Candidate for Governor of Iowa Involved in Fatal Car Crash

[Norquist Nemesis]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBPZVTZTFE.html

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gregg Connell ran a stop sign and caused a car crash that killed another motorist, authorities say.

Connell's car collided with a vehicle driven by David Juhl, 51, on Tuesday afternoon near the town of Griswold. Both men were driving alone.

Juhl died at a hospital. The 56-year-old mayor of the town of Shenandoah, population 5,600, was treated at a hospital.

He was ticketed for a running a stop sign, Pottawattamie County Sheriff Jeff Danker said.

<full article at link>

[Fovea]

1. I don't care what party he was...

That is the end of a political career, IMO.

[Coventina]

2. Kill someone while drunk: Jail. Kill someone while sober: ticket

This issue never fails to PISS ME OFF!

[efhmc]

3. I so agree. Just ask Laura. She did the exact same thing. This is wrong.

[merwin]

8. Except Laura was most likely drunk

[efhmc]

46. I did not know that. Still amazing to me that you can kill someone

because of driving negligence and only get a ticket.

[merwin]

58. Laura ran a stop sign on a road very near to her own house that

she had lived at for a long time... out in the middle of nowhere.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd have to be pretty damn high or drunk to miss a stop sign near my house.

[BlueIris]

120. So glad posters here are aware of this "buried" incident.

I've been noticing for a while that on DU at least, it's not forgotten.

[allisonthegreat]

127. oh know i'll never forget...

But in regards to everyone else it depends on who they know..in the case of the candidate from Iowa it really is up to the people...let's face it there are many drivers on the roads today that don't need to be there that pass their DMV eye check all the time.:hurts:

[michreject]

76. Here in Mich

You can hit someone on a motorcycle and kill them and not even get a ticket. In Oakland County, they even pat you on the back and send you on your merry way.

[Ignacio Upton]

65. Okay, I'm going to get flamed for this, but

What about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick? I believe his side of the story in that case, but if we applied the standard of car accidents and people in politics, then it cuts both ways.

[apnu]

86. Aye it does, but little do we see that in politics. (nt)

[No Exit]

102. Teddy and Laura are "even", but

Georgie W. has killed WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY more people than either one of those two small-time demolition drivers.

[northzax]

126. yes, the price he paid for Chappaquidick was the Oval Office

If the people of Iowa choose to elect this man, just as the people of Mass. choose to elect Kennedy, then that's fine with me.

[July]

150. How much have you heard about Chappaquiddick?

Now, how much have you heard about Laura Bush's accident?

Same kind of coverage, right? Er . . . well, no.

If it's not relevant to a discussion of Bush, why does it come up every time a winger mentions Kennedy?

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Yep. Because sober and careless is so much more responsible.

I had a friend killed in the middle of the day on a 35 MPH local road by a driver who veered into his lane because she was distracted and not looking at the road. She was also speeding. Her penalty? Fine and six months probation. Her license wasn't even suspended.

Had she been drinking it would have been a different story.

I'm not dismissing the seriousness of drunk driving, but I agree with you. The penalties are out of whack.

[Abathar]

32. My daughter was hit while getting off the bus

The kid that hit her left 115' of rubber skid marks, his front bumper was flush with the back of the bus when he stopped, and he knocked her almost 50' into our neighbors yard.

It took me 2 years to get him in court, and they didn't even take his license away when they got him there! My daughter is crippled and a week later I see him driving through town in the same car with a crushed front end that was caused by my 3rd grade daughters body, I won't even say how close I came to putting myself in prison that day. I have very different views on incompetent drivers since then.

[efhmc]

47. What a horrible thing to have happen. Bless you and your daughter.

My husband was killed because of another's negligence. That person got off with a ticket. He had caused another driving death before my husband's. I wish the best for your little girl.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

100. What an ordeal that must have been

for all of you. It's fear of something like that occurring that kept me from letting my older boy get his license at age 16. He was just not mature and responsible enough to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I'm sorry this happened to your family...Thanks for posting.

On a totally different note, welcome to DU! :-)

[pitohui]

113. yes let's destroy the lives of everyone whose attention ever slips

jesus what's the matter w. these people?

who among us has not been in an "at fault" accident when we were not drunk but we screwed up anyway?

i never met such a holy crowd in my life

methinks people are conveniently blocking out their own "oopsies" when they want to criminalize making a damn mistake

accidents are called ACCIDENTS for a reason

EVERYONE gets tired or distracted at times, EVERYONE

[Gormy Cuss]

123. If your attention 'slips' and somebody dies

It's a bit more serious than an 'oopsie.' Tell my friend's widow who was throw into poverty. Tell his young children. Tell his mother. This incident happened 10 years ago and it took a solid five years for the family to get back on an even keel financially. Emotionally two of the kids are still screwed up.

The inattentive driver has to live with guilt, but it's not anywhere in the same league as the pain caused by her 'oopsie.' Her penalty was much less severe than the penalty endured by her victim's family. Had she been just barely over the legal BAC she would have had her license suspended. Would it really be so bad for her to be restricted from driving for one little year of her life as a penalty?


Sure, every driver has moments of distraction. Some drivers make a habit of it. Talking on the phone with a handset, eating, putting on makeup, etc are behaviors that promote conscious distraction. If the penalties are greater perhaps people will pay more attention more often. I'm not saying jail time, but mandatory suspension when somebody is severely injured or killed seems reasonable to me.

BTW, I make so statement on what should happen to the subject in the original story because I don't know what happened there. He may be an excellent driver who couldn't see an obscured stop sign. That's why the police investigate 'accidents.' to see if by any reasonable standard it was accidental and not negligent.

[rainbow4321]

12. Florida Lawmaker's Son Gets Probation In Fatal Car Crash (DUI)

http://www.local6.com/news/5276519/detail.html

The son of state Rep. Marty Bowen was sentenced Monday to six years' probation in the death of his 16-year-old passenger in a 2002 car crash.

Adam Jacoby pleaded no contest to manslaughter by culpable negligence in the death of his friend Miles White. Jacoby had been driving a car that crashed into trees about 10 miles east of Lake Hamilton, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said. Jacoby, 22, had faced up to 15 years in prison, but White's parents opposed jail time, The Tampa Tribune reported.

A blood test showed that Jacoby, who was 18 when the crash occurred, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.096, higher than the 0.08 limit at which a driver is considered legally drunk.

Marty Bowen is a Republican from Haines City.

[MercutioATC]

44. Actually, he's still looking at vehicular homicide charges.

Believe me, he'll get more than a ticket.

[kestrel91316]

89. Don't be too pissed; betcha there's a wrongful death lawsuit.

[mandomom]

166. Alcohol at levels of intoxication while driving is in most states

prima facie evidence of negligence or gross negligence, hence stiffer penalities for causing injuries in such a situation. Accidents happen, not always due to negligence, although if in fact a stop sign was ignored it may turn out to be the negligent cause of the accident. The most important factor now is the loss of a person's life. Renunciations should wait for a cooling time and facts.

[wiley]

4. A ticket?

This is f*cked up.

[Coventina]

5. Happens ALL THE DAMN TIME!

One of my closest friends' daughter was killed by someone running a red light at 70 mph.
He was sober, so he got two tickets: speeding and running the red.

My friend spent 6 weeks in ICU & his daughter was killed.

on edit: I'm not yelling at you. I can see you agree with me.
It's just that I always get really mad when this subject comes up.

[400Years]

7. I had a friend who was run over while riding his bike

the girl driving admitted she was changing the station on the radio and didn't see him. He's dead, she got a ticket.

[mtnester]

184. You do not want to be inattentive in Ohio...you will face

vehicular homicide charges.

A Fairfield County man was just sentenced to four months in jail, three years of probation with a clean driving record, $2,250 in fines plus court costs, 125 hours of community service and two years without a license. His community service involved talking about the hazards of using a cell phone while driving to driver education classes.

He was charged with Vehicular homicide caused by paying more attention to his cell phone than his driving. Two 17-year-old girls (twins)were killed in the crash when he rear-ended their car.

The victims' family was compassionate enough to request a light sentence for the driver since it was an accident, and since no punishment will bring back their daughters.

Surviving family members have created a Web site, http://www.drivenowchatlater.com/

[400Years]

6. its the nature of driving

You can't go around in a box of steel at high velocity and not expect people to die.

It happens everywhere everyday.

[Coventina]

10. So why do we throw drunk drivers in jail?

If death is a natural consequence of driving?

[400Years]

17. because they killed somebody, duh!

but riding the bus while drunk is very unlikely to kill anybody.

See the difference? I thought so.

[Coventina]

20. someone killed by carelessness is just as dead

I see no difference between that and being drunk.

[400Years]

22. I don't see any difference either but maybe you should stop making

assumptions about what I've said and go back and re-read what I said.

Which is "You can't go around in a box of steel at high velocity and not expect people to die."

Now if you care to prove to me that driving is inherently safe except for instances in which a human is at fault I would be willing to retract my statement. But you can't.

[Coventina]

26. I don't understand why we prosecute drunks, if we "accept"

that people will die.

I guess I'm not understanding the poin you are trying to make.

[400Years]

28. because drunk driving is against the law, duh!

But I want to know are you a perfect driver?
Have you ever made a mistake while driving?

[Coventina]

71. Sure I've made mistakes while driving, and if I had killed anyone I would

expect to go to jail.

[lonestarnot]

156. Because one is more likely to run the stop sign when inebriated. LOL

[Coventina]

158. Yep, that's really hilarious. n/t

[wiley]

15. Running a red light and killing someone is not murder?

I could see if it was a complete accident. Even then, the person responsible should pay with more than a ticket.

[400Years]

18. Car accidents happen even when nobody is at fault.

I'm just pointing out the inherently dangerous nature of automobiles.
Don't get all defensive. I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable.

[Carolab]

69. The point was why prosecute those who are drunk and not those who aren't?

It's the same end result: someone is negligent and someone else is injured/dead as a result. Whether you are DRUNK or SOBER shouldn't make any difference. In fact, if you are sober you have LESS of an excuse for being negligent than if you are drunk.

[MercutioATC]

45. Nope, it's called vehicular homicide.

(in most states)


He's looking at more than a ticket...believe me.

[Rich Hunt]

136. "vehicular homicide"

"Oh, wot's that?"

:eyes:

[SomewhereOutThere424]

54. LMAO

That's the poorest justification I've ever heard. We don't give road rage seminars because we endorse 'looking the other way' in fatal accidents. Speeding and running a red light has consequence, if someone dies, YOU ARE AT FAULT for being an IDIOT. Not the car, for being a large hunk of metal.

Next, let's allow gun owners to accidentally shoot kids they mistake as animals. Bound to happen when you have a bunch of redneck psychos killing small animals with heavy arsenal weapons.

[Guaranteed]

137. But driving is seen as necessary in society nowadays.

Hunting is not.

Besides, you don't have miles of hunters lined up behind each other in two lanes, going opposite ways of each other.

[MojoXN]

144. "you don't have miles of hunters lined up behind each other..."

You've never been in the forests of West Virginia during hunting season, have you? :)

MojoXN

[Southpaw Bookworm]

185. Your next happens every hunting season

Very rarely does a hunter who accidentally shoots someone thinking they're a deer get prosecuted. I remember a television program several years ago about a woman in Maine who was shot while standing in her backyard. Not only was the shooter not prosecuted, but the townspeople all blamed the victim (she had only been living in the area for a few years and was thus considered an outsider). In WV, you're taught at a young age not to walk in the woods during hunting season. I was yelled at once by a friend's brother for using a white tissue in the backyard, which was surrounded by woods: It looked too much like a white-tailed deer's flag.

[Rich Hunt]

131. excuse me

I personally have a good driver certificate.

It's not that simple - some people are deliberately careless and selfish and don't prioritize others' safety when they are driving.

The guy ran a friggin' stop sign.

Your attitude is appallingly callous.

[Rich Hunt]

135. cryptic language

Let's take a close look at what you're saying:

"You can't go around in a box of steel at high velocity and not expect people to die.

It happens everywhere everyday."

WTF? This is not a logical and clear sentence.

Please clarify what you mean, because as it reads, it implies that anyone who drives a car at 'high velocity' has no right to expect people not to die. WTF.

Look closely at what you're saying:

YOU can't go around in a box of steel at high velocity
and (if you do) you should expect people to die.

What is "high velocity" to you? There is a difference
between doing 80 mph when you're moving with traffic,
and doing it in, say, a school zone...or purposely
accelerating once a certain car has come to a halt.

What is up with people who show up on the 'net every
time a car 'accident' is discussed and make these
"you take a risk every time you get in a car" arguments.

After all, I hope we know by now that certain cowardly
"interest groups" have a lot of fun engineering car
crashes to look like "accidents".

And 'rubbernecking' and 'damage control' is a part of
this idiotic subculture.

[nolabels]

143. Thanks for the giggles

:silly:

[LisaM]

9. Was he speeding, or talking on a cell phone?

I can't stand when people drive doing either of those things.

On edit: and either might have contributed to his not seeing the other car.

I had a co-worker who was in an accident where the other driver was tring not to spill a milkshake on her white coat. Luckily, no injuries in that one.

[Norquist Nemesis]

39. Was the stop sign clearly visible? What was the area like?

I'm just not ready to condemn him yet without know more. :shrug:

There's nothing in the piece about him drinking, speeding, talking on a cell phone, etc.

[Roland99]

56. See my post #55.

[raccoon]

125. I can't stand it when people talk on cell phones while driving.

ESPECIALLY in heavy traffic. And you see it all the time.

[AlCzervik]

13. Thats awful for everyone involved, the man who was killed and his family

and i cannot imagine the guilt that Connell is feeling right now, very sad.

[Roland99]

14. He should be charged with negligent homicide!

IDIOT!!!

:mad:

[wiley]

16. Maybe he got a ticket for negligent homicide

Will there even be a trial?

[DU9598]

21. Sad

I guess I really don't see the outrage here ... accidents are unfortunate, but not everyone involved in an accident is a "murderer" ... jesh! Accidents happen, lives are ruined, that is the risk we take as we travel around in cars going 55+ mph. If I really thought I would be a murderer by an act of negligence, I think I would stay home in bed.

Greg Connell is a nice, moral man. He was obviously at some fault. He will have to live with that mistake for the rest of his life. But negligence is not criminal unless he was so negligent as to be intentional. Late afternoons on country road on very sunny days (especially traveling south) can be very, very difficult due to glare. It does not sound as though he was speeding, drinking, etc.

[Coventina]

23. Um, he ran a stop sign. His inattention/carelessness killed someone

But somehow it would have been "worse" if he'd been drunk?

[400Years]

25. So just how much punishment do you want to mete out?

and I want to know, have you ever EVER made a mistake while driving?

[onenote]

29. not that killed anyone

People make mistakes that don't harm anyone all the time. But when someone gets hurt -- and in this case, someone dies -- the consequences are greater and so should be the punishment.

onenote

[400Years]

31. 10 years, death penalty, or what?

Do you deny that cars are inherently dangerous?

[onenote]

40. Yes cars are inherently dangerous. So are steak knives.

When I use one to cut a steak safely, nothing happens. If I negligently throw one in a crowded room, and someone gets hurt, I face liability. And if with malice aforethough I stab someone, I face even more significant liability.

Someone who drives a car safely is fine. Someone who drives a car and runs a red light faces a ticket. Someone who drives a car, runs a red light and kills someone deserves more than a ticket (but less than someone who intentionally, with preditated malice, drives their car into someone else's car.

onenote

[400Years]

43. Wow, are you John Madden?

"If this team is going to win they have to score points."

[onenote]

48. damn, my cover is blown. Now I have to change my username

[pitohui]

114. oh i see it's the "good luck" theory of morality

you are moral because you have good luck

this man is immoral & should be shut away in prison because he had bad luck

got it now

[iverglas]

117. you do got it, actually ;)

you are moral because you have good luck

this man is immoral & should be shut away in prison because he had bad luck


That's pretty much prosperity theology in a nutshell, and it comes down to you folks south of our border from your Puritan forebears.

If you're good, you will be rewarded. If you haven't been rewarded, you are obviously not good. And no good. And if our god has chosen not to smile on you, then it's up to us to do its will and frown on you severely too.

It keeps the poor in their place, anyhow. Keep 'em aspiring, keep 'em on the straight and narrow path to the riches you have persuaded them are there for the working at it; if they don't make it, they'll believe it's their own damned fault. And they'll never notice that you are actually both rich and evil.

Not you! of course.

[druidity33]

38. ran a stop sign...

My partner was once ticketed for running a stop sign... but the sign was behind a tree and bent down so that it was invisible (if you didn't live in that town, which we didn't) if you weren't looking right at it as you passed by. Where do you think the local cop was parked? Right across the street... went to court, judge was a prick, had to pay the fine... $80. End of story, no negligience involved (unless you consider the judges actions)... i guess i would say that circumstances can be beyond our control sometimes. As for Drunk Driving, obviously it's different/worse, because by drinking you are intentionally impairing yourself... you're culpable for your poor driving, ie. NOT an accident. I wouldn't jump on this guys case until i knew the facts... and if they were damning, then yeah jump on his case...

