You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Late to the discussion, but the people using the whole "it's just a horrid mistake, it's not like you've never made a mistake"
You're right, i've made plenty of mistakes, the difference? Mine didn't end up with an innocent person DEAD.
I wasn't one of those who said the first line but I did point out in my response that it takes a bit of luck to avoid having one's mistake turn into disaster. Most of us have done things that, even if they seem innocuous, could have resulted in someone being dead.
I've done dumb things that could have killed people and I've done things that, despite doing it right and safely, could have killed people. If it either of scenarios had ended up killing someone it wouldn't mean I should kill myself over it nor should it mean society should condemn me for it.
Most people who forget their babies in their hot car don't do it on purpose.
Most people who burn their house down trying to deep fry a turkey didn't do it dangerously.
Most people who pack parachutes for their students don't pack it poorly on purpose.
What happened on the bridge is a tragedy. It's incredibly sad for both families involved and it should never have happened. But I also look at it and think, "But for the grace of God/luck, I could have been that guy." (not specifically that accident but of similar tragedy).
I'm sure that the Mercedes driver didn't mean to kill the other driver. It was an accident. But someone died so there will be consequences.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the Mercedes driver is a horrible person who deserves to die. We do not know the circumstances behind him taking the wheel or even how intoxicated he was. All we know is that alcohol may have been a factor, he could have had two beers, and was driving down the bridge at night at a higher speed (because it is early in the morning and there is no one around) and took his eyes off the road for a second, didn't see the Del Sol, and then ended up hitting it.
I remember a time I was driving at a fast pace and talking to my friend in the passenger seat. I got distracted and almost didn't see the bicycle that was stopped in front of me waiting to turn left into a strip mall. It was a very near miss as I saw the bike at the last second and had to swerve to the right to avoid him. If I had not seen the bike at that last second or if there had been a car to my right that time, I could easily have killed someone.
Judges already do this when they are doling out the penalty. If the perpetrator is younger and/or have a better (ie. cleaner) background, they tend to get a lighter sentence.
Bull. Sentencing is based on the severity of the offence and your record (repeat offender vs first timer).
Regardless, I'll rephrase it to make it clearer: should an 18 year old who makes a mistake (drunk driving) get a lighter sentence than a 40 year old who makes the same mistake, and has no history or prior offences?
Most people who forget their babies in their hot car don't do it on purpose.
Most people who burn their house down trying to deep fry a turkey didn't do it dangerously.
Most people who pack parachutes for their students don't pack it poorly on purpose.
Your logic is horribly flawed. When someone forgets their baby in a hot car and the thing dies, it's known as manslaughter. Ignorance isn't a defense.
When someone burns their house down using a deep fryer, did they consciously make a decision to commit a crime that could potentially cause death? Nope, they were likely cooking motherfucking thanksgiving dinner.
When someone improperly packs a parachute for their student and the student dies, likely going to be negligence. Again, did they make the choice to commit a crime that could potentially cause death? No.
When someone drinks alcohol and drives a motor vehicle, they're making a decision to commit a crime that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Use your fucking brain.
Most people who forget their babies in their hot car don't do it on purpose.
Most people who burn their house down trying to deep fry a turkey didn't do it dangerously.
Most people who pack parachutes for their students don't pack it poorly on purpose.
God damn those are some stupid examples you chose to use...
I think he used poor examples maybe but the point is similar. Have you ever sped or paid less attention because of lack of sleep or were late? Sure the chances of you getting in a catastrophe are low, but you increase those chances by not being as aware as one should be....
You may have done stupid shit but never killed anyone, that doesn't mean that it wasn't just as stupid....
So before saying he should kill him self and flaming the shit out of anyone just think about what you've done and what could've happened. It's cases like these which remind me to be extra cautious and aware of my surroundings and just try to be an overall better driver...
So for all those getting pissed off and failing I think you're just missing the point or maybe I just articulated it in a shitty way... could be both...
I don't think he's innocent. I believe there needs to be harsh punishment.. the decisions you make in life are very real and affect more than just your self.... so next time you get behind the wheel, whether you drank, didn't sleep enough, are late somewhere, feel like street racing, whatever it may be, think carefully and make the best decision for your self and others.. it's not just you that takes the risk, you're also risking those people around you. I think that's the main thing most people don't understand when they do stuoid shit behind the wheel. They say they are fine and the only gamble is getting caught by the police... nope.
Your logic is horribly flawed. When someone forgets their baby in a hot car and the thing dies, it's known as manslaughter. Ignorance isn't a defense.
When someone burns their house down using a deep fryer, did they consciously make a decision to commit a crime that could potentially cause death? Nope, they were likely cooking motherfucking thanksgiving dinner.
When someone improperly packs a parachute for their student and the student dies, likely going to be negligence. Again, did they make the choice to commit a crime that could potentially cause death? No.
When someone drinks alcohol and drives a motor vehicle, they're making a decision to commit a crime that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Use your fucking brain.
I don't think it's necessary to resort to profanity or insults to disagree with me.
Take a good hour and Google the topic and tell me if you still think that every case is manslaughter. It's significantly more complicated and sadder than you are assuming.
Forgot your baby in the car and it died? Hey it happens, I forgot my wallet when I left the house last week!
You didn't pack the parachute properly? No problem we all make mistakes just yesterday I forgot my milk when I packed my lunch!
You drove drunk and slammed into someone who was driving directly in front of you and killed him? I'll one up you bro I was driving fast one day and almost didn't see I biker, didn't hit him tho.
People need to start owning up to what they do, accident or not if you fuck up and some innocent person dies because of it, I don't always think "living with the guilt" is enough. You ruined someone else's family for life.
You know what, I think killing someone while driving under the influence falls a lot closer to premeditated murder than it does towards accidental homicide or negligence.
Like others have stated, IT IS AN ACTIVE DECISION to get behind the wheel drunk.
There is a great deal of irresponsibility that takes place when someone is sober before they end up at a point in which they can operate a vehicle while being intoxicated. They have to have gotten in their car, driven somewhere, decided to have a few drinks (without planning a better route home), then in that druken state decided it was a good idea to attempt to drive home. That's two different opportunities while sober and one oppotunity while intoxicated that this entire scenario could have been avoided by that asshole pictured above.
There is no fucking excuse for drinking and driving, and this guy can burn in hell for what he did. Go ahead fail me, but my fucking pitchfork is right here.
The Merc driver deserves everything that is coming to him and more. Even if he goes to hell ten times over, the pain and suffering he will endure cannot compare to the pain and suffering experienced by the family of the del sol driver.
Send his ass to jail.
-hope he gets butt-fucked on numerous occasions until he kills himself
-gets his ass beat on numerous occasions until he kills himself
or..
Deport his ass if possible
If not, I hope this motherfucker gets struck by a god damn lightning bolt for the pain he has caused. There should be NO leniency towards drunk driving, let alone the fact that him being under the influence has caused a fatality.
62 yr old on his way to work at the time he was killed. You can see the guy in handcuffs also being walked away in the vid below, stone cold looking with what really looks like NOT a shred of remorse to be quite honest. Maybe the cops should have just thrown him over the railing, justice then?
Most people who forget their babies in their hot car don't do it on purpose.
Most people who burn their house down trying to deep fry a turkey didn't do it dangerously.
Most people who pack parachutes for their students don't pack it poorly on purpose.
While I get what you're trying to point out, I don't think it's an apple to apple comparison. While accidental deaths are just as tragic, people still get charged with negligence causing death or involuntary manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel after drinking is basically a giant game of Russian Roulette and should not be treated in the same vein as your examples. You are actively making a conscious decision to gamble with your and other people's life when you do drink and drive. Accidentally burning your house down or having a student die while teaching skydiving are just that: An accident. There's a reason why we have giant ad campaigns about drinking and driving, yet nothing about the dangers of cooking Thanksgiving dinner... though a MADD variant pertaining to kitchen fires might be interesting to watch. lol.
Anyway, as I said, your examples are typically pure and simple accidents; drinking and driving is not.
Of course, I've had a friend killed by one drunk driver and another spend two months in a coma from another, so I might be rightfully biased here.
Drinking and driving is not an accident. One chooses to drink and get behind the wheel without at least some sober up time - somehow I don't think he would of been arrested if he wasn't blowing over. I would of thought a 47 year old would be wiser.
It's such a sad situation because it could of been prevented. Had he not been speeding either, it would not have been so tragic. =/
Condolences to the victim and his family =(
I hope there is real justice in this case.
I also have a CLA AMG, had to wait 9 months for it. This guy must had his car for just 2-3 months and totalled it =/
Drinking and driving is not an accident. One chooses to drink and get behind the wheel without at least some sober up time - somehow I don't think he would of been arrested if he wasn't blowing over. I would of thought a 47 year old would be wiser.
Why wouldn't he be arrested even if he blew nothing? He clearly did something that was at least a felony.
While I get what you're trying to point out, I don't think it's an apple to apple comparison. While accidental deaths are just as tragic, people still get charged with negligence causing death or involuntary manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel after drinking is basically a giant game of Russian Roulette and should not be treated in the same vein as your examples. You are actively making a conscious decision to gamble with your and other people's life when you do drink and drive.
You're correct that it's not apples to apples - my original points back on page 3 were basically: 1) Avoidance of becoming the guy the pitchfork holders want to see die and burn in hell is sometimes a matter of LUCK - it could have been one of us. 2) An eye for an eye is not right. (We need to have forgiveness in ourselves). 3) It's still a tragedy regardless.
Re: Russian roulette - I think that every time we do something like drive (along with all sorts of other activities) we are taking risks. Those risks increase when we do things that impair our judgment while driving - to me, it doesn't matter if that impairment is due to drinking or texting/talking on the phone or fatigue.
Considering that research shows that texting/talking on the phone while driving yields similar levels of mental impairment as drinking and that it's illegal to do so in BC can I assume that the pitchforks here feel the same way about people who text/talk on the phone while driving as they do about drinking and driving? Do they wish those people who've killed someone doing that a slow death in hell? Have they themselves, never texted while driving and never talked on the phone while driving? Maybe they are consistent and get their pitchforks out for that too - if that's the case, good for them - they're doing more that I am to make the roads safer. We don't have to agree but at least you're consistent.
Me? I don't text while I drive - I know how dangerous it is - I'll wait till a light to check my messages. I generally avoid phone calls - even handsfree while I drive - I also know how dangerous that is. If I have more than a drink or two at dinner I'll give the keys to the wife - I think I have a sense of when that's asking for trouble. Have I driven when I've been really tired? Many years ago but no more. That's way more trouble than I can handle.
I'm sad and I'm angry at what's happened. That I don't wish the killer an immediate or slow death doesn't mean I don't think he likely deserves a tonne of trouble. I've done and seen enough wrong in my life that I try to have compassion as my first reaction to tragedies like this - not vengeance.
Originally posted by european i'd say its a bear... from what i've learned from winnie the pooh. you should be able to lure it with some honey.. and it'll be your friend for life!! then you'll meet his friends.. that crazy owl!! and that lazy ass donkey.. whats his name.. Eore or something.. if you meet his llitte piggy friend.. roast him and eat some ribs!! hahahaha.. wtf am i on!! hahaha i'm going nuts over here!!!
You're correct that it's not apples to apples - my original points back on page 3 were basically: 1) Avoidance of becoming the guy the pitchfork holders want to see die and burn in hell is sometimes a matter of LUCK - it could have been one of us. 2) An eye for an eye is not right. (We need to have forgiveness in ourselves). 3) It's still a tragedy regardless.
Re: Russian roulette - I think that every time we do something like drive (along with all sorts of other activities) we are taking risks. Those risks increase when we do things that impair our judgment while driving - to me, it doesn't matter if that impairment is due to drinking or texting/talking on the phone or fatigue.
Considering that research shows that texting/talking on the phone while driving yields similar levels of mental impairment as drinking and that it's illegal to do so in BC can I assume that the pitchforks here feel the same way about people who text/talk on the phone while driving as they do about drinking and driving? Do they wish those people who've killed someone doing that a slow death in hell? Have they themselves, never texted while driving and never talked on the phone while driving? Maybe they are consistent and get their pitchforks out for that too - if that's the case, good for them - they're doing more that I am to make the roads safer. We don't have to agree but at least you're consistent.
