accident report

Page 5 of 10  
104. TBone Dec 3, 8:10 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:10:41 GMT Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:10 am Subject: Re: accident report
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
No Budd, your lawyer just sucked.
-- If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Really, Tom?
You were there? You do remember that in 73, the year of my divorce, most divorce cases were predecided against the husband . . .no husband rights back then.
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hahahahaha, you are kidding, right?!?!?! If this was a purly moral world full of completely honest people I might agree but if you believe that to be true... Hell, a few months ago a man was released from prison after serving 7 years for a rape he didn't commit (cleared by DNA evidence) and it was found that the prosecutor had such evidence that could have cleared him and suppressed it. It looks like your prosecutor led the jury away from the actual conclusion here so are you also saying in your typecast BS that conservatives are also liars.

Like I said, it is all based on motivation both in and out of the court. Some are motivated by the idea of giving someone another chance even if they are nothing more than a lowlife scumbag (liberal) while others do it for the big money and could care less about the actual guilt (conservative).

IOW, the liberal is open minded which indicates intelligence while the a conservative is closed minded which tends to be an idiot. At least that is what you said above.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

TBone, you misunderstood. Max didn't try to say one was good and the other bad or ones right and the other wrong. The defense tries to create multiple possibilities which in turn creates reasonable doubt in the juries minds. The prosecution tries to lead the jury towards just one line of thought. Lawyers are liars from either side but they are still as Max stated, liberal defense and conservative prosecution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are correct, I misunderstood what he was saying.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well Tom, given your view of politics, my example (and your breakdown of it) parallel your reality so closely its frightening.
I never said that the prosecuter led the jury towards the truth (he's a lawyer after all), I simply said he led them towards ONE POSSIBILITY. This does not necessarily mean he lied, but it sure opens the door, doesn't it? Keep mind, lawyers switch sides all the time.

No Tom, thats what you desperately want to believe. Simply being open minded doesn't indicate intelligence, as it can also indicate indecisiveness, or stupidity. But I didn't say the liberal was open minded, I said he sought to find a range of possibility, which could be seen as being deceptive and misleading, a liar. Simply looking for one possibility doesn't indicate idiocy, as it can indicate logical evaluation of facts, and a drive for the truth.
But depends on which side you are on. Sadly, in your world, there are only two sides, your side, where everyone agrees with your every word, and the other side, where anyone else is. Interestingly, this is a closed minded approach, meaning (in your definitions) you are what you hate so much, a conservative.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
91. Roy Dec 2, 8:30 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:30:34 -0500 Local: Fri, Dec 2 2005 8:30 am Subject: Re: accident report Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

What's wrong with punishments that fit the crime?
Someone decides to get drunk, knowing full well he's got to drive home afterward. On the way home he hits and kills someone.
What punishment for that, Roy?
I say it's a form of 1st degree murder with a random victim and the state's punishment foir 1st degree murder should apply . . .and yes, I've been a drunk in my past.
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know about here in NC but in NJ, that was vehicular manslaughter.

First degree requires intent and most drunk drivers don't get in their vehicles with the intent to kill someone however I'm in agreement with you that the punishment should be severe.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<LOL> Tom, there are thousands of ads everyday giving the dangers ofoperating a vehicle under the influence . . now just how many people OVER 12 do you think have never seen or heard about those dangers?
Since the knowledge is well brodcast, ignorance is no excuse. If the DUI / DWI knows he's going out to get drunk then he knows he could kill someone by driving in that condition. If you know it's a crime and you know you could kill and decide to get wiped out anyway, then as far as I'm concerned, it's a concious decision and you have decided the value of the life of another person (or persons) is of no importance. And that says you though about it and decided to do it.
Now all this thought was done while sober and before the fact. . . . . .
and that is __________________ (fill in the blank)
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And there are those same adds talking about the dangers of smoking and they are also ignored. People only see what they want to see.

The sad thing is that it is never this black and white. There are some that think that they can drive as well or better drunk, others that accidentally have 1 too many and don't really feel drunk and neither of these types "know" that they could kill somebody because as far as they are concerned, they can drive just fine and then it is not a conscious choice that they devaluated human life. They were wrong and stupid, but were not going out with the intent to kill and therefor cannot be accused of murder 1.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The point, Tom, is that if you ignore( break/ think it applies only to other people) the law, you are a criminal. There are no laws concerning smoking and driving.

Actually, it is. If you drive drunk, you break the law. Period. If you kill knowing you're doing it , you break the law. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you break the law.
The only reason for there being any gray areas is liberal defense lawyers, but then they created the civil ( double jeopardy) lawsuit, didn't they?

Tom, I did not say, "accidentally", I said, "knowing they would be getting drunk" . . .big difference. What I wrote was a statement of a deliberate, thought out act. Are trying out the part of a liberal defense lawyer now? Keep your spins out.

Actually, anyone that drinks to the point of 0.08 BAC or more is impaired, the military (Navy) told my son that if he had more than 3 beers in a week he was to seek counseling. Does that give you an idea of how serious it is? Tom, do you drink?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree 100% but the punishment has to fit the crime. Being an idiot and getting someone killed is not the same thing as going out with the intent to kill for whatever reason. As for the smoking, I was referring to people only seeing what they want to see, not that there was a law against it.

Again, I'm in full agreement but we are talking about the specifics of murder 1, not just breaking the law.

Now this makes you sound either ignorant or bitter Budd. Life itself is a gray area and if you just dole out punnisshment without understanding or compassion, you might as well be Saddam because that is exactly what he did.

There is no spin here Budd. How can you prove that the person knew that they would get drunk. Alcohol affects different people differently just like any other drug and while some may know that they had too much at .081% blood alcohol, another may not feel it at all and have no idea yet by your judgment, they both go to jail for life or are executed for the crime. Does this really make much sense to you?

My heavy drinking days are behind me now and I don't drive while drinking although in my younger days that was not always the case. A .08 BAC does not effect everyone in a fully detrimental way as at one time it was .1 before they realized that there was a significant portion of the population that was still incapacitated there and they needed to lower it. Either way, by trying to make this a murder 1 thing, you are discounting the seriousness of the crime and that is a really bad thing.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree 100% but the punishment has to fit the crime. Being an idiot and getting someone killed is not the same thing as going out with the intent to kill for whatever reason.
If you know you plan to get drunk it is not being an idiot, it's intended with forethought. Letting yourself get drunk, when you let your friends buy you"just one more", you show a lack of responsibility because you probably let it happen before.

As do you. You're only seeing what you want to see in this thread.

Again, I'm in full agreement but we are talking about the specifics of murder 1, not just breaking the law.
Isn't murder 1 breaking the law?

Now this makes you sound either ignorant or bitter Budd.
Name calling, Tom? I'm neither.

or compassion, you might as well be Saddam because that is exactly what he did.
Comparing me to Saddam now, are we? Too bad you aren't where I could deck you for that insult.

There is no spin here Budd.
Yes, you are ignoring what I say and substituting your words.

I used to drink and I knew before I took each first drink I was going to drink, either just before or many hours before. BTDT, Tom.

.081% blood alcohol, another may not feel it at all and have no idea yet by your judgment, they both go to jail for life or are executed for the crime. Does this really make much sense to you?
Yep, but your liberalism won't let it make sense to you.

My heavy drinking days are behind me now and I don't drive while drinking although in my younger days that was not always the case.
Same here except I no longer drink. No desire to and I'm on medications that turn deadlyt when combined with alcohol, not for others, me.

before they realized that there was a significant portion of the population that was still incapacitated there and they needed to lower it.
Tom, you know less than you think about alcohol. One beer or one shot is enough to make measurable differences in 99% of the human population.

seriousness of the crime and that is a really bad thing.
HUH??? If I'm trying to count a crime as a more severe crime, I'M discounting the seriousness??? Spin and doublespeak from you, Tom.
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd... I gotta ask you here... what about someone who's talking on a cellphone, and accidentally hits and kills someone? 1st degree murder there, too? I mean - we all know the dangers of using a cellphone while driving. Most states now prohibit it, and can fine a driver caught doing so. There are many studies that claim using a cellphone causes just as much impairment to driving ability as a .08% BAC. Do we execute these people?
How about the people who drive while exhausted? Ever been driving and fighting to stay awake? We all know about the dangers of driving and falling asleep... heck, in my state, it's even illegal to do so (don't ask me how this is enforced - it's a relatively new experiment in socialization). So - work a double shift, doze off at the wheel, cause an accident, somebody dies... get thrown in the gas chamber?
How are the above scenarios different than driving with an elevated BAC?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many states have laws against cell phone usage while driving?

Why not if you know it's against the law to talk on the cell while driving? I and my brother both pull over to answer the cellphone because we neither want to take the risk.

Do we????? Just the other day while riding with my brother, a cell user pulled out in front of us, blowing a stop sign, yelling at someone on the phone. Now look how much this topic has been in the media and tell me they had no chance to have ever heard the warnings. . . .

Have you ever looked at the laws directed at semi-truck drivers caught driving while exhausted? I had a CDL for a while and CO was strict . . .on paper. However, the law was often un-enforcible.

