CdM is in love!

[garbon]

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?

I think as you noted earlier, the open law that could allow her to get an extreme penalty is the big attraction here.

[Malthus]

So what happens in Canada if say your car broke down and perhaps there might have been time* for you to steer it into a shoulder but you failed to act. In the interim, someone smacked into you on a motorcycle and died. Would you be doomed to suffer the same blame and shame as this woman?

*hard to see how this could easily be determined after the fact apart from I guess witness statements?

The issue would no doubt be decided on a case by case basis based on whether or not you were "negligent". That is, did you meet the standard expected of a reasonable person in that particular situation. Fall far enough below that standard, and someone dies as a result, you risk being charged with "criminal negligence causing death".

You know, with witnessses and facts and all. In what we in Canada quaintly call a "trial", evidently a form of proceeding totally unknown in the US. 

[CountDeMoney]

No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them.  Silly Jew.

The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. 

The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

Nobody's exonerating the dead guy and his dead kid, but the mitigating circumstances of a two-party event in which, while not splitting 50-50 culpability, bears some responsibility in contributing to the entire event. 

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

[Malthus]

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?

CdM appears to be saying exactly that.

I think as you noted earlier, the open law that could allow her to get an extreme penalty is the big attraction here.

It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.

[garbon]

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.

[garbon]

CdM appears to be saying exactly that.

Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.

It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.

Ignorance - what a loaded word.

[Malthus]

No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them.  Silly Jew.

The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. 

The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

Nobody's exonerating the dead guy and his dead kid, but the mitigating circumstances of a two-party event in which, while not splitting 50-50 culpability, bears some responsibility in contributing to the entire event. 

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

I don't think you mean "exonerating".

Contributory negligence is a civil law concept. We are dealing here with criminal law. Sure, the fact that motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast is part of the evidence ... but what it is not, is a complete defence to the charge, right?

It would certainly be relevant if the dead guy's estate sued the woman. Maybe BB could fill you in on whether the Judge would take it into account in sentencing as a mitigating factor.

[grumbler]

Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).

the point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does.  ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have.  I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.

[Malthus]

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

[Malthus]

CdM appears to be saying exactly that.

Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.

It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.

Ignorance - what a loaded word.

Apparently, the accurate one. 

[Malthus]

Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).

the point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does.  ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have.  I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.

I have no idea whether that is actually true or not; maybe it is. In any case, we both agree it is irrelevant.

[garbon]

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

What g said.

[garbon]

CdM appears to be saying exactly that.

Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.

It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.

Ignorance - what a loaded word.

Apparently, the accurate one. 

There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.

[Malthus]

And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.

Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

What g said.

Does not compute. How do you get from an observation that the motorcycle dude was driving badly to slanging on the Canadian legal system? 

[Malthus]

There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.

If you are ignorant about a subject, it is a bad idea to work yourself into a tizzy over it.