Guilty or not, what do you think?

[jzmtl]

This was a hot topic on several Canadian forums.

The basic jist is a girl saw a couple of baby ducks on an urban highway, stopped her car in middle of left lane, without hazard lights on during dusk, and ran down the less than 2 ft left shoulder (next to the central divider) to catch them. A guy on motorcycle with his daughter plowed into the car and were killed instantly.

She's convicted of dangerous act causing death or such, she says she's innocent because she didn't mean to kill, and to my surprise a lot of people supports her, even set up website (with lies contrary to witness statement) to collect money for her appeal. They were blaming the motorcyclist for speeding despite police said speed is not a factor, and that he should bear full responsibility because of it.

And the girl in question was on the dean's list at school.

Actual article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-guilty-in-2-highway-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200


What do you think? My tone is pretty clear on where I stand.

[Taxi Dad]

I'm not commenting on this particular case, because I've not read it properly (yet ) but sometimes Accidents are just that ! and nobody is to 'blame'
often everyone involved holds some of the responsibility, but nobody wants to take it !

(I think we should firstly extend our sympathy to those hurt AND the many effected by any tragedy, instead of wondering "why" or "who". in a lot of cases there isn't as much malice as you'd think at first glance)

rant over......let the debate begin ....

[captain spaulding]

Just from the limited info I will give you my opinion.

If she stopped her car anywhere in the lane at all and if the motorcyclist was not speeding and the motorcyclist hit the car while in the proper lane then she should definitely stand trial for manslaughter.

[derekmac]

Just from the limited info I will give you my opinion.

If she stopped her car anywhere in the lane at all and if the motorcyclist was not speeding and the motorcyclist hit the car while in the proper lane then she should definitely stand trial for manslaughter.

I agree.  Her intentions were good, but she was stupid doing what she did.  I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure (at least here) it's illegal to stop on the left side of a highway.  Just because she was book smart, doesn't mean she is street smart.  I know a lot of really stupid smart people.

[jzmtl]

To be clear she didn't stop on the side of the highway, she parked in the actual left lane of the highway.

In this article you can see her car after the crash and where it is. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/20/jury-finds-woman-guilty-for-causing-deaths-of-two-bikers-when-she-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway/

[Monrogue]

I agree with Cap and Derek.  Obviously good intentioned, but not executed well.  I question the need to even bother with the ducks myself (maybe that's just me though), especially to feel the urgent need to stop in the middle of the lane like that.  It's an innocent (albeit unnecessary imho) action that ended up causing a tragic accident.  Very sad for all involved

[lister]

I think this merits a quote from the HHTG:

"I ordered us some foie gras," said Ford.

"What?" said Arthur, whose attention was entirely focused on the television.

"I said I ordered us some foie gras."

"Oh," said Arthur, vaguely. "Um, I always feel a bit bad about foie gras. Bit cruel to the geese, isn't it?"

"smurf 'em," said Ford, slumping on the bed. "You can't care about every damn thing."

[jzmtl]

The widow actually stated she has no intention to seek any charges against her. I don't think she should be given any actual jail time since it serves no purpose, but the guilty verdict must stand.

[captain spaulding]

The widow actually stated she has no intention to seek any charges against her. I don't think she should be given any actual jail time since it serves no purpose, but the guilty verdict must stand.

Why no jail time? I have no idea about Canada, but in the USA and California specifically even "involuntary Manslaughter" carries jail time. I do not think there has to be a party prosecuting her as the state will prosecute. This might be different in Canada though and I could be wrong about the exact details of the "involuntary manslaughter" laws in the state.

[jzmtl]

The widow actually stated she has no intention to seek any charges against her. I don't think she should be given any actual jail time since it serves no purpose, but the guilty verdict must stand.

Why no jail time? I have no idea about Canada, but in the USA and California specifically even "involuntary Manslaughter" carries jail time. I do not think there has to be a party prosecuting her as the state will prosecute. This might be different in Canada though and I could be wrong about the exact details of the "involuntary manslaughter" laws in the state.

There's no minimal jail time associated with these charges. The state is prosecuting but the widow has no desire to see her convicted or send to jail. Besides what purpose would putting her in jail serve at this point?

Then again my problem is I'm too nice and too trusting, and getting screwed over by others all the time. 

[Cupboard]

to my mind she's clearly guilty of manslaughter and being a complete idiot from the evidence given in the thread so far.

