Forum
ยป
Dude in truck was on cell phone and accidentally killed 4 people
11-02-2016, 10:43 AM
-
#121
- tranzz
- Registered User
-
- tranzz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2014
- Age: 32
- Posts: 4,263
- Rep Power: 12935
-
-
Originally Posted By Lawlstud⏩
Raping someone and killing someone isn't the same thing. That's comparing apples to oranges.I would be livid someone dug up my dad just to run over him.
Why would you think, "But what if it was your family member!" would come into the evaluation of punishment. It's a justice system, not a vengeance system.
It's literally a non-point. I don't give a fuk whose family member it was, that is not a consideration when establishing punishments.
Someone rapes my gf I'd personally want to murder them. But as we all know, rape doesn't get the death penalty.
That's life son.
Why would you think, "But what if it was your family member!" would come into the evaluation of punishment. It's a justice system, not a vengeance system.
It's literally a non-point. I don't give a fuk whose family member it was, that is not a consideration when establishing punishments.
Someone rapes my gf I'd personally want to murder them. But as we all know, rape doesn't get the death penalty.
That's life son.
As I said, eye for an eye and I would love to hear that the drunk driver that killed my dad last year in October had been killed in prison.
In my mind, driving distracted or under the influence is accepting the fact that you could potentially kill someone and that is an irresponsible and irreversible decision they are willing to make.
I stand by my opinion of wanting that person to be killed.
11-02-2016, 10:44 AM
-
#122
- Lawlstud
- Dr.Phil of Misc.
-
- Lawlstud
- Dr.Phil of Misc.
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: Houston, Texas, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 15,880
- Rep Power: 68010
-
-
Originally Posted By meremortal⏩
Yeah I can see that. Armed robbery and texting while driving do warrant the same considerations.There are places that have a similar rule for killings that occur during Burglary. An unarmed burglar doesn't intend for anyone's death but if his accomplice is killed while they are breaking and entering he can be charged with murder.
(lol)
Originally Posted By tranzz⏩
I get that. But at the same time we both know the death penalty will never happen for something that falls under the purview of an accident.Raping someone and killing someone isn't the same thing. That's comparing apples to oranges.
As I said, eye for an eye and the drunk driver that killed my dad last year I would love to hear that they were killed in prison.
In my mind, driving distracted or under the influence is accepting the fact that you could potentially kill someone and that is an irresponsible and irreversible decision they are willing to make.
I stand by my opinion of wanting that person to be killed.
As I said, eye for an eye and the drunk driver that killed my dad last year I would love to hear that they were killed in prison.
In my mind, driving distracted or under the influence is accepting the fact that you could potentially kill someone and that is an irresponsible and irreversible decision they are willing to make.
I stand by my opinion of wanting that person to be killed.
If someone is doing something and being negligent the amount of risk should be taken into account. Answering the phone, talking on the phone, eating fries while driving, turning around to tell your kids to shut up, texting, etc etc while driving, there isn't a reasonable amount of risk that you're going to kill someone. (When a mom turns around to berate her kids is it a, "Well I know I could run through a stop walk and murder 20 kids but I really need to berate my kids" thought process.
While it is unfortunate, and it does deserve punishment. Having them serve a considerable amount of their life for something that is an accident is pretty fuking stupid.
The fact they killed people alone is going to weigh on their conscious, send them behind bars for a reasonable amount of time.
10 years isn't reasonable. That is probably what he would get for straight up intentionally murdering someone.
Belief without evidence is a fools game.
Listen Crew - Anything on your mind, want someone to talk to? Hit that PM button brah
5 * Thread Maker
Lone Star State Crew
Diesel Life Crew
Lol @ Trumplets Crew
Lol @ CEO of Exxon for SoS, GoldmanSachs for Treasury, and Creationist for Education Crew
Lol @ Drain the Swamp Crew
Reps for life: stfaulk89
11-02-2016, 10:47 AM
-
#123
- veggie530
- Not Aware
-
- veggie530
- Not Aware
- Join Date: Jan 2009
- Location: United States
- Posts: 12,078
- Rep Power: 155340
-
-
It's hard for me to judge it.
