Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the two boys were pushing the disabled truck, I think it is reasonable to presume they were pushing it from behind the vehicle. It does not matter if they were on the side of the road, or in the middle of the road, or even whether the other driver could see them. If he could not stop in time then 1) he was driving too fast for the conditions, and 2) he should have put his own vehicle into the ditch, a tree, another parked vehicle, ANYTHING else but into those two boys.
A good argument can be made that if one takes a life, even by accident, then their life should be forfeit.
Do you realize how idiotic that is? Scary stupid. It doesn't even matter if the other driver could not see them? Really? So how is someone supposed to stop and avoid hitting something or someone that they can't see? That's CRAZY !!! What is wrong with you?
Traveling at 55 MPH, you're moving at 80 feet per second, with a stopping distance (including average reaction time of 1.5 seconds, and 121 feet) of 265 feet total. The average headlights of a car project 100 feet in front .... this is why cars also have fracking tail lights and brake lights, so that you can see them at night. Without those tail lights and brake lights, you couldn't see another car at night until it was too late to avoid hitting them ... ESPECIALLY if they were almost stationary, moving a pace one adult and two children could push a truck So, even at the moment you see them (100 ft )... if you see them immediately, you already are too close to even react, given that the reaction time is 121 feet ... meaning .. you'll hit them before you can even get your foot to the brake peddle.
Of course not. They are drunk, they are not going to be doing much calculating of anything. Nevertheless, they are behind the wheel of a deadly weapon and are responsible for the actions they take. This would be no different than if he used a firearm on the two boys. I do not know Texas law, but in Alaska, they would be charged with manslaughter. Furthermore, the adult who sold or gave the 20 year-old booze in the first place would also be charged.
I had a similar event happen to me. A friend of mine and I were walking back home from a park, when a drunk driver swerved off the road and struck my friend head-on doing about 45 mph, clipping me with the passenger-side mirror. My friend was thrown about 50 feet in front of the sedan into the middle of the road. The sedan end up in the ditch.
I ran over to help my friend, but when I picked up his left arm to take his pulse, his arm separated from his socket and came out of his short-sleeved shirt. There was very little blood, but I knew he was dead. I heard the sedan try to pull out of the ditch, and I turned around, picked up the biggest rock I could find, and threw it through the driver's side window. When I picked up another rock to throw, the sedan stopped trying to back out of the ditch.
I do not know how long I stood there. I never called the police or ambulance, but someone apparently did, because the next thing I remember is it was dark, raining, and there were police everywhere, and I was still holding a rock. I did not even know that my arm had been broken when he clipped me until the next morning.
I never did find out what happened to the driver of the sedan, I do not even know if it was a female or male, and I did not care.
And I call BULL total nonsense and you know it. Had this really happened as you describe ... your arse would have been a witness to vehicular manslaughter, and you would have been called as a witness for the prosecution of this driver, and you would certainly have taken note of the outcome of the trial of the person that killed your friend.
If you're going to make up a story, at least think it through enough so as not to insult people's intelligence.
Got to agree. I also don't like this "vigilante justice" thing. We (and other advanced nations) have due process and rule of law for a reason.
I agree, but sometimes that is not satisfactory, either. This woman who is supposedly some kind of actress killed a woman while driving drunk and she got the minimum sentence yesterday.
And has the nerve to sit there in court in front of the family of the woman she killed unsuccessfully trying to suppress a grin at her light sentence. Scroll down and see her.
I agree, but sometimes that is not satisfactory, either. This woman who is supposedly some kind of actress killed a woman while driving drunk and she got the minimum sentence yesterday.
And has the nerve to sit there in court in front of the family of the woman she killed unsuccessfully trying to suppress a grin at her light sentence. Scroll down and see her.
Still, you can't have that. Due process, rule of law and acceptance (even grudgingly) of the result is a hallmark of an advanced and civilized society. Anything else is something out of the Dark Ages.
Often, pedestrians are found to be at fault in these type of accidents - wearing dark clothing; dark night; no streetlight, in the middle of the road, et.
However, all that is thrown out the window if the driver was drinking. It could very well be that this driver could not have avoided this incident even while sober - but, that probably will not be assessed, given that he WAS drinking.
I know what you are saying though.
You can be sitting at a red light ... someone smashes into the back of you ... and if you have alcohol on your breath .. and it doesn't matter how much .... they'll let the at fault driver go home, and arrest you.
Why? Because we now live in Bizarro World, where common sense no longer has a place ... and people actually believe that you should be able to avoid hitting something you cannot see ... as was previously claimed.
This is what happens with knee jerk reactions, people that make no sense, and laws that make no sense. The issue with alcohol used to be if it could be shown that it contributed to or was the primary cause of an accident, then that was the charge .. that was the original standard. Not anymore. Like I said, some idiot could smash into you, and they'll walk, while you go to jail. And there's no shortage of idiots who think that's the way it should be.
Still, you can't have that. Due process, rule of law and acceptance (even grudgingly) of the result is a hallmark of an advanced and civilized society. Anything else is something out of the Dark Ages.
No. A civilized advanced society would be doing something about all the drunk drivers. The laws aren't enforced and the drunks are given a mere slap on the wrist. Drunk drivers kill far more innocent people than do any guns. Not just drunks are impaired drivers, stoned pot heads and meth heads are out there driving impaired also and rarely are stoned drivers ever checked for what drugs they're on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's CRAZY !!! What is wrong with you?
