Keep a look-out guys...
#41
I'm not arguing in the defense of the person who ran away in the story posted by the OP, I'm simply saying that it's not an irrational thought. That's my point of view on it, for those out there who've driven or cruised with me before know that I'm not wreckless by any means.
And Vu I meant in the legal term of manslaughter , I guess the correct term would have been "murder and manslaughter"
Wiki- "Manslaughter is a legal super term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill
And Vu I meant in the legal term of manslaughter , I guess the correct term would have been "murder and manslaughter"
Wiki- "Manslaughter is a legal super term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill
#42
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by dagle,Apr 22 2009, 04:48 PM
I guess I'm not one to leave it to chance then, you can't deny that there will be a chance.
How about a little role reversal. What if you were on the side of the road bleeding out and ended up dying and the person that hit you could have saved your life if they would have just stopped and helped.
#44
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
[QUOTE=dagle,Apr 22 2009, 04:57 PM] And Vu I meant in the legal term of manslaughter , I guess the correct term would have been "murder and manslaughter"
Wiki- "Manslaughter is a legal super term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill
Wiki- "Manslaughter is a legal super term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill
#45
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by dagle,Apr 22 2009, 05:00 PM
I would understand what they were thinking, so be it. I'm honestly not one to expect more from others than they'd expect from myself. And I'm definitely not one to be afraid of death etc. etc.
Not sure what being afraid of death or not has to do with this, and somehow, I don't think that is the case.
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dagle,Apr 22 2009, 03:48 PM
I guess I'm not one to leave it to chance then, you can't deny that there will be a chance.
You would leave it to chance that the victim dies since you didn't help them...
Even if you have no morals, your strategy doesn't even have a good risk versus reward proposition...
#47
Originally Posted by dagle,Apr 22 2009, 04:47 PM
And nice job bashing me personally on this and twisting what I said around. I NEVER ONCE said it was the right thing to do.
who said I would have no problem doing it?
who said I would have no problem doing it?
If I told you that I steal stuff for a living, but that I feel really guilty about doing it and know that it is wrong, does that make me any less of a thief, or any less immoral?
#48
Originally Posted by jasonw,Apr 22 2009, 04:03 PM
You would leave it to chance that you get convicted for a hit and run...
You would leave it to chance that the victim dies since you didn't help them...
Even if you have no morals, your strategy doesn't even have a good risk versus reward proposition...
You would leave it to chance that the victim dies since you didn't help them...
Even if you have no morals, your strategy doesn't even have a good risk versus reward proposition...
the hypothetical chance of the victim living is almost unreal, but i'd stop if I thought there was a chance they lived. doubtful in most situations where there'd be impact due to short braking distance.
Risk vs. reward seems pretty good to me, remember that the media only covers what they think would get good ratings. murder, hit and runs and all that happen everyday.
#49
Calbears- it has nothing to do with feeling better about myself etc. etc.
it's solely about weighing "being right" versus freedom. im not saying there's a right answer and it's definite wrong to hit someone but if it happened already what can you possibly do for the person you hit?
it's solely about weighing "being right" versus freedom. im not saying there's a right answer and it's definite wrong to hit someone but if it happened already what can you possibly do for the person you hit?
#50
Registered User
Originally Posted by dagle,Apr 22 2009, 05:19 PM
Calbears- it has nothing to do with feeling better about myself etc. etc.
it's solely about weighing "being right" versus freedom. im not saying there's a right answer and it's definite wrong to hit someone but if it happened already what can you possibly do for the person you hit?
it's solely about weighing "being right" versus freedom. im not saying there's a right answer and it's definite wrong to hit someone but if it happened already what can you possibly do for the person you hit?