Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality) | Page 15 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)

Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

caboose56 said:
So debris that falls off a truck we should be prepared for but a deliberate trap no?

Makes sense...................


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That could depend on whether the load was reasonably secured. ie the plywood sheets tied to the roof racks with string vs a seeming strong tie down that had a manufacturing defect that let it break.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

nobbie48 said:
That could depend on whether the load was reasonably secured. ie the plywood sheets tied to the roof racks with string vs a seeming strong tie down that had a manufacturing defect that let it break.
Click to expand...

Well as long as there was no malice and they didn't mean for anyone to get hurt, what's the difference amirite?
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

kellen said:
Well as long as there was no malice and they didn't mean for anyone to get hurt, what's the difference amirite?
Click to expand...

I think that's what's getting everyone cranked. No malice but stupid beyond what any reasonable person would do. Now define reasonable person. They seem to be getting dumber every day.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

The appeal is likely to be argued on the point that the Judge specifically instructed the jury that they could not consider the actions of the rider including his speed etc in making their decision. ALL factors should be considered in determining guilt or innocence. The lawyer, (if he is competent), will argue that by instructing the jury as he did he left no opportunity for a finding of guilt on a lesser charge, (if one was included). If no lesser charge was included then the crown screwed themselves.

it would "appear" unfair to say you can only consider what the driver did and not anything the rider did which may or may not have been a contributing factor. Also by putting this instruction to the jury the judge has shown he is predisposed to not consider mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing either.

Not 100% certain on the Quebec legal process but an appeal if granted sets aside any sentence handed down until the appeal is heard and she would be granted bail, (if sentenced to jail).
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

The appeal is going to be 50% - 50%.

And the appeal of the appeal is going to be the same.

BTW, there was a lesser charge.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

...
 
Last edited:
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

hedo2002 said:
it would "appear" unfair to say you can only consider what the driver did and not anything the rider did which may or may not have been a contributing factor. Also by putting this instruction to the jury the judge has shown he is predisposed to not consider mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing either.
Click to expand...

Since sentencing hasn't occurred yet, that would be premature. As I stated previously mitigating factors in this situation would go to sentencing, not guilt or innocence, and I would say that's precisely how this judge will deal with it based on his instructions.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

hedo2002 said:
The appeal is likely to be argued on the point that the Judge specifically instructed the jury that they could not consider the actions of the rider including his speed etc in making their decision. ALL factors should be considered in determining guilt or innocence. The lawyer, (if he is competent), will argue that by instructing the jury as he did he left no opportunity for a finding of guilt on a lesser charge, (if one was included). If no lesser charge was included then the crown screwed themselves.

it would "appear" unfair to say you can only consider what the driver did and not anything the rider did which may or may not have been a contributing factor. Also by putting this instruction to the jury the judge has shown he is predisposed to not consider mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing either.
Click to expand...

criminal negligence causing death (220) requires both a death and criminal negligence

criminal negligence (219) doesn't require a second party to be involed. Only that another person could be at risk

eg: If you sent a rocket into space without first checking with air trafic control, no one needs to be hurt, for you to "show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

The law is unclear whether "Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person" means directly causes death, or is a contributing cause that leads to death.

If it's directly then yes, the riders actions would need to be considered. Would her actions cause the death of an alert driver of a car with a sealtbelt and an airbag following with a 2 sec gap? Because a car and motorcycle are both legal vehicles that could be on the road.

If it's a contributing cause, then it doesn't matter what the rider did. The rider could have been doing a power wheelie and the drivers actions would still be considered negligent.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

But for her actions, no one would have died. That makes it the proximate cause of the deaths. It's also why the actions of the riders are not considered, in this case.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

And people wonder why I fell in love with Montreal...and why Ontario daily churns my stomach.

For anybody that hasn't been there...Autoroute 30 is basically like the Linc in Hamilton or the 404 by Buttonville...divided highway, straight, monotonous, occasionally has concrete dividers with barely half a lane on the left hand side. Even if you have a flat, you are a drop dead, how can you remember to breath, moron, if you stop on the left hand side. But idiots do it everyday.

