have resulted in an accident.

[jacee]

I'm not sure it's irrelevant...because without his failure as a driver, her stupid action would not have resulted in an accident.

It's irrelevant because it was aired in court, dismissed as irrelevant, unproven, and she was convicted.

Why don't you read the accounts instead of speculating and repeating.

.

Edited July 14, 2014 by jacee

[GostHacked]

Of course she created a hazard. It's completely his fault that he hit the hazard. It doesn't matter what the result was.

The law btw, exists to avoid the creation of unnecessary hazards. That doesn't abrogate the responsibility of other drivers on the road.

There's no reason to get insulting about it.

Here is a simple question, would you park like she did for the reasons she did?

If your answer is no, then you have lost your argument.

If your answer is yes, then I do not want you on the roads as a driver.

[Smallc]

Simply answering no to that question doesn't absolve him of his failure. Yes she failed (for the hundredth time), but so did he, and in a way big enough that he ended up dead.

[GostHacked]

Simply answering no to that question doesn't absolve him of his failure. Yes she failed (for the hundredth time), but so did he, and in a way big enough that he ended up dead.

His failure resulted in his death. HER failure contributed MORE to his death by putting him and others at risk of injury when there was NO good f'n reason to do so. That kind of stupid is not welcome on the roads.

You can cover a lot of road with just doing a shoulder check. So would you do the same thing this lady did? If not, why? It really is not that hard to answer. Common sense is still a thing right?

[Smallc]

I already answered what I would do. This verdict (and the arguments supporting it) seems to come from a complete lack of awareness of incident theory. Every incident (there are no such things as accidents, as that implied they were not preventable) has a variety of causes, and each of those causes factor into the result. That's the case here.

[Boges]

This thread needs to die.

But something else dawned on me driving a fair distance this weekend. Even if she didn't put her four-ways on, wouldn't her break light still have been on? Unless she took the keys out and turned the car completely off, which would have been completely daft.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Boges

[jacee]

I already answered what I would do. This verdict (and the arguments supporting it) seems to come from a complete lack of awareness of incident theory. Every incident (there are no such things as accidents, as that implied they were not preventable) has a variety of causes, and each of those causes factor into the result. That's the case here.

The man died.

He can't be punished anymore.

She'll do jail time.

What's left to biatch about?

You're wasting your time here when you could be offering your expertise to her lawyer since he apparently didn't defend her to your standards.

And I'm sure she'll appreciate your comfort and reassurance that it's not her fault, considering her self pity and lack of remorse for causing the deaths of two people.

And on your way there, in solidarity, park your car in the passing lane and wander down the road distracting and obstructing traffic and see if you can get someone killed.

It won't be your fault.

They were following too close.

.

[jacee]

This thread needs to die.

But something else dawned on me driving a fair distance this weekend. Even if she didn't put her four-ways on, wouldn't her break light still have been on? Unless she took the keys out and turned the car completely off, which would have been completely daft.

Think about that for a minute ... what causes brake lights to come on?

.

[Boges]

Think about that for a minute ... what causes brake lights to come on?

.

I guess so, but some sort of lighting would have been on, even running lights of some kind if the key was still in the ignition.

[Big Guy]

This thread needs to die.

....

I think we have to let it slowly peter out, move over to the slow lane and park on the shoulder.

If it was stopped abruptly in the fast lane where it seems to be at the moment it may cause another thread to pile into it and injure some unsuspecting posters.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Big Guy

[jacee]

I guess so, but some sort of lighting would have been on, even running lights of some kind if the key was still in the ignition.

?

[Smallc]

It was daytime so there wouldn't have been lights. It still doesn't excuse him. This argument is going in circles though.

[Boges]

?

The argument is that because she didn't put her hazards on, the MC couldn't properly see the car. BUT, my question is. Did she take the key out of the ignition? Because if not then the car would likely have some sort of lighting to make seeing it more easy to see.

I'm sure I could research that information but I'm not. All I'm saying is that I could be convinced that seeing the car would be a lot more difficult if she actually took the key out of the ignition when she went to save these ducks.

[Boges]

It was daytime so there wouldn't have been lights. It still doesn't excuse him. This argument is going in circles though.

I thought it was at night, photos I've seen were at night.

But yes this thread is a going in circles and probably should be locked.

[jacee]

I thought it was at night, photos I've seen were at night.

No, and I think we can assume that the court would have considered this.

She lied about the flashers, btw.

But yes this thread is a going in circles and probably should be locked.

Yes.

.