User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 9:36:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is NO excuse. As a licensed driver it is fully your responsibility to look out for all forms of traffic on the road. People don't see motorcycles because they don't look hard enough. They aren't devoting the due amount of attention required to operate a motor vehicle safely. You KNOW motorcycles are out there on the road, so fucking look out for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has to serve two days in jail on the anniversary of the passing of the victim? That is a strange sentence. Is something like that normal? I have heard of sentences that are served only on weekends, but nothing like that. Jail time over a traffic offense isn't normal at all I would think. Gonna guess that all the upset folks are bikers. I'm a biker and I'm not upset at all. Sometimes there are honest to goodness accidents. Just because the guy didn't yield doesn't mean he deliberately pulled out in front of the guy. He probably didn't see the motorcycle. It's a chance you take when you ride a bike. People can not see bikes as well as a car. That is NO excuse. As a licensed driver it is fully your responsibility to look out for all forms of traffic on the road. People don't see motorcycles because they don't look hard enough. They aren't devoting the due amount of attention required to operate a motor vehicle safely. You KNOW motorcycles are out there on the road, so fucking look out for them. It's not about excuses, its about risks. Asking others to protect you from the risks you've chosen is great, in theory, but in the end, it doesn't make a difference. So fuck it, hang the 83 year old, he's had a good life, but don't think it changes anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 9:42:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... If somebody in a car dies, the driver who caused the accident should be held criminally liable for that death as well. Even if the accident would be survivable had the victim been wearing his seatbelt? What if the victim had a suspended license? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:14:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe making negligence subject to increased punishment will make people less negligent. It seems to have worked for DUIs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe making negligence subject to increased punishment will make people less negligent. It seems to have worked for DUIs. A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. It can be argued that failure to see a small motorcycle in the road is a direct result of the size of the motorcycle and does not constitute a failure in the level of care or prudence exercised by the driver. It can also be argued that this failure to see a small motorcycle is inherently common and therefore does not rise to the level of lack of prudence, which is evidenced by how many motorcycles get hit by cars. But I am no attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:19:58 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Generally speaking when you cause harm to another through negligence you have not committed a crime. Usually criminal activity requires recklessness, which is a higher standard usually involving super stupidity or unusually dangerous materials ie firearms, explosives etc. If I forget to put the tailgate up on my truck and a couch bounces into the road that I was taking to the dump I would say that would generally not be criminal. If I run someone over with my truck when they are crossing the street in a blizzard and I am travelling 100 mph that would be criminal If I am driving old dynamite in the back of my truck and that bounces out into the road and blows someone up, that would be criminal Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If your negligence on the road causes the death of another why the hell shouldn't you be held responsible? Whether it was another car, motorcycle, or pedestrian. If I forget to put the tailgate up on my truck and a couch bounces into the road that I was taking to the dump I would say that would generally not be criminal. If I run someone over with my truck when they are crossing the street in a blizzard and I am travelling 100 mph that would be criminal If I am driving old dynamite in the back of my truck and that bounces out into the road and blows someone up, that would be criminal Isn't that the difference between simple negligence and gross negligence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:21:24 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation.  the people in this thread.How do you know it was negligence and not just an accident? Human cognition is not flawless no matter how perfect of a driver you may think you are. If the guy was drinking or trying to pull a New York left then sure but if he just didn't see him then it's not negligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:26:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you know it was negligence and not just an accident? Human cognition is not flawless no matter how perfect of a driver you may think you are. If the guy was drinking or trying to pull a New York left then sure but if he just didn't see him then it's not negligence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.How do you know it was negligence and not just an accident? Human cognition is not flawless no matter how perfect of a driver you may think you are. If the guy was drinking or trying to pull a New York left then sure but if he just didn't see him then it's not negligence. There is no such thing as an "accident." It is negligence to turn into the path of oncoming traffic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:33:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident In Michigan there is a "negligent homicide" statute that specifically deals with fatal car accidents. It is a 2 year, high court misdemeanor. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:54:18 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe these things should be based on outcome as well as intent. For example: Goober has a ND at an elementary school, shoots a round into the ground and no one is hurt. I would make them attend remedial training on their own dime to get their carry permit back, pay for damages, and a significant fine. Otherwise they'd be okay. Goober has a ND at the range, shoots a man in the back and kills him. I would put someone like this in jail for 20 years or more. Intent matters, but so does the outcome. We have jails full of people who committed victimless crimes, but people who kill others with ignorance and obliviousness are allowed to roam about freely. When actions begin to have consequences our society will take a more responsible approach to everything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I believe these things should be based on outcome as well as intent. For example: Goober has a ND at an elementary school, shoots a round into the ground and no one is hurt. I would make them attend remedial training on their own dime to get their carry permit back, pay for damages, and a significant fine. Otherwise they'd be okay. Goober has a ND at the range, shoots a man in the back and kills him. I would put someone like this in jail for 20 years or more. Intent matters, but so does the outcome. We have jails full of people who committed victimless crimes, but people who kill others with ignorance and obliviousness are allowed to roam about freely. When actions begin to have consequences our society will take a more responsible approach to everything. People are dangerous. We can't lock up everybody who COULD have caused a death. I suspect you and I would be locked up if that were the case, and neither of us could even think of why. Millions of times a day people do thing that could have caused death, and they don't know it. Many of them surely occurred in cars, but many didn't. But, if some poor bastard just gets "unlucky", then we lock him up for the good of everyone? That doesn't really make sense. Worse yet, it's dangerously close to the concept of being fit for society. You think that not seeing a motorcycle makes you unfit for society, so lets lock him up. Maybe I think wanting to own a gun makes you unfit for society. Who gets to decide? Hopefully you. Shit happens, people die. When people make mistakes, we should hold them accountable based on the likelihood of a possible negative outcome, the foresee-ability of that possible outcome, and the severity of that possible outcome. We should not hold them accountable based on circumstances outside the mistake-maker's control, such as factors only the victim had control over, or characteristics unique to the victim in that particular case. (Such as, the accident being survivable if the victim didn't have a heart condition, etc.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:09:34 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the old fart kills someone driving because he had his head up his ass, its just one of those things you suppose... If the old fart had a couple of beers under his belt and did the same thing it would be pound your ass prison time. So what you clowns are saying is its okay to kill behind the wheel, just be sober doing it. 
WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!!!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm probably on your side, but they aren't the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:20:40 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Michigan there is a "negligent homicide" statute that specifically deals with fatal car accidents. It is a 2 year, high court misdemeanor. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident In Michigan there is a "negligent homicide" statute that specifically deals with fatal car accidents. It is a 2 year, high court misdemeanor. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. From what I've seen people don't ever get more than a month, but the conviction will cause you problems for the rest of your life. No more guns for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:26:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accidents happen. Its a shame that they do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident A regular traffic accident? Clear day, good vis, left turn into the path of another motorist, resulting in the death of the innocent motorist. That's vehicular manslaughter, not a regular traffic accident. Seems like a bias against bikers in this thread. If the dead motorist had been a young college girl (a Republican due to good upbringing), on her way from volunteering at the local nursing home and on her way to a shooting competition, would you feel differently? Accidents happen. Its a shame that they do. Accidents do not happen. Collisions are caused. Old dude made an unsafe turn that killed someone. That ls & should be actionable. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:33:52 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:35:42 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Splitting hairs, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:37:42 AM EDT
[#14]
In Texas, if you negligently kill someone in a traffic accident, you get charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:50:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Splitting hairs, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Splitting hairs, IMO. Not at all. It goes with the idea that there are very few accidents but there are tons of colllsions. If I change lanes and hit you because I didn't see you in my blind spot it's still my fault. I didn't intend to hit you but I intentionally made the lane change & I had a duty to make sure that there was no one there for me to hit. I was negligent and there should be a consequence. Jail seems stupid to me in the old guy's case, but I could get behind liquidating all of his assets to compensate the dead bikers family. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 11:58:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all. It goes with the idea that there are very few accidents but there are tons of colllsions. If I change lanes and hit you because I didn't see you in my blind spot it's still my fault. I didn't intend to hit you but I intentionally made the lane change & I had a duty to make sure that there was no one there for me to hit. I was negligent and there should be a consequence. Jail seems stupid to me in the old guy's case, but I could get behind liquidating all of his assets to compensate the dead bikers family. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Splitting hairs, IMO. Not at all. It goes with the idea that there are very few accidents but there are tons of colllsions. If I change lanes and hit you because I didn't see you in my blind spot it's still my fault. I didn't intend to hit you but I intentionally made the lane change & I had a duty to make sure that there was no one there for me to hit. I was negligent and there should be a consequence. Jail seems stupid to me in the old guy's case, but I could get behind liquidating all of his assets to compensate the dead bikers family. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I think we're arguing for the same thing. But I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:00:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident Above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:01:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.Intent used to be one of the most important elements of our criminal justice system. Now, how many years in prison should you get the next time you make a mistake? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:11:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Intent used to be one of the most important elements of our criminal justice system. Now, how many years in prison should you get the next time you make a mistake? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.Intent used to be one of the most important elements of our criminal justice system. Now, how many years in prison should you get the next time you make a mistake? You should lose your freedom if you take a life that's not in self defense. Are humans so disposable that a guy who kills someone who did NOTHING to him should only get a ticket? Would you be so care-free if the geezer killed your wife or child? Lives have value. "Shit happens" is not a valid defense when people die due to the neglect or carelessness of others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:27:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Almost everything is based on the consequences of the action, not the action itself, shouldn't this not be the same way? If I start a fire in a no burn area it is going to be a simple ticket. If I start a fire in a no burn area and it goes out of control into a wild fire... I am looking at a lot more than a ticket. Why is my punishment different, if my offense was the same? I believe consequences should be based on the results of our actions, but apparently it doesn't work that way in this case. I am sure the family of the 26 year old take comfort in knowing this man should have just received a ticket for failure to yield. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it was an accident involving two cars it might not have been more than a fender bender, followed by a ticket for the old guy. Why does the same offense become so much more offensive when it involves a much more dangerous vehicle (motorcycle)? Almost everything is based on the consequences of the action, not the action itself, shouldn't this not be the same way? If I start a fire in a no burn area it is going to be a simple ticket. If I start a fire in a no burn area and it goes out of control into a wild fire... I am looking at a lot more than a ticket. Why is my punishment different, if my offense was the same? I believe consequences should be based on the results of our actions, but apparently it doesn't work that way in this case. I am sure the family of the 26 year old take comfort in knowing this man should have just received a ticket for failure to yield. Your scenario is different. By you starting the fire, you're intentionally breaking the law. As far as I know, this guy was lawfully driving and had an accident. Accidents happen. Driving can be dangerous, especially on two wheels. People are aware of these risks and choose to drive anyway. The old man killed him by accident, he didn't murder him. The purpose of sending someone to prison is to punish/rehabilitate so they are fit to rejoin society. I don't see any reason to send an 83 y.o to jail for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:28:36 PM EDT
