Jets assistant coach Greg Knapp dead after bike crash

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by Tex999

I certainly have no faith that the system would not be biased for the car driver except possibly in the most egregious incidents.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yeah I've seen too many times :

• The sun was in my eyes
• They swerved in front of me
• etcetc

It get it.. Civil vs Criminal liabilities... but distracted driving is crime in most states

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by Spdntrxi

yeah I've seen too many times :

• The sun was in my eyes
• They swerved in front of me
• etcetc

It get it.. Civil vs Criminal liabilities... but distracted driving is crime in most states

id believe distracted driving is a violation in most states... not a crime. but who said this was a case of distracted driving?

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by Dead Man

id believe distracted driving is a violation in most states... not a crime. but who said this was a case of distracted driving?

the veering just spontaneously happened. Ok I'm down with that.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by Spdntrxi

the veering just spontaneously happened. Ok I'm down with that.

you should befriend a prosecutor or go sit in on some arraignments or something.. get some perspective.

its a cops job to find crimes and investigate them.
its a prosecutors job to prosecute criminal allegations as a result of those investigations.

this IS their jobs, and they tend to do them, and push hard for those prosecutions, because every arrest, every successful prosecution furthers their careers - and both of these elements are almost always trying to further their careers... for pride, prestige, money. they tend to OVER DO their jobs - that is, if they can possibly squeek something thats borderline in, they do. sometimes even pushing for prosecution on things that arent actually even crimes...

this is the atmosphere of the investigation and prosecution side of The Law. and it doesnt matter if we're talking left coast, right coast, south, north, middle - its the same everywhere you go. sure, there are SOME exceptions to this in isolated communities where extra-law allegiances and obligations can come into play, but those are exceptions. the standard is to prosecute, if theres any notion it will be successful. this is encouraged further by the fact that over 90% of criminal charges are pled out before trial - citizens facing prison, guilty or not, will almost always plea out to avoid the risk of lengthy prison sentences. so prosecutors will OFTEN prosecute cases where no crime was even committed, so long as the investigators handing them the case at least have "probable cause" ... which is a ****ty way to operate, since probable cause is an exceptionally low evidentiary threshold, and grand juries tend to side with the prosecutors asking them for indictments, due to the weird highly biased way grand juries are managed by said prosecutors.

whats my point? my point is that almost always, if a crime exists, prosecutors prosecute. period. sure theres probably SOME level of personal bias that can come into play, but do you honestly think every- most- or even a lot- of prosecutors are SO biased against MAMILs that they wont prosecute otherwise good cases??

when a cyclist is killed in a traffic crash and no charges are forthcoming, you absolutely can rest easy in trusting that its because no crime was committed. exceptions to this will be very exceptional.

[Dead Man]

ESPECIALLY given the fact that middle aged upper middle class cyclists getting killed is almost all up in the news, putting even more pressure on prosecutors to prosecute, if possible.

[peanutgallery]

Just go ride dirt, on the road is a mixed bag anymore

Life insurance... it's big

[rallizes]

"if a crime exists, prosecutors prosecute. period"

thanks, i needed a good laugh

[572cv]

Dead Man proffers some pretty harsh observations, but not altogether inaccurate ones. We have a system of law that supports innocence until proven guilty. Essentially, in an interaction between entities or peoples governed by US law, there is assumed to be no fault unless proven otherwise. No, I’m not a lawyer, and this is my impression as a citizen. Combine this with human nature, and human foibles, and you have the situations he describes. So, we have a systematic issue.
It is not this way in every country. Some systems of law allow the presumption of guilt instead: You are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.
When applied to a car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist or a horse or any more vulnerable target, the driver is held to a standard of care, and trained as such. Why not? Is there any way that our legal system could embrace any aspect of this approach ? Is there any past legal precedent that could serve as a basis for systematic overhaul? We are all entitled to use the public roads, but we are unequals. I wish I had an answer that represented positive change.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by Dead Man

you should befriend a prosecutor or go sit in on some arraignments or something.. get some perspective.

its a cops job to find crimes and investigate them.
its a prosecutors job to prosecute criminal allegations as a result of those investigations.

this IS their jobs, and they tend to do them, and push hard for those prosecutions, because every arrest, every successful prosecution furthers their careers - and both of these elements are almost always trying to further their careers... for pride, prestige, money. they tend to OVER DO their jobs - that is, if they can possibly squeek something thats borderline in, they do. sometimes even pushing for prosecution on things that arent actually even crimes...

