kelpdiver 2 #76 May 10, 2006 Quote I do know that if this were the van drivers's fault, he would be up on multiple counts of vehicular homicide. What do I disagree with? I suspect that the motorcyclists were doing something seriously wrong and it's intentionally being left out of the article, so the van driver looks like a criminal, and the bikers look like innocent victims. I'm not buying it... Drivers commit vehicular manslaughter all the time, taking out lots of people on two wheels - both motorcycles and bicyclists. They do it with going against traffic (british), passing violations, illegal uturns, or not looking where they're going while fiddling with the stereo. Rarely do they get a substantial sentence or a charge at all, because criminal charges require intent - it's not enough to be criminally stupid. And it's hard to prove intent. That you believe that all of these bikers were doing something wrong all together in a manner that allowed a single van driver to take them all out - says volumes about you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #77 May 10, 2006 Quoteit is readily apparent that you never bothered to actually read any of my posts in this thread. Unfortunately I read most of your posts... I mistook LO's comment early on as yours. My apologies for addressing the wrong person, but my point stands. Quotea jury found Butler not guilty of three counts of vehicular homicide and two counts of serious injury by vehicle Sounds like the courts found him not guilty to me. They can accuse him of whatever they want... it doesn't mean he did anything wrong. QuoteSo you think the story was skewed to support my position No, I don't think the author of the story even knows you, let alone wrote the story to support your beliefs. I think you found a story that victimizes bikers killed by cars. Now I know why you didn't post a link to the source, you pulled the article from the American Motorcyclists Association web page. No agenda or bias from that source... http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/2004/three_killed.asp After doing the research for you, here's the rest of the story: http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=4142835&nav=1sW7 Appears the prosecution dropped the ball. So what do I disagree with? 1) I disagree with you comparing a motorcyclist doing 150mph, killing people, to a guy falling asleep at the wheel and killing people. It's about intent. 2) I disagree with anybody (not just you) citing 'facts' from an obviously biased source. (this was my initial disagreement) This guy apparently got off, due to the prosecution's screwup. It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly. Bottom line is, motorcycle advocates are using an isolated incident where an attorney screwed up, to further their cause. Feel free to use my link to a credible source, and continue on with your rant. Jeff ps- relax... you're wound way too tight...Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #78 May 10, 2006 QuoteSounds like the courts found him not guilty to me. They can accuse him of whatever they want... it doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Nah, falling asleep behind the wheel of a van, crossing the center line, killing three people - You're right. It certainly sounds like the motorcyclists were at fault. I think you found a story that victimizes bikers killed by cars.Quote Yeah, motorcyclists getting killed by cars - pretty rare thing. What planet are you from again? ***Now I know why you didn't post a link to the source, you pulled the article from the American Motorcyclists Association web page. No agenda or bias from that source... It was an excerpt from the Des Moines Register pulled from the AMA website and there was ample information provided so anyone could do a search. And by the way, your "credible" source states the very same thing as the article on the AMA's website.... Fifty-one-year-old Gary Butler, of Des Moines, was driving a van on June 22nd, 2002, when he crossed the center line on U-S Highway 30 near Chelsea and hit six motorcyclists. Three of the motorcyclists were killed. Three others were injured. A state trooper's report said Butler probably fell asleep. QuoteAppears the prosecution dropped the ball. What? The motorcyclists didn't kill themselves now? Get your story straight, dude.... QuoteSo what do I disagree with? 1) I disagree with you comparing a motorcyclist doing 150mph, killing people, to a guy falling asleep at the wheel and killing people. It's about intent. So you're of the opinion that the guy on the bike intended for this to happen? I think you have some issues..... Quote2) I disagree with anybody (not just you) citing 'facts' from an obviously biased source. (this was my initial disagreement) Our sources stated the very same "facts". How is mine so "obviously" biased? QuoteThis guy apparently got off, due to the prosecution's screwup. It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly. Congratulations, you finally got the point of the story. I would assume that is why the AMA used this particular article in their efforts to promote harsher penalties for people who kill motorcyclists in this manner....... QuoteBottom line is, motorcycle advocates are using an isolated incident where an attorney screwed up, to further their cause. Uhhhh, J...... I know this is probably wasted on you but, it wasn't the attorney who screwed up. It was the dude who fell asleep, crossed the centerline, and killed three people, who screwed up. And by the way, J, I am perfectly relaxed. You went off on me before even reading the thread - I'm just supporting my position - something you are quite obviously incapable of. Peace, Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #79 May 10, 2006 QuoteDrivers commit vehicular manslaughter all the time, taking out lots of people on two wheels - both motorcycles and bicyclists. They do it with going against traffic (british), passing violations, illegal uturns, or not looking where they're going while fiddling with the stereo. Rarely do they get a substantial sentence or a charge at all, because criminal charges require intent - it's not enough to be criminally stupid. And it's hard to prove intent. If someone breaks a known traffic violation and kills someone in the process, how can that not be considered criminal. Would you view it differently if I broke the law and shot a few rounds off in the air on new years and a bullet hit someone and killed them. I don't see the two cases as very different, but I can assure you the latter would carry a pretty stiff amount of prison time at least here in the states. I understand it may be slightly different if the traffic law was accidentally broken, like missing a stop sign or something, but illegal passing, uturns and excessive speeding are safe to assume intentional. But hey, I don't live in the UK. Crap, I told myself I was gonna quit posting in here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 May 10, 2006 it's still about intent. Rarely do bad drivers intend to get into accidents and kill others. The bad outcomes results from laziness, not malice. So certainly it's a slam dunk to give them the infraction for an illegal uturn, and assign them a point for causing the accident, but after that justice gets murky. Firing off a gun in the sky is more reckless than not looking carefully enough before making a uturn on a 2 lane road. (BTW, Mythbusters tried to test if firing bullets could kill - they couldn't show it doing so, but did run into doctors with a couple real world examples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #81 May 11, 2006 Quoteit's still about intent. Rarely do bad drivers intend to get into accidents and kill others. The bad outcomes results from laziness, not malice. So certainly it's a slam dunk to give them the infraction for an illegal uturn, and assign them a point for causing the accident, but after that justice gets murky. I guess I don't feel there needs to be intent for a more severe punishment than a simple traffic ticket for killing someone. Thats why we have a separate charge for vehicular manslaughter because it's rarely intentional to cause an accident. However if you've been drinking I do believe you can be charged with vehicular homicide which carries even a stiffer penalty. QuoteFiring off a gun in the sky is more reckless than not looking carefully enough before making a uturn on a 2 lane road. Perhaps true in this example, but If I'm passing in a no passing zone where I can't see a bike coming over a hill, I view that as far more reckless than firing a gun in the air. But none of that really matters. Kinda a silly argument altogether, not really sure what my point is other than, I feel that if someone knowingly breaks a traffic law and kills someone there should be far more serious consequences than a simple traffic violation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #82 May 11, 2006 Quoteit's still about intent. Rarely do bad drivers intend to get into accidents and kill others. The bad outcomes results from laziness, not malice. So certainly it's a slam dunk to give them the infraction for an illegal uturn, and assign them a point for causing the accident, but after that justice gets murky. Firing off a gun in the sky is more reckless than not looking carefully enough before making a uturn on a 2 lane road. (BTW, Mythbusters tried to test if firing bullets could kill - they couldn't show it doing so, but did run into doctors with a couple real world examples. bullets will kill when not fired in enough vertical angle. fire a bullet 45 degrees and all you get is small artillery...(MAX RANGE) it will most likely kill at that angle I saw the mythbusters episode and they accounted for the vert angle.Quote dead is not equal to dead eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #83 May 11, 2006 QuoteNah, falling asleep behind the wheel of a van, crossing the center line, killing three people - You're right. It certainly sounds like the motorcyclists were at fault. Ummm, read my message again. What do the words, 'It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly.' mean to you? QuoteAnd by the way, your "credible" source states the very same thing as the article on the AMA's website.... Uhhh, yeah, I know. I looked up the article for you, remember? Ok, fine, you're right. The AMA would never show any bias towards bikers... QuoteWhat? The motorcyclists didn't kill themselves now? Get your story straight, dude.... Ummm yeah.... once again, I had to research the story, since you were unwilling/unable. I AM the one getting the story straight. Had you researched you're own story upfront, we wouldn't be questioning it's authenticity. The story is legit, good. It's not like people never post BS news stories on DZ.COM. QuoteSo you're of the opinion that the guy on the bike intended for this to happen? I think you have some issues Huh? Your comments are really getting ignorant now. Of course he didn't want to die. He intended to go 150mph on a public road. [sigh] Quote the AMA used this particular article in their efforts to promote harsher penalties for people who kill motorcyclists in this manner....... Of course, stiffer penalties because motorcyclists' lives are worth more than everyone else on the road. Sounds a little hypocritical to me. QuoteI know this is probably wasted on you but, it wasn't the attorney who screwed up. It was the dude who fell asleep, crossed the centerline, and killed three people, who screwed up. From the full article: Butler claimed he could not be sent to jail because Heeren [the prosecutor] failed to give notice [legal process] that he had caused a death or injury. And you claim the prosecutor didn't screw up? JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #84 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteNah, falling asleep behind the wheel of a van, crossing the center