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

[MarcosSantiago]

Yes, I agree she did something dumb, no doubt at all. I'm not a victim blamer by nature, but I am pointing out that the tragedy followed by the courts ferocity is not benefiting anybody on any level. Want to send a message? She loses her license.... for a long frigging time. She does hundreds of hours in an educational community service capacity at rider and driver training schools.. She already will be facing gobs of civil litigation so that's buttoned up there, what more do people want? For society to be "repaid" for this incident, her doing time is not the way. As far as motorcyclists in particular, it's my opinion that the old training school message is always true....people do not see you, make allowances for you, and they are probably stupid. Ride accordingly. Speeding blind into a corner with a passenger (or alone) kinda falls under the old "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" designation

At this point I do not know if you are trolling or if you did not read the articles, saw the photos, etc. I do not know anymore if we are talking about the same incident.

I do not understand your first statement "the court implies a degree of safety that we can expect by virtue of legislation".
The court did not do that. If any, the court implied a degree of responsibility to each party's actions, and the person who was negligent was found guilty.

I think they throw the book at her, and you don't agree.
But if they had done something else, like give her a slap on the wrist ("She loses her license.... for a long frigging time.") other people would be posting here that they don't agree either.

Bottom line, the court is not going to keep all happy. Some are going to feel crappy.

I hope this goes to appeal and there's further discussion.

 

[JustinRR]

I hope this goes to appeal and there's further discussion.

This would be dramatic

I agree, there's no right or wrong here, only depends on how you think. There will always be both sides defending for themselves. Even after the judge has ruled, some will still unhappy. There's no choice for us who are living in this city, we have to stick with law and supreme court.

 

[happycrappy]

That's where my comment about having a legal system rather than a justice system comes in. There's also the difference between simple negligence and gross (criminal) negligence, as assessed by a court of law.

This really is the point of contention. "As assessed by the court" is precisely where this went wrong....a reasonable person could have easily been this negligent. Someone throwing bullets into a campfire at a girl guide came would be criminally negligent. The fact remains, she could have LIED about why she pulled over and legally beaten this charge entirely, just by saying she had a "medical emergency" that compelled her to stop immediately. Her honesty combined with a kangaroo court got her hung in a big way. Child molesters face a fraction of the time she is facing

At this point I do not know if you are trolling or if you did not read the articles, saw the photos, etc. I do not know anymore if we are talking about the same incident.

I do not understand your first statement "the court implies a degree of safety that we can expect by virtue of legislation".
The court did not do that. If any, the court implied a degree of responsibility to each party's actions, and the person who was negligent was found guilty.

I think they throw the book at her, and you don't agree.
But if they had done something else, like give her a slap on the wrist ("She loses her license.... for a long frigging time.") other people would be posting here that they don't agree either.

Bottom line, the court is not going to keep all happy. Some are going to feel crappy.

I hope this goes to appeal and there's further discussion.

No trolling here buddy, if having a different opinion than yours makes me a troll, you should re-evaluate your contribution here. I really wish you would attempt to understand what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. By making an example of this woman, the court publicly sends a message that we as motorists can expect the heavy arm of the law to crucify and erase anyone who creates a hazard, effectively deterring anyone from doing it again. Kind of like many criminal laws; we as a general public carry on our lives with the reasonable expectation that we will not be shot, assaulted, raped, etc because there are stiff penalties against it. Of course people still offend, but we merrily send our kids to schools and sports teams, don't walk around carrying automatic weapons for protection, and don't hide at home after 6pm every night, with the knowledge that the law is there to allow us these freedoms. Like speeding blind into a corner.

Speaking of trolling, what are you trying to achieve with your last statement? Thanks Captain Obvious!!! Hence a discussion forum, I am fully aware that this is my opinion, and not everyone will agree. Do I get the cookie now?

P.S. Thanks for the reference on my username, gave me a chuckle.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

This really is the point of contention. "As assessed by the court" is precisely where this went wrong....a reasonable person could have easily been this negligent. Someone throwing bullets into a campfire at a girl guide came would be criminally negligent. The fact remains, she could have LIED about why she pulled over and legally beaten this charge entirely, just by saying she had a "medical emergency" that compelled her to stop immediately. Her honesty combined with a kangaroo court got her hung in a big way. Child molesters face a fraction of the time she is facing

The concept that she could commit perjury and 'legally' get away with her actions shows a fairly large disconnect here. A reasonable person would not stop in such an area, for such a purpose.

 

[Robp]

[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
While explaining the criminal negligence charge again, Perreault said: "Criminal negligence requires more than carelessness on Emma Czornobaj's part. It must be a marked and substantial difference from what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same circumstances."


While explaining what applies to the other charges, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, Perreault said: "The Crown must satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Emma Czornobaj acted in a way that is a marked departure from what a reasonable and prudent driver would do in the same circumstances."
]

I think this is the key stuff.

What would a reasonable and prudent do in the same situation? I think there are different opinions of course, and the jury obviously felt that a reasonable and prudent person would NOT have done the same. And in fact what she did was a significant difference to what a reasonable and prudent person would do.

I think the majority can agree for sure that there are no winners in this case.

 

[MarcosSantiago]

I think this is the key stuff.

What would a reasonable and prudent do in the same situation? I think there are different opinions of course, and the jury obviously felt that a reasonable and prudent person would NOT have done the same. And in fact what she did was a significant difference to what a reasonable and prudent person would do.

I think the majority can agree for sure that there are no winners in this case.

Also, there is the fact that she had choices - would a reasonable and prudent person pull over on the left, which offers almost no space to fit the car, or on the right, where the shoulder is wider? At the end, I think 99.9% of juries in the world would say that she made the wrong decision.

But also... In mi opinion, the judge pushed too hard the "reasonable and prudent person" idea, and the concept of negligence, and at the end the speed of the motorcycle became not a big deal. Do 'reasonable and prudent persons' speed at 115-130 kph in the highway? Maybe not a 100% prudent person, but probably all of the member of the jury do it once in a while. The other option in front of them was to declare the motorcycle rider negligent. They couldn't. They just couldn't. Yes, he was speeding, but the rate of speed in question does not equal negligence. Therefore, the cause of the accident is then 100% on the duck girl.

"In a case like this, the instructions that the judge gave (to the jury) are a little bit unjust for a citizen in this situation." The defense lawyer

 

[BusaBob]

according to streetview on google maps, that area looks like a DVP, 401, or 403 type of road. I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it seems that going 20 or 30 km over the limit there wouldn't be out of the norm.

On top of that you have the visual distraction of her on the right-hand side of the road trying to herd the ducklings and you have a recipe for disaster.

I believe a prudent and reasonable person could see this.

 

[nobbie48]

This really is the point of contention. "As assessed by the court" is precisely where this went wrong....a reasonable person could have easily been this negligent. Someone throwing bullets into a campfire at a girl guide came would be criminally negligent. The fact remains, she could have LIED about why she pulled over and legally beaten this charge entirely, just by saying she had a "medical emergency" that compelled her to stop immediately. Her honesty combined with a kangaroo court got her hung in a big way. Child molesters face a fraction of the time she is facing

While waiting for times to come up I was cooling my heels in a court lobby and reading anything I could find. One "Rights" brochure said not to assume guilt just because you did something. It alluded to there having to be the intent to do wrong. Accidently bumping into someone isn't assault. This airhead twit didn't deliberately intend to do anything harmfull. She was just really really stupid.

As much as I detest her Disney brainwashed idiocy I can't see her being a criminal. Criminals should go to jail. Stupid people should get an education. Give her community service for a few years. That and her legal bill will make her a duck hater.

What would be a realistic action to "Baby ducks" on the road?

 

[fastar1]

While explaining the criminal negligence charge again, Perreault said: "Criminal negligence requires more than carelessness on Emma Czornobaj's part. It must be a marked and substantial difference from what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same circumstances."

[...]

While explaining what applies to the other charges, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, Perreault said: "The Crown must satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Emma Czornobaj acted in a way that is a marked departure from what a reasonable and prudent driver would do in the same circumstances."

I think this is the key stuff.

What would a reasonable and prudent do in the same situation? I think there are different opinions of course, and the jury obviously felt that a reasonable and prudent person would NOT have done the same. And in fact what she did was a significant difference to what a reasonable and prudent person would do.

I think the majority can agree for sure that there are no winners in this case.

Verrrry interesting juxtaposition. According to these two instructions, don't we have to conclude that every instance of Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death is ALSO an instance of Criminal Negligence? Except the sentencing for the former is much less severe, AFAIK.

Which makes me wonder why bother having a Dangerous Operation charge in the law at all, except to be lenient to drivers? The law is so confusing man!

 

[fastar1]

What would be a realistic action to "Baby ducks" on the road?

Paaaaartay!!!!

 

[happycrappy]

While waiting for times to come up I was cooling my heels in a court lobby and reading anything I could find. One "Rights" brochure said not to assume guilt just because you did something. It alluded to there having to be the intent to do wrong. Accidently bumping into someone isn't assault. This airhead twit didn't deliberately intend to do anything harmfull. She was just really really stupid.

As much as I detest her Disney brainwashed idiocy I can't see her being a criminal. Criminals should go to jail. Stupid people should get an education. Give her community service for a few years. That and her legal bill will make her a duck hater.

What would be a realistic action to "Baby ducks" on the road?

I agree...I think she definitely qualifies for the maximum penalty available under the HTA, and especially in the interests of the victims families, she needs to serve in an educational capacity for years to come.

Realistic action to the baby ducks? Use the cell phone!! Personally, I believe that this sort of scenario is a dying breed anyway, people have cell phones nowadays. Road hazards can be called in to the police very easily, and I think people are getting much better in utilizing that method. Ever notice how few people help stranded motorists nowadays? lol

 

[happycrappy]

Verrrry interesting juxtaposition. According to these two instructions, don't we have to conclude that every instance of Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death is ALSO an instance of Criminal Negligence? Except the sentencing for the former is much less severe, AFAIK.

Which makes me wonder why bother having a Dangerous Operation charge in the law at all, except to be lenient to drivers? The law is so confusing man!

I blame the francophones, lol. Technically, she wasn't operating the vehicle at all at the point of collision, so the dangerous operation charge should not have been laid. If she stopped suddenly or swerved in a way that immediately caused the crash, sure thing.

 

[happycrappy]

The concept that she could commit perjury and 'legally' get away with her actions shows a fairly large disconnect here. A reasonable person would not stop in such an area, for such a purpose.

Considering the outcome, I don't thing anybody would have too big of a problem with it. Also, was the rider being reasonable by over-driving his visibility? Apparently not, according to the conventional wisdom and commonly utilized methods used by driving schools everywhere. We're not debating that a reasonable person would not stop; she is a full-on boob for doing so. Just not a criminal boob.

 

[Brian P]

I blame the francophones, lol. Technically, she wasn't operating the vehicle at all at the point of collision, so the dangerous operation charge should not have been laid. If she stopped suddenly or swerved in a way that immediately caused the crash, sure thing.

She was "operating" the vehicle at the time of making the decision of (inappropriately) stopping it in a live traffic lane. The car didn't just stop there by itself - she stopped it there. The "dangerous operation" includes the action of stopping the car in a live traffic lane. That there was a time period in between that action and the collision is irrelevant.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Considering the outcome, I don't thing anybody would have too big of a problem with it. Also, was the rider being reasonable by over-driving his visibility? Apparently not, according to the conventional wisdom and commonly utilized methods used by driving schools everywhere. We're not debating that a reasonable person would not stop; she is a full-on boob for doing so. Just not a criminal boob.

As I mentioned previously and contributory negligence is a subject for sentencing, not for determination of guilt. I would certainly have a problem with perjury.

To continue on, however, I do think that she was over charged based on one simple thing; she should not be guilty of both negligence causing death and dangerous operation causing death. The outcome essentially resulted from a single crime, not two separate crimes, and the victims didn't die twice. Perhaps the charges could have been dealt with through the Quebec Highway Safety Code, but the outcome of her actions was a predictable one.

 

[nobbie48]

I agree...I think she definitely qualifies for the maximum penalty available under the HTA, and especially in the interests of the victims families, she needs to serve in an educational capacity for years to come.

Realistic action to the baby ducks? Use the cell phone!! Personally, I believe that this sort of scenario is a dying breed anyway, people have cell phones nowadays. Road hazards can be called in to the police very easily, and I think people are getting much better in utilizing that method. Ever notice how few people help stranded motorists nowadays? lol

I meant immediate action regarding the ducks. I'm thinking more like check for other vehicles and swerve, brake or brace for a hit as appropriate. I don't think the police would arrive in time to escort the critters. Or yeah, you could throw your cell phone at them.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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.

 

[happycrappy]

I meant immediate action regarding the ducks. I'm thinking more like check for other vehicles and swerve, brake or brace for a hit as appropriate. I don't think the police would arrive in time to escort the critters. Or yeah, you could throw your cell phone at them.

Sorry, misunderstood.....no room to safely swerve, run em over. I believe the old phrase went like: If you can see over it, drive over it"

 

[Two50noob]

Sorry, misunderstood.....no room to safely swerve, run em over. I believe the old phrase went like: If you can see over it, drive over it"

i like if i could eat a whole one to myself ..run over it although i dod go round a stubborn possum the other night

 

[nobbie48]

i like if i could eat a whole one to myself ..run over it although i dod go round a stubborn possum the other night

With the bike I've nailed one cat and one prairie chicken. Left them both for the crows.

Two separate incidents but similar in that both critters were safe sitting on the other side of the road and at the last minute made suicide dashes into my path. No time to brake or swerve.