this is the atmosphere of the investigation and prosecution side of The Law. and it doesnt matter if we're talking left coast, right coast, south, north, middle - its the same everywhere you go. sure, there are SOME exceptions to this in isolated communities where extra-law allegiances and obligations can come into play, but those are exceptions. the standard is to prosecute, if theres any notion it will be successful. this is encouraged further by the fact that over 90% of criminal charges are pled out before trial - citizens facing prison, guilty or not, will almost always plea out to avoid the risk of lengthy prison sentences. so prosecutors will OFTEN prosecute cases where no crime was even committed, so long as the investigators handing them the case at least have "probable cause" ... which is a ****ty way to operate, since probable cause is an exceptionally low evidentiary threshold, and grand juries tend to side with the prosecutors asking them for indictments, due to the weird highly biased way grand juries are managed by said prosecutors.

whats my point? my point is that almost always, if a crime exists, prosecutors prosecute. period. sure theres probably SOME level of personal bias that can come into play, but do you honestly think every- most- or even a lot- of prosecutors are SO biased against MAMILs that they wont prosecute otherwise good cases??

when a cyclist is killed in a traffic crash and no charges are forthcoming, you absolutely can rest easy in trusting that its because no crime was committed. exceptions to this will be very exceptional.

^^^^^^ I can tell you from much direct experience that this is startlingly accurate. ^^^^^

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by 572cv

Dead Man proffers some pretty harsh observations, but not altogether inaccurate ones. We have a system of law that supports innocence until proven guilty. Essentially, in an interaction between entities or peoples governed by US law, there is assumed to be no fault unless proven otherwise. No, I’m not a lawyer, and this is my impression as a citizen. Combine this with human nature, and human foibles, and you have the situations he describes. So, we have a systematic issue.
It is not this way in every country. Some systems of law allow the presumption of guilt instead: You are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.
When applied to a car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist or a horse or any more vulnerable target, the driver is held to a standard of care, and trained as such. Why not? Is there any way that our legal system could embrace any aspect of this approach ? Is there any past legal precedent that could serve as a basis for systematic overhaul? We are all entitled to use the public roads, but we are unequals. I wish I had an answer that represented positive change.

The presumption of innocence is something we should hope we never lose. If you, your family or friend are on the wrong end of the stick you’ll be thankful for it. To make this either/or seems to make sense when we are confronted with these senseless events, but either/or does not address the nearly infinite range of culpability and damages.

On the other hand, you’ll likely never hear about the civil actions that follow on an incident where someone is seriously injured. Maybe only where celebrity is involved. Its mostly boring and takes a long time to settle. Nothing newsworthy there most of the time. But its still happening hidden in the noise.

Participation in either the criminal or civil justice systems is no trip to the amusement park. Best thing ever is to never go to either. But when there’s nothing else, the imperfect system does its best to make things right. Problem is, sometimes there is nothing anyone can do to make it right.

[Tex999]

I'm reminded of this recent case where the south Dakota attorney general killed a pedestrian at night in a hit and run, claiming he thought it was a deer, and the pedestrian's glasses were found in the car (presumably due to his head going through the windshield). Later admitted to using his cell phone while driving.

Ended up getting 2x $500 fines and some community service.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...death-n1277705

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by Tex999

I'm reminded of this recent case where the south Dakota attorney general killed a pedestrian at night in a hit and run, claiming he thought it was a deer, and the pedestrian's glasses were found in the car (presumably due to his head going through the windshield). Later admitted to using his cell phone while driving.

Ended up getting 2x $500 fines and some community service.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...death-n1277705

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

sounds like a crime to me... not surprised the AG got off. Cyclist dont have a prayer.

[slowpoke]

re: South Dakota AG Jason Ravnsborg

Wow, this piece of work had seven speeding tickets since 2014. And his latest was four days before his trial date while driving 57 mph in a 35 mph zone. How are we still letting assholes like this drive? Take away their cars and put them on a bike for a year.

https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2021/0...th-since-2014/

[rallizes]

Originally Posted by slowpoke

re: South Dakota AG Jason Ravnsborg

Wow, this piece of work had seven speeding tickets since 2014. And his latest was four days before his trial date while driving 57 mph in a 35 mph zone. How are we still letting assholes like this drive? Take away their cars and put them on a bike for a year.

https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2021/0...th-since-2014/

oh come now let the system work