They don't care

[matai]

They don't give a duck:

Today, a lady in Montreal was accused & found guilty of criminal negligence causing death for stopping on a highway to let 8 ducks cross over. A bike crashed into her and both the dad & his kid on the motorcycle died. The 25 y/o woman now faces up to lifetime in jail.

When we think of murderers saying they are crazy and not even doing jail time, do you find this reasonable? What's about the ducks, are their lives worthless and worth squishing on the road because you don't know if the driver behind you will brake?

Crown lawyer said: "I hope it gives people a lesson. We don't stop on highways to let animals cross, they're not worth it".

Your thoughts?

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/0 ... e-coupable

[LoneWolf_53]

Well considering that a similar doofus stopping suddenly on a highway, for the very same purpose, almost cost me my life when I was young, I'd say people should most definitely come before ducks, in so far as the order of importance goes.

I'm sure had it happened to you, rather than just stumbling across the story online, you'd probably be clinging to a completely different opinion.

[Captain Awesome]

Common sense prevailed.

[skydawg]

Stopping for the ducks is no big deal even on a highway providing it is done with care. Perhaps some hazard lights and possibly moving to the side out of the flow of traffic. Regardless of stopping or not the motorcyclist was obviously not paying attention either.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

from what i have read the person who stopped their car on the, i believe, divided multi lane highway, in the left most lane, was not only stopped on the highway, but as well was trying to get other traffic to stop too, by at least having one or more car doors open. it is not as simple as 'she stopped and he rear ended her'.

[Omnitheo]

from my understanding, the motorcycle was speeding, and did not leave enough distance between itself and the vehicle in front to stop safely.

Had motorcyclist been following road rules, they might still be alive.

If Lady had to stop suddenly to avoid a hazard, or had a vehicle problem and had to pull over, would she still be charged for this? It seems to me the charges are simply because she had stopped for ducks, as opposed to a more "valid" reason.

[Liquidnails]

People absolutely have to remember that when they're driving they are responsible for the safety of everyone on the road around them. This lady made the terribly poor decision to park in the fast lane of a highway when there were far safer choices available.

[GordonH]

from my understanding, the motorcycle was speeding, and did not leave enough distance between itself and the vehicle in front to stop safely.

Had motorcyclist been following road rules, they might still be alive.

If Lady had to stop suddenly to avoid a hazard, or had a vehicle problem and had to pull over, would she still be charged for this? It seems to me the charges are simply because she had stopped for ducks, as opposed to a more "valid" reason.

I heard a report on CTV this morning that motorcycle was not the first vehicle to come on this parked car, that vehicle was able to swerve around it. If so that then begs the question how focus was the motorcycle driver on the road in front of him. If he to could have swerve around then the 2 of them would still be alive today.
(looking but could not find a link to that report)

Don't get me wrong here what this young lady at the time did, was very wrong & foolish.

[rookie314]

People absolutely have to remember that when they're driving they are responsible for the safety of everyone on the road around them. This lady made the terribly poor decision to park in the fast lane of a highway when there were far safer choices available.

And you aren't responsible for driving so you can react to what is going on around you safely? Your obviously an okanagan driver.

[Dizzy1]

People absolutely have to remember that when they're driving they are responsible for the safety of everyone on the road around them. This lady made the terribly poor decision to park in the fast lane of a highway when there were far safer choices available.

Including any stopped vehicles infront or to the side of you.

[Ken7]

Do you think a automobile can stop quicker then a motorcycle??

What about the operator of the motorcycle, was he driving in a manner which was safe and reasonable considering all aspects?

What if she stopped for a deer which potentially could hit her windshield and kill her? Would that made the motorcycle operator more negligent?

I think what she did may not be the brightest move, however maybe the motorcycle operator was driving in a manner dangerous to the public also?

[Liquidnails]

And you aren't responsible for driving so you can react to what is going on around you safely? Your obviously an okanagan driver.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Stopping your vehicle in the middle of the highway, getting out and trying to herd ducks into your car is not good driving. The ducks were not in her lane or at all impeding traffic. This woman stopped for no reason. That is negligent.

Following too closely, or driving without due care and attention is also unsmart. In this case, if the motorcyclist was guilty of that, it cost him his life. Who expects a parked car in the fast lane?

What if there was a deer? There wasn't. She may be going to jail and a couple people are dead because of her actions.

Edit to say that yes, in response to the question in the original post, I think it is reasonable that she got charged with criminal negligence causing death. She hasn't been sentenced yet so no one can comment on whether the punishment is on par with the crime.

[LoneWolf_53]

My thoughts on this are that first off stopping in the fast lane whilst putting the concern of ducklings ahead of people was more than slightly dumb, and the fact that she was found guilty would appear to support that.

Second if a person for some reason is forced to stop in the fast lane of a highway, then at the very least they should demonstrate their concern for others by at least turning on their emergency flashers, a little feature every vehicle has that just so happens to be designed for precisely such an occasion.

I don't know all the intimate details of the case, but I'd have to suspect that she did not turn on her emergency flashers.

[mexi cali]

That's right LW, we don't know if she had them on or not. Even if she di, it likely wouldn't have made a difference.

The question I keep asking is, how long had she been stopped? It doesn't sound like it was an instantaneous chain reaction. It sounds like she pulled over and got out of her car and was trying to corral the ducks either into her car or away from traffic so my puzzlement is how the first car to come upon her was so surprised that she was there that they had to swerve to miss her. And then the motorcycle who was behind the swerving car didn't react at all or at best, slowly and winds up hitting her car?

Unless to compound things, she was also stopped behind a curve in the road which would have made her less visible to traffic coming up behind her.

While the deaths were tragic, I have to say I admire her heart although I do question the execution.

Jail time is not warranted here. She appears to be a good soul who made a judgmental error and lets' face it, you can get off for a lot worse in this country.

[my5cents]

OK, the sentence is in. The 26 year old Quebec woman received a sentence of 90 days in jail and a 10 year driving prohibition.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#129155

What ?

She, unwisely stopped on a freeway, for a sadly, a noble reason, and that constitutes "Dangerous Driving" ?

OK, was it the act of stopping that constituted Dangerous Driving ? or the reason for stopping.

If a mentally disturbed person was crawling across the roadway, and she stopped with the same results, would she be blameless or charged with Dangerous Driving ?

Would we then say, the operator of the motorcycle should have been paying more attention.

If this was a 90 year old lady who developed a flat tire and wrongly stopped, 90 days and 10 years prohibition ?

It is my understanding that sentencing was designed to achieve several purposes:

- Denunciation (denounce unlawful conduct)
- Deterrence
- Separation of offenders
- Rehabilitation
- Reparation
- Promotion of responsibility

Principles of Sentencing:

- Proportionate to the nature of the offence
- Reduced or increased depending on mitigating and aggravating factors
- Similar to other similar offenders for similar offences
- An offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate
- All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable should be considered

Aggravating factors:

- Motivation due to bias, prejudice, or hate
- Domestic violence
- Abuse of person under 18
- Breach of trust or authority
- Offence committed in association with a criminal organization
- terrorism offences

In my opinion, there are obviously absolutely NO aggravating factors. As far as mitigating factors there is one glaring one, LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT.

Does the sentence of 90 days deter others from stopping ? Will it rehabilitate this "offender". Prohibiting her from driving for a decade, is that going to deter others from stopping for ducks ?

Also interesting... it seems that this charge, conviction and sentence is predicated on the fact that two people were killed. It is generally agreed in case law that the manner in which the motor vehicle was driven at the time of driving is at issue, not the consequences of the driving.

In recent times we have Sukhvir Singh Grewal, who drives like a maniac is begged by passengers to slow down, kills one and severely injures another, gets 3 months in jail to be served on weekends
http://globalnews.ca/tag/sukhvir-singh-grewal/

We have Harwinderpal Kaur Gill in 2007 in Abbotsford driving a 17 passenger van with two seatbelts, containing 15 farm workers who crashes and kill three people. She gets charged with a non-criminal offence and gets a $2000 fine and a 1 year driving prohibition.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html? ... 0&sponsor=

But stopping for ducks,,, we have to draw the line.