Woman who stopped for ducks faces life in prison

[Rogue 9]

Er, yeah... going 60 instead of 80 might actually have saved them, considering the 20 mph difference is pretty significant.

Anyway, I feel sorry for everyone involved. The woman obviously had no criminal intent; she's just kind of a flake. What impossibly bad luck she's stumbled upon.

Going 60 on a motorcycle pretty much means any impact will kill you.

It also means you have considerably more time to alter course or stop.

[Simon_Jester]

Because going 60 instead of 80 would have saved them when the dumbass in front of them brake checked to save some birds.

The motorcyclist supposedly hit the car from behind after the car had stopped, not because of a "brake check."

[Napoleon the Clown]

It was stated that the 14 year old girl was pinned beneath the Civic. This suggests to me that the guy ended up laying down the bike in an attempt to get around Duck Lady. The 10-20 mph slower could definitely have averted that. Still doesn't mean Duck Lady did a really fucking stupid and dangerous thing.

[aerius]

Guilty of all charges. Sorry, you do not park your car in the fucking passing lane of a highway. And also, and I quote, she "felt there was no risk"? I guess there's also no risk in picking up a gun that someone hands to you, sticking it in your mouth and pulling the trigger. For fuck's sake, in my driver's ed class, we were explicitly told to run over squirrels, birds, or other small animals rather than slamming the brakes or swerving out of the lane, because doing either of the last 2 will likely cause an accident (sidenote: I panic braked when a cat ran across the road during one of the driving lessons, I caught shit from my instructor who said, and I quote, "don't do that again, just run the cat over next time. We could've been killed by a cement truck").

Bottom line. Thank god this woman isn't driving anymore, because she clearly lacks the sound judgement and responsibility to handle it. Too bad 2 people had to die to get her off the roads.

[Terralthra]

What if she had stopped for a more legitimate reason? What if there had been an unconscius human on the road and she'd stopped for that instead? The motorcyclist would still have crashed into her because a stopped car is a stopped car. The reason she stopped is irrelevant to whether or not the motorcyclist was riding unsafely. If you hit a inanimate object, you were clearly riding unsafely, I don't care where the object is. Inanimate objects which create a driving hazard end up on roads from time to time. It's every driver's responsibiity to maintain such speed and control that they can avoid collision.

She's guilty of blocking the flow of traffic, yes, negligence, yes, but not criminal negligence; anything beyond that is squarely on the shoulders of the person who hit the stopped car.

A quick read-over of previous cases involving the same charges and similar circumstances reveal that defendants in similar cases were acquitted. For example, in this case, a farmer pulled his cultivator over on a blind rise on a highway blocking 1 of the 2 lanes, tried to fix it, and gave up and got a ride elsewhere from a friend, leaving the cultivator blocking a lane of the highway, after dark, with no lights on, flares, etc. Naturally, given the circumstances, after dark and with a blind rise, someone hit it and died. The judge found the man civilly negligent, but acquitted him of criminal negligence. If someone leaving their farm equipment blocking a lane of highway, at night, on a blind rise, and causing death doesn't breach the threshold of criminal negligence, then this woman doesn't either.

[Sharp-kun]

A significant difference in the truck case would be that he stopped due to a fault and had no choice. It's also likely not a machine he could move off the highway himself in the event of a breakdown (unlike a car).

She had no legitimate reason to stop and even less reason to not put hazard lights on.

[His Divine Shadow]

So, did the ducks make it?

[Terralthra]

A significant difference in the truck case would be that he stopped due to a fault and had no choice. It's also likely not a machine he could move off the highway himself in the event of a breakdown (unlike a car).

She had no legitimate reason to stop and even less reason to not put hazard lights on.

You don't think he should have maybe marked his cultivator with lights or put hazards on (oh wait, he couldn't because he didn't buy the $10 adapter to connect the lights to his truck! Negligent!) before driving off and checking into a hotel? Once again, he left his cultivator blocking a lane of the highway at night, on a blind rise, with no hazard lights, no normal lights, no flares, nothing, and just... left, and a judge ruled that wasn't criminal negligence. Negligence, yes, but not criminal. Yes, you shouldn't stop your car on the freeway, but at some point, you have to say that it's a driver's responsibility not to drive into non-moving objects.

[General Zod]

What if she had stopped for a more legitimate reason? What if there had been an unconscius human on the road and she'd stopped for that instead? The motorcyclist would still have crashed into her because a stopped car is a stopped car. The reason she stopped is irrelevant to whether or not the motorcyclist was riding unsafely. If you hit a inanimate object, you were clearly riding unsafely, I don't care where the object is. Inanimate objects which create a driving hazard end up on roads from time to time. It's every driver's responsibiity to maintain such speed and control that they can avoid collision.

She's guilty of blocking the flow of traffic, yes, negligence, yes, but not criminal negligence; anything beyond that is squarely on the shoulders of the person who hit the stopped car.

A quick read-over of previous cases involving the same charges and similar circumstances reveal that defendants in similar cases were acquitted. For example, in this case, a farmer pulled his cultivator over on a blind rise on a highway blocking 1 of the 2 lanes, tried to fix it, and gave up and got a ride elsewhere from a friend, leaving the cultivator blocking a lane of the highway, after dark, with no lights on, flares, etc. Naturally, given the circumstances, after dark and with a blind rise, someone hit it and died. The judge found the man civilly negligent, but acquitted him of criminal negligence. If someone leaving their farm equipment blocking a lane of highway, at night, on a blind rise, and causing death doesn't breach the threshold of criminal negligence, then this woman doesn't either.

I have a feeling the DA probably took this into consideration when they filed the charges. It's not like we're talking about the American justice system here.

[Terralthra]

I have a feeling the DA probably took this into consideration when they filed the charges. It's not like we're talking about the American justice system here.

I cited a similar case in which a judge acquitted a man of the same charge. Clearly, the crown attorney in that case filed charges, despite that not being the first or only case either. Sometimes public attorneys file for charges on which they might not be able to convict. Are you trying to assert that Canadian Crown prosecutors never file for charges they aren't sure they can get a conviction on? That strikes me as a pretty extraordinary claim.

[General Zod]

I cited a similar case in which a judge acquitted a man of the same charge. Clearly, the crown attorney in that case filed charges, despite that not being the first or only case either. Sometimes public attorneys file for charges on which they might not be able to convict. Are you trying to assert that Canadian Crown prosecutors never file for charges they aren't sure they can get a conviction on? That strikes me as a pretty extraordinary claim.

Except the cases aren't similar because the one you cited was unavoidable. The woman who stopped for the ducks could have just kept on going, the guy who's truck broke down couldn't. At best, he could have called for a tow-truck, and then what?

[Terralthra]

Except the cases aren't similar because the one you cited was unavoidable. The woman who stopped for the ducks could have just kept on going, the guy who's truck broke down couldn't. At best, he could have called for a tow-truck, and then what?

Bought the adapter to hook up his truck lights to the cultivator? Left the lights on his truck on? Put on his hazard lights? Left road flares? Let the truck roll backward down the hill so it wouldn't be so near the blind rise? Call the RCMP to report a hazard? Pretty much anything besides leave the scene, go check into a hotel, and hope for the best, which is what he did.

This person parked her car for a minute on the highway in broad daylight. That person parked his cultivator blocking the highway for hours at night. I'm struggling to see why "his car stalled" is an ok reason to not take any precautions. If your answer is "she's guilty because fuck ducklings," fine, but again, I'd like to know what difference the reason she stopped makes to the motorcyclist driving 20 km/h over the speed limit who smashed into a stopped car. If her car had stalled, you'd say she should be acquitted? The guy's just as dead, for exactly the same reason: a stopped car in a highway lane.

[General Zod]

You might want to go back and read your own link.

In a charge of criminal negligence much more than that type of negligence is required. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the accused showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. In other words, that the accused was wanton or reckless as to the consequences of his driving.

The guy with the tractor even made a reasonable effort to ask the hotel clerk if there were any towing services, and another driver asked some cops for help but they said it wasn't their jurisdiction. The tractor driver clearly made every reasonable attempt he could to make sure nobody got hurt, the woman stopping for the ducks did not.

And it wasn't just "a truck", it was a truck carrying a massive combine. You don't just "let" that massive of a machine roll down a hill, and if you did you'd end up blocking the entire street, which would make things worse, and probably result in him being found guilty of negligence.

[Terralthra]

I just listed a bunch of actions he could have taken. You took issue with one, fine. What about all the others? Turning on his fucking hazard lights wasn't a "reasonable" action he could've taken?

You cite some random dude who came across the hazardous situation he created and tried to contact the RCMP like the owner should have and thus the owner made every reasonable attempt? What? Are you even listening to yourself?

If some random driver comes across a hazardous situation and tries to contact the police, but the creator of the hazardous situation didn't contact the police himself, clearly the creator did not "made every reasonable attempt," since there was at least one thing he could have done that he did not do!

You are bending over backwards to defend a guy who killed a human being by blocking the highway with his motor vehicle, while condemning the woman in this case for doing the same thing. Maybe you think people have a responsibility not to hit parked cars. Maybe not. But at least be fucking consistent.

[General Zod]

I just listed a bunch of actions he could have taken. You took issue with one, fine. What about all the others? Turning on his fucking hazard lights wasn't a "reasonable" action he could've taken?

You cite some random dude who came across the hazardous situation he created and tried to contact the RCMP like the owner should have and thus the owner made every reasonable attempt? What? Are you even listening to yourself?

If some random driver comes across a hazardous situation and tries to contact the police, but the creator of the hazardous situation didn't contact the police himself, clearly the creator did not "made every reasonable attempt," since there was at least one thing he could have done that he did not do!

You are bending over backwards to defend a guy who killed a human being by blocking the highway with his motor vehicle, while condemning the woman in this case for doing the same thing. Maybe you think people have a responsibility not to hit parked cars. Maybe not. But at least be fucking consistent.

You're being willfully obstinate. Traffic lights? Calling a towing service? Calling the police? Those are mitigating factors. None of that changes the reason that he had to stop on the road, which was not something he could have reasonably prevented. The woman with the ducks? She didn't have to stop on the road at all.

[Purple]

You are bending over backwards to defend a guy who killed a human being by blocking the highway with his motor vehicle, while condemning the woman in this case for doing the same thing. Maybe you think people have a responsibility not to hit parked cars. Maybe not. But at least be fucking consistent.

The point I feel here is in the context. The guy was negligent. But because the initial parking was not his choice it was not criminally negligent. Where as this woman stopped on a whim and without any actual need and is thus "criminal" in her negligence.

Edit. He beat me to the reply.

[Terralthra]

Sigh. So this guy wasn't criminally negligent because he didn't have a choice, despite all of the actions he didn't take (the Canadian statute specifically says it's just as much criminal negligence if you fail to take actions that you have a duty to take as it is if you take actions you have a duty not to).

What about this case in which a driver crossed the center divide into oncoming traffic, plowed into another car and killed three people? Acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, acquittal upheld on appeal.

Or this case, in which a driver was driving intoxicated (200mg/100mL, or 0.20% BAC US), ran a red light and broadsided another car, killing a passenger in that car. What's that you say? Acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death? Acquittal upheld on appeal?

If you won't accept a similar example of blocking a highway as being similar despite minor differences, perhaps these two cases will make my point. People have been acquitted on similar charges brought due to driving across the median into oncoming traffic and running a red light while drunk. C'mon now.

[Simon_Jester]

I would argue that people should not be acquitted of "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death" for driving while drunk, unless there is some kind of evidence other than the bald facts of the case as you state them. Likewise for a driver crossing the center divide- unless their vehicle was physically out of control, they should not have been acquitted.

A significant difference in the truck case would be that he stopped due to a fault and had no choice. It's also likely not a machine he could move off the highway himself in the event of a breakdown (unlike a car).

She had no legitimate reason to stop and even less reason to not put hazard lights on.

You don't think he should have maybe marked his cultivator with lights or put hazards on (oh wait, he couldn't because he didn't buy the $10 adapter to connect the lights to his truck! Negligent!) before driving off and checking into a hotel? Once again, he left his cultivator blocking a lane of the highway at night, on a blind rise, with no hazard lights, no normal lights, no flares, nothing, and just... left, and a judge ruled that wasn't criminal negligence. Negligence, yes, but not criminal. Yes, you shouldn't stop your car on the freeway, but at some point, you have to say that it's a driver's responsibility not to drive into non-moving objects.

Well, let's point out another example. A thought-experiment.

Is it criminal to haul up a couple of jersey barriers and block a lane of the highway, purely for one's own amusement? If I build a physical wall across a highway, for no compelling reason, should I immune to criminal negligence charges because it's the driver's responsibility to see the wall and stop in time?

I argue that I should not be immune in that case. The reason is that if I built a wall, I am showing not just indifference but very reckless indifference to the hazard posed by the obstacle I created. I'm not just shrugging and abandoning this thing in place. I'm deliberately, willfully creating a danger to other people's lives.

Parking one's car in the left hand lane of a freeway occupies a middle ground.

If you stopped for trivial reasons, you're essentially creating a fatal hazard on a whim- and that kind of negligence really should be punished harshly.

If your car stopped due to a mechanical failure, you had no reasonable way of avoiding it- so you have not deliberately created a hazard to life and limb. The negligence involved in failing to mark the obstacle is serious, but not as bad as the negligence involved in creating it on purpose.

This woman created such a hazard on purpose, when she had at least one and probably several alternative means of avoiding it. She could have either driven on or parked on the shoulder- but no, she decided to park in a place where other drivers might easily smack into her.

Except the cases aren't similar because the one you cited was unavoidable. The woman who stopped for the ducks could have just kept on going, the guy who's truck broke down couldn't. At best, he could have called for a tow-truck, and then what?

Bought the adapter to hook up his truck lights to the cultivator? Left the lights on his truck on? Put on his hazard lights? Left road flares? Let the truck roll backward down the hill so it wouldn't be so near the blind rise? Call the RCMP to report a hazard? Pretty much anything besides leave the scene, go check into a hotel, and hope for the best, which is what he did.

He can certainly be charged with negligence for failing to adequately mark or report a deadly hazard. But the act of failing to mark or report a hazard is not as bad as the act of willfully creating such a hazard in the first place.

This person parked her car for a minute on the highway in broad daylight. That person parked his cultivator blocking the highway for hours at night. I'm struggling to see why "his car stalled" is an ok reason to not take any precautions. If your answer is "she's guilty because fuck ducklings," fine, but again, I'd like to know what difference the reason she stopped makes to the motorcyclist driving 20 km/h over the speed limit who smashed into a stopped car. If her car had stalled, you'd say she should be acquitted? The guy's just as dead, for exactly the same reason: a stopped car in a highway lane.

She's not being charged with "this man is dead." She's being charged with criminal negligence causing death. To be found guilty she must be proven to have committed criminal negligence.

In which case it matters which actions she voluntarily took, and which actions she involuntarily took. If her car stopping was involuntary (say, an engine failure, or a flat tire causing a loss of control), then she cannot be blamed for the fact that a deadly obstacle wound up on the highway. At worst, she would be responsible for failing to adequately mark such an obstacle.

And it's at least sane, in my opinion, for the law to punish creating the obstacle more harshly than failing to mark it. In one case you are actively doing something that results in people dying; in the other you are forgetting to take a reasonable precaution to avoid people dying. Crimes of commission are worse than crimes of omission.

[Purple]

If you won't accept a similar example of blocking a highway as being similar despite minor differences, perhaps these two cases will make my point. People have been acquitted on similar charges brought due to driving across the median into oncoming traffic and running a red light while drunk. C'mon now.

What exact point are you trying to make anyway? Are you trying to claim that what she did is not criminal negligence or are you trying to claim that certain judges did not consider it to be so? Remember, not everyone in the world lives in the insane world of precedents setting policy and thus our thought processes are not tied to that way of thinking. We can for example say that yes, those cases are as you describe but the judges were plainly wrong and this case should end differently. And even if you cite 100 or 1000 cases that statement remains perfectly unaffected.

[Simon_Jester]

Purple, that's foolish.

There IS a very good reason to honor precedent in law, because the law needs to be consistent and predictable. If Alice does something, and Bob does something equally bad, they should both be punished the same way and to the same degree. If Alice is punished with a fine and Bob is sentenced to many years in prison, or something like that, then the law is open to accusations of being inconsistent. Not good.

This is especially important in questions of guilt and innocence. If two people do the same thing under the same circumstances, and one goes free while the other goes to jail, then the bias is obvious.

The catch, of course, is making sure that the precedent is applicable- in other words, in making sure that the two actions really are equivalent. Which you can only really look at by making a detailed argument.

So it's foolish and absurd for you to try and attack Terralthra's position by going "eh, precedent is overrated anyway."

[Terralthra]

I'm arguing that she's civilly negligent - "creates a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk of its consequences", not criminally negligent - "in doing anything, or 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." Her act certainly had reasonably foreseeable consequences, with a substantial risk of said consequences, but "wanton or reckless disregard" is too far, in my opinion, to go.

In fact, I'd say that based on my reading of criminal negligence and dangerous driving cases so far, if the motorcyclist who hit her stopped car had survived and his passenger had not, he might also have had charges brought against him for dangerous driving resulting in death, for driving 80 km/h in a 60 km/h zone and hitting a stopped car. He would've stood a good chance of being acquitted.

And Simon is exactly right. Precedent shouldn't form the entire basis of the legal system, but it's an important goal for a legal system to be predictable. Precedent of how a law is interpreted in past instances is one way - and incidentally, the most common way - to achieve that predictability.

[General Zod]

I'm arguing that she's civilly negligent - "creates a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk of its consequences", not criminally negligent - "in doing anything, or 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." Her act certainly had reasonably foreseeable consequences, with a substantial risk of said consequences, but "wanton or reckless disregard" is too far, in my opinion, to go.

In fact, I'd say that based on my reading of criminal negligence and dangerous driving cases so far, if the motorcyclist who hit her stopped car had survived and his passenger had not, he might also have had charges brought against him for dangerous driving resulting in death, for driving 80 km/h in a 60 km/h zone and hitting a stopped car. He would've stood a good chance of being acquitted.

And Simon is exactly right. Precedent shouldn't form the entire basis of the legal system, but it's an important goal for a legal system to be predictable. Precedent of how a law is interpreted in past instances is one way - and incidentally, the most common way - to achieve that predictability.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... gence.aspx

"The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm.

I don't see how "wanton & reckless disregard" is inappropriate.

[General Zod]

Also

http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wilful ... n-conduct/

Willful and wanton conduct means “acting consciously in disregard of or acting with a reckless indifference to the consequences, when the Defendant is aware of her conduct and is also aware, from her knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that her conduct would probably result in injury.” [Duncan v. Duncan (In re Duncan), 448 F.3d 725, 729 (4th Cir. Va. 2006)]

“A course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard of a person's own safety and the safety of others."[Siemer v. Nangle (In re Nangle), 274 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001)]

It seems to me duck lady didn't seem to care that other people might hit her.

[Terralthra]

One might say the same of veering into oncoming traffic, driving drunk, and running a red light, yet those were acquitted on reasonable doubt grounds. In fact, I'd say that veering into oncoming traffic, or running a red light while drunk, are even more indicative of a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others than simply stopping in a highway.

[General Zod]

One might say the same of veering into oncoming traffic, driving drunk, and running a red light, yet those were acquitted on reasonable doubt grounds. In fact, I'd say that veering into oncoming traffic, or running a red light while drunk, are even more indicative of a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others than simply stopping in a highway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque