A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
You may not be surprised to learn that the only thing that kills more children in the USA than guns (15%) is.... motor vehicles (20%). (Not including pollution, climate change)
the last 2 takes decades to have any significant impact on a person.
That's a murder.
Brazos deputies said they booked Medina on a count of manslaughter
The sheriff concurs.
Isn't manslaughter a lesser charge than murder?
Yes it is. Manslaughter is definitely a lesser charge. Usually used if the death was accidental or such.
Fortunately, the sheriff doesn't have the final say. If the DA thinks it'll stick, they can upgrade the charge to murder or even capital murder.
It's Texas, so I have doubts that actual justice will be served.
Manslaughter is definitely a lesser charge. Usually used if the death was accidental or such.
Just to clarify on this: There are (in english common law typically used in the united states) 5 mental states associate with criminal action: intentional, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, and accidental (sometimes you'll hear it casually as innocently). There is a great guide on this called 'The illustrated Guide to the Law' that everyone should read. It's a website, just give it a search.
Intentional and knowingly are almost always considered one and the same, because proving that someone committed a crime with the express intent to commit the crime is actually really hard if you are following logic, but proving that someone knew an outcome would be the outcome for the action they took and simply did it anyway is a much easier task. Intentionally and knowingly are the mental states associated with what most of us would call murder.
Recklessly is associated with what texas is calling manslaughter. Recklessly boils down to you knew that there was a risk of the outcome occurring, and disregarded that risk and did it anyway. In this case, the state will have a MUCH easier time of proving that the driver knew there was a risk involving suddenly stopping on a road and backing up when there were other people/cars/bicyclists around, and simply carried out the risky action anyway.
If you're curious, the last state of criminal negligence is if a reasonable person would know that the action carried a risk, even if the individual doesn't recognize or know the risk.
Oh, and of course accidental means just that. Even a reasonable person wouldn't expect the outcome that occurred, and the person didn't know it. Think about the scenario of backing up from your driveway after checking behind you before even getting into the car to make sure no one is on your driveway, but one of those wild runaway prams got behind your car as you started to back up, and you knock it over and the baby falls out, hits its head, and dies.
It’s also about the burden of proof, it’s easier to keep someone jailed on manslaughter.
In Texas, murder applies when the person
Intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another person [or] Intend to cause serious bodily injury and commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that results in death
While manslaughter means
if they recklessly cause the death of another person. Unlike murder, manslaughter does not require intent to kill or cause serious injury. It focuses on reckless behavior that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.
Sure reads like those charges should bump from manslaughter to murder.
Though we all think we know what happened, intentionally and/or knowingly are much harder to prove. It has to be "beyond reasonable doubt". So if the available facts don't back that up, a manslaughter case could be a much safer way to get a conviction. It could be bumped up to murder if new facts come to light as part of the investigation, though.
It all hinges on the intent to kill. I'm sure he now would say he didn't intend to kill. just to hit them and teach them to stay off the road. They have enough to charge them with both. And let a jury sort it out.
Saying you intended to hit someone with a motor vehicle is saying to intended to kill them, unless you're provably insane and don't understand that hitting someone is likely to kill.
Even a legally "insane" defendant would most often be found to have met the "knowing" criteria; the bar is that of foresight or knowledge (including constructed knowledge in some jurisdictions) of "merely" physical harm that is likely to cause grievous injury or death. No metaphysics required.
For example, acting to cause the stoppage of breath (that "happened" to result in death) is an automatic pass for murder in many common law countries.
I expect to see them say bike riding is a form of protest, and he was afraid. 😆
ianal, but I don't think they could be charged with both murder and manslaughter. Wouldn't that violate double jeopardy? Otherwise there would be absurdities where people get charged with the whole spectrum of criminal intent just to see what sticks. (Which does totally happen anyway, when they can get away with it.)
Agreed, intent is hard to prove. That's why the law also says, "knowingly." He definitely knew he could kill someone by hitting them with his car.
The man had priors for reckless driving, according to the article. And a bunch of other things.
just to hit them and teach them to stay off the road
That right there is intent to commit "an act dangerous to human life" under the Texas murder statute quoted above.
So when I shot my ex in the spine, it wasn't murder. I was only trying to paralyze them.
That 'or knowingly' closes the door on that hinge.
As someone who gets around town on two wheels, I really, really fucking hate that it's expected of me to be the one cognizant of danger and not the motherfucker behind the wheel of a massive, metal death machine.
As a fellow two-wheeler, 🤝
I like this explanation but I’m no way some one who drives can not be excluded from murder. But isn’t also pre-meditated murder bc you had the option ‘physically stopped the car and reversed’.. No matter the circumstance weather it was intentional to not hit a ‘unintended’ - all sounds too meditated. They had the ability to disengage and not car if thier 2tn vehicle to be used as tank bullet..
This will result in better pedestrian and cyclist laws right? I'm tired of being harassed and hit on my bike even in the bike lanes by vehicles.
It’s Texas. They’re going to remove bike infrastructure because this proves it’s unsafe. 😆
Never has before without mass protest and there aren't enough critical massers in the USA.
Cycling in the US must be the absolute worst
It's actually quite nice. But the US is large, and different places have very different people with very different attitudes towards cyclists (or other road users of any kind, for that matter)
I ride 10,000 km per year in the US and find the vast majority of drivers to be respectful of me.
With that said, there are some crazy people out there who really shouldn't be driving.
Situational. Liberal areas tend to be better... but even then in my local very blue state we've got a trial coming up for a guy who was speeding and hit and killed a bicyclist.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'd associate cycling quality with a red/blue split. Places like Utah and Idaho are deep red and are practically paradise for cycling. Eastern Washington, where I used to ride a lot when I lived in Seattle, was similarly red yet great for cycling.
Left leaning places are typically more willing to spend money on cycling infrastructure, though, so that's something.
Actually I've never cycled in a better place than Berkeley.
Bike lanes suck. About 10% of the roads in Berkeley don't allow cars. Full roads, not bike lanes.
And the train is super bicycle accessible. Better than any other city I've ever lived in. Elevators and spots for like 5 bikes in every car but the first one
This is America, where we blather endlessly about "freedom," but god forbid you actually try to exercise it or people will casually threaten to murder you. Or, as in this case, actually murder you.
Yeah, the older I get the more I feel like the whole freedom thing we were spoon fed is just a bunch of bullshit.