is it illegal? yeah. is it any different than taking your eyes off the road to change the radio or anything else? no. does it receive the same vitriol? no. is it worse than the jagoff that does 75 in a 55 and causes an accident because he can't react quickly enough to a circumstance? no
overall my generalized statement is that a vehicle is a loaded firearm, you should treat it with the utmost respect because it can easily destroy property, yourself or someone else. That includes but is not limited to staying off your phone, not drinking, driving a safe speed and paying attention to the road and other drivers.
is it illegal? yeah. is it any different than taking your eyes off the road to change the radio or anything else? no. does it receive the same vitriol? no. is it worse than the jagoff that does 75 in a 55 and causes an accident because he can't react quickly enough to a circumstance? no
overall my generalized statement is that a vehicle is a loaded firearm, you should treat it with the utmost respect because it can easily destroy property, yourself or someone else. That includes but is not limited to staying off your phone, not drinking, driving a safe speed and paying attention to the road and other drivers.
August 2023:
BW: 194
B: 315 x 3, 225 x 14 (PR: 335)
S: 315 x 2, 225 x 18 (PR's)
DL: 405 x 1 (PR); Trap Bar DL: 405 x 1
OHP: 185 x 3 (PR), 135 x 16
Chins: 22(PR) Pushups: 83 (PR: 101)
1 Mile: 6:45 (PR: 5:52)
11-02-2016, 10:55 AM
-
#124
- tranzz
- Registered User
-
- tranzz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2014
- Age: 32
- Posts: 4,263
- Rep Power: 12935
-
-
Originally Posted By Lawlstud⏩
I agree with the examples you have given with regards to checking on kids in the back seat or something of equal significance.Yeah I can see that. Armed robbery and texting while driving do warrant the same considerations.
(lol)
I get that. But at the same time we both know the death penalty will never happen for something that falls under the purview of an accident.
If someone is doing something and being negligent the amount of risk should be taken into account. Answering the phone, talking on the phone, eating fries while driving, turning around to tell your kids to shut up, texting, etc etc while driving, there isn't a reasonable amount of risk that you're going to kill someone. (When a mom turns around to berate her kids is it a, "Well I know I could run through a stop walk and murder 20 kids but I really need to berate my kids" thought process.
While it is unfortunate, and it does deserve punishment. Having them serve a considerable amount of their life for something that is an accident is pretty fuking stupid.
The fact they killed people alone is going to weigh on their conscious, send them behind bars for a reasonable amount of time.
10 years isn't reasonable. That is probably what he would get for straight up intentionally murdering someone.
(lol)
I get that. But at the same time we both know the death penalty will never happen for something that falls under the purview of an accident.
If someone is doing something and being negligent the amount of risk should be taken into account. Answering the phone, talking on the phone, eating fries while driving, turning around to tell your kids to shut up, texting, etc etc while driving, there isn't a reasonable amount of risk that you're going to kill someone. (When a mom turns around to berate her kids is it a, "Well I know I could run through a stop walk and murder 20 kids but I really need to berate my kids" thought process.
While it is unfortunate, and it does deserve punishment. Having them serve a considerable amount of their life for something that is an accident is pretty fuking stupid.
The fact they killed people alone is going to weigh on their conscious, send them behind bars for a reasonable amount of time.
10 years isn't reasonable. That is probably what he would get for straight up intentionally murdering someone.
But something that is a choice and something that they are consciously doing such as drunk driving or deliberately texting and driving and selfishly putting others at risk is what gets to me.
I have heard stories of people having a screaming kid in the back seat and they turn to check on them and next thing they know they are running someone over, I agree that is an accident and doesn't deserve a 10 year sentence.
It also depends on how the accused reacts. The person that killed my dad shows zero remorse and doesn't even believe he's guilty even though he was high on crack and blew over the legal limit, and was going 50 kph over the speed limit. That should also factor into the sentencing length.
11-02-2016, 10:56 AM
-
#125
- f0rcedr4ps
- Registered User
-
- f0rcedr4ps
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2011
- Age: 34
- Posts: 627
- Rep Power: 301
-
-
So many liberal people ITT
10 years sounds about right. He obviously knows it is illegal to drive while using phone and he must face the consequences of the outcome. In his case using the phone while driving made him kill 4 people.
There has to be some sense of justice. Also in many countries with a sentence of 10 years you can possibly be set free already halfway through the full sentence if you don't have any prior criminal record. So that really is only 5 years which really isn't that much.
10 years sounds about right. He obviously knows it is illegal to drive while using phone and he must face the consequences of the outcome. In his case using the phone while driving made him kill 4 people.
There has to be some sense of justice. Also in many countries with a sentence of 10 years you can possibly be set free already halfway through the full sentence if you don't have any prior criminal record. So that really is only 5 years which really isn't that much.
11-02-2016, 11:03 AM
-
#126
- 21stCenturyKid
- Registered User
-
- 21stCenturyKid
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 30
- Posts: 1,805
- Rep Power: 168
-
-
If we want to be civilized about things, he should not be put to death.
This was simply anaccident(a very consequential one) and 10 years for him to mull over the fact he crushed 3 kids is a sufficient enough punishment. Assuming he is not an emotionless psychopath, his torment from the guilt should be that of similar levels to the father who lost his kids himself. Putting him to death might be a blessing in disguise.
This was simply anaccident(a very consequential one) and 10 years for him to mull over the fact he crushed 3 kids is a sufficient enough punishment. Assuming he is not an emotionless psychopath, his torment from the guilt should be that of similar levels to the father who lost his kids himself. Putting him to death might be a blessing in disguise.
11-02-2016, 11:11 AM
-
#127
11-02-2016, 11:22 AM
-
#128
Originally Posted By Lawlstud⏩
How do you deem there was no intent? He willfully engaged in an extremely dangerous act full well understanding the consequencesThat is probably what he would get for straight up intentionally murdering someone.
Let's say I was to take a high powered rifle and randomly fire shots into your house blindly. Extremely dangerous right? Let's say one of them clips your skull. I guess I get a couple years for leaving brain matter all over your carpet right. I mean I wasn't intending you kill you. Seems reasonable
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
11-02-2016, 11:36 AM
-
#129
- WestAfrica
- Registered User
-
- WestAfrica
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: California, United States
- Posts: 16,712
- Rep Power: 146366
-
-
Why would you even text when driving that fast in a big rig? The guy didn't see any of the seven cars that he crashed into meaning that he hadn't looked up at the road in a long time. Theres a big difference between hitting someone when you didn't see them bc you took your eye off the road for a second and they ran in front of you. This guy was driving on the freeway and took his eyes off the road long enough to hit seven cars while texting. People text and drive but they occasionally look up every second or two. If you watch the vid the guy was on his phone and looking up at the road and he still didn't see the cars in front of him.
NYR NYM NYK UCONN Nebraska AS Roma
11-02-2016, 12:24 PM
-
#130
- samsbolton
- Registered User
-
- samsbolton
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 52
- Posts: 25,801
- Rep Power: 63497
-
-
Originally Posted By FailedPotential⏩
I know you are trolling butWe often do things without thinking about potential consequences.
You could be driving a long and reach down for your drink, feel that it's not in the place you left it, then glance down, find that your drink was in cup holder 1 instead of cup holder 2, look back up and crash into someone.
You could be driving a long, hear your phone buzz, glance down at it and reply, then think "Oh yeah, I shouldn't be doing this, gonna stop right now", glance back up, and crash into someone.
With hindsight we all agree that we should always have all of our attention on the road. But a lot of the time in any situation we get momentarily distracted, it's not that we decide "Oh wait one sec, gonna decide to get distracted here, I know I shouldn't decide to get distracted, but i'm going to decide to get distracted anyway, 1 sec".
You could be driving a long and reach down for your drink, feel that it's not in the place you left it, then glance down, find that your drink was in cup holder 1 instead of cup holder 2, look back up and crash into someone.
You could be driving a long, hear your phone buzz, glance down at it and reply, then think "Oh yeah, I shouldn't be doing this, gonna stop right now", glance back up, and crash into someone.
With hindsight we all agree that we should always have all of our attention on the road. But a lot of the time in any situation we get momentarily distracted, it's not that we decide "Oh wait one sec, gonna decide to get distracted here, I know I shouldn't decide to get distracted, but i'm going to decide to get distracted anyway, 1 sec".
This guy signed a work form ONE HOUR before he crashed promising not to use a mobile phone. Every professional driver is told every week of the dangers. Have you seen the video? It wasn't a millisecond, it was a completely wilful fuk u I know best.. I see it all day, every day, including plenty of lorry drivers. It's criminal negligence and punished as such, rightly.
2023 bertie awards 2024 nominations
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184693083
11-02-2016, 12:32 PM
-
#131
- AlwaysFocus
- Registered AI
-
- AlwaysFocus
- Registered AI
- Join Date: Sep 2016
- Location: BC, Canada
- Posts: 43,341
- Rep Power: 354666
-
-
If a driver is on his phone and a pedestrian is on their phone and both collide in a cross walk is it 50/50?
11-02-2016, 12:35 PM
-
#132
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
-
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 42
- Posts: 12,838
- Rep Power: 162504
-
-
Originally Posted By AlwaysFocus⏩
As far as common sense is concerned, yes 50/50.If a driver is on his phone and a pedestrian is on their phone and both collide in a cross walk is it 50/50?
Legally speaking, the onus should be put on the driver.
EDIT: Btw strong usename/avi/op relevance.
The closer we approach the uncertainty of life's ending the more we wish to trade all of the things we have acquired in exchange for all of the things we have lost: wealth for youth, knowledge for fresh curiosity, resignation for hope. We'd trade our wisdom for new experiences, but it is wisdom that will teach us that at the end of the road the only new experience is death.
11-02-2016, 12:43 PM
-
#133
- samsbolton
- Registered User
-
- samsbolton
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 52
- Posts: 25,801
- Rep Power: 63497
-
-
Originally Posted By tranzz⏩
Seriously? I'll join you in a misc law abiding citizen when he gets outI agree with the examples you have given with regards to checking on kids in the back seat or something of equal significance.
But something that is a choice and something that they are consciously doing such as drunk driving or deliberately texting and driving and selfishly putting others at risk is what gets to me.
I have heard stories of people having a screaming kid in the back seat and they turn to check on them and next thing they know they are running someone over, I agree that is an accident and doesn't deserve a 10 year sentence.
It also depends on how the accused reacts. The person that killed my dad shows zero remorse and doesn't even believe he's guilty even though he was high on crack and blew over the legal limit, and was going 50 kph over the speed limit. That should also factor into the sentencing length.
But something that is a choice and something that they are consciously doing such as drunk driving or deliberately texting and driving and selfishly putting others at risk is what gets to me.
I have heard stories of people having a screaming kid in the back seat and they turn to check on them and next thing they know they are running someone over, I agree that is an accident and doesn't deserve a 10 year sentence.
It also depends on how the accused reacts. The person that killed my dad shows zero remorse and doesn't even believe he's guilty even though he was high on crack and blew over the legal limit, and was going 50 kph over the speed limit. That should also factor into the sentencing length.
2023 bertie awards 2024 nominations
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184693083
11-02-2016, 12:46 PM
-
#134
- samsbolton
- Registered User
-
- samsbolton
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 52
- Posts: 25,801
- Rep Power: 63497
-
-
Originally Posted By Lawlstud⏩
It can't happen to anyone, it can happen to anyone that is criminally negligent. Negged.Who are you serving by doing this?
What changed between 10 years in prison and 25 years in prison that make it worth it? So you can think to yourself, "Good his life is ruined because of an accident that can happen to anyone" and then forget this guy ever even existed?
What changed between 10 years in prison and 25 years in prison that make it worth it? So you can think to yourself, "Good his life is ruined because of an accident that can happen to anyone" and then forget this guy ever even existed?
2023 bertie awards 2024 nominations
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184693083
11-02-2016, 12:54 PM
-
#135
11-02-2016, 12:56 PM
-
#136
- notbadnotbrad
- Join Date: Jul 2012
- Posts: 39,818
- Subscribers: 3
- Rep Power: 346827
-
-
Could have been any one of us. Lets be honest.
11-02-2016, 12:56 PM
-
#137
10 years is too harsh, he didnt intend to kill anybody. The fact four people died is irrelevant, if it so happened that sit was another lorry in front and nobody died he'd get a few months, for doing the exact same action. What he did was very negligent, and he deserves punishment but how many people died shouldnt effect it.
6'1, 205 lbs
Luke
11-02-2016, 01:01 PM
-
#138
- tvr123
- Dungeon gym brah
-
- tvr123
- Dungeon gym brah
- Join Date: Oct 2008
- Location: France
- Posts: 6,745
- Rep Power: 28339
-
-
10 years is a hefty punishment. It is probably meant as a deterrent to other drivers who might use their phones whilst driving.
He did not intend to kill anyone. It was a consequence of his actions but there was no intent.
10 years is a long time to serve for a stupid mistake made during a few seconds, that will now cost him a good chunk of his life, not to mention having to live with it on his mind for the rest of his life.
People calling for more should get down off their high horses and put themselves in his shoes.
He did not intend to kill anyone. It was a consequence of his actions but there was no intent.
10 years is a long time to serve for a stupid mistake made during a few seconds, that will now cost him a good chunk of his life, not to mention having to live with it on his mind for the rest of his life.
People calling for more should get down off their high horses and put themselves in his shoes.
Neg female miscers on sight crew (I only like boys)
Rep hendrixfreak70 on sight crew
Road to 405 squat crew 380/405. Road to 500 DL crew 500/500
11-02-2016, 01:04 PM
-
#139
- RC2008
- Registered User
-
- RC2008
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 31,261
- Rep Power: 40507
-
-
Originally Posted By tvr123⏩
Losing your life and your family's life is a major price to pay for someone's stupid mistake made during a few seconds.10 years is a just punishment.
He did not intend to kill anyone. It was a consequence of his actions but there was no intent.
10 years is a long time to serve for a stupid mistake made during a few seconds, that will now cost him a good chunk of his life, not to mention having to live with it on his mind for the rest of his life.
He did not intend to kill anyone. It was a consequence of his actions but there was no intent.
10 years is a long time to serve for a stupid mistake made during a few seconds, that will now cost him a good chunk of his life, not to mention having to live with it on his mind for the rest of his life.
11-02-2016, 01:04 PM
-
#140
- SlootFlute
- Banned
-
- SlootFlute
- Banned
- Join Date: Dec 2012
- Posts: 10,250
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Just lol @ people in here getting upset that this dumbass who killed 4 people is getting 10 years..
But these are the same people who are okay with people getting chocked out and killed by police officers....
But these are the same people who are okay with people getting chocked out and killed by police officers....
11-02-2016, 01:11 PM
-
#141
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
-
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 42
- Posts: 12,838
- Rep Power: 162504
-
-
Originally Posted By LukeS1⏩
The fact people are dead is irrelevant? Lol you're serious?10 years is too harsh, he didnt intend to kill anybody. The fact four people died is irrelevant, if it so happened that sit was another lorry in front and nobody died he'd get a few months, for doing the exact same action
It's irrelevant that he didn't intend to kill anyone. It is irrelevant because his intentions should have been to keep people safe. That was a part of his job. He didn't maintain vigilance in a situation where lives are at stake and as a result he kill four people.
That he didn't intend to kill people is not as important as the fact he didn't intend to keep people safe.
EDIT: He probably got 10 because this was an OCCUPATIONAL hazard gone terribly wrong.
The closer we approach the uncertainty of life's ending the more we wish to trade all of the things we have acquired in exchange for all of the things we have lost: wealth for youth, knowledge for fresh curiosity, resignation for hope. We'd trade our wisdom for new experiences, but it is wisdom that will teach us that at the end of the road the only new experience is death.
11-02-2016, 01:15 PM
-
#142
- StrawHat94
- Not Indian
-
- StrawHat94
- Not Indian
- Join Date: Nov 2013
- Location: england, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 9,258
- Rep Power: 14141
-
-
Good that he got that long, would've give n him more time
Black Lives Matter
11-02-2016, 01:17 PM
-
#143
Originally Posted By MyGhettoFantasy⏩
In what basis does what was in front of him change wnat prison time is required?The fact people are dead is irrelevant? Lol you're serious?
It's irrelevant that he didn't intend to kill anyone. It is irrelevant because his intentions should have been to keep people safe. That was a part of his job. He didn't maintain vigilance in a situation where lives are at stake and as a result he kill four people.
That he didn't intend to kill people is not as important as the fact he didn't intend to keep people safe.
EDIT: He probably got 10 because this was an OCCUPATIONAL hazard gone terribly wrong.
It's irrelevant that he didn't intend to kill anyone. It is irrelevant because his intentions should have been to keep people safe. That was a part of his job. He didn't maintain vigilance in a situation where lives are at stake and as a result he kill four people.
That he didn't intend to kill people is not as important as the fact he didn't intend to keep people safe.
EDIT: He probably got 10 because this was an OCCUPATIONAL hazard gone terribly wrong.
Does it mean hes a bigger threat to society? No ofc not
Does it mean he commited a worse crime?
No the action was exactly the same
6'1, 205 lbs
Luke
11-02-2016, 01:28 PM
-
#144
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
-
- MyGhettoFantasy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 42
- Posts: 12,838
- Rep Power: 162504
-
-
Originally Posted By LukeS1⏩
He was on the job in an industry that employs tens of thousands of people. Truckers raise the stakes for everyone because the of the size of their vehicles and the weight of their freight. They should be held to a higher level of accountability as they increase the probability of catastrophic accidents just by the mere act of performing their job. Truck drivers are on the road more often and for longer periods of time, meaning that misconduct on their part not only has the potential to occur more often but often results in bigger consequences for everyone involved: themselves, the companies they haul for, law enforcement and other motorists.In what basis does what was in front of him change wnat prison time is required?
Does it mean hes a bigger threat to society? No ofc not
Does it mean he commited a worse crime?
No the action was exactly the same
Does it mean hes a bigger threat to society? No ofc not
Does it mean he commited a worse crime?
No the action was exactly the same
Dude wasn't conducting private business in a normal vehicle. He was conducting business in an enormous transit on a public highway and chose to not follow industry/company protocol or obey the laws governing use of said highway.
The difference is like a person in their home preparing food for others while deliberately ignoring cross contamination and a chef doing the same in a restaurant. Different standards apply.
The closer we approach the uncertainty of life's ending the more we wish to trade all of the things we have acquired in exchange for all of the things we have lost: wealth for youth, knowledge for fresh curiosity, resignation for hope. We'd trade our wisdom for new experiences, but it is wisdom that will teach us that at the end of the road the only new experience is death.
11-02-2016, 01:32 PM
-
#145
- RoyalLee
- Registered User
-
- RoyalLee
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2016
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 33
- Posts: 1,762
- Rep Power: 5174
-
-
Originally Posted By Snine⏩
Agreed. I think he needs to pay somehow, I just don't think that 10 years in prison is gonna do him/society any good. Would be pissed if it was one of my family members, but prison is meant to keep dangerous criminals off the street... Dunno think a 10 year mandatory speaking to young teens or something would be a better fit.I don't know what's fair I can see arguments for both sides of incidents like this. On the one hand he killed 4 innocent people and yeah I suppose people like that need to be punished... But on the other hand I'm sure he didn't actually do it on purpose, so what does locking him up for ten years even accomplish? or killing him? Does it really take ten years to "rehab" someone into knowing not to talk on their cell phone again when driving?
Seems like overkill to me. I'd probably see it differently if one of those 4 people were my family though lol.
Seems like overkill to me. I'd probably see it differently if one of those 4 people were my family though lol.
11-02-2016, 01:43 PM
-
#146
- Zerafian
- Droppin' truth bombs
-
- Zerafian
- Droppin' truth bombs
- Join Date: Dec 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 25,017
- Rep Power: 75344
-
-
Is it legal there to be on your phone while driving? Is it legal to wear headphones while driving there?
If these things are legal, he was doing nothing wrong at the time aside from looking down for a few seconds.
I personally believe he doesnt deserve that sentence. I understand the family wants to see him punished and plenty more feel the same. Jail is used for criminals, which he is not. So theres a grey area that has me on the fence.
If these things are legal, he was doing nothing wrong at the time aside from looking down for a few seconds.
I personally believe he doesnt deserve that sentence. I understand the family wants to see him punished and plenty more feel the same. Jail is used for criminals, which he is not. So theres a grey area that has me on the fence.
Carb Mal-absorption, no breads, sugary snacks, rice, pasta...live off of 30-40g a day.
Eosinophilic eso****itis, cant ingest dairy or my eso****us closes up
11-03-2016, 10:16 AM
-
#147
- samsbolton
- Registered User
-
- samsbolton
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 52
- Posts: 25,801
- Rep Power: 63497
-
-
Originally Posted By Zerafian⏩
Honestly, you should read about the case before you proclaim he doesn't deserve 10 years.Is it legal there to be on your phone while driving? Is it legal to wear headphones while driving there?
If these things are legal, he was doing nothing wrong at the time aside from looking down for a few seconds.
I personally believe he doesnt deserve that sentence. I understand the family wants to see him punished and plenty more feel the same. Jail is used for criminals, which he is not. So theres a grey area that has me on the fence.
If these things are legal, he was doing nothing wrong at the time aside from looking down for a few seconds.
I personally believe he doesnt deserve that sentence. I understand the family wants to see him punished and plenty more feel the same. Jail is used for criminals, which he is not. So theres a grey area that has me on the fence.
1. Yes, it's obviously illegal to use your phone, unless it's completely hands free, and even then you can be done for not using due care.
2. Professional drivers of large vehicles magnify the risks enormously, and he knew that. He had signed a form an HOUR before the accident saying he wouldn't use a phone.
3. Watch the footage from his cab. The line of traffic is fully visible for nearly 10 seconds. He barely hit the brakes at all.
It's not murder, no one is saying it is. It's gross criminal negligence. In the U.K. the sentence is automatically halved, so he will likely serve 5 years. Given the facts of the case, I can't see that that is excessive.
2023 bertie awards 2024 nominations
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184693083
11-03-2016, 11:10 AM
-
#148
- Lawlstud
- Dr.Phil of Misc.
-
- Lawlstud
- Dr.Phil of Misc.
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: Houston, Texas, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 15,880
- Rep Power: 68010
-
-
Originally Posted By arn710⏩
Right. I put answering your phone right up there with looking down to take a bite of your burger.How do you deem there was no intent? He willfully engaged in an extremely dangerous act full well understanding the consequences
Let's say I was to take a high powered rifle and randomly fire shots into your house blindly. Extremely dangerous right? Let's say one of them clips your skull. I guess I get a couple years for leaving brain matter all over your carpet right. I mean I wasn't intending you kill you. Seems reasonable
Let's say I was to take a high powered rifle and randomly fire shots into your house blindly. Extremely dangerous right? Let's say one of them clips your skull. I guess I get a couple years for leaving brain matter all over your carpet right. I mean I wasn't intending you kill you. Seems reasonable
"He willfully engaged in an extremely dangerous act full well understanding the consequences"
Madmen eating burgers while driving.
No he fuking didn't. He wouldn't have been on his phone if he fully understood, "I can kill a chit load of fukin people".
I don't answer the phone or do any chit like this while driving.
But I know someone that looked at their cup holder to grab their coffee while trailing a man on a motorcycle, well in that small window of time the motocycle slammed on its breaks to avoid hitting a blown out tired, and she ran him over. It was on camera because it was at a traffic camera and everyone saw what happened. The guy was also a offduty cop, so she got the book thrown at her and was sentenced to a minimum 15 years in prison.
You will never convince me that that is a just punishment and when she looked at that cup of coffee she "willfully engaged in an extremely dangerous act full well understanding the consequences" and deserves to have her life ruined because of it. Yes he is dead and had his life ruined, I do understand that. But I see no benefit of her sitting in prison for a minimum 15 years.
Belief without evidence is a fools game.
Listen Crew - Anything on your mind, want someone to talk to? Hit that PM button brah
5 * Thread Maker
Lone Star State Crew
Diesel Life Crew
Lol @ Trumplets Crew
Lol @ CEO of Exxon for SoS, GoldmanSachs for Treasury, and Creationist for Education Crew
Lol @ Drain the Swamp Crew
Reps for life: stfaulk89
11-03-2016, 11:13 AM
-
#149
11-03-2016, 11:15 AM
-
#150
- godownfighting
- Banned
-
- godownfighting
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2013
- Location: Chad
- Posts: 10,869
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
guys an absolute **** I'd be fine with the death penalty on this one
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts