Killer gets off with 1-3 years

wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:

wrote:


Tom Sherman wrote:

When there's a pedestrian or cyclist within 100 yards, a motorist
_should_ be thinking "Omigod, I _certainly_ don't want to harm him!
I'm going to slow down and give him plenty of clearance!" The

emotion

should be the same as that of an industrial crane operator, when

the

company president is walking by.

At present, a more typical emotion is "Oh, get off the road."

That needs to change.

What about the "person on a bicycle", riding a poorly maintained

bicycle

with no reflectors or lights, at night, against traffic, and often
drunk. Quite common, and their own damn fault if they get hit by a

motor

vehicle. The same is true for drunken pedestrians wandering out into

the

street. There is a level of stupidity/irresponsibility that the
government should not try to protect against.


I understand what you're saying - that there are extreme cases....

When I lived in Champaign-Urbana, this behavior was the norm on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. Imagine thousands of drinking
students in a 4x7 block area.

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

Tom Sherman wrote:
Bob Hunt wrote:

I'll stand by my original statement. Anyone that thinks O.J.
Simpson
and Robert Blake were not guilty either doesn't have even a passing
knowledge of the evidence against them or they possess an I.Q.
lower
than room temperature.

I never thought either was guilty because I do not care enough about
retired athletes and washed up actors to pay enough attention to have
an
opinion.

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

You're entitled to ignore any news story you choose but you miss the
point, Tom. What is important in this conversation is not what they did
years ago on a football field or in front of a camera but that they
both got away with murder, Blake on a deserted street and Simpson in a
secluded entrance to private property. I mentioned both as cautionary
tales to those that had a kneejerk ("He should have been flayed
alive!", etc.) reaction to a plea agreement that sent a reckless driver
to prison for less time than they thought appropriate. Plea agreements
are seldom satisfying but there's a very real risk, especially in a
murder trial, that the guilty will walk away simply because they don't
*look* guilty to just one jury member and the State won't invest
another fifty thousand to five hundred thousand dollars on a second
trial.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:57:07 -0800, Zoot Katz wrote:

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:57:43 -0600,
, Mark Mitchell
wrote:


Even if I accept that your claim, 'the majority of so called "accidents"
can be traced directly to operator error.' is accurate (and I do not),
that still means that some fatalities are not caused by the driver.

Speed, inexperience, alcohol, willful or malicious acts on behalf of
one party (aggressive driving), distractions and drowsiness _are_ the
recognised major causes. Look it up.

I think if you read back, you'll notice that I agreed with you on this.
However, there *are* *other* causes of accidents. And treating those
drivers as if they were drunk, inexperienced, or whatever is an injustice.

That's all I've said.

Zoot, you and I are almost in agreement. The only place I take issue with
your point of view is in your absolutism. With an acknowledgement from
you that "ban 'em all, forever" is not your position and that you'll take
circumstances into account when deciding what's just and I'll vote for you
for traffic judge.

Those are all examples of operator error and the documented major
causes of collisions. Broadly they can be categorised as negligent or
reckless behaviour.

Agreed, not arguing this point.

Mark Mitchell

In article .com,
"Bob" writes:


I mentioned both as cautionary
tales to those that had a kneejerk ("He should have been flayed
alive!", etc.) reaction to a plea agreement that sent a reckless driver
to prison for less time than they thought appropriate. Plea agreements
are seldom satisfying but there's a very real risk, especially in a
murder trial, that the guilty will walk away simply because they don't
*look* guilty to just one jury member and the State won't invest
another fifty thousand to five hundred thousand dollars on a second
trial.

Well, I perceive -- maybe rightly, maybe wrongly -- a growing
public intolerance of dangerous drivers, especially those who
have killed or caused serious injury. As the body count increases
there will be more and more people who will sympathize more with
the victims than with the accused dangerous/negligent driver.

I suppose a summary conviction with a guilty plea and a relatively
trivial penalty is better than nothing. Or /is/ it? But I'm not
up to playing jurisprudence and IsureANAL -- I just want killer
drivers off the road, permanently. I'm sure you do, too. We pretty
much all do.

If my perceptions (about growing intolerance of dangerous drivers)
are correct, maybe going ahead with indictable offense charges
is worth any risks involved in trial by jury?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca