(07-08-2015, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: This isn't that. She didn't consciously or otherwise run him over. Unless there's more details than what's in the story, she wasn't driving distracted, at excessive speeds, under the influence or anything other than maybe having bad depth perception or not reacting quick enough to stop in time. In other words, it was an accident.
The bigger point was that there shouldn't be a distinction in whatever she is or isn't charged with due to what he happened to be driving, not with her intent, so I drew a bad comparison with my hypothetical.
“We're 2-7! What the **** difference does it make?!” - Bruce Coslet
(07-08-2015, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: If you punch a guy with a neurological condition you took a conscious action that resulted in a death (you punched him, he died). You didn't have to be aware of his condition to affect the outcome.
This isn't that. She didn't consciously or otherwise run him over. Unless there's more details than what's in the story, she wasn't driving distracted, at excessive speeds, under the influence or anything other than maybe having bad depth perception or not reacting quick enough to stop in time. In other words, it was an accident.
So, if you're walking down the street, accidentally trip and bump into a guy with a neurological condition and he dies, should you be charged? You did not take a conscious action, you didn't have outside conditions of your own choosing that led to it, it was just an accident.
It's not an accident when you hit a stationary object with a moving vehicle.
If you're operating a vehicle, pay attention. If you aren't paying attention for ANY reason, then it's 100% your fault and you should face the consequences of anything that happens as a result of your dumbass-ness.
If she wasn't reacting quick enough to stop in time, it's her fault. If you have "bad depth perception" then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a machine that weighs thousands of pounds capable of reaching high speeds.
This is pretty cut and dry. You don't hit a non-moving object if you're paying attention and are mentally capable of driving a car. Unless she hit a patch of ice in July, there's no legitimate excuse for this.
(07-08-2015, 01:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It's not an accident when you hit a stationary object with a moving vehicle.
If you're operating a vehicle, pay attention. If you aren't paying attention for ANY reason, then it's 100% your fault and you should face the consequences of anything that happens as a result of your dumbass-ness.
If she wasn't reacting quick enough to stop in time, it's her fault. If you have "bad depth perception" then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a machine that weighs thousands of pounds capable of reaching high speeds.
This is pretty cut and dry. You don't hit a non-moving object if you're paying attention and are mentally capable of driving a car. Unless she hit a patch of ice in July, there's no legitimate excuse for this.
I don't know that it was a non-moving vehicle that she just came upon and ran over. In that area at that time it's more like slow traffic that came to a stop, and he stopped quicker than she.
And personally I will maintain that driving a motorcycle involves an assumed risk higher than that of a person in a car. An everyday ordinary occurence can be fatal. I think it would be cool to ride a motorcycle, but I never have because what can be an inconvenience in a car can kill you on a bike. If a fender bender can land me in prison, then I'd just as soon ban motorcycles.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-08-2015, 01:43 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: The bigger point was that there shouldn't be a distinction in whatever she is or isn't charged with due to what he happened to be driving, not with her intent, so I drew a bad comparison with my hypothetical.
I agree. There shouldn't be a distinction, but that leads us to two different sides.
If you hit a car parked at a light, you pay the damages. If you injure the person in the car, you may have to pay compensation. You wouldn't be charged with battery or assault. No crime has been committed just by the act of being a bad driver.
I don't agree with changing the standard and making it a crime because he was on a vehicle that offered less protection.
(07-08-2015, 01:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It's not an accident when you hit a stationary object with a moving vehicle.
If you're operating a vehicle, pay attention. If you aren't paying attention for ANY reason, then it's 100% your fault and you should face the consequences of anything that happens as a result of your dumbass-ness.
If she wasn't reacting quick enough to stop in time, it's her fault. If you have "bad depth perception" then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a machine that weighs thousands of pounds capable of reaching high speeds.
This is pretty cut and dry. You don't hit a non-moving object if you're paying attention and are mentally capable of driving a car. Unless she hit a patch of ice in July, there's no legitimate excuse for this.
Sure it is. Every day in every town across the country somebody gets into a wreck because they didn't push the break fast enough, they didn't negotiate a turn correctly, the car accelerated/decelerated at an unexpected rate, they didn't see something that was there. Just last night here we had heavy rains. A young woman was driving through a curve went off the road into a ditch and the car overturned. She drowned.
You're saying she intentionally drove into the ditch? Go on, pull the other one.
If accidentally having a collision is a crime, the majority of the country would be incarcerated at some point in their lives.
Not to sound like any more of a cynical ass than I normally am, but if people don't get killed riding motorcycles every now and then chicks aren't going to think you are a cool badass for riding one. I don't think people get on motorcycles to get killed, but I thought part of the thrill was the danger. Personally, I've had people tell me they are getting motorcycles and I just tell them to think of the last time someone's negligence caused a fender-bender and imagine being on a motorcycle when that happened.
Other people will kill ya, it's a sad fact. I do have to say that I'm a pretty careful driver, but the idea of even tapping a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet and being treated like a murderer has me a bit nervous.
(07-08-2015, 12:11 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If she failed to maintain proper distance and happened to kill somebody in a car, should she be charged with vehicular manslaughter?
Same rules should apply here. She performed a traffic violation which resulted in the death of another human being. She should be charged. I really don't understand how people are even arguing otherwise.
