Killer gets off with 1-3 years

Bob wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
"Matt O'Toole" writes:


But I'm not faced with the same dilemmas judges are. Would it
really be better to put this kid in a jail for an extended time,

and possibly

make him a worse criminal than he already is? How does that help

protect

society? Yes our criminal justice system is broken, but judges

have to work

with what they have.

That's pretty much why I left it at "Prohibition from driving for
life, for a start." It's all too easy to play armchair judge.

That said, I am in favour of sentences which reflect not only the
severity but also the context of the crime, and which compel the
convicts to really consider and confront their behaviours which
put them at odds with society.

In this particular instance, maybe a reasonable sentence would
include community service of giving lectures at high schools,
about the wrongness of road/street racing in particular and
dangerous driving in general. As well as lifetime prohibition
from driving, and whatever else a real, qualified judge
might add.


cheers,
Tom


I agree with you in principle but one thing that seems to escape many
of those proposing more severe punishments is that this was a plea
agreement. Prosecutors almost always prefer a conviction in hand than
taking a case to trial, especially a jury trial. That preference is not
unique to crimes involving motor vehicles or cyclists because, to
borrow Mark Twain's phrase, there's just no predicting what twelve
people of average ignorance will decide. Does anyone with even a
passing knowledge of the undisputed facts in each case and an above
room temperature IQ really believe O.J. Simpson and (just this week)
Robert Blake were not guilty? Yet they are both free men right now not
for any lack of evidence of guilt or any presence of evidence that they
were NOT guilty but because juries set them free.
There's a societal problem for sure but it isn't our so-called "car
culture". It's that we live in a culture where exercising judgement is
"being judgemental" and that is of course a bad thing. One result of
that culture is that the legal phrase "reasonable doubt" has been
twisted to become "beyond the shadow of any doubt no matter how
unreasonable".

Who is Robert Blake?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Tom Sherman wrote:
Who is Robert Blake?

Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)


I think he rode his bike in the Tour de France in 1970. He must have
something to do with bicycles since we never go "off topic."
All Good Things
Maggie.

Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
I think that no matter _what_
your excuse, if the car you are driving kills a pedestrian or
cyclist,
you should never again drive a car. Period.

There will be a few situations where that might seem too harsh. No
matter. Operating dangerous machinery in public is supposed to be
a
privilege, not a right. To do so, you should need a very good
record.
And you cannot define "having killed someone" as anything but a
terrible record, no matter what your excuse.

If a pedestrian climbs over the fence and darts into traffic on an
urban
controlled access highway, I would be at fault for hitting him?

If a person on a bicycle runs a red light at 20-mph and I hit him, I
am
at fault?

So if I am driving along and a person jumps off a tree branch
overhanging the road onto the ground in front of me I am at fault for

hitting him?

If a drunken person wearing dark clothes is riding at night on a bike

with no lights or reflectors suddenly swerves off the sidewalk into
my
path; I would be at fault for hitting him?

If a pedestrian runs out from in front of a parked truck that is too
tall to see over, and I am travelling at a reasonable speed for
conditions, but still hit him, am I at fault.

There are many accidents involving pedestrians, people on bicycles,
and
motor vehicles where the motor vehicle operator is not a fault. This
is
especially true when the pedestrians and people on bicycles are
children, college undergraduates, or inebriated.

What we're talking about here are "false positives."

IOW, there's no such thing as a perfect test, whether you're discussing
tests for cancer or tests for irresponsible driving. No matter what
sophisticated test you use, some decent drivers will be labeled
irresponsible.

My proposed test - that you killed a non-motorist - will be imperfect,
and will (rarely) cause a perfectly innocent motorist to become a full
time cyclist, pedestrian or bus passenger. But I think we need to live
with that reality.

As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference.
Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane
last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in
judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph self-important
violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks weren't
the least concerned that we might do something that would inconvenience
them into hitting their brakes.

They should be concerned! In fact, the elderly couple that lives
across the street from us SHOULD be able to walk to that restaurant.
They should be secure in the knowledge that traffic would slow to a
crawl to let them cross that street. Walking and cycling should be
treated as the natural right that they are, and motoring should be
treated as the obnoxious privilege that it is.