It's not quite death by dangerous driving (a charge in the UK), it's death by dangerous not driving. I take it that she was stationary in the fast lane? In the dark with no lights on the motorbike didn't stand a chance.

An accident would be if a tree had fallen across the road, or if suddenly the car's electrics had completely failed and she couldn't mark the hazard in any way. Stopping on a motorway except for a pretty exceptional emergency isn't allowed, and certainly not for something as trivial as ducklings. She tried to save some ducklings and ended up killing two people completely needlessly by not applying any intelligence.

I have to say from experience that driving along in pitch darkness and suddenly finding yourself behind a lorry with no lights on is pretty terrifying.

[captain spaulding]

The widow actually stated she has no intention to seek any charges against her. I don't think she should be given any actual jail time since it serves no purpose, but the guilty verdict must stand.

Why no jail time? I have no idea about Canada, but in the USA and California specifically even "involuntary Manslaughter" carries jail time. I do not think there has to be a party prosecuting her as the state will prosecute. This might be different in Canada though and I could be wrong about the exact details of the "involuntary manslaughter" laws in the state.

There's no minimal jail time associated with these charges. The state is prosecuting but the widow has no desire to see her convicted or send to jail. Besides what purpose would putting her in jail serve at this point?

Then again my problem is I'm too nice and too trusting, and getting screwed over by others all the time. 

Ah ok. Well theirs the difference. Here there is a minimum jail time.

I personally think she should serve jail time. She did the crime now she need to do her time. Sure it was a accident, but her accident killed two people and it could of been easily avoided by using common sense and following the rules of the road. She tried to save a few ducks and killed two people.  Who the heck thinks its ever a good idea to stop in the middle of a freeway. WTF did she think was going to happen. My whole thing is how easily this could of been avoided.

I'm not attacking you or anything. I read my post and it kind of sounds like it. You can get a feel for tone over the internet. Just my opinion on the subject. Either way I hope she learned a very, very valuable life lesson from this.

[Grail Knight]

Why this womans actions are even being debated shows the great divide between common sense and what some are willing to allow others to get away with.

If an animal is in my path on the road it moves out of the way or is run over. I am not going to swerve out of the way
if the chance of my doing so will cause an accident let alone stop in the lane to shoo it out of the way.

Give her 5 years in jail to think over what damage she caused to others through her own carelessness.

[captain spaulding]

Why this womans actions are even being debated shows the great divide between common sense and what some are willing to allow others to get away with.

If an animal is in my path on the road it moves out of the way or is run over. I am not going to swerve out of the way
if the chance of my doing so will cause an accident let alone stop in the lane to shoo it out of the way.

Give her 5 years in jail to think over what damage she caused to others through her own carelessness.

Yup.

[sawman]

Guilty as hell 

And I absolutely think stupidity can and should sometimes result in jail time. I hope she rots.

[jzmtl]

I'm not attacking you or anything. I read my post and it kind of sounds like it. You can get a feel for tone over the internet. Just my opinion on the subject. Either way I hope she learned a very, very valuable life lesson from this.

Didn't think you were.

What scares me the most is the amount of people who think because the motorcycle hit something in front he's 100% at fault, and they are driving all around me.

[Sweety-Sama]

It was fatal to not set up warning lights and triangle. Even if her thought was to save life (the ducks). You learn in your driving lessons (at least in Germany) that this kind of actions are dangerous for yourself and other people. I am animal friendly and when my car rolled over a squirrel I cried a lot and it still makes me sad. Still, it was unacceptable of that girl and an act of negligent homicide.
With some common sense this wouldn't have happen.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

[captain spaulding]

It was fatal to not set up warning lights and triangle. Even if her thought was to save life (the ducks). You learn in your driving lessons (at least in Germany) that this kind of actions are dangerous for yourself and other people. I am animal friendly and when my car rolled over a squirrel I cried a lot and it still makes me sad. Still, it was unacceptable of that girl and an act of negligent homicide.
With some common sense this wouldn't have happen.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

Well aren't you just a sweetheart. 

[Lynn LeFey]

Devil's advocate here. The Husband isn't culpable by using a vehicle that can kill you? People want to ride a motorcycle, that's their business, but it does not enclose you, does not have safety restraints, is inherently unstable, no airbags, AND he was obviously moving at unsafe speeds if he didn't see the car and stop/avoid in time. Right? If it had been a fallen tree, and he plowed into it, THEN who would have been responsible? If you say then it would have been his fault, then there's no case. If you say 'accident', then it's an accident with the case of running into a car too.

