Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:From the responses I would infer that the default position for some is that life only has a monetary value and as such then civil liability is the only worthwhile measure of punishment worth considering unless the purpose was to actually kill your target.

Ben it appears the question you are actually asking is how far can I push before I push too far. I have no idea of the answer. The law defines a line and it tells you where the line is at, justice is served when the law looks at the facts when you cross the line and renders a verdict. What I mainly see here is a determined effort to say that speeding is okay and an attempt to remove the moral hazard you face when you do. In other words, I wanna, I wanna. I'm okay with that. I assume that everyone on the road is trying to kill me in any case.

@curtis95112
If you don't punish some one for the outcome of their actions, what's the point in punishing at all? And I presume that you haven't looked at the law on speeding. It is tiered. In the poor ignorant state of Kentucky where I reside, doing 26 over the limit sends you to jail, fines are also tiered depending on the speed.


This is enough. Morriswalters, in your opinion, what is the purpose of punishment?
I have already stated that I think the purpose is to deter, rehabilitate, and restitute. Any punishment that does not serve these purposes is unnecessary.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:If there is a strong argument to reasonably assume that the driver should have been aware of the extra risk they were posing to the public, then there should be charges brought for the injuries/death resulting from their actions. As I said earlier, this is case specific. A driver hitting someone in a high speed chase, or a drunk driver, put themselves in situations where they were endangering lives, and should have been aware that they had done so. They then made the decision not to care.

With the speeding person, it depends. Going 70 through a school area? That should have set off alarm bells. Going 31 in a 30? No. What purpose would it serve? With the not-speeding person, probably no punishment, unless there's reason to argue for other kinds of wilful recklessness.


There's still no reason to punish them based on the results. Punish them for being in a high-speed chase, punish them for DUI, etc. Have differing punishments for going 3 over the limit and going 30 over the limit.

This is why I used the word "reasonable". It is a very important part of British law, and is a good principle to apply to things like this. With cases where it is reasonable to think that the driver made a conscious choice to ignore the risks they were posing to the public (by doing something so obviously reckless), then yes, I'm not against applying the eggshell skull rule.

If there's no reason to think they should have known they were putting the public at risk then what is there to punish or rehabilitate?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Diadem » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:eggshell skull rule.

Wow. Just Wow.

Why is it that every time I read about an American legal doctrine on Wikipedia it turns out to be utterly retarded?

(Probably because the non-retarded ones are more common, so I already know about them and don't have to look them up. But still. Wow).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:04 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:If there is a strong argument to reasonably assume that the driver should have been aware of the extra risk they were posing to the public, then there should be charges brought for the injuries/death resulting from their actions. As I said earlier, this is case specific. A driver hitting someone in a high speed chase, or a drunk driver, put themselves in situations where they were endangering lives, and should have been aware that they had done so. They then made the decision not to care.

With the speeding person, it depends. Going 70 through a school area? That should have set off alarm bells. Going 31 in a 30? No. What purpose would it serve? With the not-speeding person, probably no punishment, unless there's reason to argue for other kinds of wilful recklessness.


There's still no reason to punish them based on the results. Punish them for being in a high-speed chase, punish them for DUI, etc. Have differing punishments for going 3 over the limit and going 30 over the limit.

This is why I used the word "reasonable". It is a very important part of British law, and is a good principle to apply to things like this. With cases where it is reasonable to think that the driver made a conscious choice to ignore the risks they were posing to the public (by doing something so obviously reckless), then yes, I'm not against applying the eggshell skull rule.


I see where you're coming from, but I see no reason to differentiate based on outcomes. If they were knowingly being reckless, punish them even if an accident doesn't happen. If an accident does happen, punish them the same regardless.
Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?


If there's no reason to think they should have known they were putting the public at risk then what is there to punish or rehabilitate?


Of course, hence my earlier comment about education.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

Retribution, some part deterrence, but in large portion to give meaning to the death for those left behind who are forced to live without the people they love and to let them feel a sense of justice being served. In most cases as I have said over and over again it never comes to this. Morally though, at least to me, there is a difference in the 4 examples and it has to do with responsibility. The first link in the chain was the choice to do the activity which causes the death. I don't think sending reckless and drunk drivers to jail works in the long term. But there is no technology currently available which can keep them out of cars. Rather than give anymore theoreticals tell me how you would deal with this. Should he have been given a ticket for reckless driving and DUI and released? Most people in the state believe justice was served.

I'll ask another question. Why is it important to you to speed? Why does it bother you so much that I feel speeding is a broach of the privilege that society allows you to exercise. I speed. I feel no special guilt about that. I suppose that I drive okay, at least I have only one running violation in my years behind the wheel and I haven't killed anyone yet. But I do accept that I am violating the agreement that I made, and expect a truck to fall on me if I kill somebody because of it. But I find the reason that I do it is simply because I'm impatient and in a hurry, not because it serves any purpose. I relax and slow down if I leave earlier and plan my trip.

@Diadem

Does that make English Law retarded as well?

curtis95112 wrote:Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?

To keep you from killing your rich Uncle and then claiming he was about to die anyway of terminal cancer to escape the law.

Well this has been fun. :lol:

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Dark567 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:32 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:eggshell skull rule.

Wow. Just Wow.

Why is it that every time I read about an American legal doctrine on Wikipedia it turns out to be utterly retarded?
That's hardly only American legal doctrine, this one I believe is pretty common in all former British colonies and the UK itself.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby jules.LT » Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?
To keep you from killing your rich Uncle and then claiming he was about to die anyway of terminal cancer to escape the law.

I don't see how that relates to the rule as laid out in the wikipedia article.
The rule prevents you from using "I didn't know it would kill him" as a defence if you did something to him that you thought would only harm him a little. And I agree with Diadem: it's pretty retarded. This case in particular.
Last edited by jules.LT on Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Retribution, some part deterrence, but in large portion to give meaning to the death for those left behind who are forced to live without the people they love and to let them feel a sense of justice being served. In most cases as I have said over and over again it never comes to this. Morally though, at least to me, there is a difference in the 4 examples and it has to do with responsibility. The first link in the chain was the choice to do the activity which causes the death. I don't think sending reckless and drunk drivers to jail works in the long term. But there is no technology currently available which can keep them out of cars. Rather than give anymore theoreticals tell me how you would deal with this. Should he have been given a ticket for reckless driving and DUI and released? Most people in the state believe justice was served.

You mean like sending murderers to jail works in the long term but there exists no technology which keeps them away from knives?

Anyway, then this is where we differ. I don't see retribution as a goal the justice system should be serving. Frankly, I think it's barbaric.
Yes, I do believe that he should have been punished exactly the same as other school bus drivers that DUI. I am not arguing they should be released, I think driving a school bus under the influence should get you in jail whether there's an accident or not.

I'll ask another question. Why is it important to you to speed? Why does it bother you so much that I feel speeding is a broach of the privilege that society allows you to exercise. I speed. I feel no special guilt about that. I suppose that I drive okay, at least I have only one running violation in my years behind the wheel and I haven't killed anyone yet. But I do accept that I am violating the agreement that I made, and expect a truck to fall on me if I kill somebody because of it. But I find the reason that I do it is simply because I'm impatient and in a hurry, not because it serves any purpose. I relax and slow down if I leave earlier and plan my trip.


Why do you assume that I'm trying to make it easier to speed? On the other hand, if my suggestions are ever implemented, it'll probably give higher penalties for speeding. Also, if you're knowingly violating that agreement, I assume you know that you're putting other people's lives in danger. My point is that you should be deterred from doing that. I expect that you speed because, for one reason or another, you don't think you're going to kill anyone, and thus there will be no significant consequence. A fine at most. This shows quite clearly that punishing the unlucky doesn't work as deterrence. Nobody thinks they'll be the guy that runs over the five-year old. Jailing them for ten years doesn't stop you speeding. But you wouldn't speed if speeding carried automatic jail time.

curtis95112 wrote:Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?

To keep you from killing your rich Uncle and then claiming he was about to die anyway of terminal cancer to escape the law.

Well this has been fun. :lol:


You're coming awfully close to a presumption of guilt. You are, in effect, assuming that the killer had foreknowledge of the victims condition. Of course, the rule gets past this by punishing even the ones for whom lack of foreknowledge can be established. I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:If there is a strong argument to reasonably assume that the driver should have been aware of the extra risk they were posing to the public, then there should be charges brought for the injuries/death resulting from their actions. As I said earlier, this is case specific. A driver hitting someone in a high speed chase, or a drunk driver, put themselves in situations where they were endangering lives, and should have been aware that they had done so. They then made the decision not to care.

With the speeding person, it depends. Going 70 through a school area? That should have set off alarm bells. Going 31 in a 30? No. What purpose would it serve? With the not-speeding person, probably no punishment, unless there's reason to argue for other kinds of wilful recklessness.


There's still no reason to punish them based on the results. Punish them for being in a high-speed chase, punish them for DUI, etc. Have differing punishments for going 3 over the limit and going 30 over the limit.

This is why I used the word "reasonable". It is a very important part of British law, and is a good principle to apply to things like this. With cases where it is reasonable to think that the driver made a conscious choice to ignore the risks they were posing to the public (by doing something so obviously reckless), then yes, I'm not against applying the eggshell skull rule.


I see where you're coming from, but I see no reason to differentiate based on outcomes. If they were knowingly being reckless, punish them even if an accident doesn't happen. If an accident does happen, punish them the same regardless.
Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?


If there's no reason to think they should have known they were putting the public at risk then what is there to punish or rehabilitate?


Of course, hence my earlier comment about education.

The difference of outcomes in this case is because there has to be some point where people are fully responsible for the results. For me, it makes sense for that point to be at willful recklessness. The disregard for others sets it apart.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

Read the article. He wasn't driving the bus, he hit it because he was going the wrong way on I-71. The people on the bus didn't die from the collision they died because the bus used gasoline and didn't have enough exits, they burned to death. His bumper punctured the gas tank under the door. This is where the thin skull rule comes in to play. He couldn't escape criminal liability by claiming he wasn't responsible for those deaths, that the fire killed them and not him.

All the other speeders that aren't killing anyone are a mirage. They become real only if they are unlucky enough to be caught, much like Schrodinger's Cat. How would you prosecute them? My opinion is that you have been drug down the rabbit hole by the seductive idea that all speeders should suffer equally, but in point of fact they aren't speeders until they get caught. bentheimmigrant's comparison is a false one. You know that there are other speeders but not who they are. The only comparison possible is between the lawful driver and the known unlawful driver.

I don't like incarceration, it's expensive and we can't afford it. Where it up to me then I would simply remove the ability for someone to drive forever under the circumstances that we have been talking about. I would consider this sufficient in and of itself.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby jules.LT » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:22 pm UTC

It's not about the difference between speeders who get caught and speeders who don't, it's about the difference between speeders who have an accident and speeders who don't.
Plenty of speeders are caught, and the argument is that their punishment shouldn't be reduced so enormously just because they got lucky.

The only reason I agree that the guy who caused an accident should be punished more is that we can't know the exact details of every case, so having an accident is the best sign that extra risks have probably been taken. Still, the difference between the punishment of people who take risks and get lucky or not seems disproportionate. It's related more closely to vengeance than it is to justice.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:38 pm UTC

This conversation is making less and less sense to me. If you want to do whatever it is that you want to do with speeders good luck to you. I haven't found that the present system has served me too poorly so I'll hang tight. Like I said when I'm in a car everybody is my enemy until I get out. When I'm a pedestrian I like concrete barriers between me and traffic, and I'll let AAA assume the hazard when changing tires on the road.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:30 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:It's not about the difference between speeders who get caught and speeders who don't, it's about the difference between speeders who have an accident and speeders who don't.
Plenty of speeders are caught, and the argument is that their punishment shouldn't be reduced so enormously just because they got lucky.

