What should she be charged with?

[*michaelsean*]

A woman rear ends a motorcycle in stopped traffic, and kills the motorcyclist. I read some comments where she should be charged with a felony or murder. But her actions weren't any different than we see on highways every single day. She happened to hit a motorcycle instead of a car so instead of an inconvenience we have a death. Accidents happen, and as a motorcycle rider do you not assume some of the responsibility that what amounts to a fender bender can be fatal?

http://www.fox19.com/story/29485559/motorcyclist-dead-after-i-71-accident

[Benton]

(07-08-2015, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: A woman rear ends a motorcycle in stopped traffic, and kills the motorcyclist.  I read some comments where she should be charged with a felony or murder.  But her actions weren't any different than we see on highways every single day.  She happened to hit a motorcycle instead of a car so instead of an inconvenience we have a death.  Accidents happen, and as a motorcycle rider do you not assume some of the responsibility that what amounts to a fender bender can be fatal?

http://www.fox19.com/story/29485559/motorcyclist-dead-after-i-71-accident

If no drugs or intentional distractions were involved (cell phone, eating a pizza, whatever), she shouldn't be charged.

I don't ride, but everyone in my family does. The main reason I don't is I've been to and written up enough reports where a guy on a motorcycle died just because of common accidents like this one.

[Se ky bengal]

(07-08-2015, 11:32 AM)Benton Wrote: If no drugs or intentional distractions were involved (cell phone, eating a pizza, whatever), she shouldn't be charged.

I don't ride, but everyone in my family does. The main reason I don't is I've been to and written up enough reports where a guy on a motorcycle died just because of common accidents like this one.

I agree with Benton, as long as it was accident and no drugs or alcohol etc. She shouldn't be charged. This lady going to have a lot guilt to live with. 

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 11:32 AM)Benton Wrote: If no drugs or intentional distractions were involved (cell phone, eating a pizza, whatever), she shouldn't be charged.

Or unless she was driving at a crazy speed.

[Sabretooth]

She failed to maintain proper distance between vehicles. After rear ending the motorcyclist, she also dragged him under her car. The guy is dead. She should be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-08-2015, 12:01 PM)Sabretooth Wrote: She failed to maintain proper distance between vehicles. After rear ending the motorcyclist, she also dragged him under her car. The guy is dead. She should be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

But lots of people fail to maintain proper distance every single day.  They just happen to hit cars instead of motorcycles.  

[djs7685]

(07-08-2015, 12:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But lots of people fail to maintain proper distance every single day.  They just happen to hit cars instead of motorcycles.  

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.

[*michaelsean*]

(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.

[fredtoast]

(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.

Because a simple traffic violation does not meet the standard required to convict someone of vehicular homicide.

By definition almost every single accident of any kind can be avoided with more care.  But people are killed in accidents every day with no criminal charges.

There could still be some sort of civil case filed, and she may be found liable in a wrongful death action. But it takes more to convict a person of vehicular homicide than just being negligent.

[*Awful Llama*]

(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, I'm not understanding the distinction. If he had been driving a Smart Car instead of a motorcycle, would we then be saying "Well, if he were only driving an Escalade he'd still be alive, so he bears some responsibility here."

If you punch a guy with a neurological condition, and it's a punch that ordinarily wouldn't cause anyone's death, but he does die as a result, you're still responsible for his death. You take a person as you find them.

[djs7685]

(07-08-2015, 12:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

(07-08-2015, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because a simple traffic violation does not meet the standard required to convict someone of vehicular homicide.

By definition almost every single accident of any kind can be avoided with more care.  But people are killed in accidents every day with no criminal charges.

There could still be some sort of civil case filed, but it takes more to convict a person of vehicular homicide than just being negligent.

Do those simple traffic violations usually kill somebody? I mean, this time it did, so we just pretend that doesn't change anything?

The fact that Americans decided to use the term "accident" so loosely has really fudged things up. Plain and simple, if you aren't paying attention to the road for ANY reason, it's no longer an accident.

There's a huge difference between a legitimate accident and what people are calling "car accidents". Whoever isn't paying attention for whatever reason SHOULD be charged appropriately. I'm not arguing whether this does or doesn't happen, I'm arguing whether it should or shouldn't happen. If you're operating a vehicle, pay ***** attention.

[mallorian69]

(07-08-2015, 12:27 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: Yeah, I'm not understanding the distinction.  If he had been driving a Smart Car instead of a motorcycle, would we then be saying "Well, if he were only driving an Escalade he'd still be alive, so he bears some responsibility here."

If you punch a guy with a neurological condition, and it's a punch that ordinarily wouldn't cause anyone's death, but he does die as a result, you're still responsible for his death.  You take a person as you find them.

But the person with a neurological condition can't choose to not have it. A motorcyclist can choose a different and safer form of travel.

[*Awful Llama*]

(07-08-2015, 12:39 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: But the person with a neurological condition can't choose to not have it. A motorcyclist can choose a different and safer form of travel.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what if he had the condition as a result of having abused some trype of drug? That would have been his choice.

The bigger point was that you take a person as you find them. He was on a motorcycle, which is legal to operate. In warm weather, more motrocycles are on the road, and she should have been cognisant of that. The fault lies with her, not him.

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 12:36 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Do those simple traffic violations usually kill somebody? I mean, this time it did, so we just pretend that doesn't change anything?

The fact that Americans decided to use the term "accident" so loosely has really fudged things up. Plain and simple, if you aren't paying attention to the road for ANY reason, it's no longer an accident.

There's a huge difference between a legitimate accident and what people are calling "car accidents". Whoever isn't paying attention for whatever reason SHOULD be charged appropriately. I'm not arguing whether this does or doesn't happen, I'm arguing whether it should or shouldn't happen. If you're operating a vehicle, pay ***** attention.

I think your problem is that you are not seeing the difference between "being held responsible" and "being a criminal".

No one is saying that she should not be held responsible for killing someone else.  If she was negligent then she should be held responsible in a civil wrongful death action.

But criminal activity is not the same as accidents.  People have accidents all the time.  They drop things.  They spill things.  They trip over things.  In fact I'll bet even YOU have done some of these things.  No one is perfect.  But this is not criminal activity.  This is not the type of stuff that the criminal justice system was set up to address.  If a person trips and falls down some stairs while carrying a baby he should not be treated the same way as a murderer.

There are times when negligence can lead to criminal charges.  Like if she was texting while driving or if a person is shitfaced drunk while carrying a baby down some stairs.  But in general accidents are not the same as crimes.

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 12:39 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: But the person with a neurological condition can't choose to not have it. A motorcyclist can choose a different and safer form of travel.

Now you are getting into the area of "comparative liability" that usually arises in civil actions.  Like if a motorists hits a pedestrian that was outside of the crosswalk.  When both parties are at fault courts have to determine who is "most liable".

But just riding a motorcycle does not make the person at fault in any way.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Would there be a difference if she hit someone on a bicycle or someone crossing the street?

What if she hits a convertible with the top down and hits the rear end in such a way that she moves up the rear of the convertible into the seating area crushing all in the other car?

[djs7685]

(07-08-2015, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think your problem is that you are not seeing the difference between "being held responsible" and "being a criminal".

No one is saying that she should not be held responsible for killing someone else.  If she was negligent then she should be held responsible in a civil wrongful death action.

But criminal activity is not the same as accidents.  People have accidents all the time.  They drop things.  They spill things.  They trip over things.  In fact I'll bet even YOU have done some of these things.  No one is perfect.  But this is not criminal activity.  This is not the type of stuff that the criminal justice system was set up to address.  If a person trips and falls down some stairs while carrying a baby he should not be treated the same way as a murderer.

There are times when negligence can lead to criminal charges.  Like if she was texting while driving or if a person is shitfaced drunk while carrying a baby down some stairs.  But in general accidents are not the same as crimes.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm in agreement with a good bit of it. I do realize that criminal activity isn't the same as an accident, and I've definitely tripped over things and spilled things in my life.

I guess my point is, if the guy on the motorcycle was just sitting there doing nothing at all wrong, then she is absolutely at fault for SOME reason. Either she did it on purpose or else she was doing something that distracted her enough to run over a person that isn't moving on a motorcycle. I honestly don't understand how this can be chalked up as an "accident" when you hit a stationary object with your car. Was there a lot of ice on the road in the middle of July in Columbia Township? If not, I don't see how it was an "accident" of any sort, and a person has died as a result of her actions.

If I spill my coffee and nothing terrible results from it, no foul. If I spill my coffee because I'm distracted doing literally anything else and it directly results in the death of the person next to me, what should happen? You don't hit a stationary motorcycle with your car unless you're distracted, there's no accident here.

[XenoMorph]

(07-08-2015, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: A woman rear ends a motorcycle in stopped traffic, and kills the motorcyclist. I read some comments where she should be charged with a felony or murder. But her actions weren't any different than we see on highways every single day. She happened to hit a motorcycle instead of a car so instead of an inconvenience we have a death. Accidents happen, and as a motorcycle rider do you not assume some of the responsibility that what amounts to a fender bender can be fatal?

http://www.fox19.com/story/29485559/motorcyclist-dead-after-i-71-accident

i believe they call that involuntary vehicular manslaughter.

and also failure to yeild/control.

[XenoMorph]

(07-08-2015, 12:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

Doesnt matter man if you killed someone by accident or not you still killed someone which is a crime.

Now i doubt it was intential but its still ending someones life.

if she doesnt do jail time she sould at least lose her liscense. and most likely a hefty payout to the family of the deceased.

[Benton]

(07-08-2015, 12:27 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: Yeah, I'm not understanding the distinction.  If he had been driving a Smart Car instead of a motorcycle, would we then be saying "Well, if he were only driving an Escalade he'd still be alive, so he bears some responsibility here."

If you punch a guy with a neurological condition, and it's a punch that ordinarily wouldn't cause anyone's death, but he does die as a result, you're still responsible for his death.  You take a person as you find them.

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.