No. This is not my opinion, just one perspective by which to view the case.

I have watched countless animals run over, WANTING to stop to move them out of the road. Mostly snakes and turtles. But I KNOW the potential danger that could be caused by doing this. If I start feeling bad for them, then I would start feeling bad about every mouse eaten by every bird of prey or cat, every bug eaten by every mouse. Next thing you know, I'm using a very soft bristled broom to sweep in front of my footsteps for fear of killing an ant.

Or, maybe I can just imagine the feasts that crows and ants have when an animal is hit and killed.
"A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm."
We're all eventually just Soylent Green.

Do I personally feel that the lady bears some of the burden of responsibility? Probably yes, not knowing any other bit of the circumstances.

[Monrogue]

Why this womans actions are even being debated shows the great divide between common sense and what some are willing to allow others to get away with.

If an animal is in my path on the road it moves out of the way or is run over. I am not going to swerve out of the way
if the chance of my doing so will cause an accident let alone stop in the lane to shoo it out of the way.

Give her 5 years in jail to think over what damage she caused to others through her own carelessness.

Yup.

Same here   That's why I said it was a questionable, and unnecessary action on her part.  Those ducklings would've been roadkill if it were me (not intentionally of course, only if it was unavoidable), before I'd stop in the middle of the road, especially on the highway.  Not to sound all anti-wildlife or whatever, but humans' lives are far more valuable than a couple insignificant ducks.  I was just putting it more nicely before I guess

[Grathr]

I think She's guilty of being stupid and her actions led to the death of two people. They might have survived if they had been driving a car, but they didnt. I dont think jail time will do anyone any good at this time. She should be found guilty, sentenced to paying a hefty fine, and never be allowed to drive a car or other vehicle on public roads again.  Thats my opinion anyway.


Sent from a device made from star dust using tapatalk

[Sweety-Sama]

It was fatal to not set up warning lights and triangle. Even if her thought was to save life (the ducks). You learn in your driving lessons (at least in Germany) that this kind of actions are dangerous for yourself and other people. I am animal friendly and when my car rolled over a squirrel I cried a lot and it still makes me sad. Still, it was unacceptable of that girl and an act of negligent homicide.
With some common sense this wouldn't have happen.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

Well aren't you just a sweetheart. 

It was sad I had to call RT and cried after I arrived at work. It was a smurf day!


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

[RT1969]

I first got the impression she was convicted of manslaughter. That might have been debatable.

But she is convicted of criminal negligence and I feel this is the absolut correct way to label this. You could see the crash as an accident, but she was the sole cause for this accident. She was negligent without a doubt. And to kill a human is a criminal act.

Next question: The sentencing.
This serves not to 'please' the relatives of the victims, nor does it only serve to 'teach a lesson' to the convicted. It follows from the law to protect all citizens, represented by the DA. So he/she has to push for an adequate sentencing for criminal negligence resulting in two deaths. Without knowing anything about the Canadian Law I would expect it to be 2 to 4 years jail time.
But I would like to see this sentenced on probation (if allowed by the law).
Probation is not a 'reduced' sentencing, it is chance for this woman to redeem herself.
Further monetary sentencing should be the penalty according to the trafic violations. Luckily for the convicted the victims' relative seems not to press for civil recompensations.

This above is my personal opinion, no legal advice, informed assesment, etc. So feel free to correct me if I made objective errors!

[RamoN]

Being a good person is not just measured on your intention but on your sense of responsibility to you and others. A mom taking his kid to school who parks in double lane and creates an accident because "she was only going to be there for a second, i didnt thought nothing would happen".

I had more than once people almost ran me over and then apologising, well i tell you that if they do run me over with a car no ammount of apology will set my bones in place or worse.

I do believe that in a case like this the punishment shouldnt be the same as someone who was drunk and fell sleep while driving. But you are responsible for what you do even if you had the best intentions.......

In any event that is also responsibility of the people who take the driving license evaluation, maybe she should never be able to drive a car, but that is also true for 70% of the people nowadays.

[Aloha]

I've had issues with people serving jail time for some things.  I don't believe it really serves to do anything else other than punish.  I have no issues with people being punished but there are some cases where the "punishment" would be better served.  I've always believed for some crimes and those who have committed them jail is the wrong answer.  I'd like to see our society come up with better more creative "punishments" that actually serve a purpose.  I have no problem removing some from our society and locking away the key but one size doesn't fit all. 