[DU9598]

60. Yes, it certainly would have been worse

If he was drunk than that is an intentional act in violation of the law against driving while intoxicated.

What we have here is not an intentional decision to run a stop sign, we have an accident - negligence.

Yes, a drunk driving death must be punished much more severely than a death caused by an unintentional act of negligence.

[Coventina]

72. Why? Drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone any more than careless

drivers.

[DU9598]

145. Drunk Driver

Drunk Drivers most certainly do. And who said Mr. Connell was careless. The news accounts show that the stop sign was right over the crest of a hill. Get your facts straight before you try to convict someone for an accident and before you try to go easy on drunk drivers.

Just curious, do you drive drunk? If not, why don't you?

[Coventina]

146. News accounts also say there were rumble strips to warn of the stop.

My point about drunk drivers is that they get criminally prosecuted if they are involved in an accident that is their fault. I think that if a person is "at fault" and kills someone, it shouldn't matter WHAT their condition is.

[DU9598]

148. I don't get your point, I really don't

The reason that drunk drivers are prosecuted when they are involved in an accident that is their fault is that they are INTENTIONALLY breaking the law that citizens have enacted against drunk driving.

NEGLIGENCE, as what happened here ... and happens every day ... is not an intentional act. Now, if he were driving 10 mph over the speed limit then that would be intentional violation of the law and could certainly be prosecuted. Missing a stop sign over the crest of a hill on a sunny afternoon while driving south is not intentional. It's a mistake, but not one he knowingly made.

You didn't answer my question about whether you drive drunk and if not, why don't you?

Also, if you back your car out of a parking space and crunch the car behind you, should you be prosecuted?

[Coventina]

149. No, I don't drive drunk, and I don't understand your point either.

Negligence is intentional, in that the person is not paying attention to something they should be.

[DU9598]

151. Sorry

Negligence is not intentional. Not legally. You are simply wrong.

[Coventina]

152. Well, I think you are wrong, so we're even. n/t

[DU9598]

155. Well, I know you are ... so there.

Negligence: "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party."

Intent: "Done deliberately; intended"

You can argue with me, but are you going to argue with Webster's Dictionary?

[Coventina]

157. Well, I hope you can bask in your "rightness" after someone falls asleep

behind the wheel and plows into one of your loved ones.

[DU9598]

160. You again show your misunderstanding

Your analogy is flawed. If a person intents to drive while too tired, then they can be prosecuted - because of their intent, making a choice. If the person is wide awake, but still plows into a car simply because of a mistake - unintentional - then they cannot be prosecuted. Huge difference that you obviously do not grasp.

BTW - Pretty sad for making an analogy of having harm come to my family. That's just uncalled for, but people losing arguments often become emotional and say stupid things.

[Coventina]

162. I wasn't making threats against your family.

I was trying to get you to visualize for yourself the hurt that can come from "unintentional" acts.

[DU9598]

172. Yeah

And I was just showing you that you were wrong ... AGAIN.

[Coventina]

173. Well, you can say it all you want, but I don't feel wrong.

And I can type "you are wrong" just as easily as you can.

[DU9598]

178. Doesn't surprise me

Why don't you accept the dictionary definition? Ask any lawyer and see if they agree with you. This is a first week concept in criminal law class.

I understand your emotional response, but legally your response is wrong.

[Coventina]

179. I just can't accept the "rightness" of anything that has hurt so many

people that I know, myself included.

This is an issue I have seen up close....my friend's broken body in ICU, when they didn't know if he was going to make it or not. He wasn't able to attend his daughter's funeral, because he was still hanging by a thread in ICU. But I was there, with all of her classmates and bandmates from school. The band was going to play a song, but they were all crying so hard, they couldn't play their instruments.

After you've been through something like that, you don't just say, "Wow, what a tragedy," when you hear about someone getting killed by a person who didn't stop when they were supposed to.

[DU9598]

182. You're not alone

I have lost my best friend in high school to negligent driving. But, it was unintentional so what is one to do? Vengence is not my way ... no matter that I still grieve to this very day for Scott.

Negligence does not equal intent. Perhaps in your case the driver intentionally caused harm - then that certainly can be punished. In my friend's case it was just negligence on a gravel road.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. It used to be, "what you did" carried a penalty

In the last 20 years, I've seen punishment morph into not being penalized for what you did, but penalized for what happened because of it.

Negligent driving gets you a ticket.
Drunk driving gets you a ticket and a suspended license.

Unless someone dies as a result, then it's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Negligient driving and drunk driving are crimes because someone could get hurt or killed. If the penalties are not severe enough to deter that behavior then lets change that.

Is running a stop sign only a big deal when someone gets hurt?

Speaking for myself, I remember accidentally run a stop sign near my home once, thank goodness no one was around. I see little difference between what I did and what the mayor did - only a different consequence.

[400Years]

24. exactly, some people refuse to acknowledge that cars are dangerous

accidents are going to happen

[Tarc]

27. The future first lady got away with it, remember

[Roland99]

33. Why do accidents happen? Driver negligence...

1) Following too closely.
2) Distracted (Cell phone, reading, adjusting radio, etc.)
3) Under the influence.
4) Fatigue.
5) Speed too fast for conditions.
6) Reckless driving (blatantly ignoring traffic laws).


Now, you tell me. What umbrella does all of that fall under?


Personal responsibility.

Anyone getting behind the wheel of a car, truck, motorcycle, etc. must give 100% attention to the task at hand. To do otherwise can have tragic results as we see in this case. People need to be held accountable for their negligence.

Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.

[400Years]

36. not always

In this case that was probably so but sometimes accidents happen not because of human error but because a tire blows out, or something is in the road, etc.

Driving is inherently dangerous.

[Roland99]

51. Arguably still driver negligence.

If your tires are poor enough that a blowout could occur, then you're negligent in getting them replaced.

Potholes, debris in the road, etc. can all be avoided by using proper following distance and being aware of one's surroundings.

[iverglas]

70. good lord

The übermensch seems to have evolved. The person who can see all, hear all, know all ... and react instantaneously to everything s/he sees, hears and knows, all at once.

No one is ever distracted by a child or a dog running out from a driveway, or a thunderclap, or a driver behaving oddly in the on-coming lane, or any of the gazillion things that can (and in some cases should) distract anyone, anytime. We're all capable of giving our full attention to every stimulus that enters our field of vision or hearing range, without ever having our attention divided or displaced.

We have two eyes, two ears, one brain. We aren't super-computers. Yes, some of us may be driving when we're too tired, or deliberately dividing our attention between our driving and an unrelated task. But yes too, it really is possible, and common, for us not to notice absolutely every stimulus within our range of perception, no matter how much and how undivided the attention we are giving to our driving. We're human. Shoot us now.

[Roland99]

77. Yeah, because children run out of driveways onto U.S. 92 all the time

:eyes:

You're reaching a bit there.

[iverglas]

78. yeah, that's what I said

Sadly for you: not. Hope your eyes didn't get stuck, for no reason at all.

I'll refrain from saying what wants saying.

[Roland99]

80. It's what you're trying to imply.

Things you brought up are very rare occurrences and were certainly not a factor in this fatal crash.

[iverglas]

94. no, chum; it's what you're trying to persuade someone I implied

I don't know who, and I really don't give a shit. Anybody who accepts your misrepresentation of what I (or anyone else here) said isn't worth two seconds' thought.

Things you brought up are very rare occurrences

Actually, what they were were EXAMPLES of the kind of thing that happens all the time -- and that, in fact, a good driver uses some part of his/her attention to be on the lookout for.

and were certainly not a factor in this fatal crash.

And golly gosh gee, I didn't say they were. I'd have broken out in hives long ago if I pitched as much straw around as this.

In fact, I never even suggested that the driver in this case was NOT negligent.

Me, I don't go making great big stupid generalized claims about things, let alone insisting that my great big stupid generalized claims about something are the single possible explanation for events and people I know precisely bugger all about.

I find that this policy averts a lot of grief that I notice others who don't follow it tend to suffer, when their great big stupid generalized claims about people and things they know nothing about turn out to be completely false. Unless, of course, they just move on to some other person or thing they know nothing about and start all over again.

People like that are often found in the audience slinging mud at strangers on the Jerry Springer show, I hear. Perhaps you could get a ticket.

