Canadian women stops car in left lane for ducks

Or, OR a bunch of you are applying logic and or American law into this. Seems you don't appreciate or understand CANADIAN law and how it is applied to this case. I'll repeat, 12 jurors sat through countless hours of testimony and were explained the laws that were broken.,as it pertained to this case. She was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Pretty straight forward. Bitching about technicalities the jury dismissed (or value as much as you do), and then claiming "people don't understand or appreciate criminal intent" (woe is me) is nothing more than MORE glorified moaning.

And, AND you imprison people because they BROKE THE LAW and are FOUND GUILTY of breaking the law. Then SENTENCED for breaking the law. This keeps flying right over your head.

Wait. You actually "get it". Kewl.

Worse, you seem to be completely unable to recognize when you are wrong.

Your "theories" on how the law work are quite easily proven to be contrary to the way it works.

Yet you insist your option trumps fact.

I really am doubting you do anything with rational decision making, given you cannot rationally see the following is true:

The Burglar always intended to enter the house and take something.

WHAT he actually ends up taking determines his crime, not his INTENT.

In each of the cases, what he takes is not determined by his choice, but by chance: the cops responding, nothing worth more than $10K, etc.

The INTENT is still the same, break into a house, steal a valuable.

The RESULT of that INTENT is what he is charged with.

Most engineers and highly technical people get removed from jury pools because they aren't really good with things like "reasonable doubt".

Rather, they see things in black and white. Red Toyota is a good example, he cannot detach "intent" from "outcome" and see it is 1:N, one intent can have many outcomes.

Missed this one. I have a friend that was under the legal limit (.0688) driving home and hit a drunk woman (.14), not in the crosswalk and killed her. The friend had medical marijuana (for MS) on her and she was found guilty of reckless endangerment and manslaughter. They have served 3.5 years of a 10 year sentence. In Illinois, in the good ole' US of A.
Their intent was clearly just to go home. Had no effect on the prosecution or defense, Hmmmmm...

i do understand the rationale of your example. it's just not analogous to the case at hand. further, you seemed to be discounting intent altogether. my response to you was based on that.

i never said that intent alone is all that matter. acts and intent matter. results do not. further, intent only matters if an act is actually done...obviously.

again, your example includes 3 different acts, not one act with 3 different results. the case at hand involves only 1 act with, hypothetically, 2 different results.

the reason the burglar does not get charged with stealing the TV when he does not steal the TV is that he did not commit the act of stealing the TV. since he did not commit the act, intent does not come into play...obviously.

nonetheless, that "chance" meant he did not commit the acts. obviously, you cannot prosecute someone for something they did not do.

no, that is not what he is charged with. he is charged with his ACT. that is why he is charged with the ACT of B&E if all he actually did was B&E, the ACT of stealing X if, and only if, he stole X, and stealing Y if, and only if, he stole Y (and intended to steal those things).

without knowing the specifics, i will say it is quite possible that was a travesty of justice.

i'm not at all arguing that our legal system works the way it should all the time. it often does not.

my arguments are entirely "this is how it should work". (i'm not saying the woman is not going to go to prison, i'm saying she should not go to prison...and, in a legal system that was actually fair, impartial, and just, she would not go to prison). our legal system is unfair, irrational, and unjust far too often. all too often decisions fly in the face of what the law clearly and plainly states, and/or in the face of justice. and, all too often, the laws themselves are irrational and unjust. and i am not at all denying any of that.

one of the points of having juries is that they hopefully will set that straight...going as far as to exercise jury nullification when laws are clearly unjust or irrational. of course, our legal system does everything it can to squash jury nullification because it usually cares more about protecting itself as an institution than dispensing true justice.

that is downright hilarious.

you are the one not detaching intent from outcome--or, i guess in a way you are since you are just not considering intent at all. you are also skipping over the connecting part...the actual ACT...or 3 different acts in your burglar example.

at any rate, my entire argument is that intent does have to be detached from outcome. it is the act that has to be analyzed while taking intent (and the rest of the decision making process) into consideration without consideration for outcome (i.e., detach the act and intent from outcome and ignore outcome). that is how decisions are rationally analyzed.

i do concede (as i have previously in this thread) that, unfortunately, our legal system does not always function that way...but it should. and the underlying principles of law (fairness, justice, impartiality, etc.)...which our system too often ignores...say that it should work that way.

Bad situation all around. As previously posted, it is illegal to stop on any Canadian highway (provincial highways are equivalent to state highways, some are equivalent to interstates). BOTH the driver who has been found guilty AND the rider who crashed into her made big mistakes. The rider and his daughter paid for his crime by dying - they get no appeal. The woman who stopped willfully and deliberately stopped where there was no legal (lawful) reason to do so, and additionally failed to broadcast her stoppage by way of hazard lights.

She has been found guilty of the charges, but has not yet been sentenced. In Canada, that is the duty of the judge and the sentence will be rendered in August.

Of note to you Americans, in Canada, the responsibility for recommending (laying) charges lies solely with the Crown. Passers-by, relatives, victims etc have NO say whatsoever. There is no such thing in Canada as the victim/relative/etc "pressing charges" the way we see on TV.

I personally do not think prison time would help in this situation, however a long-term ban on the woman from operating a motor vehicle would be a good start.

cheers,
S.

So you point to a travesty of justice and proclaim precedent?

Whoop da dee doo.

Yeah? So tell me how you reconcile this when an engineer is to be tried by a jury of his or her peers?

Are engineers not "reasonable" people?

You are stating a distinction without a difference.
The result is an act, an act of B&E or Felony, etc.
His intent is the same in all three: steal something. The fact he is caught by the police before getting to the TV does not change his intent, only his crime

She intended to stop and help the ducklings. Had there been no motorcyclist, just as in my case no necklace, neither is charged with a felony.
Because, unlike the burgler, she did not INTEND to kill someone, she was not tried on murder, but on manslaughter, which defined as killing someone without intent to do so.
But you are still charged with what you did, and in her case it was parking negligently.

I am pretty sure you are just trolling now, since you insist on a point of view not supported by the law, but your own internal dialog that has no analogy to the real world.

Have fun. Don't forget the tin foil hat.

Or he ran into the vehicle because, at the last second, a vehicle swerves to exposing a parked vehicle in the middle of an interstate. You know, the fuckin' facts that ACUALLY happened, AND elude you. Sayin'. Anyone?

The crown pressed charges. The jury found her guilty. It's not what I am missing, but you.

So it's your feelings or what you "feel' is just? For Fucks Sake. STFU. Nobody has accountability for what they do or cause? You're a fuckin' idiot.

the fuckin idiot was held accountable. Paid for his stupidity with his life. This verdict is a travesty

Hard to believe we're talking about the same incident at times...

Haven't been for some time

Has nothing to do with my feelings at all. I live on the other side of the country and am certainly not the fuckin' ijit that you are painting yourself to be.

The woman did, as the court decided, do several things wrong, including criminally. Again, you don't read... I said that a long-term driving ban would be a START... what part of that do you not understand?

The rider certainly fucked up as well - following too close to the vehicle in front of him and riding beyond his ability to maneuver... for that, he and his daughter DIED.

Asshat.

You say he was riding too close to the car in front of him..

tell me what's a reasonable gap to keep -

I'm pretty sure, confident in fact, that whilst my gap to the moving car in front of me is almost always appropriate, and more often than not far more than is needed. I'd imagine it's safe to safe that most riders keep that gap.

But I have to ask myself - if I was in the same situation - the car I'm following suddenly swerves to reveal a large stationary object on the road ahead - would my reactions be quick enough to avoid it? I honestly don't know.

I think you'd have to be pretty fucking cocky (read over-confident) to think otherwise.