[enki_ck]

This looks like a clear case of negligent homicide to me. Her negligence caused two people to loose their lives.

[Sweety-Sama]

I've had issues with people serving jail time for some things.  I don't believe it really serves to do anything else other than punish.  I have no issues with people being punished but there are some cases where the "punishment" would be better served.  I've always believed for some crimes and those who have committed them jail is the wrong answer.  I'd like to see our society come up with better more creative "punishments" that actually serve a purpose.  I have no problem removing some from our society and locking away the key but one size doesn't fit all.

I think (but don't really know - am no lawyer) that she wouldn't get jail time here. It would be on probation and/or money to pay. Maybe some social service too.
Jail isn't the answer to everything I think.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

[Lichtbote]

Not taking any side here, i have been a motorbiker until my wife asked me so stop (cause i was a speedfreak, loved to go with 270 over the autobahn).

But i want to give something to think about - most of you may know that there is no speed limit in general on our autobahn, unless a certain part was limited due to speedlimit signs. But that don´t give you the right to go as much as possible - if something happens at a high speed, you are responsible on your own. While you are allowed to go that speed, it is your responsibility to be able to stop within your range of view.
Lets say it´s night, and a transport company loses some stuff, for example some furniture. Now you are driving up to that place, off course with your lights on. Noone does, but by law you need to be that slow that you can stop (including your reaction-time) within the range of your car lights. If you don´t, and cause a accident when hitting the lost stuff, you are as responsible as the trucker who hadn´t secured his load accordingly. Then it´s up to the court to decide if the guilt is 50/50 or more toward one side.

[Aloha]

I've had issues with people serving jail time for some things.  I don't believe it really serves to do anything else other than punish.  I have no issues with people being punished but there are some cases where the "punishment" would be better served.  I've always believed for some crimes and those who have committed them jail is the wrong answer.  I'd like to see our society come up with better more creative "punishments" that actually serve a purpose.  I have no problem removing some from our society and locking away the key but one size doesn't fit all.

I think (but don't really know - am no lawyer) that she wouldn't get jail time here. It would be on probation and/or money to pay. Maybe some social service too.
Jail isn't the answer to everything I think.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

Here in California jail time is almost mandatory for crimes of this nature.  Most are sentenced to a certain amount of jail time then let go early to serve the remainder on probation.

Both families are suffering and it's such a darn shame.  A ( fill in the blank ) moment can eave lasting devastation in its wake.  The highways in California are crazy at times and I've seen some really brainless stunts. 

I had a pretty wicked wreck on my bike because a lady decided to nearly come to a full stop on the highway.  I tried to veer around her but I ran our of room as we were rounding a bend in the road.  When I saw her I pulled my bike to lean left and inertia stepped in and BANG!!! I clipped her left rear and WOOOOOOSH, I flew threw the air  ( look ma no wings ) and lights out.       

 

[Sweety-Sama]

I've had issues with people serving jail time for some things.  I don't believe it really serves to do anything else other than punish.  I have no issues with people being punished but there are some cases where the "punishment" would be better served.  I've always believed for some crimes and those who have committed them jail is the wrong answer.  I'd like to see our society come up with better more creative "punishments" that actually serve a purpose.  I have no problem removing some from our society and locking away the key but one size doesn't fit all.

I think (but don't really know - am no lawyer) that she wouldn't get jail time here. It would be on probation and/or money to pay. Maybe some social service too.
Jail isn't the answer to everything I think.


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701

Here in California jail time is almost mandatory for crimes of this nature.  Most are sentenced to a certain amount of jail time then let go early to serve the remainder on probation.

Both families are suffering and it's such a darn shame.  A ( fill in the blank ) moment can eave lasting devastation in its wake.  The highways in California are crazy at times and I've seen some really brainless stunts. 

I had a pretty wicked wreck on my bike because a lady decided to nearly come to a full stop on the highway.  I tried to veer around her but I ran our of room as we were rounding a bend in the road.  When I saw her I pulled my bike to lean left and inertia stepped in and BANG!!! I clipped her left rear and WOOOOOOSH, I flew threw the air  ( look ma no wings ) and lights out.       

 

Outch! Doesn't sound good..


-----------------------------
Using a future communicator stolen from the NCC-1701