Jury Convicts Drag Racers

[Rev]

Originally posted by The Deuce
Here's a question no one has addressed yet.

Who had the right of way?

Seems to me she didn't

Deuce, I'm glad someone else agrees on that. I made that same point in a thread called "Court TV Drag Racing Trial". When I said it, nobody seemed to agree with that line of thinking (except maybe Skyler). Most wanted to give them life without parol.

Rev

[Jaegermeister2k]

I guess it's like driving drunk.If you are driving drunk no matter what happened it's gonna be your fault.

[ArtMan]

If someone learns of the sentences could they post them.

Considerations of who had the right of way is sad. Two people died as a result of street racing. I believe the law provides for yielding the right of way when on coming traffic is traveling at approximatley the post speed limit (when the turning car can judge the appraoching speed), making this a moot point.

The verdicts seem fair.

[The Deuce]

Originally posted by ArtMan
If someone learns of the sentences could they post them.

Considerations of who had the right of way is sad. Two people died as a result of street racing. I believe the law provides for yielding the right of way when on coming traffic is traveling at approximatley the post speed limit (when the turning car can judge the appraoching speed), making this a moot point.

The verdicts seem fair.

why is consideration of ALL traffic laws sad? What if she had run a red light? How much of the irresponsibilty of others should people have to bear? If she'd had a better handle on the situation, no one would have died.

The street racers were only racing. They broke no other law, except the guy who left the scene. Had they blown a light or a stop sign it would be different. What if it was just one guy who was speeding (their speeds weren't THAT fast for where they were in San Diego.... what then? Would the simple act of "wreckless speed" be enough for the verdict they got? How about just speeding? At what point does it become manslaughter? Because there were two of them?

[RED92LX50]

Maybe I am missing something... are you guys saying the speeding cars going straight had the right-of-way and the car that pulled in front of them was at fault for not yielding right-of-way? If so, that is really a stretch, yielding right-of-way is based on traffic travelling at the posted speed limits...if I pull out from a side road onto a main road where the speed limit is 35mph and I get blasted by a car going 100mph, are you saying I didn't yield right-of-way

If that is the case, tomorrow on my commute to work, I am going to get in the left lane of the Beltway and mash my gas to the floor...anybody in my way too bad, I have right-of-way...maybe add one of those cow-catcher things from a train to the front of my car to keep from getting tangled up too bad

[Rev]

Last I heard, "right of way" has no relation to speed. If I'm backing out of my driveway, the other guy always has the right of way. I HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR HIM, PERIOD.

This should not be a difficult thing to comprehend, should it? It is not dependent on his speed. He could be going 20 or 40 where the posted speed is 30. Still, the onus is on me to make sure I can back out safely, regardless of his speed.

Rev

[RED92LX50]

Oh well, it is "difficult for me to comprehend"... I can't see how you can say right-of-way has no relation to speed - the guys were estimated at 86mph - how is anyone ever supposed to cross an intersection or enter a street from a side-street if you have to wait until you can't see a car coming for miles away - because you can't assume the speed they are travelling. I was under the impression that was part of what speed limits were for. At least in my area of the country, it is common to see a posted reduction in speed limits as you approach an intersection - I can only guess this is because traffic engineers find it to be safer.

Did you miss my Beltway analogy? Or did you think it is fine for me to set my cruise control on 100mph in the far left lane and if soemone pulls in front of me it is their fault because I had right-of-way?

Maybe your point is that any vehicle in a travel lane has right-of-way over traffic entering that lane...OK that makes sense, but to say that it is ENTIRELY independent of speed is a joke.

If you are pulling out of your driveway and get smashed by some idiot going 86mph I will bet you ONE MILLION DOLLARS the other guy will get charged with a traffic violation and will be determined responsible by insurance companies (and a jury) for causing the accident...wanna bet? Oh, but the other guy had right-of-way...

[srv1]

Here in NY the law states you must have control of your vehicle at all times. Since the speeding street racer didnt regaurdless of the girl who didnt have the right of way, he still hit her. If he was going the posted speed limit, chances are he would avoid hitting her or killing her.

Now what about this. If it was a person crossing the street, would it be the persons fault for crossing? Well pedestrians have the right away, right? So you tell me what difference it would have made? None.

They are guilty as charge and hope they serve their time.

James

[Rev]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RED92LX50
"difficult for me to comprehend"...

So if one is cruising down the boulavard at 40 in a 35, someone on a cross street runs a stop sign and gets T-boned.................then it's the speeders fault? Somehow, I don't think so.

Rev

[rwhite65]

here, u r not suppose to turn or enter another lane of traffic until it is "safe to do so". There is nothing written in there about other vehicle's having to be at the speed limit.

The racers were wrong, but the car should not have turned in front of them. They r both at fault, the first car for mis-judging the speed or just being in-experienced, and the racers for bad judgement.

