Young cyclist killed

9 Feb 2004 23:40:26 -0800,
,
(Bill Meredith) wrote:

But feel free to explain to all of us how the driver could have acted,
in this case to prevented the child from caming to harm!

I'll bet that if you asked the driver that question now he'd offer all
kinds of ways, that in hindsight, he could have avoided the incident.

He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper
authorisation to move it. But he did anyway
In my book, that makes him guilty.

Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded
as a felony, he be culpable of murder in the accidental death of the
child. No?
--
zk

"loki"

wrote in part:

Whether it's true or not, I know not. But the stat has been bandied about
for ages. It might be of same class as the fake stat that domestic violence
spiked during the Superbowl. Or it might be true.

Since the *total* number of child molestations in that table was just a shade
under 32K I'm a little suspicious about both the accuracy of the conclusions
and the methodology used to arrive at them. I'll have to check the 2001 FBI-UCR
figures tomorrow but 32K sounds awfully low to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Zoot Katz

wrote:

Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded
as a felony, he be culpable of murder in the accidental death of the
child. No?

I believe what you are referring to is the felony murder doctrine and I'm sure
this was a rhetorical question. Unfortunately for your argument, the answer is
no. In order for that doctrine to come into play the underlying felony has to
be one that entails a *forseeable and increased* risk of *immediate* serious
injury or death to someone- victim, offender, or bystander.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

11 Feb 2004 06:13:31 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Zoot Katz

wrote:

Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded
as a felony, he be culpable of murder in the accidental death of the
child. No?

I believe what you are referring to is the felony murder doctrine and I'm sure
this was a rhetorical question. Unfortunately for your argument, the answer is
no. In order for that doctrine to come into play the underlying felony has to
be one that entails a *forseeable and increased* risk of *immediate* serious
injury or death to someone- victim, offender, or bystander.

Dump the crack and load the truck with several cases of stolen weeping
dynamite?
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
9 Feb 2004 23:40:26 -0800,
,
(Bill Meredith) wrote:

But feel free to explain to all of us how the driver could have acted,
in this case to prevented the child from caming to harm!

I'll bet that if you asked the driver that question now he'd offer all
kinds of ways, that in hindsight, he could have avoided the incident.

He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper
authorisation to move it. But he did anyway
In my book, that makes him guilty.

Nonsense, so if someone license is one day past renewal, and he was
involved that day in an accident that was not his fault he would be
guilty not just for driving without a the poper license but for the
accident!!!!!

Thank god people like you do not make the laws!!!!

Let see in my past I had been in control of planes, without a license,
and it is your view that had the plane blown up in the air without
warning due to a fault in the plane it would still had somehow been my
fault, because I did not have the proper paperwork to be at the
controls?

The paperwork would have somehow stop the plane from blowing up?

Thamk god once more that even our law makers had a little more sense
then you do!

Bill Meredith





Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded
as a felony, he be culpable of murder in the accidental death of the
child. No?

Zoot Katz

wrote:

Dump the crack and load the truck with several cases of stolen weeping
dynamite?

I truly doubt it but I try to never say "never" when it comes to the sometimes
convoluted reasoning of prosecutorial decisions, juries' verdicts, or judges'
sentencing decisions.
BTW, modern dynamite rarely if ever "weeps".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"frkrygow" wrote in message ...
Hunrobe wrote:

"frkrygow"

Residential areas should be hallowed ground. A person driving a motor
vehicle through one should feel like a person herding a cow through a
church service.


Frank, re-read the news article. The child rode underneath the rear wheels of
I can accept that. Nonetheless, there literally thousands of
pedestrians are killed by cars in the US each year. Like the hundreds
of cyclist deaths, the most common excuse is "I didn't see him" and the
most common result is ... nothing. Our society, in effect, accepts
inattention and incompetence on the part of drivers. It imposes a death
penalty for that same inattention or incompetence on the part of a child
pedestrian or cyclist. In fact, it can also impose a death penalty
despite competence and attention. "You were riding or walking where
there were cars?? Well, what did you expect?? These things happen!"