[Roland99]

97. Nice backpedaling.

Nice, indeed.

[iverglas]

101. what an acrobat I am!

I can apparently backpedal from someone else's complete misrepresentation of what I said. Perhaps I've found the secret to the fourth dimension.

You, on the other hand, seem to operate on only one track. Being stuck in one dimension would, I suppose, make it difficult to see what direction everybody else is moving in, and leave one with no option but to misrepresent their doings, since one is so unable (or unwilling, same diff) to see the reality of them.

"I admit," said he - when I mentioned to him this objection - "I admit the truth of your critic's facts, but I deny his conclusions. It is true that we have really in Flatland a Third unrecognized Dimension called `height,' just as it is also true that you have really in Spaceland a Fourth unrecognized Dimension, called by no name at present, but which I will call `extra-height'. But we can no more take cognizance of our `height' then you can of your `extra-height'. Even I - who have been in Spaceland, and have had the privilege of understanding for twenty-four hours the meaning of `height' - even I cannot now comprehend it, nor realize it by the sense of sight or by any process of reason; I can but apprehend it by faith.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

Maybe you could try applying a little ... good ... faith in your dealings with the world. As always, I don't particularly give a shit.

[halobeam]

154. Wanna know something?.. although you probably particularly

don't give a shit, as always?

LOL.... that was some awesome response! :woohoo:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

For a side note: This is the first time (that I'm aware of), in which I disagree with Roland99.

I'd be too afraid to demand perfection behind a wheel....or OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!! kind of position. Karma is too powerful from my own experience (completely unrelated to this topic, and for ever...God willing). If I were Roland, I'd be scared the next time I started driving. I say this because any time I demand what is seemingly impossible of people, (as in the case of the "all aware, perfect driver"..aka "infallible human being" scenario, that R99 positioned him/herself in), I have always been given "the other shoe" to try on. Very uncomfortable, I might add. Be careful what lessons you beg for. Wow.... I've got the chills for Roland already.

And hey, Roland99, if you are listening.... I beg of you, do not be too hard on the imperfect, or you may get a very large zit smack on the middle of your nose, at the worst possible time. (And that could wind up being a good day for you)... Stay safe.

[stillcool]

61. Driving is inherently dangerous...

because of drivers who do not obey the laws, or are negligent. To cite a tire blow-out as the exception to the rule, does not dilute the responsibility one has for the consequences of their actions.

[superconnected]

41. I almost got killed because I turned a corner and the sun was in my eyes.

IF I had caused an accident - which I swerved and avoided, which does it fall under.

[Roland99]

52. Then you were not paying enough attention to the fact that turning...

would result in the sun being in your eyes.

There are sun visors for that purpose. I'll adjust mine before or as I'm making a turn so that I'm not "blinded" by the sun (or a reflection off of a building).

[superconnected]

79. or, I was on a road where I had no idea I was going to turn and hit sudden

sun which was the case. Suddenly no trees.

I guess you only travel the same roads...

[Roland99]

93. If you had no idea you were going to turn why did you turn?

Were you under the speed limit, then, since you were on an unfamiliar road?


There's no excuse for not being attentive when driving.

[superconnected]

110. It was a straight road that turned into a curve.

forget it. Go about hanging people for human accidents.

You type seems to flourish.

[pitohui]

116. superconnected don't worry about it

a voice of sanity is not wanted, it seems

can you imagine how constrained life would be if we could only drive places where we had driven before and knew exactly what the road conditions would be?

the funny thing is, these very people who claim to be the super-computer drivers are always the ones who IRL are driving down the interstate having autobahn fantasies at 90 miles an hour, you see, they are superhuman, they never make mistakes, so they are entitled to whizz along at velocities well above the speed limit

the louder the boast about what a good driver he is...the less likely he is to be a safe driver in my experience

[Norquist Nemesis]

42. Also

Visibility
Road Conditions

[Roland99]

50. That's covered under "speed too fast for conditions"

If visibility is hampered, slow down or pull over (in the case of a "blinding" rainstorm.)

[pitohui]

115. no one can give 100 percent attention to task at hand

sorry, our society would come to a standstill if only zen masters were allowed to drive

[iverglas]

68. voice of reason

Accidents happen. People sometimes do not see stop signs, and run them accidentally, without any malicious intent or negligence. We're flesh and blood, and we actually make mistakes sometimes. And sometimes those mistakes cause dreadful harm. But the fact that harm resulted from an act is not proof that the act was negligent or malicious.

Lordy, if I'm walking down the street and raise my arm to catch a milkweed seed blowing by and make a wish, you might be passing me from behind at just that moment and I might hit you in the nose and break it. Was I malicious, was I negligent? Were you negligent, or so stupid you are the author of your own misfortune, for not beeping a horn as you went to pass me? Or did we have an accident?

Does everything always have to be somebody's fault? I find that, in the US, the answer is usually "yes". I blame the Puritans, and Jerry Springer.

I've run stop signs myself -- including the one two blocks from my home on the only route to it, the first couple of times I drove down this street. I completely ran a red light once -- because, on my usual route to work, I'd stopped and looked both ways at the stop signs at the previous six intersections, and did exactly the same thing when I got to the seventh intersection without mentally noting the difference between a stop sign and a stop light.

"Criminally negligent" means something. In Canada, it means this:

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Not every failure to observe the traffic laws, or to do anything else that one ought to do, results from "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons".

[guruoo]

186. You nailed it....

next issue!
:hi:

[wiley]

88. Very

If a mother forgets about her child in the bathtub and the kid drowns, is that an accident, murder or just death caused by negligence?

[iverglas]

96. how 'bout this one?

If a mother forgets about her child in the bathtub and the kid drowns, is that an accident, murder or just death caused by negligence?

If a woman is bathing one of her children in the bathtub and suddenly hears her other child screaming in another room, and runs to that room to find a stranger abducting her child and tries to fight off the stranger and gets hit on the head and is unconscious for 5 minutes, and when she awakes she runs immediately to the bathroom and finds that the first child has drowned ... is that an accident, murder or just death caused by negligence?

If I'm driving my car and my elderly mother in the passenger seat suddenly grabs my arm and makes a horrible noise and I look at her to find her gasping for breath, and fail to notice the child who runs in front of my car and run the child down and kill him/her, is that accident, murder or just death caused by negligence?

Making it all up? We had a little discussion in the gun dungeon a while back, about the negligence of people who leave three-year-olds in cars alone even for a minute. Well, I'd left a three-year-old alone in a car for about 10 minutes just a few months before. My niece, whom I'd been about to take with me to my mother's apartment to fetch some clean clothes for my 73-year-old mother, because she'd been by my father's bedside for two days straight as he died of metastacized melanoma and (we didn't know at the time) a nearly complete blockage of all his coronary arteries. As I finished securing the girl in the child seat in the back seat of the car, my sister ran out of the door of her house and said I'd better come back. I went in to find my father, who had been unconscious, sitting up, semi-conscious, and evidently in horrific pain and distress, and my mother frantically trying to comfort him. This went on for ... well, you know (or not) how long it can seem like these things go on; maybe a couple of minutes. And then he died. Ever been there when your parent dies, in circumstances like that? It may sound odd to some who haven't ... but your brain really isn't functioning on all cylinders, and what you're thinking about, with the part still thinking, is your other parent, who has just held your dead parent as he died in all that pain and distress, who is distraught and inconsolable ... and it's a few more minutes before you say good grief! I left Daisy in the car! Even though you are, in the rest of your life, about the most intelligent and capable and reliable person you've ever met.

People are not omnicient and omnipotent. And the people judging people they know nothing about tend to be even less so.

You know that old saw about walking a mile? It isn't really even necessary to do that -- it actually isn't possible. All you really have to do is reserve judgment until you have an actual basis for a judgment.

It's a whole hell of a lot more fun to sling mud at strangers though, I guess.

[wiley]

99. Very sorry about your father

I'm very glad nothing happened to your niece as well. Unfortunately, I have too many experiences that might encourage me to pass judgement in some cases. I also help families who are the victims of accidents, and sudden and acute illnesses try to put their lives and families back together. I understand exactly what you're saying.

It is not fun to sling mud at strangers, but to reinforce that responsibility often gets deprioritized when someone starts daydreaming in their car or talking on their cell phones while driving, for example. Running a red light is breaking the law. The law is a law because people get hurt or killed when people run red lights. I hope the guy who was killed didn't have a niece who adored him or a wife or an ailing family member who depended on him. I hope the guy didn't have any kids at home who had to hear some guy ran a red light and killed their father.

[pitohui]

118. oh iverglas, what an awful experience

the world is so hard without people trying to pile blame on top of tragedy

reserve judgment until you have an actual basis for a judgment.

you are v. wise, this is something i try to practice but all too often fail at, however, it is the essence of practical compassion

[Rich Hunt]

130. deliberately plowing into someone

or disobeying the rules of the road, such as running a stop sign,
is NOT a little 'mistake'.

What are the criteria for vehicular homicide, anyway?

[ecstatic]

187. In GA, if you accidentally kill the wrong person, you will be charged

with vehicular homicide. This is the wrong state to run a stop sign, depending on who you harm, of course.

[ToolTex]

19. I say, shoot the car!

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Cars don't kill people,

people kill people. ;)

[Javaman]

106. And cars kill cars....

[ToolTex]

111. That's right, send all the cars to Gitmo. It is the only way to keep

the mercahn people safe. It is mah main job to keep the merchan people safe. We aren't going hurt the cars, but we need a law so we can torture them, so we can follow the law when we protect the merchan people, which is mah main job, so we can get information so we can keep these evil cars from hurting the merchan people.

[Javaman]

112. Why do cars hate us for our freedoms? n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. Whoa! I didn't expect this reaction...

Does anyone know this area very well? Before I pass judgement I want to know more. Particularly about the area it happened.

Was it along country roads with cornfields? Was the stop sign clearly visible?

I feel sad for both sides and their families. This is a tragedy, but I sure want to know more about the circumstances before I condemn someone.

[400Years]

37. You mean you don't want to be a reactionary? Just yell MURDER!!!

It feels so much better.

[Roland99]

55. Here are more details >>>>

http://www.crgazette.com/2005/11/09/Home/connell.htm

The crash happened about 2:50 p.m. on Tuesday, said Pottawattamie County Sheriff Jeff Danker.

A sheriff's report said Connell, the 56-year-old mayor of Shenandoah, was driving south on a county road when his car collided with another driven by David Juhl, 51, of Atlantic, who was heading west on Iowa Highway 92. Both were driving alone.

And here's a map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=griswold,+ia&ll=41.238028,-95.215545&spn=0.019866,0.039669&t=h&hl=en

Although I'm not sure how close to Griswold it was.

http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2005/11/09/news/doc437245f6ef675314647844.txt

Shenandoah Mayor Gregg Connell, one of a large field of Democrats running for governor, was cited in an accident that killed 51-year-old David Juhl of Atlantic. The accident occurred before 3 p.m. at the intersection of County Road M-47 and Highway 92.

Pottawattamie County Sheriff Jeff Danker said it wasn’t apparent whether Connell was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and that officials were awaiting blood test results.

“There wasn’t something that was obvious at that time to the officer,” Danker said.

Danker said Connell’s Jeep Cherokee was driving south on the county road when he allegedly failed to stop for a stop sign and struck the Mercury Tracer driven by Juhl, who was traveling west on Highway 92.

Juhl was transported to the hospital in Atlantic, where he was pronounced dead. Danker said Juhl was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident.

EDIT: Updated the URL for the map. It's in the lower-left corner where the accident was...apparently.

[NashVegas]

62. Summation: Cheroke Hits a Tracer

Tell me more about how we all need to be in SUVs to be safer.

[Roland99]

63. Could have been a Tracer hitting another Tracer.

Side impact can be deadlier than head-on or offset collisions. There's WAY less metal to absorb the impact.

[BrightKnight]

103. very rural and very flat - rural sign differences

Driving in that kind of area is not like driving in a city. It would be very easy to miss a stop sign while driving through miles of nothing. You are not focused in the same way you would be in an urban area.

Also, in rural areas people do not always follow the letter of the law. The community may generally understand the stop sign to mean caution and stop when there is another car. This intersection appears to have unlimited visibility.

In rural areas people know what traffic laws are enforced. I would not be surprised if that had never been a citation issued for running this sign.


I would let the local officials sort it out.

[superconnected]

35. I've ran a few stop signs in my life.

It's been years, but I'm sure I've ran a few before.

Poor guy.

If he was driving recklessly, then they should arrest him, if the sign was down (happened to me before but I didn't get in an accident) or if he just missed the sign, well gee, it was a human accident.

[FlaGranny]

53. Don't you realize

that no one here has ever run a stop sign? They have seen every single one and taken note of every road hazard that ever existed in their driving vicinity - always, without fail. At least, that's what they believe. I'm of the opinion, though, that they have made mistakes and just don't realize it (or don't want to admit it). That is, unless they're not really human. You think?

[rinsd]

64. Actually I compare this treatment of a Democratic politician with

what DU had mind for Janklow and Laura Bush that commited the same crime running a stop sign and causing an accident in which someone died.

This thread is nothing in terms of screams for "justice" compared to those two...I wonder why...

[Coventina]

73. No kidding. I don't remember a single person saying "Accidents happen"

when Janklow killed that guy.

:eyes:

[FlaGranny]

119. I really don't believe an "accident",

no matter who has it, should be severely punished. I've never joined the Laura bashing. A moment of inattention can happen to anyone. I do see a big difference if someone is drinking or if someone is speeding and driving recklessly. These kinds of things do deserve more punishment.

I also do not see the point of severely punishing ONLY the driver in a car filled with teenagers on a joyride, because any one of the kids on a joyride is partly guilty. Punish them all, but don't destroy their lives - they are kids.

[superconnected]

81. yeah, they're striking me as very hypocritical.

How rw...

[TheDonkey]

85. I've run a stop sign before

but never killed a man. It is important to find out why he ran the sign, because it could have been more than just an unfortunate mistake.

I'm not going to get a pitchfork, but this man should get more than a slap on the wrist.

[ErisFiveFingers]

104. I'm an insanely safe driver, now.

I'm that annoying driver in front of you actually going the speed limit, or (more usually) 5-10 mph less on unfamiliar roads, or during poor weather, or at night.
I'm that annoying driver who actually *slows down below yellow warning speeds*.
I'm the driver who refuses to get behind the wheel at all, ever, if I've had a single beer. I'll wait an hour and a half after each drink (2 beers = 3 hours waiting after the last beer).
I'm the driver who *won't* make a turn unless my turn signal has been on for a while (much to the annoyance of passengers who like to shout directions at the last minute).
I'm the driver who wont talk to passengers, change the radio, look at directions, etc. unless the car is parked, in idle, with the parking brake on.
I'm the driver who wont drive tired, angry, crying, or while listening to talk radio that might make me tired, angry, (etc.) Sorry AAR.
I'm the driver who has never done my hair or makeup en route, and a keep a very safe distance behind drivers who I observe being preoccupied.
I'm also the driver who keeps slowing down to leave a 3 second gap, every time a car pulls into a lane in front of me (kind of a pain when driving during rush hour, but safety first..).
If I can't see and understand (2 way? 4 way?) a stop sign layout for an intersection, I stop, regardless of whether or not I see a sign.
(etc.)

While I cannot be sure if I'm perfect (I can't see things I never saw), I think I'm much better than most other drivers, who seem to speed just about everywhere (though this varies from state to state, as I discovered on my 12 month driving tour of the US), who talk to their passengers or on cell phones, who fiddle with in-car gadgets in a moving vehicle, who drive while upset/angry/irritated, who change lanes without signalling, etc.

So, maybe I'm not really human. :)

Or maybe I got tired of going to hospitals and funerals for my friends and family, which is the sadder truth. :(

[FlaGranny]

121. I'm sure you're really human.

:-) My whole point is, no matter how careful you are - and it sounds like you drive a lot like I do, if you are human you make mistakes and sometimes you never even know it. Sometimes the mistakes we make in life are harmless. Other times they hurt someone or only just yourself. Once, when I was a young driver, I took a back road to work. The first time I drove that road I went through a stop sign I never saw. It was in a place I did not expect and perhaps that first day I momentarily looked in my rear-view mirror to check traffic, causing me not to see it.

I was not too long ago in an accident at a traffic intersection. The light had turned green for the traffic in my direction and several cars in front of me that had been stopped were starting through, but I was still approaching the intersection. I slowed down to allow the traffic in front of me to move and there were 2 or 3 car lengths between me and the car in front of me. An elderly driver coming from the other direction started up and make a left turn right across my path and against a red turn signal. The accident was not technically my fault, but if I had not been being a good driver and looking first to my left and then to my right (to make sure no one from that way was running the light), I may have been able to stop in time to avoid the accident, and then again, maybe not. That was my only accident in nearly 50 years. That elderly lady perhaps should not have been driving that car - she was confused - but if someone had been killed in that accident, I do not believe she should have been put in jail for it.

[Guaranteed]

140. Not a near-miss among them.

Surely.

[Zensea]

49. Anybody consider the law is the way it is for a reason?

I'm a bit amused/bemused by all these calls for treating someone's running a stop sign and killing someone as murder on the same level as driving drunk and killing someone. (and it would more likely be considered negligent homicide which is a bit different than murder)

You know, just maybe after years of deliberations all over the country in legislatures by people who thought about this stuff and didn't go off half-cocked, there is a reason the law is written the way it is.

You think??

[lastliberalintexas]

57. Holy smokes I hope you people never serve on a jury

[xyboymil]

59. no kidding. Drunk Driving and this is the same? Who are u kidding?

Driving drunk is clear evidence of negligent behavior and people understand it is illegal.

Driving sober and causing a car crash does NOT equate with being drunk.

For this to be a crime, he would have to show gross negligence (e.g. drunk driving) or intent to kill this woman. Neither occured.

This was a sad accident-and as others said, we have no idea how visible the stop sign was or if there were other factors that made this intersection dangerous.

This is NOT criminal from what we know.

[mokawanis]

67. Not the same as drunk driving

but he apparently ran a stop sign. You think writing him a ticket is all he should get? If I drive twice the speed limit and kill someone would you advocate I just pay a fine?
I think this guy should be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide, and be given some jail time, a huge fine, and community service. Oh, and revoke that license.

[superconnected]

82. but speeding is intentional.

Missing a stop sign may have been very unintentional.

[mokawanis]

87. um...I didn't think of that

Do we have any details yet on the circumstances?

[Coventina]

74. I don't care if you are high on booze or high on Jesus

If you kill someone, it is not okay to be ticketed and go on your merry way.

We make social pariahs out of drunk drivers, but it's seems perfectly fine to kill someone while sober.

I don't get it.

[superconnected]

83. because when drunk you put your self in a negligent situation.

And as you said, you don't get it, so I won't waste my time explaining how killing someone sober can be an accident - a human error.

I guess you've never run a stop sign before.

[Coventina]

98. As far as I know, I haven't. n/t

[madrchsod]

66. it`s not hard to do out there in western iowa

some places you can drive for miles then out nowhere,espically if the corn is still up, there is a stop sign. you have no time to react

[IADEMO2004]

105. I have missed the same stop sign

and I was riding with some one that didn't stop. When you are driving south to the intersection you are going up hill and the highway flattens at the intersection and you can't see the crossing highway. The only visual clues are the stop ahead and stop signs, they are easy to see but on a long lonesome highway east of Omaha you can get too relaxed.

[flamingpie2500]

75. Running a stop sign is illegal--the punishment should fit the crime

negligent homicide--permanent record--possible jail time--it was the drives responsiblity to notice the stop sign and he failed to do so whatever the reason.

[superconnected]

84. Perhaps you'd be happier in a society where if humans makes

an accident, they just imprison him/her immediately.

Since the crime was running a stop sign, do you think all people who run them should get jail time?

[flamingpie2500]

92. i also said the punishment should fit the crime--running a stop sign

results in a forfeiture--running a stop sign resulting in death should result in something much more than a fine.

[Endangered Specie]

90. Something like this should at least get you involuntary manslaugther

regardless of WHO you are.

If a crane operator knowingly lifts a load knowingly without securing it properly, and it falls and kills someone, do you think that he should just be given a ticket too?

[jmcbroom]

91. A lot of people...

on this thread seem to think that Connell will just be getting a ticket and "going on his merry way", as someone said.

You don't think that Connell will have any remorse and be feeling tremendous personal guilt? It might be enough of a punishment to have to know that you ended someone else's life.

Cars are inherently dangerous. Anyone who thinks that humans in huge pieces of metal flying around at 70mph isn't inherently dangerous is insane.

[Rich Hunt]

133. why?

Why do you low post-count people just shrug this off as 'accidents happen'?

In most 'accidents', there is still the concept of --FAULT--.

You accident-fetishists keep implying that one runs the
risk of getting killed by some insensitive and selfish
driver merely by driving a car.

As the recent victim of a crash in which the driver
behind me *purposely* accelerated to more than 90 mph,
you can fuck right off.

He did it -on purpose-. Don't shrug that off as a
'mere consequence' of my getting into a car.

I wouldn't be saying anything if I hadn't seen
you rubberneckers making the same damn arguments
over and over on boards all over the 'net.

Well, in my case, it is DEMONSTRABLE that the driver
was not only at fault....he did it on purpose!

When you are driving a powerful machine like that,
you prioritize the safety of other drivers AND your
passengers.

The fact is, some drivers ARE more negligent than
others.

[iverglas]

167. good question

Sadly, it's loaded.

With a false premise.

Why do you low post-count people just shrug this off as 'accidents happen'?
In most 'accidents', there is still the concept of --FAULT--.

You appear to need to look up the definition of "accident". Indeed, things often called "accidents" in the road traffic context are not really accidents at all -- and that is why people in the road safety biz refer to them as "crashes".

This in no way means that accidents do not happen. And it in no way means that any totally uninformed person reading about an incident on a road involving people and circumstances about which she knows precisely bugger all is qualified to characterize that incident as accidental or otherwise.

There are numerous degrees of responsibility for things that happen.

Some things happen because someone intentionally caused them to happen. We all know what that means.

Some things happen because someone negligently caused them to happen -- and this means that the person had a duty not to do them or allow them to happen, and failed to do what was necessary and possible in order to comply with that duty.

Some things happen because someone recklessly caused them to happen. This means, pretty much, that the person acted with a high degree of disregard for the consequences.

Some things happen because someone carelessly caused them to happen, meaning that the person acted with disregard for the consequences.

And SOME THINGS HAPPEN BECAUSE SOMEONE ACCIDENTALLY CAUSED THEM TO HAPPEN. No one intended them to happen, and no one was negligent, or reckless or careless.

Some people, perhaps, really are perfect. They have never dropped a glass while drying it, or knocked over a lamp, or bumped into a stranger on the street.

Most people aren't. I'd venture to say that all people aren't, but I'm sure someone here would rush in to assure me that s/he is.

It really is possible to drive through a stop sign accidentally, without doing so intentionally, or negligently, or recklessly or carelessly. It really is possible to be stone cold sober, well-rested, obeying the speed limit, playing with no gadgets, entertaining no passengers, giving due attention to the road, and drive through a stop sign. And if we all put our minds to it, we can all imagine circumstances in which this would be the case.

Whether this was the case in this particular incident, NO ONE HERE KNOWS. I know I'm always surprised when I encounter things I don't know anything about; or, well, I guess, I should be, since so many other people never seem to. They know all about everything, and are eager to tell those of us who don't all about it.

As the recent victim of a crash in which the driver behind me *purposely* accelerated to more than 90 mph, you can fuck right off.

And as a person who, apparently surprisingly, can tell the difference between things that happen to me and things that happen several hundred or thousand kilometres from me, I wonder what your point is.

Of course, I also wonder about high post count posters who tell people to fuck off.

You accident-fetishists keep implying that one runs the risk of getting killed by some insensitive and selfish driver merely by driving a car.

It can really be a lot of fun to address what other people actually SAY, instead of inventing implications of what they say and berating them for it.

Several people have said (and I agree with them) that we all run the risk of being hurt by accident, in the sense in which that word is properly used, if we ride in motor vehicles. Just as we do whenever we do anything else.

He did it -on purpose-. Don't shrug that off as a 'mere consequence' of my getting into a car.

What is the attraction of straw? I'm allergic to it, myself.

Well, in my case, it is DEMONSTRABLE that the driver was not only at fault....he did it on purpose!

If only you could point to someone who said otherwise.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

95. Please get the details before passing judgment

I hope everyone knows the full details on this story before passing judgment, Like what was the road conditions, was the stop sign being blocked out of the view of drivers by a tree, or was it bent over from being ran over, was it rainy, was the sun setting or rising causing blindness or was the driver not familiar with the area.

