Convicted Killer Sues Victims Family

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Please keep in mind, those were your childish words, I never said or implied anyone is out to get me!

You just assumed that my question was an attack andraised up your hackles in defense. If anyone is behaving childishly, it is you. Man up and answer the questions.

I answered your question, you just refuse to accept it! How very liberal of you!

[DanG 1]

Ahh, I get it now.

Liberal = things skyrider doesn't like.

Thanks.

- Dan G

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Ahh, I get it now.

Liberal = things skyrider doesn't like.

Thanks.

your slowly catching on, But, I try not to get so personal about it, I don't like Liberals on many politcal subjects..And I used to be one, I Voted democrate for years, then the whole party changed, and turned into what they hated, those of us with our eyes opened, saw this, and got away from them!

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Ahh, I get it now.

Liberal = things skyrider doesn't like.

Thanks.

How narrow of you.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Oh, sorry.

Liberal = things that skyrider and turtlespeed don't like

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Oh, sorry.

Liberal = things that skyrider and turtlespeed don't like

Closer -

But you still miss the point - as I tried to show you earlier.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

Closer -

But you still miss the point - as I tried to show you earlier.

Here's the sum total of your contribution to the thread:

Quote

So, you ask a question, and he answers it. Check
You didn't like the answer because it didn't lend it's self to the trap you were cleverly planning for him to step into. Check
SO, you say there is no content where there is OBVIOUSLY content, because you replied to it, unless you believe that you replied to a completely wordless post.
And now, to use Amazons words, you are all Butt Hurt.
Does that pretty much cover it?

Quote

Hmm - There can only be a correlation to insult if you feel that the word "liberal" is somehow derogatory.

Quote

How narrow of you.

Where did you try to show me something?

Note: I do not expect a substantive response, so feel free to one-liner it as usual.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Closer -

But you still miss the point - as I tried to show you earlier.

Here's the sum total of your contribution to the thread:

Quote

So, you ask a question, and he answers it. Check
You didn't like the answer because it didn't lend it's self to the trap you were cleverly planning for him to step into. Check
SO, you say there is no content where there is OBVIOUSLY content, because you replied to it, unless you believe that you replied to a completely wordless post.
And now, to use Amazons words, you are all Butt Hurt.
Does that pretty much cover it?

Quote

Hmm - There can only be a correlation to insult if you feel that the word "liberal" is somehow derogatory.

Quote

How narrow of you.

Where did you try to show me something?

Note: I do not expect a substantive response, so feel free to one-liner it as usual.

In different threads here -

It is pretty obvious that your bias clouds your understanding of the context of the posts.
It obviously clouds your responses.

3 liner

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

It is pretty obvious that your bias clouds your understanding of the context of the posts.
It obviously clouds your responses.

Right back atcha.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

alright i know that this is going to come off as very insensitive but whatever

if he was going at the speed limit whos fault would the accident have been?

in ireland if your dog or cat or cow is on the road and someone crashes into it at any speed it is the animal owners fault not the drivers and the owners have to pay damages to the driver

Yes, it makes you come off sounding like an asshat. You have no facts to support this claim, you compare the bicyclist who has the same rights to the road as anyone else, and seem to defend a speeding killer over a kid on a bike. This is why there is a need for bicycle advocacy groups - motorists always seem to think that the bicyclist must be at fault, have an irrational rage against them.

in the US, and hopefully everywhere else, the motorist has an obligation to obey the speed limit, and to avoid hitting slower moving traffic. Pedestrians in particular have right of way. Bikes do not, but they don't have to travel 45 mph (or 83) to be on the road.

BTW, I don't think that motorists are off the hook for crashing into livestock "at any speed." You have a responsibility for driving at a safe speed for existing conditions, and that means not going faster than your line of sight.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

alright i know that this is going to come off as very insensitive but whatever

if he was going at the speed limit whos fault would the accident have been?

in ireland if your dog or cat or cow is on the road and someone crashes into it at any speed it is the animal owners fault not the drivers and the owners have to pay damages to the driver

Yes, it makes you come off sounding like an asshat. You have no facts to support this claim, you compare the bicyclist who has the same rights to the road as anyone else, and seem to defend a speeding killer over a kid on a bike. This is why there is a need for bicycle advocacy groups - motorists always seem to think that the bicyclist must be at fault, have an irrational rage against them.

in the US, and hopefully everywhere else, the motorist has an obligation to obey the speed limit, and to avoid hitting slower moving traffic. Pedestrians in particular have right of way. Bikes do not, but they don't have to travel 45 mph (or 83) to be on the road.

BTW, I don't think that motorists are off the hook for crashing into livestock "at any speed." You have a responsibility for driving at a safe speed for existing conditions, and that means not going faster than your line of sight.

Powered vehicles generally have to yield the right of way to unpowered vehicles.

Think about the FARs - Does a plane have the right of way or the Parachute?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Powered vehicles generally have to yield the right of way to unpowered vehicles.

Think about the FARs - Does a plane have the right of way or the Parachute?

This is the norm for the air and sea, though the "law" of tonnage also comes to mind.

But in the case of the road, there isn't an edict that talks about powered versus unpowered. A bicycle is treated similarly to a slow moving RV - it has a right to be there, but it does have to make some accommodations.

The RV has to pull over on a 2 lane road when 5+ cars are following. It may need to meet a minimum speed limit.

The bicyclist is to stay as far to the right as safely possible. (Now some motorists have a very different notion of safe than that of the bicyclist or any sane person)

[skyrider 0]

New report..(DanG I am ignoring yoru febal attempts to make this personal, try me on soem other thread..not biting here....)
Driver in Fatal Connecticut Crash Sues Victim's Parents
November 16, 2010

· E-mail

· Post Comment

· Print

· Article Reprints

A Connecticut driver who's serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim's parents, blaming them for their son's death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.

Matthew Kenney's parents, Stephen and Joanne, sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison, accusing him in Waterbury Superior Court of negligence and seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

Weaving, who has a history of drunken driving convictions, responded months later with a handwritten countersuit accusing the Kenneys of "contributory negligence.'' He's also seeking more than $15,000 in damages, saying he's endured "great mental and emotional pain and suffering,'' wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and the loss of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities.''

"It drags the pain on,'' said Joanne Kenney, a stay-at-home mom with two other children, ages 2 and 13. "It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?''

Prisoners nationwide file tens of thousands of court actions a year on allegations ranging from wrongful convictions to poor jail conditions to civil rights violations, according to federal judiciary data. But lawyers and victim advocates say it's not often that convicted criminals sue victims and their families.

Prosecutors say Weaving was recklessly passing another car at about 83 mph in a 45-mph zone when his car hit Matthew Kenney on Route 69 in the Waterbury suburb of Prospect on April 27, 2007. A jury convicted him in December 2008 of manslaughter and other crimes.

Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.

The Kenneys say Weaving's license should have been permanently revoked in 1999 under state law because of the multiple convictions. They're seeking permission from the state claims commissioner to sue the Department of Motor Vehicles and its commissioner, Robert Ward.

The department has acknowledged it made a mistake in not revoking Weaving's license and said it has taken steps to prevent similar problems.

Matthew, a well-liked seventh-grader who played several sports, suffered severe head and internal injuries, broken bones and lacerations. He was declared brain dead the next day.

Weaving insists he was driving the speed limit and wasn't acting recklessly when he passed another car in a legal passing zone and Matthew suddenly appeared in the road around dusk in wet, foggy conditions. He alleges Matthew and some friends were jumping their bikes off a ramp at the end of a friend's driveway and landing in the middle of the two-lane road.

In his lawsuit, Weaving wrote that had the Kenneys "complied with the responsibilities of a parent and guardian and the laws of this state and not allowed their son to ride his bicycle without a helmet and to play out in the middle of Rt. 69 ... this incident and Matthew's death would not have happened.''

Joanne Kenney, 42, calls Weaving's claims "unbelievable.'' While she and her husband are paying an undisclosed amount of attorney's fees, Weaving is filing his claims for free because he's considered indigent; a judge has waived $500 in fees so far.

"I just think it's crazy that they have the ability to do this behind bars,'' she said. "I think inmates have too many rights. They're the ones who committed the crimes, not us. And we're the ones who suffer more.''

The federal government and several states, not including Connecticut, have laws and regulations requiring inmates to pay lawsuit fees as part of efforts to deter frivolous and malicious lawsuits.

Perpetrators don't often sue victims, said Jeff Dion, director of the nonprofit National Crime Victim Bar Association. Its database shows about 485 cases of perpetrators suing victims out of more than 12,000 civil cases dating to the 1980s, he said.

Perpetrators who sue often do so in an attempt to get victims and their families to give up on their lawsuits, Dion said. They generally lose their cases.

"It can be very distressing to victims' families and make them say, 'I can't deal with this,''' Dion said. "Justice can bring a sense of accountability and healing, but sometimes it's not a very pleasant experience.''

He noted the case of "America's Most Wanted'' host John Walsh, whose 6-year-old son, Adam, was kidnapped from a department store at a Florida mall and killed in 1981. Walsh wrote in his book "Tears of Rage'' that he and his family dropped a lawsuit against the store and the mall after being put through difficult depositions and facing questions about their own actions by the defendants' lawyers.

"So, in the end, they broke us. We folded,'' Walsh wrote.

Attorney Andrew Cates calls Weaving's countersuit a part of the legal process. Cates is representing Weaving in appeals aimed at overturning his convictions _ which were recently upheld by the state Appellate Court _ but is not involved with the lawsuit involving the Kenneys.

"I can see their side of it. I'm a parent,'' Cates said. "But I can also see the other side of it. If you're driving down the street and your car makes contact with a pedestrian and you think it's the pedestrian's fault, you have to raise the issue.''

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal _ just elected as the state's next U.S. senator _ and State Victim Advocate Michelle Cruz say they're appalled at Weaving's countersuit.

"Blaming the victim is just offensive,'' Cruz said. "It takes obviously a very unique individual to go after the family of a deceased child. I would say it's an unsound lawsuit.''

Matthew was a popular student at Long River Middle School, a few miles from the accident site. A memorial Facebook page in his honor has more than 600 members.

"He was a loving kid,'' Joanne Kenney told the AP. "He was a caring kid. He was a helping kid. He was a honors student. He played sports. He was full of life. He had so much to give.''

Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2010/11/16/114916.htm#ixzz15ZxLLO8e

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Prosecutors say Weaving was recklessly passing another car at about 83 mph in a 45-mph zone when his car hit Matthew Kenney on Route 69 in the Waterbury suburb of Prospect on April 27, 2007. A jury convicted him in December 2008 of manslaughter and other crimes.

[4 DUI convictions]

Weaving insists he was driving the speed limit and wasn't acting recklessly when he passed another car in a legal passing zone and Matthew suddenly appeared in the road around dusk in wet, foggy conditions. He alleges Matthew and some friends were jumping their bikes off a ramp at the end of a friend's driveway and landing in the middle of the two-lane road.

In California, driving the speed limit wouldn't be justified under the basic speed law. Wet, foggy, dusk conditions call for caution. And this allegation about the kids' activity would/should have been raised in the criminal trial. I'm sure the prosecution had abundance evidence to support a higher speed than 45 if they asserted 83. That's a 4X difference in kinetic energy.