Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[Spaz]

BTW, I don't think Tex, based on his posts on this thread, deserves the backlash directed at him.

Saying he hopes the families are forgiving is a good sentiment, and that's all (IMO) Tex was driving at.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I can divine he was a cop on duty driving his car that killed two people on the opposite side of the road. That is enough needed to }etermine criminal conduct.

Murder implies intent. Criminal conduct does not require intent because it covers a very broad spectrum of activities, including unintentional neglect.

[MikeWaters]

He may be charged with manslaughter. It would be hard to prove murder. If he has a video camera that is on all the time, then maybe murder.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Spaz

BTW, I don't think Tex, based on his posts on this thread, deserves the backlash directed at him.

Saying he hopes the families are forgiving is a good sentiment, and that's all (IMO) Tex was driving at.

Backlash? There was none. He said they should not be prosecuted, I striongkly disagreed, and I pointed out why. (Btw, he did not originally say the families should be forgiving, he said that if they decided not to prosecute it would be anice gesture; if your child had been killed like this how would you react if someon dropped by and casually said "sure would be a nice gestuire if you let the guy go without prosecution"?) Tex then tried to have both ways, saying they shouldn't be proscuted, even citing the prophet's words, but also claiming he had never said they shouldn't be proscuted. WHen asked to take a position, he failed to do so. THere is no backlash. I and others who have faced idiotic drivers ahve very strong feelings about this. Tex chooses to continue to play his little "dance around the position without taking one to get maximum flexibility" rhteorical game and so he gets what he deserves. (And I don't care that he plays the game. We all play those srot fo games here. But he's a big boy and if he is going to paly the game than he can't be surprised when he gets called on it once in a while.)

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. And criminal negligence is likely an appropriate charge.

Barring evidence of malice, "murder" is not.

For somebody that is always accusing others of failign to read properly, you are doing a bang up job of exactly that in this thread. DId you read my original post? I posted that he was at least criminally negligent. Murder? intent? I think that non-lawyers sometimes confuse these issues (lawyers do too, for htat matter). But make no mistake, what happened was a crime and he should be prosecuted for the crime that is supported by the evidence.

It sounds like you now agree with me, based on my orioginal post?

[MikeWaters]

Spaz is dumb enough to fall for Tex's rhetorical games.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Murder implies intent. Criminal conduct does not require intent because it covers a very broad spectrum of activities, including unintentional neglect.

Criminal conduct requires itnent. I have never said I know what crime he should be charged with, maybe murder, maybe manslaughter, who knows. My probelm has always been with the suggestion that he should just be able to waive it off. THat is entirely unacceptable, under any circumstance.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Criminal conduct requires itnent. I have never said I know what crime he should be charged with, maybe murder, maybe manslaughter, who knows. My probelm has always been with the suggestion that he should just be able to waive it off. THat is entirely unacceptable, under any circumstance.

Intent, meaning specifically intending to hit the cyclists.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Intent, meaning specifically intending to hit the cyclists.

INtent is a tricky thing in the law. THer are several different types. If he intended to hit them, then it might even be a capital crime. But no matter what, under any reading here, I can't fathom how this is nto criminal to some degree or another and it should be prosecuted.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

For somebody that is always accusing others of failign to read properly, you are doing a bang up job of exactly that in this thread. DId you read my original post? I posted that he was at least criminally negligent. Murder? intent? I think that non-lawyers sometimes confuse these issues (lawyers do too, for htat matter). But make no mistake, what happened was a crime and he should be prosecuted for the crime that is supported by the evidence.

It sounds like you now agree with me, based on my orioginal post?

The "murder" comment was not directed at you, but at Mike Waters (with whom it appeared you agreed). Apologies for the confusion, but many times I'm trying to respond to multiple people with one post.

Here is your response. You'll notice that I commented RIGHT THERE that I didn't say he shouldn't be prosecuted. That is, the family and/or the state have a right to prosecute should they so choose.

Given that based on what little we know, it appeared to be an accident (and I'm going to give him the benefit until shown otherwise), I remarked how amazing it would be if the family chose to extend mercy. It might help them both heal a little more easily after a tremendous tragedy.

I pity that you don't share that feeling, but I don't begrudge you it. Stop acting like I'm unreasonable for how I feel, would you?