Me? I don't text while I drive - I know how dangerous it is - I'll wait till a light to check my messages. I generally avoid phone calls - even handsfree while I drive - I also know how dangerous that is. If I have more than a drink or two at dinner I'll give the keys to the wife - I think I have a sense of when that's asking for trouble. Have I driven when I've been really tired? Many years ago but no more. That's way more trouble than I can handle.
I'm sad and I'm angry at what's happened. That I don't wish the killer an immediate or slow death doesn't mean I don't think he likely deserves a tonne of trouble. I've done and seen enough wrong in my life that I try to have compassion as my first reaction to tragedies like this - not vengeance.
Do you understand how "eye for an eye" works?
We don't care if you drive home texting, and make it home okay. Yeah it statistically it wasn't the most intelligent thing you have done, but if cops can be deemed "capable of operating" equipment like laptops while driving it proves that certainly some people can do it safely.
The moment you take a life, through negligence whether it be alcohol, texting, or falling asleep at the wheel, you bet your ass there are going to be some who want to bring out the crucifix.
But drinking and driving goes far beyond driving while tired, or texting. DUI is a point which the government (and many awareness groups) have specifically hammered home for much longer than the problem of texting and driving has existed. Therefore the punishment for committing a crime that is so obviously well known and well documented with such a long history of fatal car crashes, means that those that continue to do this don't value their life or the ones of others. SO FUCK THEM.
Khader Emile-George Yasmineh of Vancouver died early Thursday morning when his dark green Honda was rear-ended by a white Mercedes.
The force of the collision spun the Mercedes completely around and pushed the Honda off to one side of the bridge.
Sixty-two-year-old Yasmineh was pronounced dead at the scene.
The other driver was given a breathalyzer at the time and police say they believe alcohol was a factor. However, they have not said whether any charges have been laid yet in connection to the crash.
Yep. That's why I pointed out that I don't agree with it. I'm not a vengeance person, I see eye for an eye as the path leads us to the former Yugoslavia, the current Israeli/Palestinian war etc. I hope we can respectfully disagree on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405
We don't care if you drive home texting, and make it home okay. Yeah it statistically it wasn't the most intelligent thing you have done, but if cops can be deemed "capable of operating" equipment like laptops while driving it proves that certainly some people can do it safely.
Happy to read any research you've encountered that says that cops are don't suffer from the same impairment as others when distracted. Everything I've ever read on distracted driving is that it increases risk and in the case of the cops I'd assume that their distracted driving is considered an acceptable risk for them to do their job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405
The moment you take a life, through negligence whether it be alcohol, texting, or falling asleep at the wheel, you bet your ass there are going to be some who want to bring out the crucifix.
Don't disagree with that. I'm just pointing out that there's another way to approach it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405
But drinking and driving goes far beyond driving while tired, or texting. DUI is a point which the government (and many awareness groups) have specifically hammered home for much longer than the problem of texting and driving has existed. Therefore the punishment for committing a crime that is so obviously well known and well documented with such a long history of fatal car crashes, means that those that continue to do this don't value their life or the ones of others. SO FUCK THEM.
So because texting is a newer threat and being tired is not a publicized threat we should be more lenient to people who kill others in a car crash? So if the cause of this accident was more than speed and alcohol and it was because he was using his phone would that mean he doesn't deserve a slow death in hell?
Alternatively, the trend of baby deaths in hot cars is a new trend - it picked up about 20 years ago when rear facing seats became the norm. Before I pointed out that the topic was more complicated than simple murder the pitchforkers wanted those parents to die a slow death in hell too.
I agree that drunk driving is worse than texting while driving or driving while tired - you're right that we educate people a lot more about this than about texting and thank goodness for that. I only hope we take the same approach with distracted driving soon - 30 years from now I hope we look back and are horrified that it was considered acceptable to drive while distracted by your phone.
I'm not fighting your right or others rights to want to see this guy die (along with other drunk drivers). We see things differently and I think we both are allowed to disagree with each other on it.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
