Posts
I think that in considering punishments, intent should play a large roll. Recently a tragic death occured when a 64-year-old man attempted an illegal U-Turn from the right shoulder of a major 4-lane highway. He pulled in front of a motorcyclist who was not wearing a helmet. Word is not officially in as to whether or not protective head gear would have saved his life but he did die of severe head trauma and made it to the hospital alive.
Presumably, the driver of the car did not intend to kill anyone. He intended to make an illegal U-Turn. I am not saying that his only punishment should be for the U-Turn. Negligence is the real crime here. The driver's negligence resulted in an accident; BUT, I'm not convinced the driver of the car is 100% responsible for the death of the victim. If reasonable doubt exists that he wouldn't have died wearing a reasonable helmet I think this should be treated the same way it would have been had the victim survived.
On the other side of the coin, if I intend to kill you by shooting you and you survive, my punishment should be the same as it would have been had you died. That is: In my book attempted murder = murder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
If we had a helmet law in this state I could fully jump on board with you on this one. But since, as of the time of this comment, there is no reason to believe that the motorcyclist did anything illegal in any way shape or form, 100% of the cause and outcome of the accident rest souley on the shoulders of the van driver. Should the driver be charged with murder? No way in hell. Misdemeanor negligent homicide? You bet.
Whats next? Blaming that little 11 year old boy that had his abdomin and leg blown to pieces just because he wasn't wearing Kevlar®?
I'm certain that the homemade firework lovin man did not intend to hurt anyone but he should still be held accountable for the outcome of his actions.
I agree in regards to the intent, this man should not be charged with murder, what happened was an accident. I know the HJ said that he was given a citation for an illegal u-turn, but I wonder if that is accurate? The man pulled to the side of the road, signaled and then began his u-turn, to my knowledge, (I could be wrong) this isn't considered an illegal u-turn, it is perfectly legal as long as one pulls to the side, signals and then proceeds with the turn. I am wondering if the man was actually cited for improper lookout because he failed to see the motorcyclist. It's a sad story but, this man is in noway a murderer. From what I've been told, he has no criminal history what so ever.
BTW- I like the blog! MJB
Anonymous,
It is illegal to make a u-turn from the righ shoulder on a 4 lane highway.
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying se7en! MJB
I really do not understand the man's motive for making such a turn. Why not pull to the median and flip a Uey?
I agree 7. That was part of my argument FOR helmet laws. I was trying to make an illustration whereas the driver kills another driver, but it was a driver not wearing a seatbelt.
BUT, I think it's wrong as I do not believe we should need these laws to tell us to behave safely.
OK, here's another hypothetical. He makes the same U-Turn, another driver with a bad ticker (too much McDonald's)swerves and misses then drives on a few blocks and has a heart-attack. Same number of laws broken. Same fault. But again, an unfortunate circumstance out of the illegal U-Turner's control. Negligent Homicide again?
What if the bike were deffective and exploded on impact and THAT killed the biker. Still the same circumstances and an element contributing to the death was out of the driver's control.
The missing helmet probably contributed to this death. The driver had no control over that element.
But I guess to be consistant with my "intent" argument, he did perform a deadly maneuver that certainly COULD have killed someone wearing a helmet and driving the speed limit.
I just hate to see this case go down as a lynching and for bikers to turn another blind eye to the benefits of wearing a helmet. You're not protecting just yourself, your protecting the people you intend to leave behind by taking the risk of riding a crotch rocket like you were Evel Knievel without a helmet.
In the story on the HJ I could see the bikers picking up their pitch forks and embarking on an us vs. them diatribe where everyone is expected to pick sides even though all the cards are not yet on the table. I'd expect them to tell each other to wear helmets and that the wind in your hair is not worth the risk to your kids. I mean by that rationale I ought to drive my car Ace Ventura style with my head out the window.
MJB
Thanks friend! I appreciate your comments. We did some good work on the "Celebrations" string!
Grab an account. Stick around!
I'm sorry, Bluto, but I have to disagree. I feel that people should be punished and rewarded based on results and not intentions.
