What difference does the "why" make?

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
If someone thinks that a person should get the same prison sentence for murdering someone that they get for causing a death completely by accident, then there's really no where else to go with your argument.

The problem is your definition of "completely by accident".

You have a person who drives drunk, and kills someone.

Then you have people who drive with severe sleep deprivation, and end up killing someone.

Then you have someone who drives in a negligent manner, and ends up killing someone.

Then you have someone who answers the cellphone while driving, and ends up killing someone.



Which of those could have been prevented if the driver didn't break the law or engage in some risky activity? All of them.

Yet in our current justice system some accidents are treated far differently from others.


In the world we live in, with all the stupid safety measures, I don't see how it's even possible to kill someone without being negligent in some way.

again all of those have laws against them.

a true accident is drivign and the car breaking or malfuntinong or such and gettign in a wreck and killing someone.

none of those you listed are a accident.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Of course "Why" is valid...what idiot doesn't get the concept?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

You are confusing the issue; OP thinks accidents should be treated as purposeful acts.

You are confusing the issue as well.

Accidents are ALREADY treated as purposeful acts in certain cases.

Yet another example:

Car accident due to conditions- not a big deal, you might get a minor ticket but as long as nobody died your life will go on

Car accident due to driving drunk- huge deal. You are probably looking at jail time, and a suspended license for a few years.

You are being punished in the second scenario because you decided to get drunk and drive, and caused a death. That decision is what you did "on purpose" and that is what you are punished for. It is a form of negligent homicide where your actions are deemed to be so irresponsible and such a deviation from the normal standard of care that society holds you responsible.

If, as in the first scenario, you get into an accident and kill someone because of icy road conditions, you did nothing to deviate from any standard that would result in any blame being cast on you.

I think you are having trouble with the concept of legal negligence. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

By the way, negligent acts are almost always punished less severly than the identical act performed with the requisite intent.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

You are confusing the issue; OP thinks accidents should be treated as purposeful acts.

You are confusing the issue as well.

Accidents are ALREADY treated as purposeful acts in certain cases.

Yet another example:

Car accident due to conditions- not a big deal, you might get a minor ticket but as long as nobody died your life will go on

Car accident due to driving drunk- huge deal. You are probably looking at jail time, and a suspended license for a few years.

Nobody goes out and gets drunk with the intention of causing a car accident, so it is still an accident. Yet it's treated as if it's done on purpose. I'm just asking why don't we make things more consistent. If we are going to treat some accidents harshly, why not treat them all the same?

Sorry, that post if full of FAIL as driving drunk is not an "accident". I don't know why everyone refers to any crash involving automobiles and other objects (cars, pedestrians, bikes, store fronts) an "accident"-- but just because that is how it is commonly described doesn't make it a true accident-- meaning an event which could not have reasonably been foreseen, prevented, and/or odds of occurence significantly reduced.

When you drive drunk, or recklessly, you can reasonably foresee an vehicular crash occurring, or that the likelihood of such an even is much greater than normal. That makes it not an accident, but willful disregard for other people's safety-- hence the harsher punishment.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: waggy
again all of those have laws against them.

a true accident is drivign and the car breaking or malfuntinong or such and gettign in a wreck and killing someone.

none of those you listed are a accident.

If the car breaks of malfunctions, someone is still responsible.

One of the following is probably true-

-The owner didn't properly maintain the vehicle.

-The state safety inspection was done improperly.

-The car manufacturer is selling faulty cars and should perform a recall.


And there is a law against driving while tired? I'm also pretty sure it's perfectly legal to talk on your cellphone while driving in several states.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy
again all of those have laws against them.

a true accident is drivign and the car breaking or malfuntinong or such and gettign in a wreck and killing someone.

none of those you listed are a accident.

If the car breaks of malfunctions, someone is still responsible.

One of the following is probably true-

-The owner didn't properly maintain the vehicle.

-The state safety inspection was done improperly.

-The car manufacturer is selling faulty cars and should perform a recall.


And there is a law against driving while tired? I'm also pretty sure it's perfectly legal to talk on your cellphone while driving in several states.

not true. anything mechinal can/will break. no matter the shape its in. not b ecause soemone didnt maintain it or something done improperly or the car faulty.

in some states it is legal to talk on the phone or tired. but they can still nail you for doing it. Not that it matters neither are accidents.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: QED

When you drive drunk, or recklessly, you can reasonably foresee an vehicular crash occurring, or that the likelihood of such an even is much greater than normal. That makes it not an accident, but willful disregard for other people's safety-- hence the harsher punishment.

I just can't possibly see a "true" accident ever occurring, given your definition of it.

Can you give me an example of how two cars could collide and have an accident without at least one of the drivers being responsible?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: QED

When you drive drunk, or recklessly, you can reasonably foresee an vehicular crash occurring, or that the likelihood of such an even is much greater than normal. That makes it not an accident, but willful disregard for other people's safety-- hence the harsher punishment.

I just can't possibly see a "true" accident ever occurring, given your definition of it.

Can you give me an example of how two cars could collide and have an accident without at least one of the drivers being responsible?

Skidding on ice.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jonks


Skidding on ice.

That would be caused by driving in speed excessive for conditions, which is illegal, and would clearly have one or both drivers at fault.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks


Skidding on ice.

That would be caused by driving in speed excessive for conditions, which is illegal, and would clearly have one or both drivers at fault.

not true. ever hear of black ice? you can't see it and even the best drivers get hit with it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy
again all of those have laws against them.

a true accident is drivign and the car breaking or malfuntinong or such and gettign in a wreck and killing someone.

none of those you listed are a accident.

If the car breaks of malfunctions, someone is still responsible.

One of the following is probably true-

-The owner didn't properly maintain the vehicle.

-The state safety inspection was done improperly.

-The car manufacturer is selling faulty cars and should perform a recall.


And there is a law against driving while tired? I'm also pretty sure it's perfectly legal to talk on your cellphone while driving in several states.

The problem with laws against driving while tired is proving the driver was asleep. Very hard to do, so why pass an unenforceable law?

Don't forget that one of the reasons we have criminal law is to deter people from committing illegal acts. Where a person does something wrong to someone else that does not reach the level of criminality, they may still be liable in civil court, and not wanting to get sued is almost as powerful a motivator as not wanting to go to jail.

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks


Skidding on ice.

That would be caused by driving in speed excessive for conditions, which is illegal, and would clearly have one or both drivers at fault.

This is not true at all, a car traveling at a reasonable speed that hits a patch of ice on the road will lose traction, making it uncontrollable.

Edit: ninja'd

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks


Skidding on ice.

That would be caused by driving in speed excessive for conditions, which is illegal, and would clearly have one or both drivers at fault.

No, it's is absolutely possible for a person to drive at a reasonable speed, hit a pach of ice, and skid into another car or across the lane into oncoming traffic.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: QED

When you drive drunk, or recklessly, you can reasonably foresee an vehicular crash occurring, or that the likelihood of such an even is much greater than normal. That makes it not an accident, but willful disregard for other people's safety-- hence the harsher punishment.

I just can't possibly see a "true" accident ever occurring, given your definition of it.

Can you give me an example of how two cars could collide and have an accident without at least one of the drivers being responsible?

Tire blowout, car malfunction, traffic light malfunction, road debris, wild animals etc.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jonks
No, it's is absolutely possible for a person to drive at a reasonable speed, hit a pach of ice, and skid into another car or across the lane into oncoming traffic.

I think the fact that a collision occurs proves that the speed wasn't reasonable.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...l/300381_pileup19.html

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang
Tire blowout, car malfunction, traffic light malfunction, road debris, wild animals etc.

Tire blowout. The owner didn't properly maintain the tires, and is responsible, or didn't change the tires when worn out, and is responsible, or there was something sharp in the road that caused the tire to blow out, and the road maintenance or whoever dropped the sharp thing in the road is responsible, or the tires were faulty and the tire manufacturer is responsible.

Car malfunction- manufacturer responsible unless malfunction occurred due to improper maintenance.

Traffic light malfunction- whoever is supposed to install and maintain the traffic lights is responsible.

Road debris- either the road maintenance people are responsible, or whoever left the debris in the road.

Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
No, it's is absolutely possible for a person to drive at a reasonable speed, hit a pach of ice, and skid into another car or across the lane into oncoming traffic.

I think the fact that a collision occurs proves that the speed wasn't reasonable.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...l/300381_pileup19.html

Well in the link you posted the driver certainly was, driving an 18 wheel truck at 70mph in icy conditions =/= reasonable.

But that's not what anyone else is talking about. The article also mentioned that police cruisers were traveling at 30 mph, which is reasonable, but even at that speed if the car drove over a large stretch of ice the driver could very easily lose control of the vehicle, resulting in a potentially fatal collision.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang
Tire blowout, car malfunction, traffic light malfunction, road debris, wild animals etc.

Tire blowout. The owner didn't properly maintain the tires, and is responsible, or didn't change the tires when worn out, and is responsible, or there was something sharp in the road that caused the tire to blow out, and the road maintenance or whoever dropped the sharp thing in the road is responsible, or the tires were faulty and the tire manufacturer is responsible.

Car malfunction- manufacturer responsible unless malfunction occurred due to improper maintenance.

Traffic light malfunction- whoever is supposed to install and maintain the traffic lights is responsible.

Road debris- either the road maintenance people are responsible, or whoever left the debris in the road.

Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

hmm now im confused. not about "accidents" but if you are a troll or really this stupid.

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran


Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

What if the animal is large enough to potentially injure/kill the driver or a passenger?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: cpacini
Well in the link you posted the driver certainly was, driving an 18 wheel truck at 70mph in icy conditions =/= reasonable.

But that's not what anyone else is talking about. The article also mentioned that police cruisers were traveling at 30 mph, which is reasonable, but even at that speed if the car drove over a large stretch of ice the driver could very easily lose control of the vehicle, resulting in a potentially fatal collision.

I misread, I actually thought it said the driver who caused the accident was driving 30mph.

But I don't really understand how you can call a speed "reasonable" when it can "very easily" result in a fatal collusion.

I mean, I could say "driving after a few drinks is perfectly reasonable, although it could very easily result in a fatal collision if the drunk driver doesn't react fast enough". It's still considered the fault of the drunk driver.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: cpacini

Originally posted by: Chiropteran


Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

What if the animal is large enough to potentially injure/kill the driver or a passenger?

What animals are larger than an SUV or semi-trailer? I can't think of any animal that would cause more damage than a head-on collision.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: cpacini

Originally posted by: Chiropteran


Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

What if the animal is large enough to potentially injure/kill the driver or a passenger?

What animals are larger than an SUV or semi-trailer? I can't think of any animal that would cause more damage than a head-on collision.

Moose, deer jumping off a bridge (it happens).

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm now im confused. not about "accidents" but if you are a troll or really this stupid.

Some people like to ask hypothetical questions, even if they go against the popular opinion.

Keep calling me stupid, but realize you are the close minded one who can't be bothered to even think about something unless it's part of the popular opinion.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: So
Moose, deer jumping off a bridge (it happens).

Moose: 380?720 kg (850?1180 pounds)

Ford Explorer: curb weight (lbs) 4,531


And you would rather hit the Explorer?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm now im confused. not about "accidents" but if you are a troll or really this stupid.

Some people like to ask hypothetical questions, even if they go against the popular opinion.

Keep calling me stupid, but realize you are the close minded one who can't be bothered to even think about something unless it's part of the popular opinion.

There's a difference between honestly questioning popular opinion and being purposefully obtuse.