Woman faces life in prison for trying to save baby ducks

[philip964]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Canad ... 568003.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Canada.

Stopped on main lane of highway. Two died.

[RoyGBiv]

Criminal stupidity.

"It was for the baby ducks!"

Not sure that life is the right sentence. I doubt there was any malicious intent.
10 years minimum should send a sufficient message. (and I'm a motorcyclist)

[mamabearCali]

That is a pretty stiff sentence for a foolish but not vicious offense. There was not indifference for human life, just foolishness that really should not carry at serious of a sentence.

[Right2Carry]

I had this very thing happen the other day for ducks crossing the road. It was only by the grace of God that I and others didn't end up in an accident on a busy road because some individual stopped a car and put humans at risk for a couple if ducks. The verbiage I used in the car would not pass the 10 year old daughter rule.

[jbarn]

I doubt she will get life. However, the charge was entirely appropriate

[philip964]

I had a friend rear end a stopped driver ( you guess sex and everything else) at night in a rain storm on the other side of an overpass in the middle lane of interstate 10. The driver had the right turn blinker on. The driver wanted traffic to clear so they could make the exit they were sitting at.

My friend received a ticket for failure to control speed. The other driver was not ticketed.

Lady should not have mentioned ducks.

[RPBrown]

In most cases here, if you rear end another vehicle, you are at fault. Granted what she did was not real bright, but the biker should have been paying more attention IMHO. And I am a motorcyclist as well.

[jbarn]

It is negligent to stop on a lane of a roadway for a non emergency.

[jbarn]

In most cases here, if you rear end another vehicle, you are at fault. Granted what she did was not real bright, but the biker should have been paying more attention IMHO. And I am a motorcyclist as well.

that entirely depends on the circumstances.

Do you have access to a police report, diagram or photos of the accident scene to determine the motorcyclist "should have been paying more attantion"? How do you know the circumstances of his view?

[jbarn]

If you are going too fast to stop for unexpected obstacles, I think you are driving too fast.

Perhaps following to closely? Hiw do you know he wasn't 10 under the limit and there was no way to avoid?

And, it is idiotic to stop in the middle of the road.

Unless there is no choice it is at least negligent. ;)

[gljjt]

She certainly used poor judgement, but I believe there was fault on both sides. You should (almost) always drive at a speed that you can stop for blockage already (not something darting out) in your lane. Slow down to be able to do so. She should be penalized, but not imprisoned. Her mistake, though stupid was not malicious or intentional. She will likely punish herself for the rest of her life. Unfortunately lives were lost. The surviving wife is a saint. Just my opinion.

[kenobi]

I think they should auction off all her possessions, buy her a couple of ducks and a one way ticket to Churchill, MB, and give the rest of the money to her victims' family.

[jbarn]

She certainly used poor judgement, but I believe there was fault on both sides. You should (almost) always drive at a speed that you can stop for blockage already (not something darting out) in your lane. Slow down to be able to do so. She should be penalized, but not imprisoned. Her mistake, though stupid was not malicious or intentional. She will likely punish herself for the rest of her life. Unfortunately lives were lost. The surviving wife is a saint. Just my opinion.

Mistake? She didn't intend to stop in the road? It was not malicious, but it was intentional. The death was not intentional. It was negligence on her part that caused it.

Let's change things a bit and say YOUR son and his daughter was killed when their motorcycle struck the car of a woman who left it in the fast lane to rescue a duck. And really stop and think. Don't just answer to defend the position you already took.

[gljjt]

She certainly used poor judgement, but I believe there was fault on both sides. You should (almost) always drive at a speed that you can stop for blockage already (not something darting out) in your lane. Slow down to be able to do so. She should be penalized, but not imprisoned. Her mistake, though stupid was not malicious or intentional. She will likely punish herself for the rest of her life. Unfortunately lives were lost. The surviving wife is a saint. Just my opinion.

Mistake? She didn't intend to stop in the road? It was not malicious, but it was intentional. The death was not intentional. It was negligence on her part that caused it.

Let's change things a bit and say YOUR son and his daughter was killed when their motorcycle struck the car of a woman who left it in the fast lane to rescue a duck. And really stop and think. Don't just answer to defend the position you already took.

I was not clear in my statement. Poor/incomplete choice of words. I meant she was not malicious and the RESULT was not intentional. Thanks for the catch.

As far as if it was my family member killed, I would be angry beyond measure. I would want retribution. But with the clarity that comes with not being directly involved, emotionally detached (don't misinterpret that, it does make me sad to think about), I still believe there was likely fault on both sides. If you can't stop for an obstruction in the road, you are going too fast. Can't see around the corner, slow down. Can't see over the hill, slow down. Yes, she was negligent and she should "pay". Blame can be proportional. And she has the lion's share. But the penalty she could get under the law where this occurred is excessive in my opinion.

I still say the wife/mom is a saint. I would hope I could be as forgiving.