Kill a motorcyclist and don't even get a ticket???
#51
03-30-2011, 11:16 AM
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you're saying is that if someone goes running across the road doing their best impersonation of Frogger and gets hit and injured, but not killed, it should have the same punishment for the car driver as if they were in a school cross walk and the driver went plowing through there at 60 and killed them.
#52
03-30-2011, 12:25 PM
Are you REALLY that stupid?
What you're saying is that if someone goes running across the road doing their best impersonation of Frogger and gets hit and injured, but not killed, it should have the same punishment for the car driver as if they were in a school cross walk and the driver went plowing through there at 60 and killed them.
What you're saying is that if someone goes running across the road doing their best impersonation of Frogger and gets hit and injured, but not killed, it should have the same punishment for the car driver as if they were in a school cross walk and the driver went plowing through there at 60 and killed them.
If a driver hits and injures or kills:
- Someone running across the street randomly as in your example
- Or children in a school zone crosswalk
I'd have to agree with ftanner. EDIT: Ooops! I meant cameraboy
Last edited by 2black1s; 03-30-2011 at 03:40 PM.
#53
03-30-2011, 01:13 PM
Are you REALLY that stupid?
What you're saying is that if someone goes running across the road doing their best impersonation of Frogger and gets hit and injured, but not killed, it should have the same punishment for the car driver as if they were in a school cross walk and the driver went plowing through there at 60 and killed them.
In your first instance, there probably is not a crime committed by the driver.
In the second instance, there are several crimes, including speeding and reckless driving in a school zone.
I'll try to make it less complex for you by asking you a question:
What is the difference in the ACTION of the driver in these two situations:
A man drives drunk home from a bar and makes it there with no incident.
Another man drives home at the same level of intoxication, yet he hits and kills someone.
Both these drivers have taken the same action, one was just lucky and the other was not. the action that caused the death was the same.
You go speeding through a residential neighborhood with a posted 25 mph limit. you are driving 70mph and you make it to your house at the end with no incident.
Behind you is your friend, who is also driving the same speed. He hits and kills someone.
IMO, you both took the same action, only the result was different purely by circumstances.
It is a bit of a flaw in our way of thinking that one person deserves a greater punishment than the other. The ONLY difference is that one person was lucky and the other was not.
failure to yield is failure to yield.
We should not seek to punish this person more simply because the victim was in a less-safe mode of transportation, IMO. I have failed to yield myself, I"m sure, and I bet all of you have too at one point or another. We just got lucky.
#54
03-30-2011, 01:39 PM
Tourer
I don't like the punishment varying depending on the result of the crime, if the crime was the same.
I mean, the crime was failure to yield. if the driver failed to yield and he hit an suv, and nobody was hurt, the crime is exactly that: failure to yield.
If the driver fails to yield and hits a motorcycle and someone dies, the action is still the same action, just the result happened to be different due to circumstances.
And, IMO, if you are going to change the punishment based on the results of the same action, you have to look at a lot more factors.
It's like the drunk driver who drives home drunk and never kills anyone is JUST as bad as the person who drives home drunk and just happens to hit and kill someone. They both took the same illegal action, only the results were different. I think we should punish the action but not based on the result.
I mean, the crime was failure to yield. if the driver failed to yield and he hit an suv, and nobody was hurt, the crime is exactly that: failure to yield.
If the driver fails to yield and hits a motorcycle and someone dies, the action is still the same action, just the result happened to be different due to circumstances.
And, IMO, if you are going to change the punishment based on the results of the same action, you have to look at a lot more factors.
It's like the drunk driver who drives home drunk and never kills anyone is JUST as bad as the person who drives home drunk and just happens to hit and kill someone. They both took the same illegal action, only the results were different. I think we should punish the action but not based on the result.
#56
03-30-2011, 01:59 PM
So by your reasoning, making stabbing motions in the air with a knife while you're alone out in the woods is just as bad as making the same stabbing motions into somone's chest. The only difference being that in the second case someone else is unlucky enough to be right in front of you.
I'm going to spend more time thinking this out.
what about this:
Failure to yield. Hits an SUV. Nobody hurt
vs
Failure to yield. Hits a MC. rider seriously hurt or killed.
Is one action worse than the other?
I'm not so sure. But I'm open to thinking about it.
Last edited by cameraboy; 03-30-2011 at 02:03 PM.
#57
03-30-2011, 02:09 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is NO such thing as an "accident".
There is ONLY Negligence! It may be in a variety of degrees, or amoung a variety of people, but it is STILL Negligence!
People whose Negligence causes others harm should be held accountable.
We have a plethora of persons killing through their negligence with utter impunity. It's time to thin the herd and elminate the problem ourselves!
Jim aka kiltiemon (of course, that's just my "huggy-feeley" liberal opinion!!!)
There is ONLY Negligence! It may be in a variety of degrees, or amoung a variety of people, but it is STILL Negligence!
People whose Negligence causes others harm should be held accountable.
We have a plethora of persons killing through their negligence with utter impunity. It's time to thin the herd and elminate the problem ourselves!
Jim aka kiltiemon (of course, that's just my "huggy-feeley" liberal opinion!!!)
#58
03-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Tourer
How so? Maybe you just like stabbing at the air. It's not your fault if someone happens to be in front of you at the time. That's just bad luck for them. 
#59
03-30-2011, 02:23 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Are you?
In your first instance, there probably is not a crime committed by the driver.
In the second instance, there are several crimes, including speeding and reckless driving in a school zone.
I'll try to make it less complex for you by asking you a question:
What is the difference in the ACTION of the driver in these two situations:
A man drives drunk home from a bar and makes it there with no incident.
Another man drives home at the same level of intoxication, yet he hits and kills someone.
Both these drivers have taken the same action, one was just lucky and the other was not. the action that caused the death was the same.
You go speeding through a residential neighborhood with a posted 25 mph limit. you are driving 70mph and you make it to your house at the end with no incident.
Behind you is your friend, who is also driving the same speed. He hits and kills someone.
IMO, you both took the same action, only the result was different purely by circumstances.
It is a bit of a flaw in our way of thinking that one person deserves a greater punishment than the other. The ONLY difference is that one person was lucky and the other was not.
failure to yield is failure to yield.
We should not seek to punish this person more simply because the victim was in a less-safe mode of transportation, IMO. I have failed to yield myself, I"m sure, and I bet all of you have too at one point or another. We just got lucky.
In your first instance, there probably is not a crime committed by the driver.
In the second instance, there are several crimes, including speeding and reckless driving in a school zone.
I'll try to make it less complex for you by asking you a question:
What is the difference in the ACTION of the driver in these two situations:
A man drives drunk home from a bar and makes it there with no incident.
Another man drives home at the same level of intoxication, yet he hits and kills someone.
Both these drivers have taken the same action, one was just lucky and the other was not. the action that caused the death was the same.
You go speeding through a residential neighborhood with a posted 25 mph limit. you are driving 70mph and you make it to your house at the end with no incident.
Behind you is your friend, who is also driving the same speed. He hits and kills someone.
IMO, you both took the same action, only the result was different purely by circumstances.
It is a bit of a flaw in our way of thinking that one person deserves a greater punishment than the other. The ONLY difference is that one person was lucky and the other was not.
failure to yield is failure to yield.
We should not seek to punish this person more simply because the victim was in a less-safe mode of transportation, IMO. I have failed to yield myself, I"m sure, and I bet all of you have too at one point or another. We just got lucky.
#60
03-30-2011, 02:27 PM
Road Master
What is the difference in the ACTION of the driver in these two situations:
A man drives drunk home from a bar and makes it there with no incident.
Another man drives home at the same level of intoxication, yet he hits and kills someone.
Both these drivers have taken the same action, one was just lucky and the other was not. the action that caused the death was the same.
You go speeding through a residential neighborhood with a posted 25 mph limit. you are driving 70mph and you make it to your house at the end with no incident.
Behind you is your friend, who is also driving the same speed. He hits and kills someone.
IMO, you both took the same action, only the result was different purely by circumstances.
It is a bit of a flaw in our way of thinking that one person deserves a greater punishment than the other. The ONLY difference is that one person was lucky and the other was not.
failure to yield is failure to yield.
We should not seek to punish this person more simply because the victim was in a less-safe mode of transportation, IMO. I have failed to yield myself, I"m sure, and I bet all of you have too at one point or another. We just got lucky.
A man drives drunk home from a bar and makes it there with no incident.
Another man drives home at the same level of intoxication, yet he hits and kills someone.
Both these drivers have taken the same action, one was just lucky and the other was not. the action that caused the death was the same.
You go speeding through a residential neighborhood with a posted 25 mph limit. you are driving 70mph and you make it to your house at the end with no incident.
Behind you is your friend, who is also driving the same speed. He hits and kills someone.
IMO, you both took the same action, only the result was different purely by circumstances.
It is a bit of a flaw in our way of thinking that one person deserves a greater punishment than the other. The ONLY difference is that one person was lucky and the other was not.
failure to yield is failure to yield.
We should not seek to punish this person more simply because the victim was in a less-safe mode of transportation, IMO. I have failed to yield myself, I"m sure, and I bet all of you have too at one point or another. We just got lucky.