[#21]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:33:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Michigan there is a "negligent homicide" statute that specifically deals with fatal car accidents. It is a 2 year, high court misdemeanor. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident In Michigan there is a "negligent homicide" statute that specifically deals with fatal car accidents. It is a 2 year, high court misdemeanor. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. Explain what the driver did that was negligent. What actuon did he take that was not prudent or done without care? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:35:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident this You should listen to how cycling activists feel about vehicles vs their fellow travelers being cockfags in traffic. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:37:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should lose your freedom if you take a life that's not in self defense. Are humans so disposable that a guy who kills someone who did NOTHING to him should only get a ticket? Would you be so care-free if the geezer killed your wife or child? Lives have value. "Shit happens" is not a valid defense when people die due to the neglect or carelessness of others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.Intent used to be one of the most important elements of our criminal justice system. Now, how many years in prison should you get the next time you make a mistake? You should lose your freedom if you take a life that's not in self defense. Are humans so disposable that a guy who kills someone who did NOTHING to him should only get a ticket? Would you be so care-free if the geezer killed your wife or child? Lives have value. "Shit happens" is not a valid defense when people die due to the neglect or carelessness of others. Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:44:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we're arguing for the same thing. But I'm not sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What happens in the cases where someone has a ND and injures or kills someone? Seems like the same thing as this scenario. Completely unintentional. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Bad analogy. The left turn was a completely intentional act. The consequence of that intentional act is what was unintended. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Splitting hairs, IMO. Not at all. It goes with the idea that there are very few accidents but there are tons of colllsions. If I change lanes and hit you because I didn't see you in my blind spot it's still my fault. I didn't intend to hit you but I intentionally made the lane change & I had a duty to make sure that there was no one there for me to hit. I was negligent and there should be a consequence. Jail seems stupid to me in the old guy's case, but I could get behind liquidating all of his assets to compensate the dead bikers family. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I think we're arguing for the same thing. But I'm not sure. No. You said "completely unintentional". That would seem to absolve old dude of responsibility. I argue that his act that caused the motorcyclist's death was absolutely intentional. It just lacked ill intent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:45:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why thank you sir. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
anyone that gets away with murder due to their negligence deserves to die 
Oh Deer Lord please stop....I can't breathe.... Here's wishing you some karma..  Why thank you sir. Wow, all that sounds familiar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:48:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your scenario is different. By you starting the fire, you're intentionally breaking the law. As far as I know, this guy was lawfully driving and had an accident. Accidents happen. Driving can be dangerous, especially on two wheels. People are aware of these risks and choose to drive anyway. The old man killed him by accident, he didn't murder him. The purpose of sending someone to prison is to punish/rehabilitate so they are fit to rejoin society. I don't see any reason to send an 83 y.o to jail for this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it was an accident involving two cars it might not have been more than a fender bender, followed by a ticket for the old guy. Why does the same offense become so much more offensive when it involves a much more dangerous vehicle (motorcycle)? Almost everything is based on the consequences of the action, not the action itself, shouldn't this not be the same way? If I start a fire in a no burn area it is going to be a simple ticket. If I start a fire in a no burn area and it goes out of control into a wild fire... I am looking at a lot more than a ticket. Why is my punishment different, if my offense was the same? I believe consequences should be based on the results of our actions, but apparently it doesn't work that way in this case. I am sure the family of the 26 year old take comfort in knowing this man should have just received a ticket for failure to yield. Your scenario is different. By you starting the fire, you're intentionally breaking the law. As far as I know, this guy was lawfully driving and had an accident. Accidents happen. Driving can be dangerous, especially on two wheels. People are aware of these risks and choose to drive anyway. The old man killed him by accident, he didn't murder him. The purpose of sending someone to prison is to punish/rehabilitate so they are fit to rejoin society. I don't see any reason to send an 83 y.o to jail for this. He was not driving lawfully. He made an unsafe turning movement. Accidents do not "happen". Collisions are caused. There may have been no intent to cause a collision on the old dude's part but he chose to start a turning movement in a situation where it was not safe for him to do so. He caused the collision. It did not just "happen". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:51:46 PM EDT
[#28]
What if the motorcycle operator was having a road beer? Then what?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:53:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was not driving lawfully. He made an unsafe turning movement. Accidents do not "happen". Collisions are caused. There may have been no intent to cause a collision on the old dude's part but he chose to start a turning movement in a situation where it was not safe for him to do so. He caused the collision. It did not just "happen". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it was an accident involving two cars it might not have been more than a fender bender, followed by a ticket for the old guy. Why does the same offense become so much more offensive when it involves a much more dangerous vehicle (motorcycle)? Almost everything is based on the consequences of the action, not the action itself, shouldn't this not be the same way? If I start a fire in a no burn area it is going to be a simple ticket. If I start a fire in a no burn area and it goes out of control into a wild fire... I am looking at a lot more than a ticket. Why is my punishment different, if my offense was the same? I believe consequences should be based on the results of our actions, but apparently it doesn't work that way in this case. I am sure the family of the 26 year old take comfort in knowing this man should have just received a ticket for failure to yield. Your scenario is different. By you starting the fire, you're intentionally breaking the law. As far as I know, this guy was lawfully driving and had an accident. Accidents happen. Driving can be dangerous, especially on two wheels. People are aware of these risks and choose to drive anyway. The old man killed him by accident, he didn't murder him. The purpose of sending someone to prison is to punish/rehabilitate so they are fit to rejoin society. I don't see any reason to send an 83 y.o to jail for this. He was not driving lawfully. He made an unsafe turning movement. Accidents do not "happen". Collisions are caused. There may have been no intent to cause a collision on the old dude's part but he chose to start a turning movement in a situation where it was not safe for him to do so. He caused the collision. It did not just "happen". You're being ridiculous. To think any person can go a life time of driving without making a traffic violation or an unsafe driving movement by accident is idiotic. And yes, he was driving lawfully. He was licensed to drive by the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:02:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op ETA: but what I do find absolutely bizarre is that here in arfcomworld, its supposed to be the bastion of personal responsibility. Yet few here want to take full responsibility when they get behind the wheel for fear that they could make a mistake? You know what, thats EXACTLY the point. with this attitude, *it can happen to anyone*. but you can just shrug it off... an "accident". Maybe if folks were forced to take responsibility then these "accidents" may happen at a lower rate. I guess you'd assume the "accident" stance if your wife/daughter were killed in an auto/auto accident for someone turning w/o looking an yielding? Seems kinda libtardish to me, not wanting to assume the responsibility. kinda how libtards are really scared of themselves with a gun, so they dont trust you with one, thus they want them banned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:10:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op Maybe if he were going the speed limit, he would have had the ability to stop in time. It is a valid example..my scenario shows a driver killing the girl, while he was breaking the law. Pedestrians also have the right away...why can't a kid be in front of her house in the street? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:15:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No kidding. Criminal charges should be reserved for criminal acts.
Sad as it is, motorcyclists need to realize they are small and tend to be overlooked in the landscape. Ride at extreme risk only. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident this No kidding. Criminal charges should be reserved for criminal acts.
Sad as it is, motorcyclists need to realize they are small and tend to be overlooked in the landscape. Ride at extreme risk only. yup. ride like you are invisible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:16:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op ETA: but what I do find absolutely bizarre is that here in arfcomworld, its supposed to be the bastion of personal responsibility. Yet few here want to take full responsibility when they get behind the wheel for fear that they could make a mistake? You know what, thats EXACTLY the point. with this attitude, *it can happen to anyone*. but you can just shrug it off... an "accident". Maybe if folks were forced to take responsibility then these "accidents" may happen at a lower rate. I guess you'd assume the "accident" stance if your wife/daughter were killed in an auto/auto accident for someone turning w/o looking an yielding? Seems kinda libtardish to me, not wanting to assume the responsibility. kinda how libtards are really scared of themselves with a gun, so they dont trust you with one, thus they want them banned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op ETA: but what I do find absolutely bizarre is that here in arfcomworld, its supposed to be the bastion of personal responsibility. Yet few here want to take full responsibility when they get behind the wheel for fear that they could make a mistake? You know what, thats EXACTLY the point. with this attitude, *it can happen to anyone*. but you can just shrug it off... an "accident". Maybe if folks were forced to take responsibility then these "accidents" may happen at a lower rate. I guess you'd assume the "accident" stance if your wife/daughter were killed in an auto/auto accident for someone turning w/o looking an yielding? Seems kinda libtardish to me, not wanting to assume the responsibility. kinda how libtards are really scared of themselves with a gun, so they dont trust you with one, thus they want them banned. I'm not just shrugging anything off...and I do feel for the 26 y.o. I just don't see the point of throwing an old man with no prior record in jail because of an accident. I don't know you, but I'm sure you have made accidents in the past that would have been fatal to others if done at the wrong time. I have..everyone does. It's human nature. 