Girls kills bicycilists and gets an improper lane change charge

[abaez]

Someone's life for a $3 ringtone.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

Its one of the assumptions of reckless homicide. There are no provisions in the law regarding anything else. You presume her to be under the influence in order to charge her with reckless homicide. If she proves that she wasn't, you can't charge her. Plain and simple.

Besides that, there are no laws providing for distracted drivers in IL. Which is why the slain boys parents are trying to get the laws changed. Reckless driving, or a reckless act, doesn't have anything involving cell phones or distractions. Its unfortunate, but this is how laws are changed and made...after the fact.

 

[Soccerman06]

This is another reason why I think women between 16-30 should never be allowed to drive.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

Its one of the assumptions of reckless homicide. There are no provisions in the law regarding anything else. You presume her to be under the influence in order to charge her with reckless homicide. If she proves that she wasn't, you can't charge her. Plain and simple.

Besides that, there are no laws providing for distracted drivers in IL. Which is why the slain boys parents are trying to get the laws changed. Reckless driving, or a reckless act, doesn't have anything involving cell phones or distractions. Its unfortunate, but this is how laws are changed and made...after the fact.

Are you a lawyer?

Here is a case I just found of a woman who was'nt under the influence who was charged with reckless homicide after intentionally hitting a man with her car. She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This was in Milwaukee though

So it still seems to me that you can charge reckless homicide without alcohol involved. Again IANAL.

 

[kumanchu]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

i think you mixed two posts. one was vehicular homicide, and mine was reckless driving

a quote that may change what you find to be "the law" on the definition of reckless in the eyes of (illinois) law

(b) As used in this Section, "willful and wanton manner" means a course of action that shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the health or safety of another.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: kumanchu

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

i think you mixed two posts. one was vehicular homicide, and mine was reckless driving

Reckless Driving:

"Any person who drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety or persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."

This was neither willful nor wanton. You cannot charge her. It may have been stupid, but its not willful.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

Its one of the assumptions of reckless homicide. There are no provisions in the law regarding anything else. You presume her to be under the influence in order to charge her with reckless homicide. If she proves that she wasn't, you can't charge her. Plain and simple.

Besides that, there are no laws providing for distracted drivers in IL. Which is why the slain boys parents are trying to get the laws changed. Reckless driving, or a reckless act, doesn't have anything involving cell phones or distractions. Its unfortunate, but this is how laws are changed and made...after the fact.

Are you a lawyer?

Here is a case I just found of a woman who was'nt under the influence who was charged with reckless homicide after intentionally hitting a man with her car. She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This was in Milwaukee though

So it still seems to me that you can charge reckless homicide without alcohol involved. Again IANAL.

And that is not in the state of Illinois, so it doesn't matter. WI has different laws.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Money rules in this country...always has.

Sorry to say it, but **IF** you guys were in this situation (and I do mean IF you were this stupid to have cause the accident and killed someone -- not likely, but just consider it) and you had the money and the means, I'm sure that you would use your money/power/influence to get out of going to jail.

While I agree I would try to stay out of jail, IMO, it is the courts duty to see that she is given a punishment fitting the crime. This didn't happen here.

She doesn't even have her license taken away, and she is on probation, but never has to see an officer.

I understand the outrage.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

Its one of the assumptions of reckless homicide. There are no provisions in the law regarding anything else. You presume her to be under the influence in order to charge her with reckless homicide. If she proves that she wasn't, you can't charge her. Plain and simple.

Besides that, there are no laws providing for distracted drivers in IL. Which is why the slain boys parents are trying to get the laws changed. Reckless driving, or a reckless act, doesn't have anything involving cell phones or distractions. Its unfortunate, but this is how laws are changed and made...after the fact.

Are you a lawyer?

Here is a case I just found of a woman who was'nt under the influence who was charged with reckless homicide after intentionally hitting a man with her car. She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This was in Milwaukee though

So it still seems to me that you can charge reckless homicide without alcohol involved. Again IANAL.

And that is not in the state of Illinois, so it doesn't matter. WI has different laws.

Ok well then the Illinois statute begins

8 (a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual
9 without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter
10 if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death
11 are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to
12 some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in
13 cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving
14 of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain
15 vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits
16 reckless homicide.

It has provisions that state that if your vehicle goes airborne it is considered reckless. Another states that "in cases involving reckless homicide, the defendant's driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft at an excessive rate of speed may be the sole evidence of a reckless act."

So if she was speeding she could be charged. And it still seems to me that if the prosecuter could convince a jury that driving while on the cell phone to the extent that she was out of her lane is reckless, then she is guilty of commiting reckless homicide while performing a lawful act that caused death.

Again, are you a lawyer? I am not.

 

[j00fek]

stupid women drivers strike again

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

heh, why put people in jail for killing people while drunk driving, it's always unintentional and it just ruins two lives instead of one.

 

[MaxDepth]

New laws enacted December 1, 2006 for North Carolina
* Reduction slices a quarter-percent off the state rate, knocking it down from 4.5 percent to 4.25 percent. Counties in the Triangle all impose an additional 2.5 percent sales tax. Translation: On a $100 purchase, you'll save a quarter.

* Everyone riding in the back seat of a passenger car must wear a seat belt. Adults riding in back without seat belts won't start getting tickets until July. After that, it's a $10 fine. Seat belt laws already cover people in front and children.

* It is illegal to disrupt a funeral or memorial service, or to chant, yell or hoist threatening signs along a funeral procession route.

* Drivers younger than 18 cannot drive and talk on the phone at the same time, unless they are calling 911 or a hospital, or talking to their spouse, mom, dad or legal guardian. [So what had started as a get tough, no cell phone usage during driving gets watered down to this. And to, this offense is just a fine of $50.]

* New laws governing sex offenders stipulate they cannot live within 1,000 feet of schools or child-care centers. Sex offender registration requirements also are tighter.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

IANAL - but that reads that if she's driving, she gets charged with reckless homicide. If she is charged with reckless homicide and the prosecuter can prove she was under the influence at the time, then is proven that she was reckless. In this case they would have to prove she was talking on the cell phone etc, and then prove that the act of talking on the cellphone was reckless. Being under the influence is presumed to be reckless, but it isnt the only thing that can be reckless.

Its one of the assumptions of reckless homicide. There are no provisions in the law regarding anything else. You presume her to be under the influence in order to charge her with reckless homicide. If she proves that she wasn't, you can't charge her. Plain and simple.

Besides that, there are no laws providing for distracted drivers in IL. Which is why the slain boys parents are trying to get the laws changed. Reckless driving, or a reckless act, doesn't have anything involving cell phones or distractions. Its unfortunate, but this is how laws are changed and made...after the fact.

Are you a lawyer?

Here is a case I just found of a woman who was'nt under the influence who was charged with reckless homicide after intentionally hitting a man with her car. She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This was in Milwaukee though

So it still seems to me that you can charge reckless homicide without alcohol involved. Again IANAL.

And that is not in the state of Illinois, so it doesn't matter. WI has different laws.

Ok well then the Illinois statute begins

8 (a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual
9 without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter
10 if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death
11 are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to
12 some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in
13 cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving
14 of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain
15 vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits
16 reckless homicide.

It has provisions that state that if your vehicle goes airborne it is considered reckless. Another states that "in cases involving reckless homicide, the defendant's driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft at an excessive rate of speed may be the sole evidence of a reckless act."

So if she was speeding she could be charged. And it still seems to me that if the prosecuter could convince a jury that driving while on the cell phone to the extent that she was out of her lane is reckless, then she is guilty of commiting reckless homicide while performing a lawful act that caused death.

Again, are you a lawyer? I am not.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a cop in the state of Illinois. And the reason they can prove reckless driving while speeding is because speeding is a petty offense. willfulness is an automatic presumption in a petty offense. Hence why you can get ticketed for parking even though you didn't mean to park illegally. Proving her willful disregard for safety while interacting with an electronic communication device would be very very difficult to do in this case. You would basically have to prove that she cared about nothing but her cell phone while she was driving. The fact that she wasn't speeding disproves that.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
snipped

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a cop in the state of Illinois. And the reason they can prove reckless driving while speeding is because speeding is a petty offense. willfulness is an automatic presumption in a petty offense. Hence why you can get ticketed for parking even though you didn't mean to park illegally. Proving her willful disregard for safety while interacting with an electronic communication device would be very very difficult to do in this case. You would basically have to prove that she cared about nothing but her cell phone while she was driving. The fact that she wasn't speeding disproves that.