I use to be a delivery driver till about 6 months ago. I was in a bad accident, I was to blame for it and admit my guilt. I didn't do it on purpose, who in their right mind would cause an accident. I was approaching an intersection in the middle of the country that I thought was a 4 way stop, I made a full stop and the mini van to my right in the intersection slows down and stops, I look to my left no traffic in sight and then to my right where they were stopped, and straight ahead I proceed thru the intersection, about midway thru the intersection, on the driver's side I suddenly get hit. The van I'm in is a big Chevy Savana Work van if you know the size of this huge van, imagine it getting hit so hard that it gets flipped and turn over onto the passenger side of the van. I was lucky I had my seat belt on and the arm rest down both saved me being thrown around inside the van, I get out of the seat and look for a way out, I look toward the back of the van both sides are caved in about 2-3 feet from the impact causing the back doors be jammed shut, can't go out the passenger or dual side doors, so I climb back into the driver's seat put my feet on the steering wheel as a brace and start punching and elbowing the crunched in driver's side door to get out by this time a passer by saw what was happening jumps on top the van and starts pulling on the door handle. Between him pulling and me punching from the inside I finally get out and I'm sitting out top of the van after looking down below I see I was hit by a mid-size pickup, the front end ripped off. I get down the guy who hit me driving the pickup looks like he saw a ghost everyone who had stopped at this point around the accident looked at me that way, I look back at the van it looks like a coke can turn on it's side looking like it had just been stomped on. Soon after the police and fire dept. arrive, take down all the information and see if everything is ok, everyone was, the pickup driver was had his wife and baby with him both ok. The people in the mini van the front headlight was hit by the van's passenger side rear end and they where ok, And I amazingly only received a cut on my left ankle from walking thru glass.

I was told that there was only stop signs for north-South lanes and that for the east-west lanes there was none, I had ran a stop sign, while I'm standing there one of the neighbors from a near by house told me that this intersection had had like 30 wrecks there in the last 3-4 years, which is a lot for a semi-rural country road, Another guy comes up and says that he’d been in an accident right there about 8 months earlier over the same deal. He’d tried to get the local county township to make it a 4-way stop but they didn’t want to spend the money on 2 more stop signs. Along with this it turns out that people in the mini-van were from out of town and where lost I guess and thought it would be a good place to stop, smart of them, only I thought of course they where stopping for a 4-way stop sign and not just for the fun of it. The mid-size pickup had to be speeding to be able to hit a huge van and turn it over, I’m just estimating but he had to be traveling around 65-70 mph since I didn't see him at all coming and there was a hill about a half mile down the road from the direction he came, while the speed limit was 35 mph on this road, while would you do that if you had a baby as a passenger I can’t understand taking that kind of risk. So is this accident my fault legally I guess it is, it was a company vehicle so their insurance company paid for all the repairs on the mini van and pickup and replaced the company van and my personal car insurance policy doesn’t raise in price.

I decide after this I no longer want to be a delivery driver, After dealing with crazy drivers avoiding accidents daily by using my defensive driving skills, I’d already been hit by a couple of uninsured motorist in the past year driving company vans, one giving me a bogus ID. Along with this I’d been pulled over by a cop and given ticket for speeding 5 mph over in a school zone, the thing is it was a Saturday when school is out the speed goes up by 15 mph! After all this when I just took it easy stayed at home after the accident and didn’t drive for a couple of days, my first time back out on the road I’m at an intersection the light turns green for me and cars coming the other way, I see before it happens a pickup truck is speeding and runs the red light at this intersection the guy hits three cars on the other side of road keeps on driving speeds up to get away to the highway down the road at least one of the cars can still drive and chases after the pickup.

So after hearing my story I hope people aren’t so quick to judge about this Mayor's accident or any others cause a lot of things need to be factored in sometimes before a judgment or really a simple opinion on the internet is made.

[Javaman]

107. Welcome to DU!

I had something similar happen to me like that years ago. I'm right there with you.

[superconnected]

108. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for sharing your story. I doubt there is anyone here that has never run a stop sign.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

142. reply

Thanks for the welcome Superconnected & Javaman

[leQ]

122. it happened on tuesday and gets reported on thursday

as breaking news?

it made the local news last nite (i didn't catch the video, only audio), and i heard that the guy was really shaken up about it.

still, a horrible thing to have to happen.

[onenote]

124. a bit more information

from the Des Moines newspaper: "The pavement leading up to the stop sign includes "rumble strips," intended to alert drivers, Danker said. But the intersection is near the crest of a hill and is not visible on the ascent, he said.

Danker said there was no evidence that alcohol was involved. Results are pending on the analysis of a blood sample Connell provided, which is routine in fatal accidents."

So, he probably wasn't drunk and the accident apparently occurred at a blind intersection. However, he ignored rumble strips that warn drivers to be alert and he ran the stop sign. I wonder if he has a history of traffic infractions? That would factor into my judgment about this case as well.

onenote

[Blaze Diem]

128. Didn't the past Gov of South Dakota.then Repub House member..

kill a motorcyclist at an intersection also? He was dead ass drunk, I believe went through some trial and was probably pardoned or some damn thing...
Can't recall how it all turned out.

he didn't get the yrs. in prison he would have, in S Dak, had he been ordinary 'joe'.
As once Gov of S Dak, I'm wondering how many in his State prisons for lesser crimes, applied for Gov Janklow's pardon, with no such compassion from the Gov.'s powerful pen.

[KamaAina]

183. Janklow got 100 days -- for manslaughter!

http://www.ubm-usa.org/janklow.html

It has been with great interest that the membership and Executive Board of United Bikers of Maine have watched the progressing story involving Bill Janklow, and dismay as we watched it’s culmination in a 100-day sentence for negligently causing the death of a Motorcyclist.

But remember, IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican). :sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

129. Hey, folks:

Intent matters. A LOT.

Just my two cents.

[Rich Hunt]

132. sure does

Especially when you can pin it down.

[Guaranteed]

134. Can we rule out at least that he was deliberately trying

to run into the guy's car, and possibly even that he intended to run the stop sign?

[Rich Hunt]

138. depends

....depends on what some people upthread are really talking about :
the guy in the story, or some -cough- 'hypothetical' situation.

I mean, since certain arguments upthread appear to be real popular on the 'net and all...

At this point, however - no, we can't rule it out. There are plenty of cases in which someone deliberately used their car to run into someone. Barring that, there are varying degrees of negligence.

[superconnected]

141. Which would mean he was trying to kill his political career.

I agree, it's unlikely this was intentional. Anyone can run a stop sign. This is most likely a terrible unfortunate accident.

Odds of it being on purpose - I'm guessing very small.

[Rich Hunt]

139. wow, fascinating

Someone is dead, and most people are preoccupied trying to argue some petty little point.

Very sad.

[mdelaguna2000]

147. "Entitled" drivers are a menace to our society - rant.

Every time I get in my car, on highways or through the streets of my town, 3 out of 4 other assholes tailgate the living crap out of me and as soon as they can pass, they take off going at least 15 mph over the speed limit. I know. I drive the speed limit.

Every day this happens. People think they have a "right" to speed - and to break the law - and to put other people's lives in jeopardy - everytime they get behind the wheel. It's a sick power dynamic. Tailgating my ass, 6 feet behind my rear bumper, at 55mph, could kill me if I had a blowout or my vehicle stopped functioning for some reason.

This is not just applicable to Murkans - same in Canada, Mexico, other places I drive. And it enrages the crap out of me. Do what you want out on a lonely road but don't put my life in danger. I have twice had my cars totalled by assholes who ran red lights, as I ambled through the intersection at 35 something mpg. Now I slow down and take a look, even when I have a green light. God knows what son-of-a-bitch is gonna barrel through next time.

And whenever I see a big Murkan gas guzzler truck/SUV coming up behind me, I KNOW what's coming. They are going to ride my ass. It matters not who's driving, 50-something rich ladies, bubba rednecks. Just the other day, this happened, tailed me for a few miles, flashing his lights, passes me just in time to stop at a red light. He charges off when the light changes and pulls into a Dunkin' Donuts. Urgent business.

Yes, I've run a lonely stop sign or two in my day, usually when I can see pretty well that there's nothing in sight or just had an impatient moment. Usually it's been a sneaky, California roll, inching through at a few mph. Got a ticket in September for this. Fair enough. My bad. You break the law, you face the consequences. It is your job as a driver to protect yourself and other people and look out for the damned stop signs. Any intersection might have one. Covered by trees? Maybe different story.

If I break a traffic law and kill someone I should be punished. So should anyone. There's nothing involuntary about not obeying a sign. You make a decision when you do that.

He broke the law. When you do that, you take another driver's life into your hands.

Period.

[PittPoliSci]

153. time to do the honorable thing...

and step down from the governor's race. if you kill someone, that should effectively eliminate you as a viable candidate. plus, he only got a ticket? that's so shitty, he should be in prison.