83 years old, the body isn't going to perform and react at like 25. And the guy is liable, civilly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:20:15 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if the motorcycle operator was having a road beer? Then what? statute dictate he is to be shot in the head behind the court house after the intox test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:32:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Criminally? Of course not--"failure to yield" citation. Edit: *Absent circumstances such as under the influence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident Is this sort of thing normally not charged? Criminally? Of course not--"failure to yield" citation. Edit: *Absent circumstances such as under the influence. Dead is still dead. Do the riders family feel better knowing that he was killed by a sober driver? Most traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. It's not an 'accident' when you turn in front of a motorcycle, drunk or sober. THe penalty should be related to the crime and the injuries, not the condition or age of the perp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:46:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.Yeah. No shit, huh? WTF?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:51:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't make any fucking difference, if the old fart was drunk or not. Dead is still dead. Do the riders family feel better knowing that he was killed by a sober driver? Most traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. It's not an 'accident' when you turn in front of a motorcycle, drunk or sober. THe penalty should be related to the crime and the injuries, not the condition or age of the perp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident Is this sort of thing normally not charged? Criminally? Of course not--"failure to yield" citation. Edit: *Absent circumstances such as under the influence. Dead is still dead. Do the riders family feel better knowing that he was killed by a sober driver? Most traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. It's not an 'accident' when you turn in front of a motorcycle, drunk or sober. THe penalty should be related to the crime and the injuries, not the condition or age of the perp. yes it does. one is an act without malice or intent the other is committing an act he knows is likely to cause harm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:55:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe if he were going the speed limit, he would have had the ability to stop in time. It is a valid example..my scenario shows a driver killing the girl, while he was breaking the law. Pedestrians also have the right away...why can't a kid be in front of her house in the street? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op Maybe if he were going the speed limit, he would have had the ability to stop in time. It is a valid example..my scenario shows a driver killing the girl, while he was breaking the law. Pedestrians also have the right away...why can't a kid be in front of her house in the street? Bs. 2mph difference she is still dead. Even according to your scenario even if he wasnt speeding shes still dead. What about someone committing suicide, still write driver up? Use your brain here. Stay out of the road. Now at a point of speeding , yes. What that levelvis,i dont know, but the situation is nothinglike ops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:04:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many people die in traffic accidents each year? You think the courts are trying them all as manslaughter cases? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.How many people die in traffic accidents each year? You think the courts are trying them all as manslaughter cases? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:05:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A regular traffic accident? Clear day, good vis, left turn into the path of another motorist, resulting in the death of the innocent motorist. That's vehicular manslaughter, not a regular traffic accident. Seems like a bias against bikers in this thread. If the dead motorist had been a young college girl (a Republican due to good upbringing), on her way from volunteering at the local nursing home and on her way to a shooting competition, would you feel differently? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident A regular traffic accident? Clear day, good vis, left turn into the path of another motorist, resulting in the death of the innocent motorist. That's vehicular manslaughter, not a regular traffic accident. Seems like a bias against bikers in this thread. If the dead motorist had been a young college girl (a Republican due to good upbringing), on her way from volunteering at the local nursing home and on her way to a shooting competition, would you feel differently? And what if she was legally crossing the side street on the crosswalk, with the green light. A pedestrian is just as hard to see as a motorcycle, and just as easy to hit. Is killing a pedestrian on a crosswalk, with an automobile an 'accident', too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:05:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Explain what the driver did that was negligent. What action did he take that was not prudent or done without care? If you're talking about the civil suit, he