What if I went to work, tried really hard, but failed to perform at a competent level. Should my labor be rewarded with a raise? I tried, didn't I? I don't think so. My employer and I would both be party to a vulgar lie of a transaction if we participated in such a hoax. By the way, politicians are great at doing things with a good heart but causing more havoc than they could have imagined otherwise.
As for the guy making a U-turn, I have to say that according to the information I have read HE KILLED SOMEONE. Whether it was his intention or not, he must be dealt with by his results.
That's all I have. Good blog.
Thanks Mike.
I see where you are coming from. My “intent” argument may hold more water with the attempted murder situation. As for cases like this though, if this accident would not have resulted in death if the rider had worn a helmet, I still assert the death in and of itself should play little roll. Intent certainly does not fit that argument at all. I’m looking for another word and it’s escaping me at the moment. Perhaps simple circumstance is all I'm addressing here. Would the circumstances change if there were a helmet law in place? I hate to advocate for helmet laws just so people can drive more recklessly. But like 7 said, this might play out differently if the victim were also guilty of some infraction. It certainly would in Civil Court. I am waffling a bit between, “The driver should not be liable for the death if it would have been prevented by a helmet” and “the driver could have killed someone even if they WERE wearing a helmet.”
It certainly seems less than cut and dry to me.
I appreciate you dropping in and hope you will stick around…
I have to wonder how each of us would feel if the driver of the car had been one of us? Would we still feel the same?
This is something that needs to be considered when it comes to setting up consistent safety laws. With safety laws, if someone "kills someone" while they are not wearing the protective gear in question we let the "killer" off the hook to some extent it seems. If this had been a seatbeltless driver rather than a helmetless rider, does degree of liability change? It sounds like it would to some of those with whom I've debated. Seems very circumstantial. Does some degree of liability really hinge on whether or not there is or isn't a seatbelt or helmet law?
Though horrible TTlive,
I have to think I'd rather live with the driver's mistake than die with the biker's mistake.
No doubt to some extent this driver's life has ended, too. At least life as he knew it a few days ago.
No doubt this tragic motorcycle incident will end up in civil court with the family of the deceased seeking monetary damages. You can bet a main argument of the defendant will be the motorcycle rider should have been wearing a helmet. I believe comparing Kevlar to wearing a motorcycle helmet is a ridiculous argument. Motorcyclists know by the very nature of the beast they're riding, the dangers of injury/death increase exponentially. There are usually no second chances on a motorcycle. The driver of the van will pay an enormous price before this is all over. But the fact is, motorcycles are harder to see and motorcycle driver's need to be cognizant of that fact and be defensive drivers at all times. Steel and flesh don't mix well. You have little to no protection on a motorcycle when you collide with steel. It's the law that you must be seat-belted in a vehicle. Yet motorcyclists in Utah are not required to wear a helmet. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me.
I believe if you attempt to murder someone in the first degree and fail, then it's the same thing as first degree murder. You should be tried the same way regardless. Just because you're a bad criminal and didn't pull of the original intent in my eyes makes you no less guilty of your intended crime.
Case in point: If you hire a hitman and you're caught you'll be charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder. You will most likely face the same penalty including death even though you didn't pull the trigger.
Case in point: Does a police officer wait for a bad guy to actually shoot before he defends himself with lethal force? Absolutely not.
Case in point: If a foreign warship fires a missile at a US warhsip and it's a dud, does the Captain of the US warship say, we're not going to respond and sink the bastard? I don't think so.
Case in point: Richard Reid unsuccessfully attempted to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic with over 300 passengers aboard. Should he still receive the death penalty? In my book he should be tortured for years then slowly executed in the most gruesome tortuous way possible. What Richard Reid attempted to do goes beyond the description of evil.
Case in point: If I'm an arsonist and fail to burn your home down, should I be charged for a lesser crime because I'm a bad arsonist? What if I did burn your home down. Can I argue you should have had fire sprinklers therefore you are partcially to blame that I successfully burned your home down?
This stuff to me is all common sense. Something our injustice system appears to have lost sight of.
i like the way you think Fric Mon!
I'm still torn a bit on how to apply this line of thinking to negligence.