[Coventina]

159. Boy, you obviously haven't read this thread.

Don't you know that we're all entitled to have "oopsies" behind the wheel? Killing someone is just "the breaks" sometimes.

You have the right to be inattentive, distracted, etc. and if someone else suffers, that's just too bad.

[iverglas]

161. I was about to agree

Until I saw that you'd completely misrepresented what a number of people in this thread actually did say.

Just think of all the time you could have saved yourself if you hadn't bothered to read any of this thread; you could have described what was said in it exactly as accurately as you have done in this post, and got a manicure as well.

[Coventina]

163. I don't get it, what does a manicure have to do with anything?

:shrug:

[iverglas]

165. try harder

With all the time you wasted reading what other people had to say in this thread -- time that was obviously wasted, since you either

(a) did not understand any of what you read

or

(b) didn't need to read it at all, if all you planned to do all along was say that other people said things they did not say

-- you could have done something more useful.

Getting a manicure (in my humble opinion, a useless waste of time) would have been a better use of your time than what you actually chose to do.

The side benefit would have been that others would have been spared your obtuse and/or malicious misrepresentations of what they (which includes me) were saying.

[Coventina]

168. Well, apparently my understanding is different from yours.

For whatever reasons, my reading of the thread differs from yours.

It doesn't mean that I don't know how to read.

I guess "malicious" is in the eye of the beholder. Because what I see as "malicious" is being able to break traffic laws, kill someone, and only get a ticket for it as "malicious."

[iverglas]

169. nah, I wouldn't say that

Well, apparently my understanding is different from yours.

I would say that you either have the same understanding as I have of what people in this thread said, but choose not to acknowledge it, or have no understanding at all of what people in this thread said.

You refer to someone being able to break traffic laws, kill someone, and only get a ticket for it.

What you (and a whole lot of people hereabouts) don't seem to know is that many traffic laws create strict liability offences. This means that you are "guilty" of, for instance, failing to stop at a stop sign, even if you did not intentionally or negligently or recklessly or carelessly drive through without stopping at it. Essentially, such offences are "no fault" offences; the act itself is sufficient to prove the offence.

The fact that someone received a ticket for such an offence is NOT an indication that s/he is regarded as having intentionally, negligently, recklessly or carelessly broken the law.

Homicide, on the other hand, is NOT a strict liability offence. Homicide requires mens rea -- a "guilty mind" of some sort. This could be actual intent, or negligence, for instance.

We simply do not convict people of homicide UNLESS we are able to prove (to that old "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard) that s/he was criminally responsible for the death -- that s/he did something intentionally that could reasonably be foreseen to cause the death, or intentionally failed to do something that s/he had a duty not to do with reckless disregard for the reasonably foreseeable consequences.

No event is evidence of anyone's intent or disregard for consequences.

This is why we do not convict people of homicide when they kill someone in the belief that the person they are killing is the devil incarnate who is about to eat their children. And it is why we do not convict people of homicide if they trip on a loose tile and knock someone in front of a subway train.

I DON'T KNOW what prompted the individual in this incident to drive through a stop sign -- and NEITHER DO YOU.

But I RECOGNIZE that things are sometimes done by accident, and this is a simple fact of life that you are pretending does not exist. Human beings simply do not have infinite capacity for attention and infinite capacity to perceive and recognize everything within their field of perception under every imaginable condition.

And in your eagerness to deny the possibility of something genuinely accidental being done by a person behind the wheel of a car, you flat out misrepresented what a number of other people have said, when you said, purporting to represent what they did say:

You have the right to be inattentive, distracted, etc. and if someone else suffers, that's just too bad.

No one said that, no one at all, and your insistence on portraying people who disagree with you as the kind of people who would say that is simply appalling.

[Coventina]

170. Well, all I can say is that it is my interpretation of what some posts

have said.

I will say, in I guess what is somewhat an agreement with you, is that I do not equate this sort of thing to MURDER, either 1st or 2nd degree. But I do think there is a case for manslaughter, when traffic signals such as red lights / stop signs have been violated.

And I will even give you this, that my personal perceptions are certainly factor, having been injured by a red-light runner, numerous family members and friends who have been injured or killed by red-light runners, and live in a city that has the seven of the ten most dangerous streets in the US. It is something that I face every day.

[iverglas]

171. and all I can say is

you (and quite a few other people) need to look up the law of manslaughter before you go accusing people of it in public.

my personal perceptions are certainly factor, having been injured by a red-light runner, numerous family members and friends who have been injured or killed by red-light runners

Yup. And people have undoubtedly been murdered by being pushed in front of subway trains. That doesn't mean that if I turn around suddenly while waiting for a train and someone I hadn't noticed is standing beside me and I knock him/her onto the tracks, I have committed any kind of offence at all.

Why is it so ungodly difficult to distinguish Thing A from Thing B?

Again, I am not saying that what this individual did was Thing B. I simply have no evidence on which to say it was Thing A, and me, I don't go flinging allegations around, let alone demands for punishment, based on what amount to prejudices -- prejudgments of a situation based on unrelated other situations -- and no evidence at all.

[Coventina]

174. Running a stop sign is not the same as bumping into someone in a crowd.

One is breaking a law, the other isn't.

[iverglas]

176. really?

Running a stop sign is not the same as bumping into someone in a crowd.
One is breaking a law, the other isn't.

Have you ever noticed that touching someone without his/her consent is generally called ASSAULT?

Oh ... you mean ... if you do it BY ACCIDENT, it isn't a criminal offence???

EVEN IF somebody dies as a result?


Heavens to betsy, what a concept.

Have you considered getting called to the bar before you go making all these fascinating pronouncements about LAW? You might not look quite so foolish ... since you wouldn't be making them.

[Coventina]

177. You are never going to convince me that running a stop sign is an innocent

mistake.

Never.

You complain about me being malicious, well, I have suffered personally from irresponsible drivers. What's the excuse you have for your hostile tone?

[iverglas]

180. my "hostile tone"

is the tone I tend to have thrust upon me when I am subjected to people who are ignorant of everything they need to know in order to pass judgment on an individual or situation, and insist on doing so, in public no less, anyway.

You have demonstrated pretty clearly that you don't have a clue about the rules that, quite properly, govern criminal (or civil) liability for the consequences of someone's actions. You certainly don't know anything about the individual in this case or about what happened in the place and time in question.

Neither do I, of course. But then I'm not the one claiming to have exonerated or inculpated him by crystal ball, or time travel, or prejudice, or whatever it is that people use to do these things. *I* won't be wiping egg from my face or eating big black birds if some fact comes to light that establishes that the driver was malicious, or negligent, or reckless, or careless ... or was exercising due care and attention and accidentally failed to stop at a stop sign.

And at least my "hostile tone" hasn't involved misrepresenting the things said by people who disagree with me to the point that anyone reading what I said would come away with the impression that they are apologists for homicidal maniacs, and for lazy selfish irresponsible people everywhere.

Any more questions?

Or did you want me to explain "manslaughter" to you, in the hope that you would not continue to feel qualified to wander around flinging that label at the actions of people you know nothing about?


I have suffered personally from irresponsible drivers.

BIG FUCKING DEAL. I have suffered personally from the actions of a serial sexual assaillant. Do you see me calling the person named in this incident a rapist and demanding that he be locked up for life?

I simply don't know what it is you have not yet grasped about the fact that unless and until it is established, by you or anyone else, that this individual WAS AN IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVER, all of your personal anecdotes about coming to grief at the hands of irresponsible drivers are so much herring in the wind.

But I guess I never will, so I guess I'll just wander off and wait for the next time an angry prejudiced pack descends on someone singled out for accusations of wrongdoing or for character association, with a big dollop of self-righteous indignation, without any decent reason for doing it ... which, around here, shouldn't be far off.

[Coventina]

181. I thrust your hostile tone on you? That's giving me a whole lot of power.

Are you sure you want to do that?

You call me malicious, but I would never dream of "shouting" BIG FUCKING DEAL in the face of your personal tragedies.

[mandomom]

164. Accidents are not in and of themselves sufficient to end a career.,

Let's have a little common sense. Run a stop sign and no one gets hurt, get a ticket and pay a fine. Run a stop sign and someone does get hurt or is killed, get a ticket, pay and fine and likely get investigated. We cannot jump to career-ending conclusions without facts found in an objective investigation, including involvement of alcohol/drugs, negligence of either driver contributing to the accident, danger level of the intersection in question, applicable laws of the relevant jurisdiction and facts found in potential (inevitable?) civil suit. We must be the party of fact-based realities and consequences. Otherwise we're all just right winger republicans.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.