Support NeoGAF

[zer0blivion]

There may be an appeal and I hope it prevails. They hit a parked car. It may as well been a rock, their actions would have caused them the same outcome.


Peoples emotional responses with this "don't blame victims" mantra are just that, Emotional. Not objective at all.

History as shown plenty of people be victims of their own actions.


That verdict needs to appealed ASAP. They charged her with "Dangerous Driving"?! Her car was parked. Can't be guilty of a moving violation if your car is not in motion while driving it. Miss trial, Jury Incompetence..



Edit: Saw more pictures, horrific stuff. Unfortunate all around, however those charges I do not agree with it. She's not a criminal and she's not a cold heartless killer who thinks nothing of life lost to lock away 15 to life.

Should I be allowed to put a car-size rock in the passing lane of a highway? Of course not.

She was charged with, and found guilty of, two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing death.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-121.html

Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates
(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

Do you think it's safe to park your car in the passing lane of a highway without putting on your hazard lights? I would argue that it is in fact very dangerous.

Dangerous operation causing death

(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-112.html

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.
Marginal note:Causing death by criminal negligence

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.

By parking her car in the passing lane, I believe she fulfills the requirements of 219.(1)(a) and by not pulling over to the side of the road or putting on her hazard lights, she fulfills the requirements of 219.(1)(b).

I think the jury reached the correct verdict. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it was a mistrial.

 

[Samara]

But its either them or the people driving behind me. What would be the best action? I either run over the kids, or suddenly stop, possibly killing me and the driver behind me.

Are you serious? I ran over a cat looked back and didnt see anyone filing a police report for a hit and run. Sure there was shock and I felt bad, but running overt a two year old versus as squirerll is not even in the same league.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Hmm, so if a group of kids unexpectedly cross a highway. We are supposed to run them over?

You may need to take emergency action, baby goats are unpredictable.

 

[Rest]

This reminds me of something from my own life. One night, I was driving down the highway, and I noticed a car stopped in the suicide lane. Then I saw another car on the shoulder, and another car in the same shoulder facing the wrong way. I immediately had a very bad feeling, as all these cars were sort of haphazardly parked, but none had their flashers on. As I got closer, I saw people walking around, two out in a field, just sort of walking aimlessly, and a girl walking along the shoulder, looking sort of stunned and confused.

I thought there had been an accident, so I slowed down, preparing to stop if needed to aid these people. But as I got closer, I saw no twisted metal, no broken glass, no bodies or blood on the ground. That wasn't a comforting development, because now I had no idea what might have happened. I slow down a little more, and suddenly a girl popped up right next to my window, waving her arms in an S.O.S.

I stopped my car, rolled down my window, and asked her if she was hurt, if she needed assistance. Her response? "No, but slow down my dog jumped out of my car!" I was stunned. Because of one dog, three vehicles had parked dangerously on a road, none with caution devices out or even their flashers on to denote that they're stopped, and an unknown number of people are walking around on a busy highway in the dark, with no brightly colored clothing and no reflective gear. So I asked this girl "and you're willing to die because of that?" I then rolled up my window and drove away.

I'm glad this case ended in a conviction. You cannot endanger your self or others on the road for wild animals. This woman not only did that, but people died because of her actions, because she took 0 precautions to warn others of what she was doing.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

There was no side, there was a concrete barrier.

Then run the ducks over. It's not an ideal situation and it sucks. I'm not *FOR* harming animals when I don't have to but to me: Humans > Other Animals. Period. I'm not going to risk it for some ducks. People are dead cause she stopped....for ducks....

Just a question, but how do people drive during stop and go traffic on the highway? The car in front of the motorcycle should have had ample enough time to see a parked car and change lanes early, and not tell the jurors that she couldn't even brake in time.

There's a section of the Anthony Henday here in Edmonton, where during rush hour you go from driving 100-110km to almost 5-30km in a short amount of time. There are no flashing hazard lights, and yet you don't hear about people rear ending each other. The motorcycle seeing the parked car for the first time after the other car swerved and not having time to avoid it, should never of happened if that first driver paid any attention to the road and not swerve at the last possible moment.

The reason brake lights exist is because it's difficult to judge distance when something directly in front of you is stationary and you're moving.

If she's parked her brake lights are off. And to someone from behind they assume she's in motion.

This reminds me of something from my own life. One night, I was driving down the highway, and I noticed a car stopped in the suicide lane. Then I saw another car on the shoulder, and another car in the same shoulder facing the wrong way. I immediately had a very bad feeling, as all these cars were sort of haphazardly parked, but none had their flashers on. As I got closer, I saw people walking around, two out in a field, just sort of walking aimlessly, and a girl walking along the shoulder, looking sort of stunned and confused.

I thought there had been an accident, so I slowed down, preparing to stop if needed to aid these people. But as I got closer, I saw no twisted metal, no broken glass, no bodies or blood on the ground. That wasn't a comforting development, because now I had no idea what might have happened. I slow down a little more, and suddenly a girl popped up right next to my window, waving her arms in an S.O.S.

I stopped my car, rolled down my window, and asked her if she was hurt, if she needed assistance. Her response? "No, but slow down my dog jumped out of my car!" I was stunned. Because of one dog, three vehicles had parked dangerously on a road, none with caution devices out or even their flashers on to denote that they're stopped, and an unknown number of people are walking around on a busy highway in the dark, with no brightly colored clothing and no reflective gear. So I asked this girl "and you're willing to die because of that?" I then rolled up my window and drove away.

I'm glad this case ended in a conviction. You cannot endanger your self or others on the road for wild animals. This woman not only did that, but people died because of her actions, because she took 0 precautions to warn others of what she was doing.

Agreed. Completely.

 

[flamingotripod]

Awful.

I don't think the lady should serve jail time though.

Are you serious?

She is the sole reason why these 2 people died

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Are you serious?

She is the sole reason why these 2 people died

But people should be able to easily identify when a random car is completely parked with no brake lights in the middle of the road! There shouldn't be ANY burden on the person stopping and parking in the middle of a highway to pull off to the side!

All sarcasm aside I completely agree.

 

[one_kill]

I wonder how many years she'll get

 

[RustyNails]

Stopping on highways is extremely, extremely dangerous. You do not do that, unless there's a construction worker/cop making you slow down. If for ANY reason your car must stop on the highway, a tire burst or some car failure, immediately swerve on to the shoulder, but never stop on a highway even if it's in the middle of fucking nowhere in north Dakota. Even while on a shoulder, you have to have extremely heightened senses and be completely aware of your surroundings. One of my classmate's brother died while he was changing the flat tire inside the shoulder lane because he stepped outside the shoulder while trying to change it.

Anyways I think this lady could have avoided the situation had she somehow bypassed the ducks instead of being completely stopped.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Reading the code, it seems the jury has reached the correct verdict, she is guilty of those charges. I think cases like this are harder because she clearly wasn't thinking but not malicious (quite the opposite), but the code doesn't leave any wiggle room for intentions or negligent contributions by the victims. The feeling on this one would be quite different for many I suspect if she stopped in the same manner to do something more reprehensible, but either way makes no difference to the code.

This seems like the kind of thing that shouldn't have been a big trial, it should have been pleaded out. Which I guess she was given the chance to, but not with no jail time, so she went for the jury hoping to be found innocent. Which she isn't... even if you are in the camp that puts some fault on the motorcyclists, reading the code there seems little doubt that she actually is guilty of the charge. I would say that it seems at least some of the jurors felt conflicted on the contribution of the victims, because their role had to be clarified by the judge. I wonder if her lawyer did advise against her going to trial...

I didn't know about the 2007 change to make it so it was impossible to not serve jail time with this type of charge, I guess it was one of Harpers "we're tough on crime" changes, although he was only with a minority at the time.

If she was hoping for any mercy at all it is in the hands of the judge at this point. From the code I didn't see any minimum jail time required (unless a firearm was involved), is there for this type of case?

One thing I was confused on from that picture of the wreck... the car was clearly as far to the left as possible due to the barrier. But I was sure earlier reports (at the time of the incident) said she had her LEFT door open? Was it the right door? Or maybe the impact pushed her car to the right into the barrier?

 

[nateeasy]

Those ducks are dead now BTW.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Are you serious?

She is the sole reason why these 2 people died

Wasn't the guy going 30 over the speed limit as well? I don't think it is fair to say she is the sole reason.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

#notallducks

will Google program their cars to save these ducks lives? I think not!

Spoiler

boycott boycott!

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Those ducks are dead now BTW.

What happened to them?

Wasn't the guy going 30 over the speed limit as well? I don't think it is fair to say she is the sole reason.

There are certainly a variety of factors that played into their deaths (going to fast, following the car in front too close, etc.), but it doesn't matter. Even at least one juror brought this up and the judge had to clarify that any negligent contributions on the part of the victims were not allowed to factor with the charges against the person who caused the harm. That can be agreed or disagreed with, but it does appear to be the actual law.

 

[zer0blivion]

One thing I was confused on from that picture of the wreck... the car was clearly as far to the left as possible due to the barrier. But I was sure earlier reports (at the time of the incident) said she had her LEFT door open? Was it the right door? Or maybe the impact pushed her car to the right into the barrier?

The car was probably moved, by the impact and also for public safety reasons, by the time that picture was taken. It has blocks under the axles. Witnesses testified that the driver's (left) door, was open.