Then you probably know better than me, I was more looking at the semantics of the statute.

 

[Blazin Trav]

Oh.. my god. The girl should get 25 to LIFE. That's not right... justice has not been served.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
snipped

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a cop in the state of Illinois. And the reason they can prove reckless driving while speeding is because speeding is a petty offense. willfulness is an automatic presumption in a petty offense. Hence why you can get ticketed for parking even though you didn't mean to park illegally. Proving her willful disregard for safety while interacting with an electronic communication device would be very very difficult to do in this case. You would basically have to prove that she cared about nothing but her cell phone while she was driving. The fact that she wasn't speeding disproves that.

Then you probably know better than me, I was more looking at the semantics of the statute.

Believe me, I completely agree that her punishment should be harsher. I am merely pointing out that per the law, it is nearly impossible to charge her with something worse. Unless I am completely forgetting a new cell phone statute which might prove willfulness (which is the KEY in this case...everything else fits except that), she cannot be charged.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: FallenHero
snipped

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a cop in the state of Illinois. And the reason they can prove reckless driving while speeding is because speeding is a petty offense. willfulness is an automatic presumption in a petty offense. Hence why you can get ticketed for parking even though you didn't mean to park illegally. Proving her willful disregard for safety while interacting with an electronic communication device would be very very difficult to do in this case. You would basically have to prove that she cared about nothing but her cell phone while she was driving. The fact that she wasn't speeding disproves that.

Then you probably know better than me, I was more looking at the semantics of the statute.

Believe me, I completely agree that her punishment should be harsher. I am merely pointing out that per the law, it is nearly impossible to charge her with something worse. Unless I am completely forgetting a new cell phone statute which might prove willfulness (which is the KEY in this case...everything else fits except that), she cannot be charged.

If speeding would be enough to prove it, why wouldn't the improper lane change do the same?

 

[LS20]

2 years of bars and 2 years of community service would be good. and no driving

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

where'd you get your quote from? it's obviously not from a legal document, cause there are so many mispellings and it doesn't even make sense.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

Laff.

Nowhere in the line about "reckless himicide" does it say a person HAS to be under the influence. That is interpreted as "If commit the act and they are under the influence it's evidence enough". This is not the only way they can charge you with it.

Hope you kept your receipt on the law book you got that one from. If you're going to quote bullsh!t laws you damn well better back it up with the link you got it from.

The bottom line is that she had connections and thus was charged with a lesser crime. That's all there is to it. It's not because she doesn't qualify for them. I hope the parents can and do sue the sh!t out of the court system. I don't care who the jury is comprised of, they'll win.

 

[fbrdphreak]

WTF :|

 

[mugs]

Wow. She deserves so much more punishment than that. In NJ, at her age she would have lost her license after the third ticket.

 

[Fausto]

Friend of mine was killed a few years ago by a woman who swerved onto the (wide) shoulder where he was riding because "a passing car startled her".


He was DOA, leaving behind a wife and toddler.


Woman got the biggest, baddest misdemeanor ever. :roll:

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: s0ssos

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Some of you need to learn your laws. She can't be charged with manslaughter because it does not fit the elements of the crime.

"A person who unintentionally kills and individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts weather lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operation a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide."

"In cases involving reckless himicide, being under the influence of alcholor or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary."

Basically, they can't charge her with reckless homicide because it simply doesn't fit the elements. She wasn't under the influence of drugs which is one of the elements needed.

Besides, how would putting her in prison for a minimum of 6 years solve anything?

where'd you get your quote from? it's obviously not from a legal document, cause there are so many mispellings and it doesn't even make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the law. It looks as if he copied it from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0178 or a textbook/book. It is possible he was typing really fast and made a mistake.

Are you the grammar and spelling police? If you are, you misspelled misspellings. Asshat.