Yeah…because I’m “defending” rich people, genius.
:rolleyes:
As wm– pointed out…it’s quite easy for a non rich person to be driving a Navigator (and he didn’t even mention other possibilities…borrowing a car, renting the car etc.)
It could be that I (and others) are suggesting that it appears several folks (like Blanche, OneCentStamp…) have been leaping to conclusions and assumptions without the benefit of supporting facts.
Blanche, this is how you admit a mistake. Around here, people think much better of you when you do so.
I should note the apology as well…good on yah OneCentStamp.
I’m guessing that the foot slid off the brake to the right, and onto the accelerator. But yes, especially if the engine is idling fast, a car can lurch forward quickly. I don’t have enough experience with SUVs or physics/engineering to know if their weight works for or against them in the same situation.
Well, I don’t drive a big SUV either. But I know that when I go through the Starbucks drive-thru in my little Toyota Corolla and can’t reach the coffee without taking my foot off the brake, I absolutely have to put the thing in park. If not I’m going to be hanging out the window while my car takes off on it’s own while I’m panicking to get seated again so I can hit the brake and hope I didn’t nail the curb.
sigh
Yes, there is.
At common law, the misdemeanor manslaughter rule is similar in operation to the felony murder rule. The felony murder rule makes any death occurring during the commission of a dangerous felony a murder. The misdemeanor manslaughter rule makes a death that happens during commission of a inherently dangerous misdemeanor a manslaughter. The misdemeanor must generally be an example of malum in se - an act wrong in and of itself - and not malum prohibitum, an act “wrong” only because it’s prohibited by law.
Needless to say, that doesn’t apply here, at least with respect to the facts alleged in the original story.
Blance seems to like leaping to conclusions based on minimal evidence. I was reacting to that, and the assumption that the driver was not immediately arrested because of his race or financial status. The reasons he wasn’t arrested have far more to do with police procedures than with class.
Aw, damn. Blew my crushing link and misspelled a name, to boot. Yay, me!
Trying this again:
Blanche, leaping to conclusions.
There is also a very real possibility that pedal mis-application occured here. They discuss a drive thru senario here (3rd paragraph)
It is possible as he reached for the food, his foot slipped and he hit the gas pedal thinking it was the brake. Happened lots of times to people driving Audi 5000s. Not necessarly in a drive thru, and not always with fatal results.
BTW Silenus WTF? 
I don’t agree with her conclusions but I don’t she’s been changing the facts. I just think she’s drawing a different conclusion FROM the facts. She acknowledged that she was wrong in her initial assumption that the guy was white (and in her first post she didn’t actually say the guy was white, she just said “a guy driving a $50K+ vehicle…”). She may be wrong in CONCLUDING that he must be rich because he was driving an SUV but it’s still a conclusion drawn from a fact.
I don’t think there’s any racial issue involved here but I don’t think Blanche is ignoring or changing what is actually known about the case. I agree she’s leaping to conclusions but not that she’s ignoring facts.
No, we’re just not taking the Star-Tribune article as gospel, either.
You’re saying we’re saying “the driver is innocent”. We’re actually saying “from the information we’ve seen, we can’t determine that the driver is guilty.” Very different statements.
Nor are we taking what the police said as gospel. Police are human- they sometimes make mistakes and jump to conclusions just like everybody else.
Because… maybe there was no evidence that he was intoxicated on anything? Police can’t just demand that any driver take a blood test or breathalyzer if there’s no reason to suspect that they’re intoxicated.
And, even if he was talking on a cell phone, or upset about his order, that doesn’t mean that the pedestrian wasn’t the cause of the accident. Talking on a cell phone or being angry while driving are, AFAIK (IANAL), not illegal in Minnesota. The police can’t just arrest someone for no reason, or for being a jerk, or for being rich.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Obviously, this is all now moot with regards to this particular story but couldn’t reckless and/or inattentive driving be construed as malum in se? What if talking on a cell phone is hypothetically prohibited by statute? It would be an illegal and arguably inherently dangerous act, would it not. What is the standard for determining whether it’s a per se “evil” or merely a prohibited one?
BTW up thread someone mentioned that it was a 2000 Navigator.
Kelly Blue Book lists a 2WD Navigator as having a retail price of $17,950 in elcellent condition. KBB is usually high when discussing street price. It is very possible that the driver paid about $15K for his ride. Which puts it in Kia territory.
Not “Why did this have to happen to my wife?” Not “What will become of my motherless childern?” Not “The light of my life is gone! Why?” None of that. Just “Why did this have to happen to me?”
Grief or not, that seems rather self-centered to me. If you disagree, fine with me.
If you’d read the rest of that thread, you would also read that I was making a joke.
I also admitted in this thread that I had assumed (incorrectly) that the driver was white, though I never flat-out said he was a white guy - I did say, though, that I felt that the driver would have been treated differently had he been a minority, based on my incorrect assumption. Of course, others in this thread said that this is a ‘mixed’ neighborhood, so maybe a black guy isn’t a minority in that area.
I still believe that this would have been treated more seriously had the victim been white.
What makes you think this isn’t being treated at the appropriate level of seriousness? What should the police have done differently?
If you think the police are biased against the victim for being Hispanic, why do you turn around and take their statement that the black driver was on a cell phone and angry at face value? Either the police are racially biased, in which case anything they say is suspect, or they aren’t.
I thought this kind of accident only happened when you smoked pot.
Jesus Christ, he just saw his wife killed right in front of his eyes. Forgive him for not choosing the most appropriate of remarks.
:rolleyes: