Drunk killed by bus driver

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Nevermind, Animefan=doesnt know anything about animation rant not gonna be posted.

[Guest Kagato Otaku]

Oh...

 

We already did that. Did your teacher give you another lecture?

 

Though I'm sure it ties in with the whole "vehicular manslaughter" bit. Otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up, yes?

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

for kahran-

Raymond Senior chose not to stop and assumed Lee Robinson would jump out of the way, it was alleged.

 

Yeah, I actually read the article. I apologize about my earlier statement. If he had no time to stop, then he would have deserved it. Like say if the drunk got hit by a train or something.

[Guest bob_barron]

I dont think guys who wander into the street, drunk or not, should be allowed to complain that it wasnt their fault they got hit, nor do I think the family should be able to sue(if they were to try). Its just common sense not to walk into a street or stand in the middle of one.

 

Can you read?? He's dead- so he can't say whether it was his fault.

 

The article does not mention anything about the family planning to sue- so what is your point?

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Can you read?? He's dead- so he can't say whether it was his fault.

I was speaking hypothetically. Since he walked into the street, i dont see how he could have possibly thought he would not get hurt from such a reckless action.

 

The article does not mention anything about the family planning to sue- so what is your point?

Once again I was speaking hypothetically on the situation, I said if they did, I did not say they were.

[Guest DrTom]

Um, the driver did give the guy ample time to move accoridng to the article. 50 meters was ample time to move, but the guy stood there.

You're forgetting a very basic thing: pedestrians always have the right-of-way on a street, even if they're crossing it illegally. The vehicles have to stop for you. Perhaps if the guy had broken his ankle stepping in a pothole, you'd say he deserved to die because he didn't drag himself out of the way of oncoming traffic.

 

Really, this is a very simple issue. It doesn't matter whether or not the victim was drunk: the bus driver CHOSE NOT TO STOP, despite having AMPLE TIME to do so. As such, he is a criminal, and should be prosecuted as such.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

You're forgetting a very basic thing: pedestrians always have the right-of-way on a street, even if they're crossing it illegally. The vehicles have to stop for you. Perhaps if the guy had broken his ankle stepping in a pothole, you'd say he deserved to die because he didn't drag himself out of the way of oncoming traffic.

 

Yes they do have the right-of-way, but this guy stood in the middle of a street, thats not the same as walking in the road, which is stupid enough in his own right. If the guy did brake his ankle Id still say, why the hell wasnt he walking in a cross way. If you broke your ankle while walking in a cross way someone would probably drag you out of the way.

 

Really, this is a very simple issue. It doesn't matter whether or not the victim was drunk: the bus driver CHOSE NOT TO STOP, despite having AMPLE TIME to do so. As such, he is a criminal, and should be prosecuted as such.

Fine, ignore the drunk factor, the guy stood in the middle of the street, if he didnt realize he could be hit and killed its his own fault. Was the driver right in doing it, nope, but I blame him alot less then the guy who stood in the middle of the street.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Yes they do have the right-of-way, but this guy stood in the middle of a street, thats not the same as walking in the road, which is stupid enough in his own right. If the guy did brake his ankle Id still say, why the hell wasnt he walking in a cross way. If you broke your ankle while walking in a cross way someone would probably drag you out of the way.

This is exactly why I think you are a fucking idiot. You concede the point and then you ramble incoherently afterward making up some random distinction to try to preserve your argument. This post is all nonsense. Pedestrian's have the right of way, but this guy was standing in the middle of the road? Are you really saying that someone standing in the middle of the road is not a pedestrian? Because that is the substance of your argument and it is complete nonsense. Usually I view such nonsense as the last refuge of a man too cowardly to admit he's lost an argument, but I suspect that you are just too fucking stupid to even realize it. Either pedestrians have the right of way or they don't. This is not a civil lawsuit. Comparative negligence does not matter in criminal proceedings.

 

Now go ahead and call me a sheep, or tell me you're not going to bother with the argument anymore, then continue to argue anyway, not only within that post but with subsequent posts as well.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I think the saddest thing of all is the fact that he's only 22 years old. So fucking young. I really do feel sorry for the guy. He was probably just having a good time. I mean, I don't drink for obvious reasons, but how many times have you had a friend who was drunk and done something stupid? You'd think this situation wouldn't have ended up as bad, due to the fact that the driver had time not to take away someone's life, but than you'd be wrong.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Are you really saying that someone standing in the middle of the road is not a pedestrian?

He is a pedestrain, but HE STOOD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GOD DAMN FUCKING ROAD. YOU HAVE NO BUSSINESS TO STAND IN THE ROAD, NO REASON TO JUST STAND THERE, i dont know for a fact, but I bet its illegal to stop traffic. If you do stand in the middle of the road, you are asking to get hurt. Just because you stand in a road doesnt guarentee anyone will stop for you, they may have to by law, but that dosent mean they will.

 

As children you're told not to play in the street, heres a god example why.

[Guest Kagato Otaku]

Jaywalking is illegal, and punishable by criminal offense.

 

As is willfully running someone over with a twelve ton bus.

[Guest LooseCannon]

He is a pedestrain, but HE STOOD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GOD DAMN FUCKING ROAD. YOU HAVE NO BUSSINESS TO STAND IN THE ROAD, NO REASON TO JUST STAND THERE, i dont know for a fact, but I bet its illegal to stop traffic.

Oh, I must've missed that part. Then by all means the driver had every right to run the guy over. Fuck, he probably should've accelerated just in case.

 

If you do stand in the middle of the road, you are asking to get hurt. Just because you stand in a road doesnt guarentee anyone will stop for you, they may have to by law, but that dosent mean they will.

 

No one's saying it's a good idea to stand in the middle of the road. The question is whether a driver of a car is entitled to run over someone who happens to be standing in the middle of the road. I don't know whether you argue this way because you're too stupid to realize that such things don't matter or if it's because you're dishonest and you're deliberately fudging the issues.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

The question is whether a driver of a car is entitled to run over someone who happens to be standing in the middle of the road.

Hes not entitlted to, but the other guy was not entitlted to stand in the middle of the road either. I blame the guy for standing in the street more then I blame the driver, thats how I feel about it. Was the driver justified for doing it, nope, but Im not gonna say throw the guy in jail because some idiot didnt move when he had ample time to and was violating the law. He was standing in the road, logic dictates you can be seriously hurt doing this, and he choose to ignore that. Getting hit was his fault, he could have moved, he could have not stood in the middle of the street, but he didnt move and he stood in the street.

 

Im not fudging anything.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Did the driver have time to stop?

 

Did he try to?

 

Does the driver have the right to run the guy over just because the guy in the street himself was breaking the law?

 

Those are the only questions.

 

As I said before, comparative negligence is not at issue.

 

You were either deliberately fudging or you're a fucking moron.

 

I'm glad you chose fucking moron.

 

At least you're not a coward.

 

I'm typing line by line, because for some reason I think it'll help you understand the post better.

 

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to aid in your comprehension.

[Guest Kagato Otaku]

He was standing in the road, logic dictates you can be seriously hurt doing this, and he choose to ignore that.

 

 

Logic dictates that getting a gunshot wound to the head can seriously hurt.

 

If the victim doesn't "move" fast enough, the shooter's still at fault.

 

Even if he was standing in the middle of the road.

 

-----------------------------------

 

By your "logic", a murderer's not liable for his actions if his intended victim had a chance to escape.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

As I said before, comparative negligence is not at issue.

Why just because you say it is? In my opinion, it was the guy who stood in the street's fault.

 

And it didnt help anything, it just looks long.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I think Kagato's post explains rather well why it's not at issue.

 

We're debating whether or not the bus driver's actions deserve criminal sanction.

 

If the guy had jumped in front of the bus that would be one thing.

 

But the driver had time to brake, and chose not to.

 

As I said before, driving a vehicle is a serious responsibility.

 

When a driver is negligent or reckless with the operation of that vehicle, we hold him criminally liable for the results.

 

What the victim was doing really does not matter.

 

Unless you believe the driver was entitled to run the guy over.

 

Is posting like this helping you any?

[Guest bob_barron]

As I said before, comparative negligence is not at issue.

Why just because you say it is? In my opinion, it was the guy who stood in the street's fault.

 

And it didnt help anything, it just looks long.

No one is saying that the guy who was in the street is angel.

 

But don't you think the driver could've hit the break button?

[Guest EricMM]

Exactly. There are many responsabilities that come with driving ANYTHING from a vespa to a mack truck.

 

They include not driving through red lights, not drinking, and not running people over.

 

If you do not make every single little effort to avoid doing all these things (and more) you probably shouldn't be driving cuz you will hurt somebody.

 

If you are sitting in a ton of metal, the burden is on you to stop, it's not OPTIONAL, it's entirely upon you. There is much less chance of the busdriver or the busdrivers passangers being hurt if he had stopped than the jaywalker being hurt if the bus hit him, nuff said.

 

If you're driving and you don't break for a human, you're a fucking killer and deserve to be punished.