Ryan

[RED92LX50]

Wow - they sure do things different in Wyoming and Texas - glad some folks choose to live there.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree - I can't see any way that the girl was at fault for trying to cross the road and she gets smashed by some guy going 86mph. Maybe because I have a daughter of my own. She can't drive yet...but when she gets older, and is out driving on her own, if some guy hit her going 86mph while she was trying to cross the road, I don't see how I could think it was her fault (and I would probably not rest until the guy who did it was in jail or under ground).

[The Deuce]

RED92LX50 - I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The big problem most of us have is trying to figure at what point does it become the racers fault. What if it was you going to jail for going 15, 10 or even 5 over? I have yet to see anywhere a clear understanding of at what point you can relieve someone who was supposed to yield of responsibility.

I think those of us you are disagreeing with are looking at it from the side of the fence where speed in it self has become demonized by society, while people get into big old SUV's and don't think to look down where most of us are sitting in sport cars.

If the responsibility of judging time to impact ends with an assumption that people are going the posted limit, wouldn't anyone speeding (even 1 mph over) be at fault in a situation such as this?

[RED92LX50]

Deuce - I do see the other side of the argument...I am just really tired of seeing people knowingly do something wrong and then try to say it wasn't their fault. My point is - the guys speeding KNEW they were doing something wrong, while the girl making the turn thought she had plenty of time. In my opinion, this was not an ACCIDENT, the kids speeding is what caused it to happen.

I don't see much difference in a Street Racing accident over a Drunk Driving accident. In both cases the driver was taking a known risk and should accept responsibility for the outcome. To try and place blame on someone else makes me mad.

Application of the Laws is not black & white, otherwise every offense would have a mandatory sentence without possibility of reducing charges. This is where judges & jury's get to use common sense to decide someones fate for their actions. If someone was found to be going 5mph over the limit and ran into someone, I find it hard to believe that would be judged the same as someone going 40mph over the limit. Yes, it is not clearly defined where the line is - but at some point common sense should kick in... in my opinion 86mph on an undivided through street is way past the norm. But, you never know, maybe the next jury will be filled with mostly street racers and the gys would get off with a speeding ticket.

[The Deuce]

FWIW, if I recall correctly they were on a part of 52, which has a grass median and cross streets. Not a boulevard.

[rwhite65]

Please do not think I am saying the girl died and that it was her fault. I was trying to point out that she has some responsibility in this crash. I was also trying to make a point that ..the few people that believe the guys should get huge sentences in prison, should consider all sides of the coin.

I do think these guys should be punished... prison is probably needed for them......but they were wreckless, u will never convince me they intended to kill those people. I use to drag race in my younger days before I do what I do now. I was smarter most of the times and did it in the country. But here in Illinois, u have to have intent for murder, or atleast reasonably know what you did would result in the death of a person. I do not see intent here.

Ryan

[BigCountryGT]

I think it makes a difference that they killed the girl while in commission of another crime (86mph). Anything over 80 here and they will throw your butt in the clink. That is purely speculation though.

Personally I say guilty as hell

[BigCountryGT]

86 is way toooooooooooo fast to be going in a DODGE anyway.

[rwhite65]

They are very much guilty in my opinion. The charge of "murder" and "vehicular manslaughter" ---our charge here, can't remmber the one given out there----- are two different crimes.

It definately was too fast....for any older car like that. I love my old stang, truth is it needs better brakes....it was too fast for any car on the public roads. I just wanted to point out and agree with those on here that are trying to look at this from the outside versus the outraged.
Ryan

[tireburner163]

Originally posted by BigCountryGT
I think it makes a difference that they killed the girl while in commission of another crime (86mph). Anything over 80 here and they will throw your butt in the clink. That is purely speculation though.

Personally I say guilty as hell

I disagree.

On a wide 4 lane road with a median, 86 isn't THAT fast. I get passed by soccer mom's in SUV's doing 80-85 on Hwy 19 everyday.

If you can't see two loud *** muscle cars coming down a open road, you don't need to be driving.

I say the sentence was too harsh

-Josh, aka the tireburner

[RED92LX50]

Hey Josh - I looked at your profile and it shows you were born in 1984. I will assume you are still single with no kids... I am willing to bet that you will feel differently in ten or fifteen years when you have a couple kids of your own and have the image of one of them driving a car that gets hit by a person going well over the speed limit.

When I was 20 (16 years ago) I had about 20 points on my license and was really mad at the insurance companies for cancelling my policy and jacking up rates to even carry me...funny, now I drive much differently for many reasons (wife, kids, ticket cost, insurance, job). So I do see the other side, I guess it comes down to perspective. I agree that the racers did not want to kill anyone, but they must have known that they were being reckless. Like Baretta said "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"... where is he now - oh yeah, in jail.