Unfortunately, it's pretty uncommon to "learn the hard way" about wearing a helmet. Victims tend to not survive the first lesson on this.
It's a lesson you learn vicariously for the most part. Bikers, please take to heart the lesson Travis didn't live to learn. Wear your helmet!
Last night was the first time that I drove to SLC on my cycle with full gear. I have to be honest when I say that I felt I was putting myself in danger with the lack of ability to see, move, change lanes, etc. The helmet caused such fatigue and diminished periphrile vision I couldn't believe it. I would hope that as I get used to it more, the frustration level will drop. It frustrates me that it is such a catch 22 situation. Protect yourself because it is the sane thing to do or actually enjoy what you doing? I have never put these types of real issues with gear usage into the equation before and even I am surprised. After 20+ years of riding without gear I am afraid I have ruined my ability to be comfortable with it on. I have made the trip to SLC many times in the past and I must say the difference was astounding. Where I used to feel confident and comfortable, last night I felt like somenone beat the shit out of me and I was an accident waiting to happen.
It won't change my mind about protective gear but I might have to pay 20,000 dollars to upgrade to a bike that will make it more comfortable again.
Understandable 7. Nice descriptive post...I can see it.
I just thought of something. We seem to take no U-Turn laws for granted. That is, why is this safety law anymore viable than a seatbelt of helmet law?
This does come down to WHO broke what law. If we had a helmet law, the civil case would certainly change.
In other words, the circumstances change based on subjective law making.
If there were no road laws, who would be responsible for what here? Take away the U-Turn law and do we circumstantially do the same thing we would do if we added a Helmet law?
FrictionMan,
I do feel some love for the "string 'em up" attitude of punishing foolish criminals even when they fail at pulling of their intentions. I fear, however, that this attitude of rewarding and punishing intentions is way to commonplace in our society and it is eroding good people.
Trying is not doing. Attempting is not completing. Wanting is not getting. Though I am more concerned with personal accountability here and how that translates to my young boys, I have to draw the line and apply it everywhere.
Like I said before, assuming the mortorcyclist would have died regardless of better protection, the driver of the van is completely responsible for the death.
It's the only way I can rectify my position on intention vs. results.
this is so hard of a case if you make it personal
but like you said in the case of murder but also the man is 100% responsible for the accedent there for 100% responsible for the out come none of us would be arguing that his insurance is not responsible for all the damages if the man had lived so why is he not responsible for the mans death as well
is the man a cold blooded killer know the problem i believe lies in the way are punishment for are laws is set up we let cold blooded killers sit around in cells
but we take people who make honest mistakes and put them in the same cells ruining two lives when one has already been lost and we could save the other and us to save many more
to the intent argument lets change it to guns sence you hate guns so much
what if a hunter is in the field takes a shot he should not have and the round goes threw and hits another hunter down range.
Everything in this case is actuly legal. just poor jugment the Driver was poor judgment and illegal
but the results are the same a death agures would you say that you would not try the hunter for neglagent homacide
or make it more steamy a conceled carrier shots a robber but gets carried away and a round goes threw the wall and hits a neighbor what would you say then
that is an actul case that i have read
If you shoot an innocent bystander you must be prosecuted. And to say firing a weapon frivilously and not hitting anyone should be the same as attempted murder or negligent homicide might be a stretch. Just like saying the penalty for making this Illegal U Turn and hitting no one should be the same as if you killed someone. With negligence, I guess we are stuck with the degree to which your negligence created a situation. I still think the fact that the rider wasn't wearing a helmet ought to come in to play when this man is defending himself.
im sorry i didnt explain it beter the person was not fireing reclusly the round pased threw its intended target and then threw the wall of the apartment into the adjoining apartment. how can we argue that killing someone with a car is any diffrent then killing someone with a bullet
The result is the same.
This family will still be with out a father and a husband because of another persons neglagence it dosnt matter the severity of the stupidity its the result of the stupidity.
Although prosecuting this gentelman to the fullest exstent of the law and hurting 2 familys instead of just one also dosnt make much sence
one family is out there dad, should another family be with out theres as well. On the other hand this is all from his stupid desision and well lets bring it up maybe this man was to old to be driveing
obvisly he couldnt see and he made the wrong choice of were to position his car to make the turn there is a median for a reason
so if you are going to hold gun owners responsible and we need to jump backwards and rub are belly and pat are head
why do we just hand the keys to anyone it is alot easyer to kill someone with a vehical then a gun and by far more people are killed threw the neglagent acts of others in cars then guns
Helmet laws and safety belt laws should follow the lead of organ donor cards.
If you get a motorcycle license or a vehicle license, when you sign that card, you agree to the following:
1) You don't have to wear a helmet/seatbelt. Forcing compliance is not the business of a Democracy.
2) If, however, you are mortally wounded (skull crushed/thrown from vehicle) as a result of an accident on publically funded roadways, you GIVE UP the right to medical attention.
The precedent is already in place.
If I am a carton-a-day smoker, I don't get the iron lung.
If I drink a mason jar full of rum for breakfast, they will NOT accept me on the liver transplant list.
Therefore, if you don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt, you give up your right to the same level of medical attention as those who do.
God, I need a drink.
PK,
With an accidental shooting it’s pretty much impossible to make any defense that the unintended victim could have saved his own life by wearing Kevlar. One does not reasonably expect to be shot. On the other hand, a biker can reasonably expect a helmet to be useful as a driver could for a seatbelt.
The case you’ve illustrated is indeed interesting. I wonder if the only way out was for this intruder to be shot. If not, there may be some negligence on the part of the shooter. Otherwise, I suppose you could blame the intruder for the death of the bystander. I wonder, though, if a different choice of weapon would be more appropriate for defending one’s property within the thin walls of apartment living. (maybe a shotgun or lower caliber bullet that loses momentum easier…I am not gun physics savvy so I wonder) I am sure cops are trained to consider these things when discharging their weapons whereas I do not believe any such training goes into gaining a weapon and permit to carry it.
I can dig it To' bold Chicken and Tob' Tobold Chicken and Kernels of Tob'...
Refusing medical care to the victim for this seems pretty harsh but I'd add to it that you also waive your right to sue someone for cracking your skull by driving poorly in your presence.
The folks who made the illegal u-turn obviously did not intend to hit the motorcycle even though they violated the law with an illegal u-turn. This is a sad accident that was caused by negligence but not malicious intent.
I've made the argument previously that using NASCAR as an example. Very few NASCAR driver's die or are seriously injured anymore despite amazing crashes with speeds in excess of 200 mph. I'm not aware of any dangerous sport/racing where helmets are not required. Everyday motorcycle riding is the one BAD example in my opinion. So in my opinion you could also make a case of negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. In the HJ forums, a physician made an excellent argument backed up by real data concerning the efficacy of motorcycle helmets and their relation to increased death/injury.
And I still believe strongly that if you intend to murder someone in the first degree and you are simply a bad criminal, your crime is no less as you intended to carry it out. Richard Reid is the perfect example. He came damn close to downing an airliner with over 300 passengers on board over the Atlantic. The 300 passengers are fortunate the idiot who completely intended to murder 300+ had wet shoes. Otherwise, that plane would have probably never been found and 300+ families would be living with a terrorist attack of a madman.
To me this is black and white. I certainly don't see any shades of grey when it comes to attempted first degree murder. If you intended to carry out the deed and failed, your intentions were no less. Therefore, I fail to see how you should be treated any different than the murderer who succeeded. This is a subject I doubt anyone could ever change my mind about.
I believe China has it right when it comes to the prosecution of 1st degree murderers and attempted 1st degree murderers. Their prosection is swift. No appeals. You are executed in public within two weeks of conviction. China executes with a bullet to the back of the head with an AK-47. It is 100 percent effective. No pain. I'm sure the convicted suffer much mental aguish the two weeks leading up to the public execution. But on the other hand, it's easy to forget the anguish the murdered most likely experienced prior to their murder. It's easy to forget the pain and agnony the the loved ones experience for a lifetime after such horrific crimes against humanity.
Post a Comment