I think that attitude is heartless, and when it extends to areas where
peoples' homes are, and where children want to play outside, I think it
is literally despicable. Kids have a right to be active and outside.
It's natural for them to do so. The presence of deadly machinery in a
residential zone is NOT natural, and it should not be treated as
natural. It should be treated as imposing a high risk on others,
particularly children.

Sorry but the universe is heartless and not caring, there are many
many things that could kill or harm a three year old child without
adult supervision, outside of almost any home in the world, cars and
trucks traffic is just one danger.

Bill Meredith






Assuming the presence of any vehicular traffic on
the roadway, the only sure way to have avoided this particular accident would
have been for the child not to have been there.

Slow the vehicular traffic down to 10 mph. Impose licensing
requirements strict enough to guarantee cautious judgement and
competence at that speed. And absolutely ensure that driving
infractions of a certain level mean never, ever driving again. That
would have worked in this case.

It's not a matter of "convenience for motorists". Cars and trucks don't belong
on sidewalks, in front or back yards, or on playgrounds. Preschoolers don't
belong in the street. Why would anyone want to "turn that around"?

Hell, I grew up playing ball in the streets. Kids now play in the
street I live on. I don't know if they're pre-schoolers, but some are
very, very young. I think that's fine - they need room to run around.
I think it should be the driver's responsibility to harm no one.

Again: neighborhoods should be sanctuaries. The presence of anyone
outside of a vehicle should impose fear in the mind of a driver. If "I
might hurt someone" isn't sufficient to get their attention, then "I
might go to jail for a year and never drive again" should do it.


Quick related tale:

I was once driving to a local fairground, to help run a bike safety
program for kids. On the road or drive inside the fairgrounds, there
were lots of cars parked, and visibility was poor because of it.

I saw no kids, but I was worried. I slowed to a crawl, about 10 mph.
Within 50 yards, a little girl on a bike popped out from the other side
of a parked car, riding directly toward me on the wrong side of the
road. (Of course, she was wearing the approved headgear.)

I had no trouble avoiding her, but that was _only_ due to my speed. Had
I been going the accepted 20 mph, I don't know I could have missed her.

If I'd been doing that, would I be at fault? In my opinion, yes. Kids
were known to be in the area. Visibility was bad. Extreme caution was
in order.

But if I were doing 20, as allowed, and killed her, would I have been
prosecuted? No, probably not. And that's wrong.

11 Feb 2004 01:48:27 -0800,
,
(Bill Meredith) wrote:
\
He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper
authorisation to move it. But he did anyway
In my book, that makes him guilty.

Nonsense, so if someone license is one day past renewal, and he was
involved that day in an accident that was not his fault he would be
guilty not just for driving without a the poper license but for the
accident!!!!!

Thank god people like you do not make the laws!!!!

Yeah, I'm stuck on the concept that the person behind the wheel is
responsible for their actions. Apparently you suckhole apologists
figure they're not. Automobile driving evidently breeds arrogance.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
11 Feb 2004 01:48:27 -0800,
,
(Bill Meredith) wrote:
\
Yeah, I'm stuck on the concept that the person behind the wheel is
responsible for their actions. Apparently you suckhole apologists
figure they're not. Automobile driving evidently breeds arrogance.

Hmm, I am fairly sure the gentleman in question will be fine for not
having the proper license for himself and his truck, so he will indeed
be held reponseable for his actions.

What you wish to do however, is to throw the poor man in prison for a
death that was in no way his fault and at the same time you wave your
hand in the air and wish to completely pardon the parents of the child
for allowing him to come to harm, by not providing the supervision
that any three years child needs.

Hell one of my cats just got pass me, when I came home tonight and is
outside rooming the neighborhood and as a result I am more then
slighly worry about his welfare, even if he is more street wise than
any 3 year old human child would be.

Seem odd that I would care more for the welfare of a cat then those
parents seem to had care for the welfare of thier child, is it not?

Yes I know you have a large and illogical ax to grind against anyone
who would dare use a power vehicle of any kind, however the more sane
members of this newsgroup used both cars/vans and bikes to get from
one point to another.

I average roughly 15,000 miles a year on my van and 2,00 miles a year
on my trek 520 touring bike. Over the years I been involved in a few
minor accidents between cars and bikes from both view points.

An accident isa just that an accident, something you can't seem to
understand.

Bill Meredith