The only reason I agree that the guy who caused an accident should be punished more is that we can't know the exact details of every case, so having an accident is the best sign that extra risks have probably been taken. Still, the difference between the punishment of people who take risks and get lucky or not seems disproportionate. It's related more closely to vengeance than it is to justice.
The bolded above is abominably terrible logic.

If speeding carries a (hypothetical and made-up) .1% risk of killing someone, then a speeder who kills someone cannot be assumed to have taken "extra" risks. They took the same risk as every speeder who didn't kill someone.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Rium
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:57 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Rium » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:27 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:If speeding carries a (hypothetical and made-up) .1% risk of killing someone, then a speeder who kills someone cannot be assumed to have taken "extra" risks. They took the same risk as every speeder who didn't kill someone.

I’m not sure what you are saying here – "If the risk of speeding is always the same, then it is also the same for a speeder who kills someone"?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Rium wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:If speeding carries a (hypothetical and made-up) .1% risk of killing someone, then a speeder who kills someone cannot be assumed to have taken "extra" risks. They took the same risk as every speeder who didn't kill someone.

I’m not sure what you are saying here – "If the risk of speeding is always the same, then it is also the same for a speeder who kills someone"?

If there is a chance of something happening, then the fact that it happened is not proof that somebody took extra risks that made it more likely. Winning the lottery is a terribly low likelihood, but does winning the lottery prove that someone took extra steps -- buying more tickets, or similar -- to win the lottery? No. Getting into a car accident is something that can happen to the best or the worst drivers, to the most reckless or the most careful. A single data point of "accident happened" does absolutely nothing to tell you if the driver was being reckless or careful. The details of the accident might gleam some info on it, but the existence of the accident proves nothing beyond the fact that the person took the utmost basic risk that could lead to accident -- in this case, driving a car.

User avatar
Rium
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:57 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Rium » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:39 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:If there is a chance of something happening, then the fact that it happened is not proof that somebody took extra risks that made it more likely. Winning the lottery is a terribly low likelihood, but does winning the lottery prove that someone took extra steps -- buying more tickets, or similar -- to win the lottery? No. Getting into a car accident is something that can happen to the best or the worst drivers, to the most reckless or the most careful. A single data point of "accident happened" does absolutely nothing to tell you if the driver was being reckless or careful. The details of the accident might gleam some info on it, but the existence of the accident proves nothing beyond the fact that the person took the utmost basic risk that could lead to accident -- in this case, driving a car.

I agree that it doesn’t prove anything, but aren’t winners of the lottery indeed more likely to have bought more tickets than the average player, according to Bayes’ Theorem? It’s very weak evidence, of course – winning the lottery doesn’t mean it’s likely that you bought more tickets. The same is probably true for what jules.LT suggested, and the fact that the accident happened should not play an important role in judging the risk the driver took.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Alexius » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Regarding the eggshell skull rule, it doesn't apply in all cases. IANAL but if I jostle someone on the Tube and they die because of it, then I imagine I'm not guilty of killing them. The same is true even if I'm on the Tube without a ticket (thus breaking the law).

Similarly, if someone jumps off a footbridge over a motorway in order to commit suicide and is hit and killed by a car, it doesn't matter whether the driver was 1 mph over the speed limit, and in Britain they wouldn't be prosecuted. We have crimes of "causing death by careless driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving", but in order to be guilty of those you have to be guilty of the crime of careless/dangerous driving. This has a specific definition, and simply driving faster than the speed limit doesn't count*.

Hitting someone with your car and killing them can be anything from no crime at all to murder, but it depends on the circumstances far more than "if you were breaking any traffic law at all, then it should be treated as a serious crime".

*People have been convicted of them on the grounds of extremely excessive speed for the conditions, but speed alone isn't enough. A man was acquitted of dangerous driving despite admitting having exceeded 140 mph (double the limit).

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:01 pm UTC

Rium wrote:I agree that it doesn’t prove anything, but aren’t winners of the lottery indeed more likely to have bought more tickets than the average player, according to Bayes’ Theorem? It’s very weak evidence, of course – winning the lottery doesn’t mean it’s likely that you bought more tickets. The same is probably true for what jules.LT suggested, and the fact that the accident happened should not play an important role in judging the risk the driver took.

Probably (it's been a while since I did in depth statistics), but it's still just one data point. You can't assume much of anything based off it (you can assume that they bought a lottery ticket, or that they were driving a car, as appropriate) but it's not evidence that they were doing anything. If, historically, 1% of people in an accident were in it "innocently" and 99% were in it through "guilt", you have reason to believe that it's more likely that they were at fault than that they were not, but you don't have information saying that they are at fault.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby jules.LT » Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:42 pm UTC

Rium wrote:I agree that it doesn’t prove anything, but aren’t winners of the lottery indeed more likely to have bought more tickets than the average player, according to Bayes’ Theorem? It’s very weak evidence, of course – winning the lottery doesn’t mean it’s likely that you bought more tickets. The same is probably true for what jules.LT suggested, and the fact that the accident happened should not play an important role in judging the risk the driver took.

That's the kind of reasoning I was going for. Obviously it doesn't prove anything, but seeing that someone won the lottery does makes it more likely that he bought more tickets. But overall, this is too poor an indicator to punish people who actually have an accident disproportionately more than those who were luckier. The remaining, actual reason is institutionalized revenge.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby sam_i_am » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

teribithia wrote:hope the girl to Paradise and drive dropped into hell. :| :|


I see you've come to these conclusions after thoughtful consideration and deep knowledge of both of the individuals involved in this case

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:16 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
teribithia wrote:hope the girl to Paradise and drive dropped into hell. :| :|


I see you've come to these conclusions after thoughtful consideration and deep knowledge of both of the individuals involved in this case

That's why I often don't bother parsing text like that. It's a bit difficult to understand what they're trying to say, and then turns out to be... statements with as much value as that one.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby webzter_again » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:I see you've come to these conclusions after thoughtful consideration and deep knowledge of both of the individuals involved in this case

That's why I often don't bother parsing text like that. It's a bit difficult to understand what they're trying to say, and then turns out to be... statements with as much value as that one.


My money is on a spam bot* working to up post count in order to post elsewhere.... a bunch of short replies to two month old posts.If our board didn't bump posts then everything would have gone fairly undetected.

*may be human

A duck
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby A duck » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:58 pm UTC

Impressive spambot though. If it had used proper spelling and grammar it could have passed itself off as human.
Hi, I'm a d*ck that wants to say a symbol.

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Chen » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

A duck wrote:Impressive spambot though. If it had used proper spelling and grammar it could have passed itself off as human.


The other posts it made were actually pretty coherent. This one was pretty off though.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20866018/driver-who-killed-13-year-old-malibu-girl

Spoiler:
Prosecutors said Khankhanian was suicidal over the loss of his job on April 3, 2010, and drove his Mitsubishi Lancer recklessly for 17 miles along Topanga Canyon Boulevard and then north on Pacific Coast Highway at speeds up to 70 mph. He crashed the vehicle near Heathercliff Road, killing the girl, who was walking along the street.


Seriously? 15 years to life for an accident. As someone who used to drive that road on a regular basis, that section of the road typically has people driving anywhere from 55-65, he was going 70 (which is not common, but not unusual either). Yes, he was speeding and got someone killed, but that does not warrant a second-degree murder conviction; I would call it involuntary manslaughter at most.


Well, it wasn't just speeding...reckless driving can include more than speeding, and given that he wrecked his car and was despondent over job loss...it seems likely. This strikes me as a case where his actions could reasonably be seen as posing a lot of danger to those around him. Killing people is a big deal, even if it's wanton recklessness instead of hatred. I mean, I'm sure his exact motivations make little difference to the girl.

Don't get me wrong. I speed sometimes. Lots of people do. But when you're driving faster than the speed limit, you need to get more careful and cautious, not less. Pay careful attention around you, that sort of thing. If you hit someone, more energy will be imparted. You need to be correspondingly careful to not hit anyone. I'm not gonna say that nobody should ever speed...but if you do, you're responsible for what you're doing. If you're driving fast and losing control for no particular reason...that's on you.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby BlackSails » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:09 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:I do so love the mentality of judging people for decisions made under reduced logical capacity as if they had full logical capacity.

Punish him for a couple of years if you must, but provide some damn treatment. If this was a suicide attempt this person is NOT a continued danger to other provided he receives the help he needs.


He had full capacity when he decided to reduce his capacity.

User avatar
DJGreen
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:24 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby DJGreen » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:58 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I do so love the mentality of judging people for decisions made under reduced logical capacity as if they had full logical capacity.

Punish him for a couple of years if you must, but provide some damn treatment. If this was a suicide attempt this person is NOT a continued danger to other provided he receives the help he needs.


He had full capacity when he decided to reduce his capacity.


He wasn't drunk, he was depressed and suicidal. Pretty sure the second one isn't a choice... :roll:

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:29 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Why is it that every time I read about an American legal doctrine on Wikipedia it turns out to be utterly retarded?

(Probably because the non-retarded ones are more common, so I already know about them and don't have to look them up. But still. Wow).

wow. the actual rule makes sense but some of the applications are nuts.

seriously , reading the Vosburg v. Putney

Δ made contact with Π at the shin of the right leg ("just below the knee").
Π did not feel the contact due to the degree of force or shock.


That if you touch someone so lightly that they don't even feel it it's then your fault if their body part falls apart due to hurting themselves earlier.

I mean wow. guess I'll never tap anyone on the shoulder ever again in case their arm falls off.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I do so love the mentality of judging people for decisions made under reduced logical capacity as if they had full logical capacity.

Punish him for a couple of years if you must, but provide some damn treatment. If this was a suicide attempt this person is NOT a continued danger to other provided he receives the help he needs.


He had full capacity when he decided to reduce his capacity.


This. He had choices along the line. The fact that some of his choices limited his future choices is irrelevant.

Consider a drunk driver. He chose to get drunk, yes? And then he chose to drive. The choice is all still on him, regardless of the fact that it happened in steps.

This guy still chose to get in a car. To drive fast. And recklessly. The outcome was...predictable. Yes, depression may be a reason for why he made that choice, but he still killed someone. Not every depressed person does this. It isn't unescapable.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:47 pm UTC

None of his choices ended in him having reduced capacity. Comparing it to drinking is disingenuous. Indeed I would say that your post isn't even logically consistent.
Tyndmyr wrote:
He had full capacity when he decided to reduce his capacity.
This. He had choices along the line. The fact that some of his choices limited his future choices is irrelevant.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, depression may be a reason for why he made that choice

The depression is the source of diminished capacity, which led him to make the choices. Driving fast did not reduce his capacity.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:58 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:The depression is the source of diminished capacity, which led him to make the choices. Driving fast did not reduce his capacity.


I disagree. Driving fast and recklessly arguably DID reduce his capacity to control his vehicle, directly leading to the death.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:The depression is the source of diminished capacity, which led him to make the choices. Driving fast did not reduce his capacity.


I disagree. Driving fast and recklessly arguably DID reduce his capacity to control his vehicle, directly leading to the death.

You clearly don't understand what diminished capacity means. Or you're trying to make some kind of joke?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests