Woman faces life in prison for stopping to save ducklings

Shrap

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Fantastic. What good would calling the police do? Since by the time they could get to that specific part of the motorway, including the time it has taken you to find somewhere to pull in of course, the ducks would:

1. Be Dead.
2. Have waddled off somewhere else and no longer in need of the services of expensive and ultimately futile emergency services resources.


So, A1 is correct given the futility of A2 and the stupidity of A3. I would say 99% of the population would go for A1.

Well, yeah. But "rules of the road" would doubtless give you A2 as the correct answer (in spite of wasting police time and services). A1 would potentially be leaving it to someone like Ms. Duck Saver to come along and cause a fatal accident.

bb1234567

If some drunk fella plowed into a man and his daughter and killed them i doubt anybody would have much sympathy for him, he obviously didnt intend to kill them . But it had same outcome as the accident involving this woman, and both held the same disregard for other peoples lives. Well I for one dont feel any sympathy for her..

Yer Aul One

bb1234567 wrote: »

If some drunk fella plowed into a man and his daughter and killed them i doubt anybody would have much sympathy for him, he obviously didnt intend to kill them . But it had same outcome as the accident involving this woman, and both held the same disregard for other peoples lives. Well I for one dont feel any sympathy for her..

I think this is a really valid point. No matter the reason for your recklessness, you have killed 2 people from your bad decisions.

I think she should get a minimum 2 year sentence, possibly 3 year.

kylith

The_Captain wrote: »

It's been established I believe that the bike was over the speed limit, but she had stopped her car, and left the vehicle just after a blind bend giving the motorcyclist too little time to get out of the way

I believe that I read that the bike was travelling behind another car, which managed to swerve and avoid hitting the stationary car, and that the guy on the bike had no view of the stationary car before that and simply didn't have time to react before it was too late.

Irish Steve

Her actions were the height of gross stupidity, but there are other situations that can result in a disabled vehicle in the overtaking lane, through no fault of the driver, and if other traffic was unable to avoid a collision, then the speed of that other traffic was inappropriate for the conditions, or the road, and if the bike driver was caught unaware when the vehicle he was following swerved to avoid the collision, sorry, (as a former biker) he was either going too fast, or too close, or both.

The cause was gross stupidity, the result could equally have happened if debris from an incident on the opposite carriageway had crossed the median, and been hit by a vehicle, disabling it, or even something as simple as hitting a concrete block that fell off a preceding truck, which could break the steering, there are plenty of reasons why a vehicle could become disabled in the overtaking lane despite the best efforts of the driver to avoid or minimise the incident.

The woman responsible for the 2 deaths has to live with that, and needs to be given some form of punishment for her inappropriate actions, but some of the suggested remedies are a bit strong, even for AH.

Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Gael23

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1219/667896-canada-ducklings-road-deaths/

Not long enough.

bucketybuck

90 days jail to be served at weekends!!!

What a complete joke.

Awkward Badger

Czornobaj was also sentenced to 240 hours of community service, probation and banned from driving for ten years.

Relatives of the victims said they were satisfied with the sentence.

No sense in locking people up for the sheer hell of it to satisfy some pointless revenge fantasy. Its was a stupid tragic mistake and measures have been taken to ensure it doesn't happen again.

bucketybuck

Awkward Badger wrote: »

No sense in locking people up for the sheer hell of it to satisfy some pointless revenge fantasy.

Suffering the consequences of your actions is not necessarily a pointless revenge fantasy.

Awkward Badger

bucketybuck wrote: »

Suffering the consequences of your actions is not necessarily a pointless revenge fantasy.

The consequences of her actions is the sentence handed out by the judge and the fact she has to live with what she has done.

Wanting someone to suffer when it will achieve nothing but making the person suffer is a pointless revenge fantasy.

bucketybuck

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The consequences of her actions is the sentence handed out by the judge and the fact she has to live with what she has done.

Wanting someone to suffer when it will achieve nothing but making the person suffer is a pointless revenge fantasy.

Just let her out and give her a hug then.

Well, she is out for most of the week anyway but you know what I mean. I hope if I ever kill two people you are on the jury.

AudreyHepburn

What she did was stupid and reckless and she will have to live the rest of life knowing she killed two people, one of them a child. She doesn't need the death penalty or to vigilante justice visited on her. This isn't a murder or anything like it.

A few years behind bars and a lifetime ban on driving as well this terrible incident on her record and her conscience is enough.

OldNotWIse

bucketybuck wrote: »

Just let her out and give her a hug then.

Well, she is out for most of the week anyway but you know what I mean. I hope if I ever kill two people you are on the jury.

Jury doesn't sentence people.

Maximus Alexander

What's the deal with the notion of putting people in prison as a punishment? As if we're all bold children who need to be taught a lesson? That's total nonsense.

The point of prison is (should be) either to protect larger society from someone who is a menace, or to rehabilitate people and turn them into productive members of the community. The former is important, the latter doesn't happen often enough. The idea of putting people in the naughty building because they were bold is pretty infantile though.

There doesn't appear to be a risk that this woman will go on a murder spree where she'll abruptly stop cars in front of motorcycles all across Canada. Jail time won't achieve anything, apart from costing the taxpayer money. As it is, she has to live with the consequences of her severe stupidity.

DeadHand

Whatever about the necessity of a custodial sentence, the driving ban should have been life long.

Kristopherus

Have the ducks been arrested yet?:D

bucketybuck

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What's the deal with the notion of putting people in prison as a punishment? As if we're all bold children who need to be taught a lesson? That's total nonsense.

So what do you propose? Zero consequences for killing 2 people?

Gael23

I expect/hope this sentence will be appealed on grounds of undue leniency?
She should at very minimum serve 90 consecutive days.

Maximus Alexander

bucketybuck wrote: »

So what do you propose? Zero consequences for killing 2 people?

If the only reason you can think of to put a particular person in prison is to make them sad because they're bold, then I'd certainly propose not putting them in prison, anyway.

Bruthal

What if the car in this case had been broken down, and the bike hit it.

Im betting some here would then say the biker should have been watching the road ahead, for the unexpected.

RacoonQueen

Why would you put your 16 year old child on a motor bike with you and then drive on a motorway?

Did the ducklings survive?

Potatoeman

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If the only reason you can think of to put a particular person in prison is to make them sad because they're bold, then I'd certainly propose not putting them in prison, anyway.

It a deterrent to other people that might do the same. Putting other peoples lives at risk etc.

Maximus Alexander

Potatoeman wrote: »

It a deterrent to other people that might do the same. Putting other peoples lives at risk etc.

That only makes sense with intentional crime. The prospect of prison can't deter you from making an idiotic mistake.

Bruthal

Potatoeman wrote: »

It a deterrent to other people that might do the same. Putting other peoples lives at risk etc.

Every time you drive, you put lives at risk. If everyone who did something stupid on our roads here, were locked up to deter others, within a few months, there would be very quiet roads.

The difference here is, a stupid action caused death. But that was not the intention.

seamus

Serving time at weekends. What a distinctly Canadian solution. I actually like it because 90 days jail over weekends is nearly an entire year where she has to work Monday - Friday and then goes into prison for the weekend.

For a normal person, that's a pretty hard year.

I fail to see what a full time custodial sentence would achieve except to destroy her life and her career. How is that benefitting society?

Tigger

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Why would you put your 16 year old child on a motor bike with you and then drive on a motorway?

why wouldn't you?
a motorbike is a form of transport not some kind of terror machine

Potatoeman

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That only makes sense with intentional crime. The prospect of prison can't deter you from making an idiotic mistake.

Its not just stupid its reckless endangerment.

Maximus Alexander

Potatoeman wrote: »

Its not just stupid its reckless endangerment.

It may be, but she still wasn't cognizant of the risk when she stopped the car. I would assume she didn't think "I may kill someone, but that's fine so long as I save these ducks". She's obviously a total idiot, but the idea that you can go to prison for killing people wouldn't have prevented it, because she presumably had no idea she was about to cause people to die.

I mean, yeah, if she knew people were about to die then she is a dangerous lunatic who intentionally kills people on motorways, and she should absolutely be locked up for the protection of the public.

What I take issue with is the idea that she should be locked up as punishment, which is just nonsense.

darkpagandeath

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It may be, but she still wasn't cognizant of the risk when she stopped the car. I would assume she didn't think "I may kill someone, but that's fine so long as I save these ducks". She's obviously a total idiot, but the idea that you can go to prison for killing people wouldn't have prevented it, because she presumably had no idea she was about to cause people to die.

I mean, yeah, if she knew people were about to die then she is a dangerous lunatic who intentionally kills people on motorways, and she should absolutely be locked up for the protection of the public.

What I take issue with is the idea that she should be locked up as punishment, which is just nonsense.

Then she has some server metal issues, As an adult if she cannot reasonably assume stopping in the fast lane will have terrible consequences. She obviously reasoned stopping in the fast lane could lead to her death as she put her car between her and other traffic. She could of easily pulled into the hard shoulder or the side of the road. And then ran onto the highway and take the chance of getting hit.

Maximus Alexander

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then she has some server metal issues, As an adult if she cannot reasonably assume stopping in the fast lane will have terrible consequences. She obviously reasoned stopping in the fast lane could lead to her death as she put her car between her and other traffic. She could of easily pulled into the hard shoulder or the side of the road. And then ran onto the highway and take the chance of getting hit.

Well in that case, see the second paragraph of the post you quoted.

Bruthal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then she has some server metal issues, As an adult if she cannot reasonably assume stopping in the fast lane will have terrible consequences.

Lots of people are simply thick. Its on our own roads every day of the week.

Smithwicks Man

My name is URL wrote: »

She should be marinated and cooked in a tandoori oven, like the feathery scumbags she tried to save

This is one of the best comments I've ever seen on Boards

darkpagandeath

Bruthal wrote: »

Lots of people are simply thick. Its on our own roads every day of the week.

Ignorance of the law's of the land is no excuse. I.e. Dangerous/reckless endangerment. Stupidity is no excuse.

banquo

What happened the ducklings?

Bruthal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ignorance of the law's of the land is no excuse. I.e. Dangerous/reckless endangerment. Stupidity is no excuse.

But stupidity cant be helped. So therefor maybe lock up everyone who does anything stupid. Is that it?

darkpagandeath

Bruthal wrote: »

But stupidity cant be helped. So therefor maybe lock up everyone who does anything stupid. Is that it?

Nice circle jerk.... Her apparent stupidity cost 2 people their lives.

Frigga_92

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Why would you put your 16 year old child on a motor bike with you and then drive on a motorway?

Why not?

Bruthal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nice circle jerk.... Her apparent stupidity cost 2 people their lives.

Yes. But people dont decide what their stupidity will cost.

A moment of stupidity by you, may kill someone, or may just cause a red face, or may go unnoticed, but Im guessin you are immune to stupidity of course.

All your actions are aligned with the boards standard of flawlessness no doubt:pac:

RacoonQueen

Tigger wrote: »

why wouldn't you?
a motorbike is a form of transport not some kind of terror machine

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Why not?

Motorcyclists, due to their speed(compared to scooters/pushbikes), lack of seatbelts and lack of big metal things surrounding them (compared to 4+ wheeled vehicles) are probably the most vulnerable road users. Throw in the speed of a motorway and you're adding risk. Then, if you're (as some of the articles suggest) breaking the speed limit quite significantly....

I cycle and drive...and no way would I put a child on a pushbike nevermind a motorbike. As a cyclist, I go out every time knowing that not only do I have to ensure I don't do anything stupid, I've to rely on no one else doing anything stupid too and hope that my reaction times will be quick enough if they do. The same would apply to a motorcyclist due to their vulnerability on the roads. Given the two of them are dead, it would kind of back up my feelings on this.

RacoonQueen

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Motorcyclists, due to their speed(compared to scooters/pushbikes), lack of seatbelts and lack of big metal things surrounding them (compared to 4+ wheeled vehicles) are probably the most vulnerable road users. Throw in the speed of a motorway and you're adding risk. Then, if you're (as some of the articles suggest) breaking the speed limit quite significantly....

I cycle and drive...and no way would I put a child on a pushbike nevermind a motorbike. As a cyclist, I go out every time knowing that not only do I have to ensure I don't do anything stupid, I've to rely on no one else doing anything stupid too and hope that my reaction times will be quick enough if they do. The same would apply to a motorcyclist due to their vulnerability on the roads. Given the two of them are dead, it would kind of back up my feelings on this.

I love motorbikes but I'm really starting to feel the same way.. Great for a city and that but you really feel vulnerable at high speed.

enfant terrible

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What's the deal with the notion of putting people in prison as a punishment? As if we're all bold children who need to be taught a lesson? That's total nonsense.

The point of prison is (should be) either to protect larger society from someone who is a menace, or to rehabilitate people and turn them into productive members of the community. The former is important, the latter doesn't happen often enough. The idea of putting people in the naughty building because they were bold is pretty infantile though.

There doesn't appear to be a risk that this woman will go on a murder spree where she'll abruptly stop cars in front of motorcycles all across Canada. Jail time won't achieve anything, apart from costing the taxpayer money. As it is, she has to live with the consequences of her severe stupidity.

So by your logic, if someone murders another person but are not deemed a danger to the public, they should serve no jail time?

Bruthal

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Motorcyclists, due to their speed(compared to scooters/pushbikes), lack of seatbelts and lack of big metal things surrounding them (compared to 4+ wheeled vehicles) are probably the most vulnerable road users. Throw in the speed of a motorway and you're adding risk. Then, if you're (as some of the articles suggest) breaking the speed limit quite significantly....

I cycle and drive...and no way would I put a child on a pushbike nevermind a motorbike. As a cyclist, I go out every time knowing that not only do I have to ensure I don't do anything stupid, I've to rely on no one else doing anything stupid too and hope that my reaction times will be quick enough if they do. The same would apply to a motorcyclist due to their vulnerability on the roads. Given the two of them are dead, it would kind of back up my feelings on this.

They are more dangerous than cars for sure.

But had it been a car going at motorway speed that hit that stationary car, they may also have been killed. So the fact they died in itself doesn't certainly back up your point.

Motorways are probably safer than other roads. Less likely to have cars coming out from side roads without looking, no one coming head on, no one turning across you, can usually see further ahead with no bad bends. But drivers still need to watch for the unexpected, which is more of a problem on motorways probably... (Not paying full attention the whole time).

Had this been a broken down car they hit, then it might have been a thread asking were they not paying attention to the road ahead.

Bruthal

enfant terrible wrote: »

So by your logic, if someone murders another person but are not deemed a danger to the public, they should serve no jail time?

Well it wont serve much purpose in this case. And a life sentence is way over the top.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I think some of the comments saying she deserves the death penalty are way over the top. I do believe she deserves a lengthy prison sentence for her actions, at least 8 to 10 years and a life time ban from driving. Her actions were criminal with a complete disregard for others and she should be punished for it.

AndonHandon

The motorbike should have been travelling at a slower speed to at least prepare for a sudden halting of a vehicle ahead. If the bike driver survived but his passenger was killed then he should do time in jail.

DoomZ

She stopped on a motorway..no warning lights...she killed two people...manslaughter... Jail: yes

AndonHandon

DoomZ wrote: »

She stopped on a motorway..no warning lights...she killed two people...manslaughter... Jail: yes

Safe to assume you don't have a licence.

Fr_Dougal

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Motorcyclists, due to their speed(compared to scooters/pushbikes), lack of seatbelts and lack of big metal things surrounding them (compared to 4+ wheeled vehicles) are probably the most vulnerable road users. Throw in the speed of a motorway and you're adding risk. Then, if you're (as some of the articles suggest) breaking the speed limit quite significantly....

I cycle and drive...and no way would I put a child on a pushbike nevermind a motorbike. As a cyclist, I go out every time knowing that not only do I have to ensure I don't do anything stupid, I've to rely on no one else doing anything stupid too and hope that my reaction times will be quick enough if they do. The same would apply to a motorcyclist due to their vulnerability on the roads. Given the two of them are dead, it would kind of back up my feelings on this.

Pretty silly post tbh. If it was a car driving directly behind her the occupants would have suffered the same fate.

With motorbikes you don't have the same protection, but your riding position and acceleration/deceleration speed makes up for it once you're a good pilot and paying attention.

I can guarantee you if you were driving behind me in the overtaking lane and I hammered the brakes on a clear road for no apparent reason you'd rear-end me.

Maximus Alexander

enfant terrible wrote: »

So by your logic, if someone murders another person but are not deemed a danger to the public, they should serve no jail time?

I've made it very clear what I think.

darkpagandeath

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. But people dont decide what their stupidity will cost.

A moment of stupidity by you, may kill someone, or may just cause a red face, or may go unnoticed, but Im guessin you are immune to stupidity of course.

All your actions are aligned with the boards standard of flawlessness no doubt:pac:

Nope done plenty of stupid stuff, But stopping voluntarily in the fast lane of a motor way with no hazard lights has ever been one of them.