IOW, we need to get away from the mentality that any car accident is
just too bad, something to live with, no matter how distracted,
impatient and reckless the motorist.

If it takes a few false positives to make all motorists super careful
around others, so be it. Sure, if you kill some suicidal drunk jumps
off a bridge directly in front of your car, it's fine with me if your
neighbors show lots of sympathy and continually offer you rides. But I
want the penalty to stick. I want your neighbors to be afraid that
another suicidal drunk may appear at any instant, and drive slow enough
to give themselves a chance to avoid him.

The pendulum is swung far too much in the direction of motorist
privilege, and has been for at least 50 years. It needs to swing back
the other way.

wrote:
As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference.
Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane
last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in
judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph
self-important
violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks
weren't
the least concerned that we might do something that would
inconvenience
them into hitting their brakes.


You crossed a busy 5-lane highway???? Where the heck do you live??
Around here you would be road kill and no one would feel sorry for you.
That's sad to say, but true. No one around here tries to cross the
highways. Teenagers do it alot and they are usually killed. It's
suicide.
Maggie

wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
I think that no matter _what_
your excuse, if the car you are driving kills a pedestrian or
cyclist, you should never again drive a car. Period.

There will be a few situations where that might seem too harsh. No
matter. Operating dangerous machinery in public is supposed to be a
privilege, not a right. To do so, you should need a very good
record. And you cannot define "having killed someone" as anything
but a terrible record, no matter what your excuse.

If a pedestrian climbs over the fence and darts into traffic on an
urban controlled access highway, I would be at fault for hitting him?

If a person on a bicycle runs a red light at 20-mph and I hit him, I
am at fault?

So if I am driving along and a person jumps off a tree branch
overhanging the road onto the ground in front of me I am at fault for

hitting him?

If a drunken person wearing dark clothes is riding at night on a bike

with no lights or reflectors suddenly swerves off the sidewalk into
my path; I would be at fault for hitting him?

If a pedestrian runs out from in front of a parked truck that is too
tall to see over, and I am travelling at a reasonable speed for
conditions, but still hit him, am I at fault.

There are many accidents involving pedestrians, people on bicycles,
and motor vehicles where the motor vehicle operator is not a fault.
This is especially true when the pedestrians and people on bicycles
are children, college undergraduates, or inebriated.

What we're talking about here are "false positives."

IOW, there's no such thing as a perfect test, whether you're
discussing tests for cancer or tests for irresponsible driving. No
matter what sophisticated test you use, some decent drivers will be
labeled irresponsible.

My proposed test - that you killed a non-motorist - will be imperfect,
and will (rarely) cause a perfectly innocent motorist to become a full
time cyclist, pedestrian or bus passenger. But I think we need to
live with that reality.

As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference.
Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane
last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in
judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph self-important
violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks weren't
the least concerned that we might do something that would
inconvenience them into hitting their brakes.

They should be concerned! In fact, the elderly couple that lives
across the street from us SHOULD be able to walk to that restaurant.
They should be secure in the knowledge that traffic would slow to a
crawl to let them cross that street. Walking and cycling should be
treated as the natural right that they are, and motoring should be
treated as the obnoxious privilege that it is.

IOW, we need to get away from the mentality that any car accident is
just too bad, something to live with, no matter how distracted,
impatient and reckless the motorist.

If it takes a few false positives to make all motorists super careful
around others, so be it. Sure, if you kill some suicidal drunk jumps
off a bridge directly in front of your car, it's fine with me if your
neighbors show lots of sympathy and continually offer you rides. But
I want the penalty to stick. I want your neighbors to be afraid that
another suicidal drunk may appear at any instant, and drive slow
enough to give themselves a chance to avoid him.

The pendulum is swung far too much in the direction of motorist
privilege, and has been for at least 50 years. It needs to swing back
the other way.

Or, here's a radical idea: investigate each incident objectively, and rule
accordingly.

Tom's right and Frank's wrong.

Bzzt.

S o r n i wrote:


Or, here's a radical idea: investigate each incident objectively,
and rule
accordingly.

Sure. That's the system we have now. And it works great - as long as
you're always in a car, and nobody you care about tries to get anywhere
outside of a car. It doesn't work so well if you're the family of the
deceased.