But Quebec, and especially Montreal, is NOT Ontario, and especially NOT Toronto. People actually drive with half a brain. So yeah, and idiot woman parking her car in the left hand lane of any autoroute would be out of place.

And for all I bash Ontario cops & prosecutors...I have nothing but praise for Montreal cops. Instead of the idiotic rhetoric you hear while you are hassled by the 17 OPP swine running speed traps on the 400, Montreal cops won't go out of their way to hassle you. But if you kill a man and his daughter by being an idiot, they will more than accommodate your next 5-10yrs.

Derek Paisley said:
Albeit, this woman used very poor judgement in this case. Her actions were in no way influenced by malicious intent or outright negligence.
This was an accident, and I assure you the outcome will see it as such.

The catalyst to this event was compassion, not stupidity. Which is why the prosecution is desperately avoiding that fundamental point.


My .02
d
Click to expand...

Yeah...Ontario. Empathy trumps consequences. Just never leave Toronto. Ever. Please.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

happycrappy said:
Good - "In his instructions (to the jury), the lower court judge erred in law in refusing to instruct the jury on the need to take into account the accused's mental state or actual state of mind," the motion reads.
Click to expand...

Defendant: "I was flustered and confused when I killed someone. Can I go now?"

Judge: "Yup. Not guilty. Enjoy your drive home."

Defendant: "Thanks, Today has been so overwhelming my head is spinning. Now where did I put my car keys?"

Add this to the drunk defense and other irresponsible excuses.

If your head is screwed up you shouldn't be driving.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

happycrappy said:
Good - "In his instructions (to the jury), the lower court judge erred in law in refusing to instruct the jury on the need to take into account the accused's mental state or actual state of mind," the motion reads.
Click to expand...

You mean good for her? How is that good for her? Even taking her "mental state" into account is not going to change anything. She had good feelings in her heart and a fuzzy head, so what? she is still guilty.

As I posted on page 7, the instructions the judge gave to the jury were the "nail in the coffin" - the judge told the jury to consider if the motorcyclist's speeding was sooo negligent as to absolve Duck Girl, so what she did was not the "significant cause of his death".

Was the judge should have said should be... even when Duck Girl's actions are the "significant cause of his death", did his speeding contributed as least partially to the impact?
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

MarcosSantiago said:
As I posted on page 7, the instructions the judge gave to the jury were the "nail in the coffin" - the judge told the jury to consider if the motorcyclist's speeding was sooo negligent as to absolve Duck Girl, so what she did was not the "significant cause of his death".
Click to expand...

I remembered you saying this, and it played out exactly as you predicted! I'm sure some others saw it coming, but you actually posted it.

Impress me some more - what will be the result of the appeal? :)
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

MarcosSantiago said:
You mean good for her? How is that good for her? Even taking her "mental state" into account is not going to change anything. She had good feelings in her heart and a fuzzy head, so what? she is still guilty.

As I've said before, good for her....It is a negligence case; a persons mental state is completely relevant when debating her ability to form intent, or to arrive at what "a reasonable person" might do in a given situation. I'm saying it is good that an appeal was granted on these grounds. And as I have also said, there is absolutely no sense or reason to benefit the victims or society by the penalty she is facing, so yeah, I'm glad she has been granted an appeal. Don't mistake that with me wishing she gets off scott free, and has no penalties; I'm just of the opinion that the severity of the crash WAS mitigated by the rider's actions, and that is very relevant to her conviction

As I posted on page 7, the instructions the judge gave to the jury were the "nail in the coffin" - the judge told the jury to consider if the motorcyclist's speeding was sooo negligent as to absolve Duck Girl, so what she did was not the "significant cause of his death".

Was the judge should have said should be... even when Duck Girl's actions are the "significant cause of his death", did his speeding contributed as least partially to the impact?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

Except that intent does not need to be present for negligence to apply.
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

DECIMIS said:
I remembered you saying this, and it played out exactly as you predicted! I'm sure some others saw it coming, but you actually posted it.

Impress me some more - what will be the result of the appeal? :)
Click to expand...

She will win the appeal.
That's my prediction.
But then, the crown will counter-appeal!
 
Re: I belive there should be no mitigating factors as a 16yr girl is dead

She got jail time. 90 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom