CdM is in love!

[DGuller]

[The law views it differently.  If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her.  But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die.  For that the law creates significant legal sanctions.  It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise.  The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred.  That would be a dangerous path indeed.

I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever.  I'm not talking about going down that path, however.  I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law.  If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't.  That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.

Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions.  If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop?  Not that this was the case in Quebec; the woman there seemingly took no reasonable steps to ensure that other drivers would be in less danger from her reckless acts.  However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.  I use CheapEEZ Brand brake pads on my cars brakes, and they fail and I knock someone down, give them a concussion, and send them to the hospital.  I am morally responsible for his actions, not the deaths of 300 million people because the guy I knocked down was rushing to tell the president of the US "Oops!  We made a mistake; this isn't a Russian nuclear strike after all!"

I missed this the first time through.

[grumbler]

Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot.  You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone.

Your honor, I didn't get out of the car to kill anyone, I wanted to save the turtles or ducks or some other bullshit.

Umm

Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone.

You go to jail, asshole (your term, not mine), because we already know your motive.

[alfred russel]

The concept of the hypothetical seems to have escaped grumbler. 

[grumbler]

The concept of the hypothetical seems to have escaped grumbler. 

Like the hypothetical "people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance?" 

Pick your hypotheticals better, and avoid the hyperbole.   

[MadBurgerMaker]

I stopped on the side of the road today to get a dumbass deer off of a fence.  The thing was freaking out like deer tend to do while I was driving up, ran one way (with about 10 buddies), then stopped and ran back in front of me, went to jump the fence on that side, and got it's leg caught.  Poor fucker was just hanging there with its face about 2 feet off the ground making deer noises, so I pulled over, got out, and helped it off.  Didn't want it to break it's leg or something.

Being a deer and thus retarded, it didn't wait until I had pulled it all the way off before trying to sprint away at full speed and stuck itself pretty good on the top of the fence.  Seemed okay, or at least the deer colored blur seemed okay.  Not too much blood on the fence. 

Anyway, no motorcycles ran into my car.  Granted, there weren't any other cars at all on the road, but hey.

[Ideologue]

Don't you feel like a complete fucking monster, though?

[The Brain]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.

Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.

[Malthus]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.

Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.

Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!

[CountDeMoney]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.

Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.

Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!

No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them.  Silly Jew.

[garbon]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.

Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.

You get the state you deserve.

[Valmy]

Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!

The plucky tough pioneer spirit of Americans helps them find ways around those barriers while the royalist pansy Canadians cannot handle them.

[Malthus]

No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them.  Silly Jew.

The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. 

The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

[garbon]

So what happens in Canada if say your car broke down and perhaps there might have been time* for you to steer it into a shoulder but you failed to act. In the interim, someone smacked into you on a motorcycle and died. Would you be doomed to suffer the same blame and shame as this woman?

*hard to see how this could easily be determined after the fact apart from I guess witness statements?

[jimmy olsen]

Google AI motorcycle wouldn't hit that car.