Yeah charged with failure to maintain proper distance, but charging with the death for doing something that is an ordinary occurrence doesn't seem right. Choosing to be on a vehicle that offers zero protection to ordinary accidents should be considered.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-08-2015, 01:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It's not an accident when you hit a stationary object with a moving vehicle.
Yes it is.
Accidents are accidents. You admit yourself that you have had them yourself. Unless she was intentionally doing something distracting like texting then it was an accident.
If you mis-step and trip while walking down the street it is an accident. If you mis-step and your foot slips off the brake pedal it is an accident.
If your hand mis-grips something and you drop it it is an accident. If your hand mis-grips and slips on the steering wheel it is an accident.
If you bump your head because you don't see something it is an accident. If you hit something with your car because you don't see it then it is an accident.
We don't know anything about what happened that caused her to hit this guy. There may have been a crying baby in the car. She might have gotten something on her eye. She may have sneezed. She might have spilled a drink on her lap. She may have been blinded by the lights of emergency vehicles.
Unless you have never had any sort of accident in your life you can't say that it is impossible for anyone to have an accident while driving a car. Accidents are accidents and they happen everywhere including behind the wheel of a car.
Actually I just now read the linked article, and it does look like she was charged. And since she is being held in jail she was charged with something much more serious than just failure to maintain a proper distance. So it is possible that in this case she will face a serious criminal charge.
But my comments about accidents in general still apply. Not every accident should be a criminal offense.
First, I am seeing the term accident used here. A little over a decade ago, Virginia stopped (or tried to stop) officially using the term accident for an MVC. The reasoning is that an accident is something that cannot be avoided, and this incident certainly could have been avoided. Just saying I don't think the term accident is appropriate in this scenario.
Second, she broke the law by not maintaining the appropriate distance. Period. Everyone can say how much everyone does it, and I know, because I'm one of those that does their best to actually maintain a proper distance and notice how dangerous people like to drive on I-81. These laws and other guidelines exist to keep us safer on the roads, and not adhering to them causes these collisions and people can die from them. Because you are not operating your vehicle safely, because that's what those laws and guidelines are there for, not some arbitrary asshattery, you should be liable if something happens.
Lastly, it is my understanding that vehicular manslaughter/homicide is a charge when someone is criminally negligent. Most definitions you can come across for this involve things like carelessness or failure to use reasonable care. That is the case when people causes collisions because of their neglect (another word used in some of the definitions) the laws and guidelines. So, to me, it is absolutely a case, according to the way these things are defined, or criminal negligence and thus vehicular homicide.
(07-09-2015, 05:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: First, I am seeing the term accident used here. A little over a decade ago, Virginia stopped (or tried to stop) officially using the term accident for an MVC. The reasoning is that an accident is something that cannot be avoided, and this incident certainly could have been avoided. Just saying I don't think the term accident is appropriate in this scenario.
Second, she broke the law by not maintaining the appropriate distance. Period. Everyone can say how much everyone does it, and I know, because I'm one of those that does their best to actually maintain a proper distance and notice how dangerous people like to drive on I-81. These laws and other guidelines exist to keep us safer on the roads, and not adhering to them causes these collisions and people can die from them. Because you are not operating your vehicle safely, because that's what those laws and guidelines are there for, not some arbitrary asshattery, you should be liable if something happens.
Lastly, it is my understanding that vehicular manslaughter/homicide is a charge when someone is criminally negligent. Most definitions you can come across for this involve things like carelessness or failure to use reasonable care. That is the case when people causes collisions because of their neglect (another word used in some of the definitions) the laws and guidelines. So, to me, it is absolutely a case, according to the way these things are defined, or criminal negligence and thus vehicular homicide.
(07-09-2015, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Homicide merely means the killing of a person. Murder is what you are thinking of. Homicide can be either intentional or not.
(07-09-2015, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I just now read the linked article, and it does look like she was charged. And since she is being held in jail she was charged with something much more serious than just failure to maintain a proper distance. So it is possible that in this case she will face a serious criminal charge.
But my comments about accidents in general still apply. Not every accident should be a criminal offense.
Yeah she's being charged but the article says speed alcohol etc were not involved. At that time of day there, traffic is bumper to bumper. You are lucky if you hit 10 mph.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-09-2015, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Homicide merely means the killing of a person. Murder is what you are thinking of. Homicide can be either intentional or not.
Eh, hold up. Homicide requires an intended action or deliberate cause.
Not slowing down fast enough, if that was indeed the cause, would not be considered deliberate or intended.
(07-09-2015, 05:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: First, I am seeing the term accident used here. A little over a decade ago, Virginia stopped (or tried to stop) officially using the term accident for an MVC. The reasoning is that an accident is something that cannot be avoided, and this incident certainly could have been avoided. Just saying I don't think the term accident is appropriate in this scenario.
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
(07-09-2015, 10:52 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, hold up. Homicide requires an intended action or deliberate cause.
Not slowing down fast enough, if that was indeed the cause, would not be considered deliberate or intended.
Dictionary definition? Sure. What I have seen when it is discussed in a legal context, no. Maybe Virginia is weird int hat way, but homicide is just the fact that a person was killed, whether intentional or not.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: m6moCD1.png]](http://i.imgur.com/m6moCD1.png)
