It ends badly, as expected
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html
Chick was a financial analyst
I think life is a little harsh. Even rapists don’t get life in prison. A few years in the pen would be fair.
I have heard this story before but I’m surprised the accident actually happened in 2010. I was under the impression it happened in the past 1 year.
Anyway, sounds like the motorbike rider was a bit at fault too. He rear-ended her after all, unless it was a tight turn I don’t see how he wasn’t aware the car in front of him wasn’t moving.
^
Solid analysis bro.
If you randomly stop in the left lane of the highway, I guarantee someone will hit you in the back… Even though I have a tendency to blame motorcyclists for accidents, and for taking the risk of riding motorcycles in general, this was also a pretty irresponsible thing to do.
Agree the sentence is harsh, but I sort of understand why. If you drive recklessly and kill someone in an accident, that can be vehicular manslaughter. What this lady did was more reckless than aggressive driving.
the worst things can happen even with the best intentions
I just saw this on another daily mail article as well and I read the comments.
The punishment is way too harsh. Yes it was stupid but there wasn’t any criminal intent. A fine and community service should be enough. If someone rear ends you, doesn’t that make it automatically their fault anyways? She could have stopped in the left lane due to a medical emergency. The WHY doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t say in this article but the motorcyclist was going 113km/h - 129km/h in a max 90. He was dumb for going so fast as well especially with his daughter riding with him.
I don’t know how the judgment system works exactly but I hope that she can appeal to the Supreme Court or something like that.
I’m assuming the judge will show some discretion and let this poor lady off with a slap on the wrist. Killing people through impaired driving will only get you 18 months in Canada, the land of no consequences, so I can’t imagine her getting any real punishment. That said, I do object to this rescue everything culture. I don’t think we should gratuitously kill animals or cause suffering, but this lady after saving the ducks probably went and ate a McChicken. I agree the speeding motorcycle driver also carries a great deal of responsibility for this.
people really need to stop linking to the daily mail website. don’t give them the hits and the revenue
I blame them for the UKIP situation.
Agreed
The other thing that seemed striking was that a clearly negligent crime with no malicious intent could carry such a harsh penalty. People do far more malicious things with great intent, at least in the U.S., with far less severe sentences.
The widow herself said that she just wants to have people become more aware of why they’re stopping on the road, and move on with their lives. Will that be taken into account by the judge? Is it not sufficient that the driver who saved the ducklings probably has had her life ruined from the standpoint of her legal troubles and how she is viewed by society?
Maybe I’m not looking at this in the right way, so would appreciate if any Canadian folk here could opine. Thanks.
I love those daily mail links because of the Femail Today stuff on the side of the stories.
Sentencing will begin soon, I don’t think she will get ‘25 with an L’.
As lame as the intent was, and I would never choose that route as humans > animals, it just wasn’t malicious, and I think the judge will take that into account. The fact that the motorcyclist was speeding will also most likely be taken into account.
The media has really just sensationalized this story by focusing on WHY she stopped. Most people while driving on the highway are alert and will be able to respond quickly to any debris on the road. Unless it was a chicane (highly unlikely the way Canadian highways are laid out, usually flat and long lines of sight), I’d say the rider took the ultimate responsibilty on this one.
Numi - That’s the maximum sentence for criminal negligence causing death in Canada, 25 years. Her actual sentence will be far less than that. No one serves 25 years in Canada unless you’re some horrendous killer and even then probably not. My guess is 18 months max.
This needs to be sent to everyone as a personal memo. We can also extend it to anything run by that scum Murdoch
To put it into perspective, the serial rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo is serving 25. His accomplice, ex wife Karla Homolka who was almost equally as guilty, got off after 12 years. Hardly anyone ever gets the full sentence.