had a responsibility to be careful when turning in front of other vehicles. I think everyone would agree with that, since it's just part of driving. So... would a reasonable person (in the eyes of the jury) have been more careful when turning in front of the motorcycle? If yes, then he was "negligent." The jury has to decide that based on the evidence, like eye witnesses, video cameras, speed, etc. If you're talking about the criminal case, then he would have to be found "reckless" to be guilty, which basically means without the slightest care that even a careless person would use. SOME states use the term reckless as a synonym for gross negligence. It just depends on the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:06:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bs. 2mph difference she is still dead. Even according to your scenario even if he wasnt speeding shes still dead. What about someone committing suicide, still write driver up? Use your brain here. Stay out of the road. Now at a point of speeding , yes. What that levelvis,i dont know, but the situation is nothinglike ops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op Maybe if he were going the speed limit, he would have had the ability to stop in time. It is a valid example..my scenario shows a driver killing the girl, while he was breaking the law. Pedestrians also have the right away...why can't a kid be in front of her house in the street? Bs. 2mph difference she is still dead. Even according to your scenario even if he wasnt speeding shes still dead. What about someone committing suicide, still write driver up? Use your brain here. Stay out of the road. Now at a point of speeding , yes. What that levelvis,i dont know, but the situation is nothinglike ops. We'll yeah, it's nothing like the scenario now after your rant of gibberish. I don't think you understood the point of my post. Jellybelly was for throwing someone in jail for an accident. I gave a realistic accident to make it clear why the 83 y.o should not die in jail. you seem to want to nit pick the speed of the car... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:06:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The motorcycle had right of way for sure, but the chance of death in an auto accident goes up like a rocket when you chose to ride a motorcycle. People will do incorrect things in traffic. Riding free of the confines of us "cagers" means accepting the much higher threat of serious injury in an accident. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident this No kidding. Criminal charges should be reserved for criminal acts. Sad as it is, motorcyclists need to realize they are small and tend to be overlooked in the landscape. Ride at extreme risk only. Sounds like you're making excuses for motorists who are not vigilant or responsible enough to pay attention and see a motorcyclist. Just saying. ETA: Old dude facing charges is though.The motorcycle had right of way for sure, but the chance of death in an auto accident goes up like a rocket when you chose to ride a motorcycle. People will do incorrect things in traffic. Riding free of the confines of us "cagers" means accepting the much higher threat of serious injury in an accident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:13:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is responsible--civilly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If your negligence on the road causes the death of another why the hell shouldn't you be held responsible? Whether it was another car, motorcycle, or pedestrian. He is responsible--civilly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:15:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Generally speaking when you cause harm to another through negligence you have not committed a crime. Usually criminal activity requires recklessness, which is a higher standard usually involving super stupidity or unusually dangerous materials ie firearms, explosives etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If your negligence on the road causes the death of another why the hell shouldn't you be held responsible? Whether it was another car, motorcycle, or pedestrian. If I forget to put the tailgate up on my truck and a couch bounces into the road that I was taking to the dump I would say that would generally not be criminal. If I run someone over with my truck when they are crossing the street in a blizzard and I am travelling 100 mph that would be criminal If I am driving old dynamite in the back of my truck and that bounces out into the road and blows someone up, that would be criminal "Criminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person. Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:17:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda odd that he got any criminal charges over a regular traffic accident I said the same thing in a thread where the person responsible for the traffic accident was a police officer on duty. Guess how that went...Arfcom recommended the officer get the death penalty. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:19:34 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no such thing as an "accident." It is negligence to turn into the path of oncoming traffic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kill someone because of your negligence, should just get a traffic citation. the people in this thread.How do you know it was negligence and not just an accident? Human cognition is not flawless no matter how perfect of a driver you may think you are. If the guy was drinking or trying to pull a New York left then sure but if he just didn't see him then it's not negligence. There is no such thing as an "accident." It is negligence to turn into the path of oncoming traffic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:22:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote History[b]Quoted:[/b
We'll yeah, it's nothing like the scenario now after your rant of gibberish. I don't think you understood the point of my post. Jellybelly was for throwing someone in jail for an accident. I gave a realistic accident to make it clear why the 83 y.o should not die in jail. you seem to want to nit pick the speed of the car... Hey you are the one who came up with an unanalgous scenario. Of course level of speeding matters. 2mph not so much since shed be dead anyway.... 20 though, sure. But you cant compar op situation to someone maintaining speed limit as liable for killing a little girl as she suddenly entered the road,simply for not yielding to a pedestrian. What you are describing is a true accident. Hint, research the term negligence. Some of us are simply arguing for tougher punishment for negligence, as we are for more personal responsibility. We get it that some people dont want to have to maintain this responsibility and are willing to just call many things as accidents. But theyd change their mind when a loved ones life is stupidly negligently lost as per op |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:23:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bs. 2mph difference she is still dead. Even according to your scenario even if he wasnt speeding shes still dead. What about someone committing suicide, still write driver up? Use your brain here. Stay out of the road. Now at a point of speeding , yes. What that levelvis,i dont know, but the situation is nothinglike ops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. The speed limit is 25 MPH in a residential area and you're hovering around 25, but you start going down a hill and, without realizing it, your speed picks up to about 27 MPH. A kid runs out from behind a car chasing a ball and before you can stop your car, you crush and kill her. How long should you go to jail for? *this* is splitting hairs. 25mph would have crush and killed her as well. Also, she holds liability in that she should not have been on road. Unlike the situation in the op Maybe if he were going the speed limit, he would have had the ability to stop in time. It is a valid example..my scenario shows a driver killing the girl, while he was breaking the law. Pedestrians also have the right away...why can't a kid be in front of her house in the street? Bs. 2mph difference she is still dead. Even according to your scenario even if he wasnt speeding shes still dead. What about someone committing suicide, still write driver up? Use your brain here. Stay out of the road. Now at a point of speeding , yes. What that levelvis,i dont know, but the situation is nothinglike ops. Ok, fine, we say that what the driver would be doing in this situation wouldn't have an effect on the outcome, except to say that one speed is legal, and one is not. You're right though, the outcome is the same, and the driver has little control over that. That's the point. Should he be in more or less trouble then? Now, suppose it's not a little girl. Suppose it's a grown man who ran out. The driver is wrong to accidentally go over the limit, but the severity of the outcome is different now that it's a grown man. So, what about the victim, or the victim's characteristics make the mistake on the part of the driver more or less of an issue. The same car at the same speed effects one victim different that the other. That's not something the driver has control over, and should not effect his punishment. Not specifically related to this post is the bullshit about how some of us "would feel different if it was your loved one." My son is 4 years old, and he and most of the neighborhood kids play in the street all day. We parents know the possibilities. We know the dangers. I will not hold someone else responsible for the outcomes of mistakes they made when the outcome is based on my decisions, and not theirs. That's personal accountability, not begging to lock up the guy who made a mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 2:28:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, fine, we say that what the driver would be doing in this situation wouldn't have an effect on the outcome, except to say that one speed is legal, and one is not. You're right though, the outcome is the same, and the driver has little control over that. That's the point. Should he be in more or less trouble then? Now, suppose it's not a little girl. Suppose it's a grown man who ran out. The driver is wrong to accidentally go over the limit, but the severity of the outcome is different now that it's a grown man. So, what about the victim, or the victim's characteristics make the mistake on the part of the driver more or less of an issue. The same car at the same speed effects one victim different that the other. That's not something the driver has control over, and should not effect his punishment. Not specifically related to this post is the bullshit about how some of us "would feel different if it was your loved one." My son is 4 years old, and he and most of the neighborhood kids play in the street all day. We parents know the possibilities. We know the dangers. I will not hold someone else responsible for the outcomes of mistakes they made when the outcome is based on my decisions, and not theirs. That's personal accountability, not begging to lock up the guy who made a mistake. Well in waht situation is your kid playing in the road? The ops or where your kid entered the road suddenly to get a ball? And i dont care if little girl or grown man.. and it would determine by level of speeding... 5 over not so much, its pedestrians fault... 10 call it awash still in civil realm... 15 or morde maybe thats where driver is criminally negigent |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
