"Maggie" wrote:

I never expected you to understand the point of my argument. I don't
know how I would react if it was NOT a crime with "intent" to kill and
it was a young person. I don't know if I would get satisfaction
destroying his life as well. IF HE HAD NO INTENT!!!

I DO know how I would react if it was premeditated and with malice of
forethought. I would get revenge in any way I could. Even if I went to
jail for the rest of my life by doing it.

Intent is nice, Maggie, but there's something shy of intent that has
to be considered: foreseeable consequences.

A reasonable person could have foreseen this consequence as a risk of
this young person's behavior.

Many states have places for boy-racers to race *legally* -- stadium
parking lots, closed stretches of road . . . whatever -- where it is
sanctioned by the police and closed to the general public. When you
foist your stupidity on the general public by racing on public
streets, you bear the responsibility of your actions *regardless* of
what you "intended" to do.

What your argument *seems* to miss is the general concept so readily
missed in society today: your right to swing your fist ends where my
face begins. This driver, it seems, gave a damn only about what *he*
wanted; not about the impact of those desires on others around him.

The result of that: a cyclist died.

Responsibility for one's actions extends *far* beyond intent.