Yep, and I even fell asleep at the wheel, but I didn't hit anyone and it was also before my change in attitude about some vehicular laws.

Me neither, but how many un-enforcible laws are there now?

<LOL> All you guys keep switching the conditions . . . .all I wastalking about was deliberately getting drunk and then driving. Can't anyone stay on the subject besides me?

A lot, but no one sees it but me.
I'm done discussing it. Many of you alreadty consider me to be over the edge, so it's nothing new.
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NY and NJ, for starters...

You seem to be advocating a capital sentence (1st deg. murder) for pretty much anyone who takes the life of another while in the act of something they know is prohibited - regardless of intent. Let's take another example - straight from my local newspaper the other day:
A worker was doing some work in a company parking lot overnight. He dug a good-sized hole, about 5 feet deep. He failed to mark it off. An employee arrived to work early the next morning, and while walking across the parking lot, fell into the hole. Now, she was injured - but for the sake of argument, let's say she was killed. The worker knew that a hole like that was a danger to others, right? Is he now guilty of 1st degree murder?

So, with how you feel now, had you hit someone back then, you should have been executed as a murderer?

Too damn many... but that's a whole 'nother discussion :)

I think that's part of the point... you change the way one particular scenario is treated - others have to follow. You're making the argument that a person who causes the death of another, while engaged in an activity that is illegal, should be guilty of murder in the 1st degree. If you're saying that only drunk driving falls under this, well, that begs the questions put forth here (ie. why isn't doing <xxx> just as bad as DUI?)

I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to bust your balls, Budd... I'm just discussing it, with an admittedly different viewpoint than yours. Heck - if we all have the same views about everything, it would be pretty boring :)

I'm not one of them. I find your views on this particular subject a little extreme, perhaps - but that doesn't make you a nut. I suspect there's something more significant that's caused you to view this as you do, but if you're not going to talk about it, I'm not going to ask.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
119. Tom Lawrence Dec 4, 5:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks
messages by this author Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:26:31 GMT Local: Sun, Dec 4 2005 5:26 pm Subject: Re: accident report Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

IOW, not enough states . . yet.

I'd rather not. . .
A worker was doing some work in a company parking lot overnight. He dug a good-sized hole, about 5 feet deep. He failed to mark it off. An employee arrived to work early the next morning, and while walking across the parking lot, fell into the hole. Now, she was injured - but for the sake of argument, let's say she was killed. The worker knew that a hole like that was a danger to others, right? Is he now guilty of 1st degree murder?
No idea, as this is not thescenario I was talking about.

That happened back when I was a bleeding heart liberal.

Is it? With everyone asking my opinion on other situations, I was thinking it was part and parcel of the discussion.

Why? I don't consider all crimes to be the same level of evil. To say I do with the evidence given is pure conjecture at best, defamation at worst.

No, I said anyone that deliberately gets drunk and kills someone should be counted guilty, that includes murder by knife, gun, baseball bat, wet noodle. . . .

No, it doesn't, except in a liberal world.

I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to bust your balls, Budd...
Sorry, Tom, but that's not how it's coming across.

Heck - if we all have the same views about everything, it would be pretty boring :)
Agreed, but when you start changing the original topic into something unrelated, then you aren't discussing . . you're ball busting.

I'm not one of them. I find your views on this particular subject a little extreme, perhaps - but that doesn't make you a nut. I suspect there's something more significant that's caused you to view this as you do, but if you're not going to talk about it, I'm not going to ask.
Tom, I will give the reason: too often a drunk gets away vehicular homicide because of his intoxication "impairment". Too often drug dealers get too light of sentences because they plea bargain out of what they deserve. Too many times drive-by shooters are rationalized out of a death sentence because of "psychological problems". The list is endless and the criminals just go to prison and learn how to be better criminals.
It's time to take a stand.
Budd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like I said, that wasn't my intention. I apologize if you took it as such.

I can't really disagree with that. I'm just not sure I'm ready to start executing people for unintentional consequences. Punish? Absolutely. Kill?
Well, we'll disagree on that. Otherwise, we're going to keep going around and around, and before you know it, we'll be arguing about the gravitational effect on noble gases and filtering ability of oil-soaked cotton-gauze filters :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

GA for one. the only way to use a cell in a moving vehicle (for the driver) is to use a hands free device (i dont see much improvment here but that's their rule) or speaker phone.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

Almost all states do indirectly. Most states have a law against driving under any impairment or distraction which would include but not be limited to cell phone usage. Unfortunatly its not enforced often.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of them are not meant to be enforced that way but are then used to increase punishments or to even allow for punishments for some actions just like the sleeping behind the wheel law in NJ.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.