Woman faces life in prison for trying to save baby ducks

[MechAg94]

If the woman wanted to save baby ducks on the road, there are safer and more proper ways to do it. Short of calling the cops, you pull over to the shoulder, turn on your hazards, put out road flares if you have them and try to get the baby ducks yourself if you can. That way, it is likely only yourself that gets killed in an accident, not other drivers. IMO, this wasn't just negligence if she parked in the middle of the road. That is criminal negligence.

Also, she did NOT have the best of intentions. The best of intentions would be the care about all life. By her actions she put other people in danger when there were things she could have done to avoid that. She gave no thought to anyone's safety but the ducks.

I would honestly be curious what her driving record looks like. Someone who would do something like that with no thought whatsoever to her or other's safety can't have a good record

[RoyGBiv]

What do you think?

I think her actions directly contributed to the death of two other people.

If she stopped to avoid hitting another human, her stopping may be justified. There are better ways to do it.
Obstructing a roadway to avoid hitting ducks? Contributory negligence.

[philip964]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/victi ... h/26940566" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taxi driver stops in middle of the John F. Kennedy Boulevard after midnight night to pick up a fare at the airport here in Houston.

Customer and taxi driver are loading luggage in rear of taxi when they are rear ended.

Both may lose legs.

Didn't sound like the driver who rear ended them was ticketed. He said he did not see them. Tail lights may have been obscured by the luggage and victims.

[Saffron]

Is victim the right word for someone injured while violating Texas Penal Code Sec. 42.03?

[Jaguar]

As a motorcyclist I prefer consistency. Consistent traffic flow, consistent breaking, consistent lane following and signals when changing, and consistency in road surface (not really another driver's fault - but it did cause a broken foot.) When someone violates these consistencies it makes it difficult at best, life threatening at worst. For someone to stop in the middle of a freeway is extremely dangerous since no one expects anyone else to do this, and that is what makes this dangerous and neglectful.

But, as a motorcyclist I try to always be prepared for the inconsistencies. I expect that person sitting in a left turn lane with a green circle (not arrow - we both have a green circle) to pull out in front of me - and I am right about 1% of the time. I expect that car in the next lane to move into mine, and I am right about 1% of the time. I expect that person to stop for no reason and I am right about 1% of the time. So far I have managed to be prepared for all but two of them, and those were painful lessons. Now if I see someone in a left turn lane I turn on my bright, it irritates the heck out of them but I just smile and go on - one ride over a hood is enough.

Just a fraction of a second not paying attention and someone can do something unexpected and you're DRT. This woman created an inconsistent departure from the normal and caused theses deaths, the motorcyclist may have had a fraction of a second inattention, maybe longer, but had the woman not departed from normal conditions this would not have happened.

Prison for trying to save baby ducks? No.

Prison for creating a hazard and causing the deaths of two innocent people? Yep.

Oh yeah, the rule I learned in my Motorcycle Safety Class was, "If you can eat it in one sitting - go ahead and run over it." Baby ducks - no problem.

[VMI77]

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.

This. It doesn't happen often but people stop in the middle of the road for various reasons, some of which are possibly not negligent, so you must drive defensively and prepare for the unexpected. I came up on an 18 wheeler stopped in the middle of the road on hwy 183. He basically stayed parked there for at least 10 minutes (because that's how long I waited before passing on the shoulder)......there was no warning, just a big truck in the middle of the road. And the reason? He was waiting for someone to come open a locked gate on a ranch road he wanted to turn in to, and just decided he'd parking on the highway because anything else would have been inconvenient for him. With the Eagle Ford Shale boom truck drivers, as a group, have gotten vastly more numerous and proportionately less professional, less courteous, less skilled, and more dangerous.

[VMI77]

If the woman wanted to save baby ducks on the road, there are safer and more proper ways to do it. Short of calling the cops, you pull over to the shoulder, turn on your hazards, put out road flares if you have them and try to get the baby ducks yourself if you can. That way, it is likely only yourself that gets killed in an accident, not other drivers. IMO, this wasn't just negligence if she parked in the middle of the road. That is criminal negligence.

Also, she did NOT have the best of intentions. The best of intentions would be the care about all life. By her actions she put other people in danger when there were things she could have done to avoid that. She gave no thought to anyone's safety but the ducks.

I would honestly be curious what her driving record looks like. Someone who would do something like that with no thought whatsoever to her or other's safety can't have a good record

I hate to say this because I'm an animal lover, but some animal lovers loath human beings, and simply don't care what happens to them, if it saves an animal. The radicals don't love and respect all life, just the life they consider worthy. It's also interesting to me how people who consider themselves morally superior because they're vegetarians or "environmentalists" don't care about the animals and other living things that are killed to grow their food or provide them with "renewable" energy.

[MechAg94]

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.

This. It doesn't happen often but people stop in the middle of the road for various reasons, some of which are possibly not negligent, so you must drive defensively and prepare for the unexpected. I came up on an 18 wheeler stopped in the middle of the road on hwy 183. He basically stayed parked there for at least 10 minutes (because that's how long I waited before passing on the shoulder)......there was no warning, just a big truck in the middle of the road. And the reason? He was waiting for someone to come open a locked gate on a ranch road he wanted to turn in to, and just decided he'd parking on the highway because anything else would have been inconvenient for him. With the Eagle Ford Shale boom truck drivers, as a group, have gotten vastly more numerous and proportionately less professional, less courteous, less skilled, and more dangerous.

My dad used to drive a ways to get to jobs he was working at. He had a job in Victoria once as he tells the story. He was heading there coming from Hallettsville which is a straight level road. He said it was foggy and he thought he saw a light ahead and slowed down some. He then slammed on the brakes and nearly Tboned an 18 wheeler gravel truck who was straddling the highway sideways trying to turn around. Not sure if he would have just hit the truck or if it would have ripped the top of my Dad's truck off.

In your case and mine, i think the driver could be charged just like the lady or ticketed if no wreck occurred. We still have to remember that those drivers are out there.

[Oldgringo]

Yada, yada, yada, your Lordship.

The following riders/drivers were following too closely and at to high a speed to control their vehicle. If the young woman, my client, had time to stop her vehicle, walk across the road and go ducking; what was, and at what speed, was the following vehicle doing, your Lordship?

Your Lordship, my client is guilty of caring for the least of God's creatures; however, while she is saddened by the deaths of the two cyclists, she is not responsible for their reckless, high speed inattention to changing road conditions. Indeed, your Lordship. What if there had been a moose in the road rather than her stopped automobile? Where would the responsibility lie then and there?

And so on and so forth. Not everything we/you do and encounter is someone else's fault....unless you are a democrat.

[philip964]

http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-driver-j ... 36600.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sentenced to 90 days in jail and cannot drive for 10 years in the death of two people who rear ended her when she stopped in the highway passing lane for ducklings crossing the road.

[Charles L. Cotton]

http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-driver-j ... 36600.html

Sentenced to 90 days in jail and cannot drive for 10 years in the death of two people who rear ended her when she stopped in the highway passing lane for ducklings crossing the road.

This is a tragedy for everyone. She meant well, but while trying to save ducklings she caused the death of two people. A father was taking his 16 year old daughter for a motorcycle ride and both died because 1) a woman had a soft spot in her heart for animals; and 2) he was following too closely to stop. (That's a law in Texas, but I don't know about Canada.)

I personally would not have convicted her of a criminal offense, but I would have found against her in a civil lawsuit. I believe what she did was negligent but not criminal.

90 days in jail and served on weekends? Okay, I guess. 240 hours of community service? What on earth for? There was absolutely no criminal intent. 10 years of not driving? Utterly absurd! This has a direct impact not only on her but on her family as well. No one can honestly believe she'll ever make the same mistake again.

She should serve her time and complete the community service. Then move to the U.S. as quickly as possible and get away from that British influenced garbage!
Chas.

[MechAg94]

Maybe in this case it means the victim's families taking every cent she has. I am not sure if that is possible in Canada. If she had her hazard lights on or made any attempt at all to be less of a road hazard, I might be less unmerciful about it. I just have a hard time showing any sympathy for that sort of indifference.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I disagree. Stupid should really hurt sometimes.

Maybe in this case it means the victim's families taking every cent she has. I am not sure if that is possible in Canada. If she had her hazard lights on or made any attempt at all to be less of a road hazard, I might be less unmerciful about it.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Stupid isn't criminal and you are advocating that we should look at the result and ignore intent. I don't think that's a standard you would like to be held to yourself. Do you not place an responsibility on the motorcycle operator?

Again, I would rule against her in a civil action, but I see absolutely no criminal intent, not even using a "criminal negligence" standard.

Chas.

[VMI77]

I disagree. Stupid should really hurt sometimes.

Maybe in this case it means the victim's families taking every cent she has. I am not sure if that is possible in Canada. If she had her hazard lights on or made any attempt at all to be less of a road hazard, I might be less unmerciful about it.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Stupid isn't criminal and you are advocating that we should look at the result and ignore intent. I don't think that's a standard you would like to be held to yourself. Do you not place an responsibility on the motorcycle operator?

Again, I would rule against her in a civil action, but I see absolutely no criminal intent, not even using a "criminal negligence" standard.

Chas.

From a legal perspective I agree, but morally my reaction would be colored by her attitude about what happened and whether or not she showed genuine remorse.

[The Annoyed Man]

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

So..... you want people to get life in prison for a negligent homicide? What...... are you going to insist on 50 years without parole for simple vehicular manslaughter?

Even the old testament was more gracious than that..... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV.....

BTW, the OP link doesn't work anymore.