Stupid Guest Tricks

GaTechGal wrote:You know, I think I kind of take pity on this woman (granted I don't know ALL the circumstances nor a lot about the location where she was). It was late and she was probably trying to get the kids home in bed. She is described as a good mother who blames herself for this tragedy and is unlikely to seek a new trial.

What has REALLY inflamed me about this article are the statements:
"An all-white jury convicted Nelson, who is black, of second degree vehicular homicide and other misdemeanor offenses."
and
"Most users of buses in Marietta, a largely white and conservative community north of Atlanta, are black and on low incomes, said Flocks."

What difference does it make as to the RACE of ANY of the participants in this case. It insinuates that the jury was prejudiced. And I've got news for these folks, Marietta is NOT largely white and conservative. It's VERY racially diverse.

It makes a difference because of class differences, and race is one indicator of possible class differences.

If the people on the jury were all middle to upper class and don't regularly ride on buses or walk in the area of town where the tragedy happened, then they'll be less likely to understand her circumstances. They'll be accustomed to driving instead of the hazards of taking the bus, like the ones krnlmustrd pointed out. Poorer areas are often less pedestrian-friendly, and if you don't live in a poor area, you may not know that - or if you know it intellectually, you won't have the visceral knowledge of having to deal with it every day.

If I may?

Yes, the reasons why the woman chose to jay-walk are understandable. However, the results highlight why we have such laws, and why inconvenience isn't typically a suitable legal defense.

I'm not arguing whether or not there should have been a crosswalk closer to the bus stop were she attempted to cross. There may be a good reason why there isn't one there. However, since there isn't one, that does not mean one can decide they know better and ignore traffic laws.

PatchOBlack wrote:If I may?

Yes, the reasons why the woman chose to jay-walk are understandable. However, the results highlight why we have such laws, and why inconvenience isn't typically a suitable legal defense.

I'm not arguing whether or not there should have been a crosswalk closer to the bus stop were she attempted to cross. There may be a good reason why there isn't one there. However, since there isn't one, that does not mean one can decide they know better and ignore traffic laws.

Sure. But charging her with vehicular manslaughter? That doesn't seem to fit at all.

Amphigorey wrote:Sure. But charging her with vehicular manslaughter? That doesn't seem to fit at all.

At first glance, that charge would seem to not fit the circumstances. However, perhaps it applies since she was the one who directly caused her child to be hit by the car? I can see it being argued that it was similar to a person pushing someone into traffic.

PatchOBlack wrote:If I may?

Yes, the reasons why the woman chose to jay-walk are understandable. However, the results highlight why we have such laws, and why inconvenience isn't typically a suitable legal defense.

I'm not arguing whether or not there should have been a crosswalk closer to the bus stop were she attempted to cross. There may be a good reason why there isn't one there. However, since there isn't one, that does not mean one can decide they know better and ignore traffic laws.

How many people do you know who've been ticketed for jaywalking? I don't know a single one. When I first started working in Manhattan 10 years ago, I strictly waited for the signals to cross the street. That lasted about a day. It's unheard of there. You cross when there is a gap in traffic. It's commonly accepted. The same goes for other large cities such as Chicago and LA. I'm sure there are jaywalking laws, but if the city doesn't enforce them, doesn't it seem unreasonable to obey them?

Amphigorey wrote:Sure. But charging her with vehicular manslaughter? That doesn't seem to fit at all.

I agree with PatchOBlack,,We've had some 'home invasions' here where one or more of the perps were shot and killed by the home-owners. No charges were filed against the home-owner but the surviving perp was charged with homicide. In a nutshell, "Someone died during the act of a crime".

[Relocated from the wrong thread.]

I am reminded of an incident that happened to my father. His route to/from work passed by a high school. Jaywalking across a major street in front of the school was a constant issue, especially as it was used by many students as a way to show their disdain for the drivers. (No, it wasn't a racial issue, it was just bad attitudes.)

The kids would wait for a car to approach, then walk across in front of them as slowly as possible. The kids would also space themselves out so that you couldn't drive between them and they could block the road for as long as possible. Under California law at the time, it wasn't possible to issue a citation unless the arresting officer saw that the kids were obstructing traffic.

My father, wishing to support his local police, always drove up towards these kids at full speed, slamming on his brakes at the last minute. This "evasive action" was generally sufficient to get the traffic officer stationed there to yank one of the kids up and cite him.

Unfortunately, his car got known for this. One day, when the uniformed officer wasn't there, a bunch of them walked out in front of his car and stopped. He slowly moved forward until he bumped into one of them, who then started screaming the he'd been hit!

At which point the undercover officer which my father had seen came out and grabbed the kid. Not to cite him for jaywalking, but to arrest him for "deliberate actions to obstruct traffic that resulted in a collision"... which was a low degree felony at the time!

Go Dad!

Oh goodness! A sad situation all around :(

krnlmustrd wrote:How many people do you know who've been ticketed for jaywalking? I don't know a single one. When I first started working in Manhattan 10 years ago, I strictly waited for the signals to cross the street. That lasted about a day. It's unheard of there. You cross when there is a gap in traffic. It's commonly accepted. The same goes for other large cities such as Chicago and LA. I'm sure there are jaywalking laws, but if the city doesn't enforce them, doesn't it seem unreasonable to obey them?

Sometimes laws are put on the books with no intention of being enforced, but they are there to establish fault after the fact. Much as in this case, if someone gets hurt while breaking a law, there is at least contributory negligence in determining damages, if not outright prosecution.

That a law is a low priority when it comes to enforcement should not be considered a sign that one is allowed to ignore the law. Jaywalking is typically one of them. That lots of people choose to ignore the law should not usually be considered a valid legal defense. Yes, maybe the odds are low in a particular case that jaywalking will end in an accident. However, all it takes is that one time.