Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2017, 01:23 am

Updated Topics | Recent Unread Topics
Home Help Search Login Register

+  Dragon Mountain
|-+  Forum
| |-+  Sanctum Sanctorum
| | |-+  Emma Czornobaj
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Which is Dumber?
The Trial   -5 (26.3%)
The Defendant   -14 (73.7%)
Total Voters: 19

Author Topic: Emma Czornobaj  (Read 11385 times)
Chronicles
Recovering Alcoholic


Friend of the Future


View Profile
« on: June 22, 2014, 03:01 am »

yeah I said dumber. real thoughts to follow (possibly)
Logged

BSam
Vice Douchelord



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2014, 03:43 am »

context

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html
Logged
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2014, 03:45 am »

I think the sentence is too severe, but the charges are sound.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
BSam
Vice Douchelord



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2014, 03:47 am »

I think the charges are too severe, but the sentence is sound.
Logged
Mr Gale
Unbannable
Admin


I am Poirot


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2014, 07:19 am »

I also think that the charge is sound and the sentence seems harsh. But I dont know Canadian system, so maybe big possible sentences are thrown up at first but really something much more sensible comes out in sentencing, in which case I think its all sound.

You have a split of responsibility for what she did, manslaughter laws are pretty clear on this being sufficient here, and usually sentencing reflects culpability.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Novice LARPer



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2014, 07:24 am »

The woman did SOMETHING wrong in that she created a situation in which accidents are more likely to occur.

Forgetting the letter of the law, which is hardly ever correlated with common sense notions of justice or right and wrong, I think the idea of holding her responsible for the death of the motorist is silly. The article implies that if she had been stopped for "legitimate" reasons like being broken down or having had an accident, then the death wouldn't be her fault.

It defies common sense to suggest that practical responsibility for the death shifts from one party to the other based on the reason for which the dangerous situations existed. Either it's the motorcyclist's responsibility not to hit the obstacle or it isn't. It doesn't depend on why the obstacle was there.
Logged

Because freshness is expected of any hip-hop artist, I avoid using traditional techniques.
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2014, 07:43 am »

If she was broken down or in an accident, she wouldn't be held responsible since that's due to forces beyond her control. In this case, she made the choice to stop, which was clearly irresponsible. Neither of those possible outcomes would be the responsibility of the motorcyclist because that is just absurd.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
Johnny Roastbeef
Novice LARPer



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2014, 08:23 am »

Under what circumstances is the operator of a vehicle not responsible to operate that vehicle in such a way as to avoid obstacles (even unexpected ones) ahead of them?
Logged

Because freshness is expected of any hip-hop artist, I avoid using traditional techniques.
Johnny Roastbeef
Novice LARPer



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2014, 08:41 am »

And before you answer that, I'd also like to hear at what point would you consider a rear-end incident involving "blocking" of the passing lane actually become the responsibility of the person doing the ramming from behind?

What about an old lady passing at 5 under the speed limit?  Is she an obstacle that shouldn't be there?  Can I plow into her with impunity and lay the blame on her for not doing 5 above the limit to pass?

What about a truck passing another truck at 25 under the speed limit? If I smash into the back of it, do I get to sue because they should have been driving faster?

What about somebody with a flat tire coasting onto the shoulder at 40 under the speed limit? Am I not to blame because they shouldn't be there?
Logged

Because freshness is expected of any hip-hop artist, I avoid using traditional techniques.
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2014, 09:35 am »

What the hell are you talking about? The woman parked her car on a highway. Through her choices, she created a dangerous situation for another person. Make all the silly, unrealistic hypotheticals you want, they won't change the events that happened.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
Nicol
Time Vampire
Admin



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2014, 10:03 am »

Well, Calvin!? Answer the question.

Logged

i came up in this world so cold. that's why my heart's on froze
Johnny Roastbeef
Novice LARPer



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2014, 10:10 am »

What the hell are you talking about? The woman parked her car on a highway. Through her choices, she created a dangerous situation for another person. Make all the silly, unrealistic hypotheticals you want, they won't change the events that happened.


Driving slowly on the highway creates a similar dangerous situation for another person.
Logged

Because freshness is expected of any hip-hop artist, I avoid using traditional techniques.
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2014, 10:16 am »

And I'm glad that you are aware of that rule, but it's not relevant to this thread, is it?
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
Johnny Roastbeef
Novice LARPer



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2014, 10:52 am »

You're proposing a standard that should be applied to determine whether someone is "responsible" for the death of another motorist: "the choices created a dangerous situation for another person."

I imply that such a standard is poor because many similar, yet non-controversial behaviors also create a dangerous situation for other drivers, yet most reasonable people would not assign responsibility to the forward driver in those cases.

Rather we implicitly assume that the rear driver is responsible to operate their vehicle in a manner that prevents accidents in those situations. Where applying your standard uniformly implies some responsibility-alleviating discontinuity between the non-controversial behaviors and a full stop, I think that in general it's reasonable to apply the same expectations on the rear driver who encounters both moving and non-moving obstacles.
Logged

Because freshness is expected of any hip-hop artist, I avoid using traditional techniques.
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2014, 10:58 am »

Dude, you are reading things that I never wrote.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2014, 01:09 pm »

Is this actually an argument about whether such a thing as criminal negligence exists? If I'm driving on an overpass, see a family of ducks on the shoulder, but their path on the shoulder is blocked by a stack of bricks, can I start clearing a path for the ducks by tossing bricks off the overpass onto the highway below? I am just trying to save some ducks so am I at fault if a brick kills someone?

Where is the limit if parking in the passing lane at night with the lights off is not a crime?
Logged
Karlski
ಠ_ಠ
Admin



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2014, 07:09 am »

JRB you seem to be saying that there should be one firm ruleset that covers all possible situations and the role of a judge therefore is simply to determine which rule applies and apply it.

Have I understood the subtext of your statements?
Logged

<TDF> Karlski only has one rule
<TDF> And that rule is "get fucked"
BSam
Vice Douchelord



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2014, 07:14 am »

JRB you seem to be saying that there should be one firm ruleset that covers all possible situations and the role of a judge therefore is simply to determine which rule applies and apply it.

Have I understood the subtext of your statements?

---

<TDF> Karlski only has one rule
<TDF> And that rule is "get fucked"

:D
Logged
Karlski
ಠ_ಠ
Admin



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2014, 07:21 am »

glorious and unintentional
Logged

<TDF> Karlski only has one rule
<TDF> And that rule is "get fucked"
HyperGlavin
bridge and tunnel dyke
Probably a postbot


I'm a cool guy irl


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2014, 07:27 am »

I think the subtext is that JRB wants the motorcyclist to be held responsible because reasons.
Logged

Yes, come on, get a dog up you, you rapscallion.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!