line, killing three people - You're right. It certainly sounds like the motorcyclists were at fault. Ummm, read my message again. What do the words, 'It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly.' mean to you? As oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #85 May 11, 2006 Quotecriminal charges require intent So involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide are only used in incidents where a driver intentionally killed someone???? You might want to check your facts... QuoteThat you believe that all of these bikers were doing something wrong all together in a manner that allowed a single van driver to take them all out - says volumes about you. Yes, it says that when a man is found innocent in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, he typically has done nothing wrong. Obviously that is not the case here. Had Z posted the full story, we all would have known immediately that the prosecution misfiled the charges. Had the full article initially been posted, I would not have made that statement. The fact that you judge me, based on someone else presenting half the facts - says volumes about you.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #86 May 11, 2006 QuoteAs oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? Yes, it's completely opposite of my initial statement, which, once again.... [sigh] was a response to someone else conveniently leaving significant facts out. "Yesterday, a 52 year old man was found 'not guilty' of murder in the shooting deaths of two teens." Based on this statement and no other details, would you think the teens did something to deserve it? Now maybe you understand point #2 I made to Z... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #87 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? QuoteYes, it's completely opposite of my initial statement, which, once again.... [sigh] was a response to someone else conveniently leaving significant facts out. You said it yourself, Jeff - They story is completely legit - There were no significant facts left out. QuoteNow maybe you understand point #2 I made to Z... Dude, you haven't made 1 point, let alone 2. You've been flip flopping and rambling on like a politician and you still haven't supported your original argument. As a matter of fact, the only thing you've accomplished with all of your bullshit is to prove that your initial argument was completely without merit. You are nothing but a waste of time. Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #88 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou've been flip flopping and rambling on like a politician when a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? It was very frustrating to hear GWB constantly mistaking blatant Kerry's pandering for blatant flipflopping. Poor guy just has vocabulary issues. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #89 May 11, 2006 Quote Had the full article initially been posted, I would not have made that statement. The fact that you judge me, based on someone else presenting half the facts - says volumes about you.... Yep - that I'm a very perceptive person. Your backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. Your reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #90 May 11, 2006 QuoteIf someone breaks a known traffic violation and kills someone in the process, how can that not be considered criminal. Would you view it differently if I broke the law and shot a few rounds off in the air on new years and a bullet hit someone and killed them. There's a difference between negligence and recklessness. Negligence is screwing up and making a mistake. Let's say you're doing 65 on the highway and traffic suddenly stops. You were too close to the ar in front of you and BANG! Rear end collision. It gets worse when you realize it was a Ford Pinto. The driver dies. You may have a negligent homicide charge brought against you because you failed to maintain a safe distance, which was against the law. An unfortunate mistake a Say you're doing 120 and rear end a vehicle, causing a death. Okay, this isn't negligence anymore. Now you were reckless because your action in speeding like that showed a wilful and wanton disregard of the unjustified and substantial risk that operating a vehicle like that could likely cause a death, and a manslaughter charge would be the minimum. I think that soon states will be moving to make such a death a Murder 2. Quoteillegal passing, uturns and excessive speeding are safe to assume intentional. Usually for the recklessness, they'll try to bring in some other testimony that the person has done it before. It's kinda like braggiing about hitting 140 on this site. If you are part of an accident where you are doing 90, the posts about how fast you've gone indicate that it wasn't just some misadventure or spur of the moment thing. Folks posting about racing may be setting themselves up for a stiffer sentence if something bad happens. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #91 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou said it yourself, Jeff - They story is completely legit - There were no significant facts left out. The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete. Show me in your posts where you mentioned this little fact: Butler claimed he could not be sent to jail because Heeren [the prosecutor] failed to give notice [legal process] that he had caused a death or injury. QuoteDude, you haven't made 1 point, let alone 2. Here it is, for the second time: 1) I disagree with you comparing a motorcyclist doing 150mph, killing people, to a guy falling asleep at the wheel and killing people. It's about intent. 2) I disagree with anybody (not just you) citing 'facts' from an obviously biased source. (this was my initial disagreement) Quotethe only thing you've accomplished with all of your bullshit is to prove that your initial argument was completely without merit. Yup, my initial statement was incorrect, it was a statement based on what turned out to be incomplete (not necessarily inaccurate, there is a difference) information posted by you. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #92 May 11, 2006 How's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #93 May 11, 2006 Quotewhen a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? Pandering - [Pan-duh-ring] Got it. Peace, Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #94 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. First of all, nobody on here is backpedalling. I did my own research and admitted that my initial statement was incorrect, due to incomplete information initially presented to me. I asked what the rest of the story was, and neither of you spoke up. I researched it, and even found the original court records for the case in about 10 minutes. Now that all this is in hindsite, it's pretty easy for you to argue the point, isn't it? Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. However, innocence DOES imply no legal wrong doing. So, two parties are involved. One party is innocent of 'wrong doing'. Not many choices left. And for the record, I used to ride (10 years ago, so it's been a while, granted). I have many friends that still ride. Everything from Harley's to Ducati's. If you're trying to accuse me of prejudice against bikers, I hope you have more than you're 'judgement' and legal knowledge to support your arguments.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #95 May 11, 2006 Quote Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? first you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part. Quote QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. I'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you believe in the American principle of innocent till proven guilty, hence the defendent wasn't a bad guy just because this accident happened. Yet you did make a guess about the victims.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #96 May 11, 2006 QuoteHow's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Ok, in my previous message: You claimed that you left nothing out of your story, and I provide you with the quote you omitted. You claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. The best response you can come up with is a personal taunt? Weak.... My turn: QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story yet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Whatever dude. QuoteI have no idea what convinced a jury of his innocence. Exactly. Because you knew nothing about the crap you were shovelling, and weren't willing to bother looking up the full story. Once again, the jury didn't need to be convinced, because the appropriate charges were never filed. JShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #97 May 11, 2006 Quotefirst you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part Here's the entire paragraph, so you can't accuse me of taking it out of context. QuoteDrivers commit vehicular manslaughter all the time, taking out lots of people on two wheels - both motorcycles and bicyclists. They do it with going against traffic (british), passing violations, illegal uturns, or not looking where they're going while fiddling with the stereo. Rarely do they get a substantial sentence or a charge at all, because criminal charges require intent - it's not enough to be criminally stupid. And it's hard to prove intent. Is that clear enough for you? QuoteI'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I'm still trying to figure out where you're getting that 'stated claim'. I asked (pointed) questions about what they were doing. Why didn't you speak up and say that they were doing nothing wrong, but the driver got off because of a legal slip up? Perhaps because none of us knew, until *I* bothered to research it? While you're looking, here's one statement that I DID make, but you're not willing to acknowledge. Sorry, there's something significant being left out of this article; no, I don't know what. Yeah... backpedalling... that's about as accurate as everything else you've posted in this thread. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #98 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. Well, your first "point" is completely baseless because I never compared the guy on the bike to the dude in the van - I simply provided the story an example of what not to do on public streets. Try reading the thread. Your second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Try reading the thread. QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story Quoteyet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Once again - The article was example of what not to do in traffic - not an example of what not to do in court. Do you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. Try reading the thread. And yes, you're backstroking - You found out that your original argument was completely without merit and now you're backstroking, trying to blame me for the unfounded and stupid remarks you made in response to my post. A little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #99 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Once again, you're omitting facts and taking words out of context to support your argument. Here's what I said: "The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete." QuoteDo you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. We're all well aware that I performed a search that you were too lazy to do yourself. QuoteA little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. That's right, resort to insult when you fail at reasoned argument.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jeiber 0 #83 May 11, 2006 QuoteNah, falling asleep behind the wheel of a van, crossing the center line, killing three people - You're right. It certainly sounds like the motorcyclists were at fault. Ummm, read my message again. What do the words, 'It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly.' mean to you? QuoteAnd by the way, your "credible" source states the very same thing as the article on the AMA's website.... Uhhh, yeah, I know. I looked up the article for you, remember? Ok, fine, you're right. The AMA would never show any bias towards bikers... QuoteWhat? The motorcyclists didn't kill themselves now? Get your story straight, dude.... Ummm yeah.... once again, I had to research the story, since you were unwilling/unable. I AM the one getting the story straight. Had you researched you're own story upfront, we wouldn't be questioning it's authenticity. The story is legit, good. It's not like people never post BS news stories on DZ.COM. QuoteSo you're of the opinion that the guy on the bike intended for this to happen? I think you have some issues Huh? Your comments are really getting ignorant now. Of course he didn't want to die. He intended to go 150mph on a public road. [sigh] Quote the AMA used this particular article in their efforts to promote harsher penalties for people who kill motorcyclists in this manner....... Of course, stiffer penalties because motorcyclists' lives are worth more than everyone else on the road. Sounds a little hypocritical to me. QuoteI know this is probably wasted on you but, it wasn't the attorney who screwed up. It was the dude who fell asleep, crossed the centerline, and killed three people, who screwed up. From the full article: Butler claimed he could not be sent to jail because Heeren [the prosecutor] failed to give notice [legal process] that he had caused a death or injury. And you claim the prosecutor didn't screw up? JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteNah, falling asleep behind the wheel of a van, crossing the center line, killing three people - You're right. It certainly sounds like the motorcyclists were at fault. Ummm, read my message again. What do the words, 'It's wrong. He should have been punished much more harshly.' mean to you? As oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #85 May 11, 2006 Quotecriminal charges require intent So involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide are only used in incidents where a driver intentionally killed someone???? You might want to check your facts... QuoteThat you believe that all of these bikers were doing something wrong all together in a manner that allowed a single van driver to take them all out - says volumes about you. Yes, it says that when a man is found innocent in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, he typically has done nothing wrong. Obviously that is not the case here. Had Z posted the full story, we all would have known immediately that the prosecution misfiled the charges. Had the full article initially been posted, I would not have made that statement. The fact that you judge me, based on someone else presenting half the facts - says volumes about you.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #86 May 11, 2006 QuoteAs oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? Yes, it's completely opposite of my initial statement, which, once again.... [sigh] was a response to someone else conveniently leaving significant facts out. "Yesterday, a 52 year old man was found 'not guilty' of murder in the shooting deaths of two teens." Based on this statement and no other details, would you think the teens did something to deserve it? Now maybe you understand point #2 I made to Z... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #87 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs oppose to your other words - 'I bet those bikers did something to deserve it.' ?? QuoteYes, it's completely opposite of my initial statement, which, once again.... [sigh] was a response to someone else conveniently leaving significant facts out. You said it yourself, Jeff - They story is completely legit - There were no significant facts left out. QuoteNow maybe you understand point #2 I made to Z... Dude, you haven't made 1 point, let alone 2. You've been flip flopping and rambling on like a politician and you still haven't supported your original argument. As a matter of fact, the only thing you've accomplished with all of your bullshit is to prove that your initial argument was completely without merit. You are nothing but a waste of time. Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #88 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou've been flip flopping and rambling on like a politician when a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? It was very frustrating to hear GWB constantly mistaking blatant Kerry's pandering for blatant flipflopping. Poor guy just has vocabulary issues. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #89 May 11, 2006 Quote Had the full article initially been posted, I would not have made that statement. The fact that you judge me, based on someone else presenting half the facts - says volumes about you.... Yep - that I'm a very perceptive person. Your backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. Your reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #90 May 11, 2006 QuoteIf someone breaks a known traffic violation and kills someone in the process, how can that not be considered criminal. Would you view it differently if I broke the law and shot a few rounds off in the air on new years and a bullet hit someone and killed them. There's a difference between negligence and recklessness. Negligence is screwing up and making a mistake. Let's say you're doing 65 on the highway and traffic suddenly stops. You were too close to the ar in front of you and BANG! Rear end collision. It gets worse when you realize it was a Ford Pinto. The driver dies. You may have a negligent homicide charge brought against you because you failed to maintain a safe distance, which was against the law. An unfortunate mistake a Say you're doing 120 and rear end a vehicle, causing a death. Okay, this isn't negligence anymore. Now you were reckless because your action in speeding like that showed a wilful and wanton disregard of the unjustified and substantial risk that operating a vehicle like that could likely cause a death, and a manslaughter charge would be the minimum. I think that soon states will be moving to make such a death a Murder 2. Quoteillegal passing, uturns and excessive speeding are safe to assume intentional. Usually for the recklessness, they'll try to bring in some other testimony that the person has done it before. It's kinda like braggiing about hitting 140 on this site. If you are part of an accident where you are doing 90, the posts about how fast you've gone indicate that it wasn't just some misadventure or spur of the moment thing. Folks posting about racing may be setting themselves up for a stiffer sentence if something bad happens. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #91 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou said it yourself, Jeff - They story is completely legit - There were no significant facts left out. The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete. Show me in your posts where you mentioned this little fact: Butler claimed he could not be sent to jail because Heeren [the prosecutor] failed to give notice [legal process] that he had caused a death or injury. QuoteDude, you haven't made 1 point, let alone 2. Here it is, for the second time: 1) I disagree with you comparing a motorcyclist doing 150mph, killing people, to a guy falling asleep at the wheel and killing people. It's about intent. 2) I disagree with anybody (not just you) citing 'facts' from an obviously biased source. (this was my initial disagreement) Quotethe only thing you've accomplished with all of your bullshit is to prove that your initial argument was completely without merit. Yup, my initial statement was incorrect, it was a statement based on what turned out to be incomplete (not necessarily inaccurate, there is a difference) information posted by you. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #92 May 11, 2006 How's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #93 May 11, 2006 Quotewhen a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? Pandering - [Pan-duh-ring] Got it. Peace, Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #94 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. First of all, nobody on here is backpedalling. I did my own research and admitted that my initial statement was incorrect, due to incomplete information initially presented to me. I asked what the rest of the story was, and neither of you spoke up. I researched it, and even found the original court records for the case in about 10 minutes. Now that all this is in hindsite, it's pretty easy for you to argue the point, isn't it? Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. However, innocence DOES imply no legal wrong doing. So, two parties are involved. One party is innocent of 'wrong doing'. Not many choices left. And for the record, I used to ride (10 years ago, so it's been a while, granted). I have many friends that still ride. Everything from Harley's to Ducati's. If you're trying to accuse me of prejudice against bikers, I hope you have more than you're 'judgement' and legal knowledge to support your arguments.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #95 May 11, 2006 Quote Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? first you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part. Quote QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. I'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you believe in the American principle of innocent till proven guilty, hence the defendent wasn't a bad guy just because this accident happened. Yet you did make a guess about the victims.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #96 May 11, 2006 QuoteHow's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Ok, in my previous message: You claimed that you left nothing out of your story, and I provide you with the quote you omitted. You claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. The best response you can come up with is a personal taunt? Weak.... My turn: QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story yet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Whatever dude. QuoteI have no idea what convinced a jury of his innocence. Exactly. Because you knew nothing about the crap you were shovelling, and weren't willing to bother looking up the full story. Once again, the jury didn't need to be convinced, because the appropriate charges were never filed. JShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #97 May 11, 2006 Quotefirst you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part Here's the entire paragraph, so you can't accuse me of taking it out of context. QuoteDrivers commit vehicular manslaughter all the time, taking out lots of people on two wheels - both motorcycles and bicyclists. They do it with going against traffic (british), passing violations, illegal uturns, or not looking where they're going while fiddling with the stereo. Rarely do they get a substantial sentence or a charge at all, because criminal charges require intent - it's not enough to be criminally stupid. And it's hard to prove intent. Is that clear enough for you? QuoteI'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I'm still trying to figure out where you're getting that 'stated claim'. I asked (pointed) questions about what they were doing. Why didn't you speak up and say that they were doing nothing wrong, but the driver got off because of a legal slip up? Perhaps because none of us knew, until *I* bothered to research it? While you're looking, here's one statement that I DID make, but you're not willing to acknowledge. Sorry, there's something significant being left out of this article; no, I don't know what. Yeah... backpedalling... that's about as accurate as everything else you've posted in this thread. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #98 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. Well, your first "point" is completely baseless because I never compared the guy on the bike to the dude in the van - I simply provided the story an example of what not to do on public streets. Try reading the thread. Your second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Try reading the thread. QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story Quoteyet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Once again - The article was example of what not to do in traffic - not an example of what not to do in court. Do you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. Try reading the thread. And yes, you're backstroking - You found out that your original argument was completely without merit and now you're backstroking, trying to blame me for the unfounded and stupid remarks you made in response to my post. A little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #99 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Once again, you're omitting facts and taking words out of context to support your argument. Here's what I said: "The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete." QuoteDo you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. We're all well aware that I performed a search that you were too lazy to do yourself. QuoteA little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. That's right, resort to insult when you fail at reasoned argument.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #88 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou've been flip flopping and rambling on like a politician when a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? It was very frustrating to hear GWB constantly mistaking blatant Kerry's pandering for blatant flipflopping. Poor guy just has vocabulary issues. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 May 11, 2006 Quote Had the full article initially been posted, I would not have made that statement. The fact that you judge me, based on someone else presenting half the facts - says volumes about you.... Yep - that I'm a very perceptive person. Your backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. Your reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #90 May 11, 2006 QuoteIf someone breaks a known traffic violation and kills someone in the process, how can that not be considered criminal. Would you view it differently if I broke the law and shot a few rounds off in the air on new years and a bullet hit someone and killed them. There's a difference between negligence and recklessness. Negligence is screwing up and making a mistake. Let's say you're doing 65 on the highway and traffic suddenly stops. You were too close to the ar in front of you and BANG! Rear end collision. It gets worse when you realize it was a Ford Pinto. The driver dies. You may have a negligent homicide charge brought against you because you failed to maintain a safe distance, which was against the law. An unfortunate mistake a Say you're doing 120 and rear end a vehicle, causing a death. Okay, this isn't negligence anymore. Now you were reckless because your action in speeding like that showed a wilful and wanton disregard of the unjustified and substantial risk that operating a vehicle like that could likely cause a death, and a manslaughter charge would be the minimum. I think that soon states will be moving to make such a death a Murder 2. Quoteillegal passing, uturns and excessive speeding are safe to assume intentional. Usually for the recklessness, they'll try to bring in some other testimony that the person has done it before. It's kinda like braggiing about hitting 140 on this site. If you are part of an accident where you are doing 90, the posts about how fast you've gone indicate that it wasn't just some misadventure or spur of the moment thing. Folks posting about racing may be setting themselves up for a stiffer sentence if something bad happens. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #91 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou said it yourself, Jeff - They story is completely legit - There were no significant facts left out. The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete. Show me in your posts where you mentioned this little fact: Butler claimed he could not be sent to jail because Heeren [the prosecutor] failed to give notice [legal process] that he had caused a death or injury. QuoteDude, you haven't made 1 point, let alone 2. Here it is, for the second time: 1) I disagree with you comparing a motorcyclist doing 150mph, killing people, to a guy falling asleep at the wheel and killing people. It's about intent. 2) I disagree with anybody (not just you) citing 'facts' from an obviously biased source. (this was my initial disagreement) Quotethe only thing you've accomplished with all of your bullshit is to prove that your initial argument was completely without merit. Yup, my initial statement was incorrect, it was a statement based on what turned out to be incomplete (not necessarily inaccurate, there is a difference) information posted by you. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #92 May 11, 2006 How's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #93 May 11, 2006 Quotewhen a politician does that it's not called "flip flopping" it's called "pandering". Let's keep that straight. mmmkay? Pandering - [Pan-duh-ring] Got it. Peace, Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #94 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour backpedaling now has done nothing to change the judgement I've made of you. First of all, nobody on here is backpedalling. I did my own research and admitted that my initial statement was incorrect, due to incomplete information initially presented to me. I asked what the rest of the story was, and neither of you spoke up. I researched it, and even found the original court records for the case in about 10 minutes. Now that all this is in hindsite, it's pretty easy for you to argue the point, isn't it? Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. However, innocence DOES imply no legal wrong doing. So, two parties are involved. One party is innocent of 'wrong doing'. Not many choices left. And for the record, I used to ride (10 years ago, so it's been a while, granted). I have many friends that still ride. Everything from Harley's to Ducati's. If you're trying to accuse me of prejudice against bikers, I hope you have more than you're 'judgement' and legal knowledge to support your arguments.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 May 11, 2006 Quote Now speaking of backpedalling, would you like to explain your above claim that criminal charges can only be filed where there is intent? first you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part. Quote QuoteYour reaction on hearing he was acquitted was not that the defendent was innocent, but rather than the victims were in fact guilty in some way. An all or nothing viewpoint. A person's innocence does not imply his accuser is 'guilty'. I'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you believe in the American principle of innocent till proven guilty, hence the defendent wasn't a bad guy just because this accident happened. Yet you did make a guess about the victims.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #96 May 11, 2006 QuoteHow's that backstroke workin' out for ya Jeff? Ok, in my previous message: You claimed that you left nothing out of your story, and I provide you with the quote you omitted. You claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. The best response you can come up with is a personal taunt? Weak.... My turn: QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story yet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Whatever dude. QuoteI have no idea what convinced a jury of his innocence. Exactly. Because you knew nothing about the crap you were shovelling, and weren't willing to bother looking up the full story. Once again, the jury didn't need to be convinced, because the appropriate charges were never filed. JShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #97 May 11, 2006 Quotefirst you'll need to quote me saying that. Good luck, esp with the "only" part Here's the entire paragraph, so you can't accuse me of taking it out of context. QuoteDrivers commit vehicular manslaughter all the time, taking out lots of people on two wheels - both motorcycles and bicyclists. They do it with going against traffic (british), passing violations, illegal uturns, or not looking where they're going while fiddling with the stereo. Rarely do they get a substantial sentence or a charge at all, because criminal charges require intent - it's not enough to be criminally stupid. And it's hard to prove intent. Is that clear enough for you? QuoteI'm still trying to figure out the source of your stated claim that the bikers must have been up to no good. I'm still trying to figure out where you're getting that 'stated claim'. I asked (pointed) questions about what they were doing. Why didn't you speak up and say that they were doing nothing wrong, but the driver got off because of a legal slip up? Perhaps because none of us knew, until *I* bothered to research it? While you're looking, here's one statement that I DID make, but you're not willing to acknowledge. Sorry, there's something significant being left out of this article; no, I don't know what. Yeah... backpedalling... that's about as accurate as everything else you've posted in this thread. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #98 May 11, 2006 QuoteYou claim I've made no points, and I provided them to you (twice actually). I even numbered them for you. Well, your first "point" is completely baseless because I never compared the guy on the bike to the dude in the van - I simply provided the story an example of what not to do on public streets. Try reading the thread. Your second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Try reading the thread. QuoteAll of the available information was provided in the story Quoteyet you fail to mention that the prosecutor misfiled the charges against the defendant, resulting in him walking free. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of 'backstroking' when I actually do the research that you were too lazy to do, thereby uncovering the truth? Once again - The article was example of what not to do in traffic - not an example of what not to do in court. Do you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. Try reading the thread. And yes, you're backstroking - You found out that your original argument was completely without merit and now you're backstroking, trying to blame me for the unfounded and stupid remarks you made in response to my post. A little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. Z Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #99 May 11, 2006 QuoteYour second "point" is also completely baseless because, as you already admitted, my story was completely legitamate. Once again, you're omitting facts and taking words out of context to support your argument. Here's what I said: "The story was legitimate, your post was incomplete." QuoteDo you not have internet access, Jeff? You have heard of Google, haven't you? I provided all of the requisite information needed for you to perform a search if you were so inclined - I've already pointed this out to you on several occasions. We're all well aware that I performed a search that you were too lazy to do yourself. QuoteA little advice: Since you're obviously not good at this backstroking thing, try the doggie paddle, cuz you're drowning in a pool of your own bullshit. That's right, resort to insult when you fail at reasoned argument.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