 

[pompidu]

What happened to them?



There are certainly a variety of factors that played into their deaths (going to fast, following the car in front too close, etc.), but it doesn't matter. Even at least one juror brought this up and the judge had to clarify that any negligent contributions on the part of the victims were not allowed to factor with the charges against the person who caused the harm. That can be agreed or disagreed with, but it does appear to be the actual law.

So replace ducks with a kid and the same charges should stand, according to the judge and this explanation.

 

[Fiktion]

So replace ducks with a kid and the same charges should stand, according to the judge and this explanation.

If a kid is out in the middle of a highway then I would charge the parents, not the driver who inevitably runs him over.

 

[Moral Panic]

So replace ducks with a kid and the same charges should stand, according to the judge and this explanation.

Why not? If a kid purposefully stands in the middle of a highway and causes an accident I'd definitely want him in jail/young offenders or in a mental facility.

 

[Chinner]

she's a modern day saint. god bless her.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

So replace ducks with a kid and the same charges should stand, according to the judge and this explanation.

Well, and given the law I believe it would be the same charges and they would still be valid. I think the odds of a mistrial (and larger public outcry) would be much higher than with the ducks. Or, replace her parked car with a moose, and suddenly much more blame is shifted to the victims... it's what makes cases like this tough... she's definitely guilty of the charges, that can't really be disputed. It's up to the judge to determine her fate, and I don't envy her that.

A case that resulted in the death of 2 others but with no obvious ill will or intent to harm, it is difficult to think you reach an appropriate sentence, I'm sure. Especially when by appearances, the surviving kin (the mother) doesn't appear to want anything for the sentencing and just wants to move on with her life.

 

[pompidu]

If a kid is out in the middle of a highway then I would charge the parents, not the driver who inevitably runs him over.

Why not? If a kid purposefully stands in the middle of a highway and causes an accident I'd definitely want him in jail/young offenders or in a mental facility.

Specifically referring to this.

judge had to clarify that any negligent contributions on the part of the victims were not allowed to factor with the charges against the person who caused the harm.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Why not? If a kid purposefully stands in the middle of a highway and causes an accident I'd definitely want him in jail/young offenders or in a mental facility.

This would be more akin to trying to charge the ducks with the death of the motorcyclist. I'm pretty sure he means if there was a kid out on the highway, injured or otherwise, and someone stops their car in a dangerous location to help and then the same deaths occur... is it still Criminal Negligence Causing Death? I would assume that yes, it would be. But I think it would be a mistrial because the jury couldn't agree to charge her with that.

 

[pompidu]

Well, and given the law I believe it would be the same charges and they would still be valid. I think the odds of a mistrial (and larger public outcry) would be much higher than with the ducks. Or, replace her parked car with a moose, and suddenly much more blame is shifted to the victims... it's what makes cases like this tough... she's definitely guilty of the charges, that can't really be disputed. It's up to the judge to determine her fate, and I don't envy her that.

A case that resulted in the death of 2 others but with no obvious ill will or intent to harm, it is difficult to think you reach an appropriate sentence, I'm sure. Especially when by appearances, the surviving kin (the mother) doesn't appear to want anything for the sentencing and just wants to move on with her life.

Remind me never to help anybody

 

[Fiktion]

Remind me never to help anybody

Remember not to stop your car in the middle of a highway for anybody. Yes. That is correct.

 

[Particle Physicist]

There are certainly a variety of factors that played into their deaths (going to fast, following the car in front too close, etc.), but it doesn't matter. Even at least one juror brought this up and the judge had to clarify that any negligent contributions on the part of the victims were not allowed to factor with the charges against the person who caused the harm. That can be agreed or disagreed with, but it does appear to be the actual law.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't speaking legally, I was just commenting on his statement saying that she is the sole reason for the deaths, which is not true. I wasn't speaking about her negligence only.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

They hit a parked car. It may as well been a rock, their actions would have caused them the same outcome.

Peoples emotional responses with this "don't blame victims" mantra are just that, Emotional. Not objective at all.

They charged her with "Dangerous Driving"?! Her car was parked. Can't be guilty of a moving violation if your car is not in motion while driving it. Miss trial, Jury Incompetence..

Edit: Saw more pictures, horrific stuff. Unfortunate all around, however those charges I do not agree with it. She's not a criminal and she's not a cold heartless killer who thinks nothing of life lost to lock away 15 to life.

parked in a lane of the freeway

 

[TransTrender]

Remind me never to help anybody

It never fails:

No good deed goes unpunished.


EDIT: Not that this specific example was a good deed (IMO she did a terrible thing), but in general.

 

[zer0blivion]

So replace ducks with a kid and the same charges should stand, according to the judge and this explanation.

That's not what happened here.