Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality) | Page 10 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)

Rob MacLennan said:
Just for the sake of argument I pulled the definition of "criminal negligence" from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Criminal negligence


  • 219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
    • (a) in doing anything, or
    • (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
      shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
  • Definition of <dfn>“duty”</dfn>
    (2) For the purposes of this section, <dfn>“duty”</dfn> means a duty imposed by law.
Click to expand...

219 (b) omitting to do anything that is his duty...

Ignoring ethics etc, are we legally duty bound to report a crime or accident? non motor vehicle to keep it simple.

Let's say Paul Bernardo got out one a one day pass and you saw him drowning or someone strangling him. Do you have to report it? Would advising the police by writing them a letter suffice?

Seriously though, are we required to snitch? Getting physically involved it trickier as it deals with abilities, compounding the problem etc.
 
Last edited:
nobbie48 said:
219 (b) omitting to do anything that is his duty...

Ignoring ethics etc, are we legally duty bound to report a crime or accident? non motor vehicle to keep it simple.

Let's say Paul Bernardo got out one a one day pass and you saw him drowning or someone strangling him. Do you have to report it? Would advising the police by writing them a letter suffice?

Seriously though, are we required to snitch?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge there is no duty to report save in a very narrow range of situation; for example someone with authority over children having a legal obligation to report suspected child abuse. The obligation is a moral one, in most cases.
 
To all the people bringing up mechanical issues or medical issues as valid reasons to stop in the fast lane, wtf?

It doesn't take much to get over a few lanes and out of the flow of traffic. Other than complete failure of steering, what mechanical failure traps you in a lane while moving at speed (if you are moving slowly, you may not have the momentum required)? Even a seized engine/drivetrain gives you a few seconds to manoeuvre. I've seen cars lose wheels and the axle slide out on a dually (on two different occasions, stupid C clip design), they all made it to the shoulder no problem.

Similarly with a medical condition, stopping in a live lane is terrible for my own safety, I am doing whatever is required to get out of the way, and yes, if required, that means pushing the car beside of me out of the way. A glancing blow is much less likely to cause injuries than a high speed collision.

I do agree that criminal charges seem excessive for duck lady and would personally be happy with HTA charges pushed to the fullest extent. Obviously her priorities are screwed up enough that driving is not something she is capable of doing safely, but that doesn't mean she should go to jail, it just means she shouldn't drive and that will remove the danger to society.
 
GreyGhost said:
To all the people bringing up mechanical issues or medical issues as valid reasons to stop in the fast lane, wtf?

It doesn't take much to get over a few lanes and out of the flow of traffic. Other than complete failure of steering, what mechanical failure traps you in a lane while moving at speed (if you are moving slowly, you may not have the momentum required)? Even a seized engine/drivetrain gives you a few seconds to manoeuvre. I've seen cars lose wheels and the axle slide out on a dually (on two different occasions, stupid C clip design), they all made it to the shoulder no problem.

Similarly with a medical condition, stopping in a live lane is terrible for my own safety, I am doing whatever is required to get out of the way, and yes, if required, that means pushing the car beside of me out of the way. A glancing blow is much less likely to cause injuries than a high speed collision.

I do agree that criminal charges seem excessive for duck lady and would personally be happy with HTA charges pushed to the fullest extent. Obviously her priorities are screwed up enough that driving is not something she is capable of doing safely, but that doesn't mean she should go to jail, it just means she shouldn't drive and that will remove the danger to society.
Click to expand...

My first bike was a 2 stroke with an oil injection system that metered oil into the works depending on RPMs and throttle setting. A rotating shaft and cam did the work but a previous owner had lost / forgot the pin that make the pump go squirt squirt. I found this out when the engine locked up in traffic. Fortunately the cagers behind me had good brakes. Disengaging the clutch let me coast to a slightly safer stop,

A few years back one of the Jap cruisers had a tranny problem and it would lock up. The clutch didn't help.

Nothing is going to bring the rider and his daughter back and putting duck lady in jail is IMO a waste of taxpayer money and human life. A suitable fine and banned from driving for life would be more appropriate.

When one goes for a pilots licence one spends more time learning how to handle emergencies than anything else. Why don't drivers instructions do more?
 
