Woman who stopped for ducks faces life in prison

[Terralthra]

Citing relevant precedent is not an example of a tu quoque fallacy. Go back to college.

[General Zod]

Citing relevant precedent is not an example of a tu quoque fallacy. Go back to college.

Just because there's precedent doesn't mean it's binding. Go back to college.

Or, you know, you can cite specific statutes and laws that back up your argument.

[Terralthra]

I...have? I cited multiple Canadian Supreme Court decisions interpreting the law in question which back my opinion, along with quoting the relevant statute. You cited....United States law, from a commercial site. Have you found relevant precedent from similar cases backing your view? Canadian legal opinions about criminal negligence? I've provided multiple pieces of specific, recent, relevant, evidence. You've provided two pieces of non-specific evidence, one of which was from the wrong country.

Also, since Canada is (federally) a common law country, precedent forms the breadth of the legal system there. The statute for "criminal negligence" is exactly what I quoted:

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 “duty”
(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.

That is the entire statute in question. Precedent from previous cases guides the interpretation of it.

[General Zod]

I cited Canadian law on the previous page. You ignored it.

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

The Canadian Judicial Council's standard set of jury instructions includes this extract on topic:

"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.

"Bodily harm is any hurt or injury that interferes with a person's health or comfort and is more than brief or minor. In deciding what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen, you must not take into account (the accused's) individual characteristics or experiences."

[Terralthra]

I didn't "ignore" it. It's an excerpt from a jury instruction, not a law. You didn't say anything meaningful about it. If it applies in this case, you have to show how it applies in this case but not all the others. Presumably, you feel that stopping a car in the highway is a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances. But veering into oncoming traffic shows no marked departure from reasonable conduct? Driving drunk and running red lights is not something a reasonable person in the same circumstances would foresee poses a risk of bodily harm? Leaving a combine blocking a lane of highway overnight without even putting on the hazard lights is something a reasonable person would do?

I'm arguing that by the three different precedents I cited, she should have been acquitted, just as they were. If you want to argue with me, you have to show how I'm wrong, not just assert that I am wrong by pasting jury instructions. Show how they apply.

[General Zod]

I didn't "ignore" it. It's an excerpt from a jury instruction, not a law. You didn't say anything meaningful about it. If it applies in this case, you have to show how it applies in this case but not all the others. Presumably, you feel that stopping a car in the highway is a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances. But veering into oncoming traffic shows no marked departure from reasonable conduct? Driving drunk and running red lights is not something a reasonable person in the same circumstances would foresee poses a risk of bodily harm? Leaving a combine blocking a lane of highway overnight without even putting on the hazard lights is something a reasonable person would do?

I'm arguing that by the three different precedents I cited, she should have been acquitted, just as they were. If you want to argue with me, you have to show how I'm wrong, not just assert that I am wrong by pasting jury instructions. Show how they apply.

Show how your precedents are binding. Otherwise, I really don't care what other people might have gotten away with.

[Terralthra]

R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5 (veering into oncoming traffic) and R. v. Anderson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 265 (drunk driver ran a red light) are both judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country. They're binding on all lower courts in the country. R. v. Vermette, 2012 MBQB 46 (CanLII) (combine blocking the highway) is from the Supreme Court of Manitoba, and is persuasive but not binding on a case in Montreal, which is in Quebec.

This is not the first time the court hearing these cases has been provided in this thread, and each of the links I provided earlier have the court hearing the case right at the top. Did you even click the links?

[General Zod]

R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5 (veering into oncoming traffic) and R. v. Anderson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 265 (drunk driver ran a red light) are both judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country. They're binding on all lower courts in the country. R. v. Vermette, 2012 MBQB 46 (CanLII) (combine blocking the highway) is from the Supreme Court of Manitoba, and is persuasive but not binding on a case in Montreal, which is in Quebec.

This is not the first time the court hearing these cases has been provided in this thread, and each of the links I provided earlier have the court hearing the case right at the top. Did you even click the links?

The accused stated that he was not sure what happened but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep and collided with the other vehicle. The question that divided the courts below was whether this momentary act of negligence was sufficient to constitute dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death within the meaning of s. 249(4) . The trial judge concluded that these few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

A few seconds of negligent driving isn't the same as coming to a complete stop on the road. Courts as a rule do not tend to make vast, sweeping judgments. So the fact that this woman's reasons for stopping were different will be the key element.

[Channel72]

It turns out legal interpretation is ridiculously subjective, which is why nobody in this thread even agrees.

If it were up to me, I'd revoke or suspend her driver's license - I wouldn't send her to jail for life. My inclination is to treat the law as, first and foremost, a codified framework designed to prevent and punish harmful actions arising from malicious intent. This woman clearly had no criminal intent - she's just an idiot. Therefore, we should punish her accordingly, and take her driver's license away or something, not treat her like an actual murderer.

The problem is that the distinction between negligence and "criminal negligence" (which somewhat overlaps with criminal intent) is very subjective.

[General Zod]

It turns out legal interpretation is ridiculously subjective, which is why nobody in this thread even agrees.

If it were up to me, I'd revoke or suspend her driver's license - I wouldn't send her to jail for life. My inclination is to treat the law as, first and foremost, a codified framework against malicious intent. This woman clearly had no criminal intent - she's just an idiot. Therefore, we should punish her accordingly, and take her driver's license away or something, not treat her like an actual murderer.

I don't think she deserves life in prison either. I think she's guilty of criminal negligence, but probation and a revoked license would really be enough.

[Tribble]

I am assuming of course that you all realise the "up to" part in the "up to life in prison." Just because she was convicted does not automatically mean she will go to jail for life. She might not even receive significant jail time, depending on how the judge views the circumstances.

[General Zod]

I am assuming of course that you all realise the "up to" part in the "up to life in prison." Just because she was convicted does not automatically mean she will go to jail for life. She might not even receive significant jail time, depending on how the judge views the circumstances.

I'm basing all of my arguments on the assumption that life in prison is not the only possible outcome of this conviction, and probably the least likely.

[Grumman]

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.

I agree with you. If you willingly choose to sabotage your mind with recreational drugs, you should be held responsible for the consequences of that choice. If you wouldn't be acquitted for driving while wearing a blindfold, you shouldn't be acquitted for driving while drunk.

[Phillip Hone]

How is there anyway that there was a blind curve on a highway? I mean, are there highways in Canada where, driving at 80 mph, you cannot stop in time to avoid hitting a stationary object? That would mean that people would be slaughtered every time there was stopped traffic.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the motorcycle being able to stop means that the driver who stopped wasn't at fault. I'm just curious about this aspect of it.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Personally, I feel that willfully creating an obstruction likely to cause deaths shows "wanton or reckless disregard." In my opinion, any case where a person willfully does something, a sin of commission if you will, that will foreseeably result in deaths... I think "wanton" is a good way to describe that.

I think that's why we use 'wanton' in our description of criminal negligence. Because people who commit dangerous negligent acts lightly, or on a whim, are to classed that way.

Now, failing to properly mark or report an hazard is still negligence... but it is a lesser act of negligence than creating the hazard in the first place AND failing to properly mark or report it. As in, the act of B is inherently less bad than the act of A+B.

So we might reasonably think that creating a hazard AND failing to mark it is "wanton" disregard for safety, while merely failing to mark a hazard you didn't create (on purpose) is 'mere' disregard.

I think that would be a just and proper way to apply the law.

Now, looking at the precedents you cite...

The argument I just presented covers the matter of the combine harvester. While the farmer failed to take reasonable steps to ensure safety and mark the obstruction to traffic, he did not willfully create a hazard to life directly by his actions. He simply failed in his responsibility to warn others of such a hazard. His irresponsible actions justify his civil negligence, but one can reasonably argue that his negligence was not "wanton" or deliberately "reckless."

That leaves the matters of the drunk driver and the opposite-lane driver. Personally I think both of them should have been convicted of criminal negligence, unless there were extenuating circumstances I don't know of yet (say, a mechanical failure causing the car to swerve into oncoming traffic; I can't imagine an extenuating circumstance for the drunk).

So while I'm not saying I dismiss those precedents, I do think they are unjust and improper, and that changing the precedent is a reasonable action.

How is there anyway that there was a blind curve on a highway? I mean, are there highways in Canada where, driving at 80 mph, you cannot stop in time to avoid hitting a stationary object? That would mean that people would be slaughtered every time there was stopped traffic.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the motorcycle being able to stop means that the driver who stopped wasn't at fault. I'm just curious about this aspect of it.

It seems more likely that this was not a blind curve, simply because the radius of curvature it takes to turn at sixty miles an hour is far enough that you should be able to see the stopped car on the road ahead.

I acknowledge and agree with your statement that the driver who stopped may have been (was, IMO) at fault.

[Executor32]

It seems more likely that this was not a blind curve, simply because the radius of curvature it takes to turn at sixty miles an hour is far enough that you should be able to see the stopped car on the road ahead.

I should say not. Judging by the couple of clips from the accident scene shown in this video from the CBC, I figure the accident happened right about here on the westbound side, so there was over half a kilometer of straight road between the accident scene and the overpass to the east. So, while she bears some responsibility for the accident due to her asinine decision to stop in the road for some ducks, I think more of the fault lies with the motorcyclist for speeding and not paying enough attention to the road ahead.

[Dominus Atheos]

My god, I didn't realize how anti-duck this forum was. What did ducks ever do to you that you think it's okay to run them over on incredibly slim chance that 20 seconds after you stop your car, someone might crash into it?

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

[Geminon]

In R. v. Beatty, the accused 'got off' based on the fact that a seconds worth of 'negligence' occurred after good driving and without known cause. The Crown could not prove that he was being negligent, only that something happened that caused the accused to lose control of his vehicle and cross the median into oncoming traffic
In R. v. Anderson, the courts found that the Crown again failed to show that the negligence amounted to criminal negligence. In this case, a blood test an hour after the collision indicated that the accused was intoxicated, but the breathalyzer and the administering officer at the time of incident did not indicate impairment. The Crown argued that because the accused chose to drink he MUST be found guilty. That isn't actually a valid legal argument and was in part the basis for the verdict. The Crown argued their case badly.

The findings in these two cases don't invalidate the findings in the case of the duck lady. She chose to stop her vehicle in a lane of traffic in attempts to save a group of ducklings. I applaud her intent in saving innocent wildlife. That doesn't make it reasonable to stop in the lane of traffic and leave her vehicle. A reasonable person would believe such actions to be dangerous, reckless and/or negligent.
In addition, the motorcyclist was estimated to be going 113 to 120 km/h. I don't know about you, but I bet that in any group of ten or twelve people, someone saying "I estimate" is going to make one of those people say 'well, that gives reasonable to doubt to how fast he was actually going.' In addition, while the normal highway speed limit in Ontario and Quebec is 100 km/h, the left most lane is the passing lane, AKA the 'fast lane.' Traffic in that lane is expected to be traveling at between 110 and 120 km/h by reasonable drivers.
According to the Canadian Judicial Council jury instructions (http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyer ... 220_en.asp)
the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that NOA's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and
2. that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm. "Bodily harm" is any hurt or injury that interferes with a person's health or comfort and is more than brief or minor.
In deciding what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen, you must not take into account NOA's individual characteristics or experiences.

In this case, the jury felt that the Crown met the burden of the above. A reasonable person does not stop in the passing lane, and a reasonable person would foresee that doing so would pose a risk of bodily harm. In addition, the jury considered the speed that the victim was driving his motorcycle at some length. Reasonable drivers here see going that speed on the highway to be reasonable and within common practice, particularly in the left-most traffic lane.

[Simon_Jester]

Thank you, Geminon, for your analysis of the details of the precedent cases Terralthra was looking at. I thought there was something else going on 'under the hood' in those cases, but was a bit too distracted by other things at the time to go digging.

It seems more likely that this was not a blind curve, simply because the radius of curvature it takes to turn at sixty miles an hour is far enough that you should be able to see the stopped car on the road ahead.

I should say not. Judging by the couple of clips from the accident scene shown in this video from the CBC, I figure the accident happened right about here on the westbound side, so there was over half a kilometer of straight road between the accident scene and the overpass to the east. So, while she bears some responsibility for the accident due to her asinine decision to stop in the road for some ducks, I think more of the fault lies with the motorcyclist for speeding and not paying enough attention to the road ahead.

Having had to brake frantically when I realized there was a stopped truck in my lane on the interstate in the past, I sympathize a bit more with the motorcyclist. Because it's so abnormal for people to be stopped in the traffic lanes, the eye often fails to process the stopped vehicle correctly until it's getting close to the 'too late' point.

[Dominus Atheos]

The more I think about it, the more I'm not kidding. Seriously, sometimes dogs bite and even kill people. It's like a one in a million chance, but by this thread's logic, owning a dog is criminally negligent. How many years of jail do you think every dog owner ever should get?

Actually that's wrong. When a dog kills someone it's almost always entirely the owner's fault. This situation is more like someone being criminally negligent for leaving out something in their house that a robber could trip on. Everyone knows that you shouldn't leave things out where people could trip on it. Just because the robber broke the law to put himself into the situation where he tripped doesn't matter because reasons. How many years of jail do you think every person who ever left something out that a home invader could trip on should get?

[Borgholio]

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

That's such a fowl thing to say.

[SCRawl]

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

That's such a fowl thing to say.

You've used that pun twice in same thread. That's your limit.

[Executor32]

My god, I didn't realize how anti-duck this forum was. What did ducks ever do to you that you think it's okay to run them over on incredibly slim chance that 20 seconds after you stop your car, someone might crash into it?

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

So am I, when it's necessary. However, according to the OP article the ducks were sitting there on the median, not crossing the road. Also, if you look at the street view of the accident scene, the design of the median means that they were up off of ground level and not really in immediate danger of being run over:

[Borgholio]

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

That's such a fowl thing to say.

You've used that pun twice in same thread. That's your limit.

Yeah well nobody laughed the first time.

If I use it a third time will you send me a bill? Or just write me off as just some sort of a quack?

[Dominus Atheos]

My god, I didn't realize how anti-duck this forum was. What did ducks ever do to you that you think it's okay to run them over on incredibly slim chance that 20 seconds after you stop your car, someone might crash into it?

I'm totally pro-stopping-for-ducks, you are all just terrible people.

So am I, when it's necessary. However, according to the OP article the ducks were sitting there on the median, not crossing the road. Also, if you look at the street view of the accident scene, the design of the median means that they were up off of ground level and not really in immediate danger of being run over:

*snip image*

Not according to this video:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/06/23/s ... e-sentence

That's Headline News, AKA CNN2.

Also, fuck that prosecutor and fuck those analysts. Yes, you should stop for animals in a road. One guy pretty much came out and said you should run over a puppy rather then stop. Extra super fuck that asshole.