The title of the thread gives us one example of what the current system
produces. Try this for an exercise: Try to find the average amount of
license revocation time, and the average jail time, for killing a
pedestrian or cyclist.

I doubt you'll find national data - nobody cares enough to keep that
data, AFAIK. But perhaps you can track down, say, a dozen incidents of
pedestrian or cyclist deaths and tell us the typical consequences to
the driver.

My bet? The typical consequences are zero.

Tom's right and Frank's wrong.

If you like the status quo, that is!

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:56:01 GMT,
, "S o r n i"
wrote:

Or, here's a radical idea: investigate each incident objectively, and rule
accordingly.

That's not going to happen while the bias is inherently ingrained by
our self-inflicted crippling _need_ for individual scuds.

Every one along the line, from witnesses to investigators, to
prosecutors, judges and juries would see themselves as potential
"victims" if the punishments were made to fit the crime. They're
satisfied with the status quo wherein dead pedestrians and cyclists
are simply written off as the cost of doing business.

Most people can figure their odds of shooting, stabbing or bludgeoning
somebody to death are pretty slim yet know, through their own driving
experience, that it would be all too easy to kill somebody with their
car. They don't ever want to be called upon to pay the price.

The auto makers, support industries and oil companies will fight tooth
and nail resisting the notion that driving be taken seriously.
--
zk

S o r n i wrote:
bbaka wrote:

S o r n i wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:


Maggie wrote:



...
That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have
a criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment,
how Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person.

This is what someone one rec.bicycles.tech had to say about me:


...You have demonstrated to me that you are a piece of **** at
this point... Damn right, and choosing the way you did, you
demonstrated what a scumbag you are... Let me tell you dirtbag...
Ponder this, you ****head...
You are a miserable creature.


I was having a rough morning.



Amazing display of literacy, eh?


Umm, Bill? It was a JOKE. (Hint: I would never write something like
that...unless /provoked/, of course! 8-) )


I kind of thought so, but I don't really spend all day following this
group, because I, ummm, ride during the good days.
Peace,
Bill Baka

Zoot Katz wrote:
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:23:39 -0800, ,
bbaka wrote:


Once a suspect is in
custody, the investigation seems to stop, as has been proven lately by
all the death row cases being dropped due to DNA evidence, meaning there
are a lot of killers out there that got away with it.


Especially when the weapon is a four door scud.

It's downright disgusting that our society accepts "accident" as an
excuse for these all too predictable fukups.

This little **** has a record of being a ****. Flush it and be done.
Don't waste money on "rehabilitation". Go for the "revenge" aspect and
teach all these asswipe scud jockeys that driving isn't a joke.

That won't happen because we're crippled by our dependence on cars.

Scud makers buy the most advertising using fantasy to sell their crap
so we'll never see responsible driving promoted as a worthwhile social
value. Dangerous driving is promoted as entertainment.

CARS SUCK! and so does car culture (sic)
And anybody who can't see that is stupid! stupid! stupid!

I actually have to agree that we need less cars and more bikes just for
planetary survival. We were supposed to have learned a lesson in 1974
about consuming too much gas and paying the price so cars got smaller.
Then some idiots started promoting SUVs and another idiot invades an oil
producing nation, ****ing off all the others. I admit to having 3 cars,
mostly gathering dust, but it is dangerous just to ride in the parking
lot of a Wal-mart these days. Getting backed over by an SUV driving mom
on the cell phone is just too possible these days.
Bill Baka

Maggie wrote:
wrote:
As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference.

Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane
last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in
judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph

self-important

violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks

weren't

the least concerned that we might do something that would

inconvenience

them into hitting their brakes.



You crossed a busy 5-lane highway???? Where the heck do you live??
Around here you would be road kill and no one would feel sorry for you.
That's sad to say, but true. No one around here tries to cross the
highways. Teenagers do it alot and they are usually killed. It's
suicide.
Maggie

I have to do it with my bike on one road that is 4 lanes plus a turn
lane, which I use as a mid-way sanctuary. There are no stop lights or
pedestrian crosswalks for a 2 mile stretch so we are on our own when not
in a car. This is my only path to the local Wal-mart/shopping center. It
is a 35 MPH zone where drivers speed up to 50+.
Bill Baka