These days it seems that (some) driving instructors care more about teaching people to break the law, than they do dealing with emergencies.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
These days it seems that (some) driving instructors care more about teaching people to break the law, than they do dealing with emergencies.
Click to expand...

Also many practice emergency maneuvers could be taken for stunt driving. Track day sounds good, just throw a few ducklings out at corner three.
 
While stopping in the left lane for this reason is completely irresponsible, if the same car came to a stop in that lane for an electrical failure it's still up to the person riding to avoid the obstacle. It's just like when I was getting my pilot's license, the instructor always said that "No matter what is happening around you your first task is always to fly the plane." Hindsight being 20/20 the woman on the shoulder with the ducks presents a non-lethal obstacle and should have been an initial warning of a an abandoned vehicle ahead as there's really no way to get to the left shoulder without your vehicle. As horrible as this is and I feel for everyone involved in this it's a good lesson that if you see a person on the highway without a vehicle you should expect a stopped vehicle shortly after.
 
Agreed...jail time seems to be useless. Possible life time ban and community service would better serve society. Jail should be for those that pose a danger to society in a major way. Unfortunately the conviction has minimum sentences, which include jail time...is that correct?

Also: unless it's a complete failure of systems, there is usually enough momentum to get off the road to the right. That said, it is up to us as road users to always be on the defensive, no matter what we are riding/driving.
 
Last edited:
Riceburner said:
Unfortunately the conviction has minimum sentences, which include jail time...is that correct?
Click to expand...

no. there is still chances she doesnt have to go to jail.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Some one has set up a website asking for money (donations via Paypal) to support the young lady. I hope it is not a scam.

http://www.isupportemma.com/
Click to expand...

That's been pretty widely reported, so any scammers would be fools.

Man, does that page ever make me want to pick it apart.

"Her car was visible from the required 150 meters distance for a stopped car on a highway as it was located on a straight and flat stretch of highway with the 4-ways flashing."
However it was not legally stopped at the side of the road and was obstructing legal traffic.

"The jury was told the motorcyclist’s speed was higher than the posted 90 km/h limit on the road but they were not allowed to consider any contributory causes to the accident by the victim nor were they allowed to take into consideration Emma’s intentions."
As I've stated before the motorcyclist's actions are only material regarding sentencing, not in determining her guilt. Her motivations are immaterial. What matters is her negligence when performing those actions.

"While Emma Czornobaj’s actions showed bad judgment and had terrible consequences, they were not criminal."
Actually they have been determined to be criminally negligent.

"The jury, by acknowledging that the acts were dangerous and that they led to two deaths, had no choice but to convict Emma of these serious charges despite the fact that there was no criminal element whatsoever; no ill will, no alcohol or drugs, no phone texting, or speeding."
A finding of criminal negligence does not require that someone have criminal intent. That's why it's referred to as negligence. The mens rea, in a criminal negligence trial, is a disregard for possible consequences, rather than an overt action that is itself illegal. It's a lack of something, rather than the presence, in this case.

"Emma Czornobaj has a clean driving record and no previous criminal record. She was doing what she thought was morally compassionate."
... and it was criminally negligent.
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
That's been pretty widely reported, so any scammers would be fools.

Man, does that page ever make me want to pick it apart.

"Her car was visible from the required 150 meters distance for a stopped car on a highway as it was located on a straight and flat stretch of highway with the 4-ways flashing."
However it was not legally stopped at the side of the road and was obstructing legal traffic.

"The jury was told the motorcyclist’s speed was higher than the posted 90 km/h limit on the road but they were not allowed to consider any contributory causes to the accident by the victim nor were they allowed to take into consideration Emma’s intentions."
As I've stated before the motorcyclist's actions are only material regarding sentencing, not in determining her guilt. Her motivations are immaterial. What matters is her negligence when performing those actions.

"While Emma Czornobaj’s actions showed bad judgment and had terrible consequences, they were not criminal."
Actually they have been determined to be criminally negligent.

"The jury, by acknowledging that the acts were dangerous and that they led to two deaths, had no choice but to convict Emma of these serious charges despite the fact that there was no criminal element whatsoever; no ill will, no alcohol or drugs, no phone texting, or speeding."
A finding of criminal negligence does not require that someone have criminal intent. That's why it's referred to as negligence. The mens rea, in a criminal negligence trial, is a disregard for possible consequences, rather than an overt action that is itself illegal. It's a lack of something, rather than the presence, in this case.

