Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I think what she did was really stupid, it was not done with malicious intent to purposely harm people.
I am part of groups online that advocate for criminal justice. I read stories everyday of outright evil people that have hurt others horribly on purpose. A lot of those people have gotten slaps on the wrist, a reduced sentence, or something that no one can comprehend as a sentence that does not make sense. Those people did it on purpose with malicious intent. How they don't get life in prison is beyond me.
This case was very tragic and I can't imagine if it was my family. I would be angry, upset, heartbroken, you name it. But for someone to get life for doing something that in her mind was helping in some way but was just not smart given where she was, does not seem to fit the crime. People dying is a tragedy generally, but the way people die and the circumstances makes a difference and that needs to be taken into consideration.
Yes I do think jail time should be mandatory in this case but life in prison is excessive. I don't know how long specifically, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years, combined with community service that really gets the message across or something. I don't know. But in addition to punishment, jail should be a lesson. How can someone learn a lesson of doing something not so smart if they will just stay in prison for the rest of their one life?
And just so it's clear, I know that all crimes are stupid and I'm not talking about most of them. This is a rare case of being stupid with good intention. I think it needs to be not categorized as other stupid crimes and therefore the sentencing should not be the same.
To the person who said hit the goose... wrong... in Pennsylvania, it's illegal to hit a goose and you will be fined a lot of money. Me, I think this is ridiculous. The woman shouldn't get life in jail. She should have stopped to help the animals... it's a sin to kill an animal on the road. Maybe the two that died should have paid more attention. Then again, maybe this is why I don't drive.
This is not a matter of opinion. The man was going ~20mph over the speed limit.
Other people managed to miss the car. His wife even said she was going slower so she was able to evade.
Sudden stops on the highway are nothing new (left lane notwithstanding). We must always be prepared. That is why you never tailgate, you always look ahead at the traffic in front of you, and you leave tons of room not only for yourself but for the car behind you (so you don't get rear-ended). Sudden stops on the highway are pretty run of the mill.
Yes, I agree. What if a car broke down in that same lane and couldn't move it to the side? Things happen that we don't plan for. How about they say they were both to blame at least? Because that is what it seems to be.
I have stated THREE times, in this thread, that the convicted woman will NOT get a life sentence, Do you get that ?? NO life sentence.
For the fourth time..............She has been convicted of four separate and SERIOUS criminal code offences, that have a MINIMUM sentence of TWO years each. The maximum is 14 years, for these SERIOUS criminal offences. These are NOT "traffic offences " under Canadian law. They are criminal code charges, and she has been convicted of all four charges that were laid. She was convicted by a jury of 12 of her peers. She had proper legal council, and ample time to present her defence, at trial. It took four years for this to come to trial, due to delaying tactics by her lawyers.
Trying to blame the dead motorcyclist is absurd. He did nothing wrong, and he and his 16 year old daughter BOTH died as the direct result of the negligence of the woman who stopped her car in the middle of a highway, and got out of it to "help some ducklings" Idiotic behaviour, that directly cause the deaths of two innocent people.
Trying to blame the dead motorcyclist is absurd. He did nothing wrong, and he and his 16 year old daughter BOTH died as the direct result of the negligence of the woman who stopped her car in the middle of a highway, and got out of it to "help some ducklings" Idiotic behaviour, that directly cause the deaths of two innocent people.
Jim B. Toronto.
Jim,
I was hoping that you'd drop in on this thread once again. Did you read my post from earlier today, regarding the amount of time the motorcyclist would have had to react? I was wondering whether my conjecture sounded logical to you, a former police officer.
I have stated THREE times, in this thread, that the convicted woman will NOT get a life sentence, Do you get that ?? NO life sentence.
For the fourth time..............She has been convicted of four separate and SERIOUS criminal code offences, that have a MINIMUM sentence of TWO years each. The maximum is 14 years, for these SERIOUS criminal offences. These are NOT "traffic offences " under Canadian law. They are criminal code charges, and she has been convicted of all four charges that were laid. She was convicted by a jury of 12 of her peers. She had proper legal council, and ample time to present her defence, at trial. It took four years for this to come to trial, due to delaying tactics by her lawyers.
Trying to blame the dead motorcyclist is absurd. He did nothing wrong, and he and his 16 year old daughter BOTH died as the direct result of the negligence of the woman who stopped her car in the middle of a highway, and got out of it to "help some ducklings" Idiotic behaviour, that directly cause the deaths of two innocent people.
Jim B. Toronto.
Hey Jim, aren't these minimum sentences for convictions a fairly recent thing brought in by our current government? I don't think I agree with them, 8 years seems a bit much, but the judge doesn't have the freedom to sentence based on judgement. He's bound by this policy to a pretty long minimum! She was an idiot, but 5 years sounds more reasonable.
Jim, I'm not sure who you're specifically aiming that at but, defending my own post, I was commenting on the title of this thread which is labeled:
"Canadian woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash"
My comment touches on the fact that she could face that, as again, the title suggests.
People are entitled to express their opinion about something when it is brought up, even if it is hypothetical.
I'm not sure how much leeway the Judges discretion may play in sentencing in this case or if there is any legal differences in the law here in Quebec but public sentiment i'm hearing on local talk shows is for harsh sentence but no jail time, as although she made a stupid move there was no criminal intent
and basically it was a tragic accident that her stupidity caused.
It seems to me that all this wrath and attention brought to bear on this motorist's stupid actions is missing the point. There are millions of near-accidents because of idiotic and illegal driving habits such as tailgating, failure to use turn signals, speeding, road rage middle finger salutes, etc., and I think we should be focusing more on these yahoos who actually make driving much more dangerous.
This woman is an edge case, an outlier that isn't representative. For sure, she was an idiot and should have her driver's license suspended and do some community service or something, but... 6-8 years of prison time? That won't bring back the dead, nor will it improve safety on the road because the morons out there won't learn anything from it other than "don't do what she did". Indeed it's a distraction from the real issues.
We need to improve driver's education, fund and empower the police to more strictly enforce the rules of the road such as using turn signals, keeping safe distance, maintaining a safe speed, etc. People who tailgate repeatedly should have their licenses taken away and this would prevent many accidents. Tough on them, if they don't like it.
We should inspect the roads regularly and improve striping and signage, and encourage use of electronic aids like collision avoidance systems, better shielding and crash survivability, and most of all, fight drunk driving, which alone causes about half of the fatalities.
Yes, your summation was correct, re the reaction time, given the facts that were presented at trial.
The Crown Attorney would have had a report from a accident reconstruction specialist, employed by the Quebec Provincial Police, who would have made detailed measurements at the scene, using laser measurement devices, and extensive scene photographs. This would have determined, based on scientific principles, the speed of the motorcycle. Skid marks, and in this case, drag marks by the motorcycle as it slid into the car , on the pavement, would have been present.
In my personal experience, having about 45 years of accident free driving, the average driver is not well trained, and has little actual understanding of the concept of "leaving enough room " to be able to react and avoid a situation ahead of them.
I recently drove back from a visit to friends who live in Ottawa. My route included four hours on the 401 highway, which is the busiest highway in either Canada or the USA, for traffic use. I remarked to my wife, on a couple of occasions, that a vehicle was too close to the one ahead of it, that was either a commercial truck, or a large recreational vehicle. My exact words were.... how can that driver "see through that moving object that is 50 feet in front of him " ? The answer is they can't see properly, and they are guilty of being "bumper riders ".
I stand by my suggestion re the sentence that will be given in August, at the sentencing phase of this case.
Jim B. Toronto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