"Emma Czornobaj has a clean driving record and no previous criminal record. She was doing what she thought was morally compassionate."
... and it was criminally negligent.
Click to expand...

If duck lady had been trying to rescue an ugly snake instead of cute baby ducks she would have been labeled, by the public, a psycho bytch that deserved to be hung. The court is being more objective. FWIW, I'm guessing that more people are killed by "Cute" animals than by ugly ones.

Jail time? IMO the actual jail time wouldn't serve a rehabilitation purpose. I feel that she is a kind caring person that should never be allowed to drive again, ever. However that sentiment is subjective because it implies that "Nice" ladies shouldn't have to face the same consequences as tattooed biker bytches.

If she was given community service as punishment, ie. speaking to young drivers, what impact would it have if it came out that jail threats could be over ridden by petitions about "Nice" people?

The expectations of punishment? Executing murderers doesn't seem to teach other potential murderers to behave so does sending duck lady to jail deter other do-gooders from doing stupid things? I think not.

The only reason for sending her to jail is that we can't as a society come up with a better system for getting people to think. I'm as confused as anyone.
 
She's going to get jail time yet ********* who was high for his 40+ km wrong way go on the highway will get nothing. The system is ******.
 
nobbie48 said:
If duck lady had been trying to rescue an ugly snake instead of cute baby ducks she would have been labeled, by the public, a psycho bytch that deserved to be hung. The court is being more objective. FWIW, I'm guessing that more people are killed by "Cute" animals than by ugly ones.

Jail time? IMO the actual jail time wouldn't serve a rehabilitation purpose. I feel that she is a kind caring person that should never be allowed to drive again, ever. However that sentiment is subjective because it implies that "Nice" ladies shouldn't have to face the same consequences as tattooed biker *******.

If she was given community service as punishment, ie. speaking to young drivers, what impact would it have if it came out that jail threats could be over ridden by petitions about "Nice" people?

The expectations of punishment? Executing murderers doesn't seem to teach other potential murderers to behave so does sending duck lady to jail deter other do-gooders from doing stupid things? I think not.

The only reason for sending her to jail is that we can't as a society come up with a better system for getting people to think. I'm as confused as anyone.
Click to expand...

Don't try having a wrestling match with a panda. Cute in appearance only.

There are several good reasons for there to be real and tangible consequences to crimes not all of which apply in every case, but are still valid from a societal point of view.

The first is to correct bad behaviour, ie. 'rehabilitation.' This is the best use, but in some cases doomed to failure. Our system has proved itself to be far better at this than is that of the United States. Our recidivism rates are a fraction of theirs.

The second is the retribution factor; society getting it's pound of flesh and 'closure' for victims, and their families. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said, interestingly enough with respect to a case involving a motorcyclist, "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." People must have faith that the system will redress wrongs and punish the guilty. This is a less tangible effect, but has an undeniable value to society.

The third is crime prevention, by way of counter example. Of course it's arguable whether or not this is effective, but in certain cases it is. When you have thoughtless and dangerous behaviour, that people don't view as such, a good metaphorical slap to the back of the head can wake them up. Back in the '70s and '80s the Montreal area was having probelms with both police and pedestrians being killed, at the roadside, by thoughtless and selfish drivers who drifted (or even drove) in the breakdown lane. It took a media campaign and heavy handed enforcement/prosecutions to get it under control.

From where I'm sitting I think that a 5 year prison term, with an actual 3 years served and court mandated speaking engagements afterwards, would be reasonable.

As to Capital Punishment at the very least it insures that THAT person won't kill again, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Roomie said:
She's going to get jail time yet ********* who was high for his 40+ km wrong way go on the highway will get nothing. The system is ****ed.
Click to expand...

Won't he? We have yet to see that. Has he even appeared before a judge yet?
 
Nice or not, her stupidity and negligence killed those poor people. She should be locked up.
 
Roomie said:
She's going to get jail time yet ********* who was high for his 40+ km wrong way go on the highway will get nothing. The system is ****ed.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily...
I think you'll find this is quite some ways from being over yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom