+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) (/showthread.php?tid=160448)
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - kj - 11-16-2013
TheTominator wrote:
The law has "felony murder" but I've not heard of "felony maiming". Perhaps the law should include such a charge.
I think that charge is called "mayhem" here. kj.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - RAMd®d - 11-16-2013
Perhaps the law should include such a charge.
Maybe not.
Most laws involving criminal activity center on committing an act that rises to a standard involving intent or gross negligence.
In CA, maiming is a result of the crime of mayhem which specifically involves intent. Without intent, disfigurement or the loss of a limb doesn't rise to the level mayhem. I don't believe criminal justice is served by making the level of injury determine wether or not a criminal act was committed. There is no misdemeanor crime of mayhem in CA.
A simple collision occurs and somebody gets a broken nose, limb, or gets a concussion. No intent, no negligence. It happens all the time. Hopefully everyone is treated, and life goes on with some degree of normalcy. Same situation but someone loses both legs, maybe an arm. Tragic, but does this now determine that the otherwise typical collision has resulted in a criminal act? No.
Regardless of what one thinks they "know" or believe, you shouldn't be able to charge much less convict somebody of a crime based on outrage. There was no evidence of criminal activity. From what I read so far, bad journalism does not continued a confession of intent. Without evidence of a criminal act, there is no crime. It would please a lot of people to get him in court and convicted by twelve incensed good citizens.
What happened to Ms. Green is without a doubt a real tragedy. Making laws to substitute for evidence could be an even greater tragedy. You have legislated the perversion of justice.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - Lizabeth - 11-16-2013
I wouldn't be surprised if Ms. Green decides to go after both the cab driver and the bike messenger in civil court (OJ Simpson anyone?) Yes, it is a tragedy but not every aspect of life can be covered by laws.
That said I hope I never get into that guy's cab or get knocked over by the bike messenger in a crosswalk. (If that happened I'd do the same thing as if I got hit by a snowboarder - make sure they hurt worse than me.)
What I would love to see NYC do is a major campaign to educate both drivers and cyclists about the rules and laws of sharing the road, plus a major crackdown by the police for infractions. This would definitely be a "quality of life" issue and they've done stuff like that in the past.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - TheTominator - 11-16-2013
RAMd®d wrote:
Perhaps the law should include such a charge.
A simple collision occurs and somebody gets a broken nose, limb, or gets a concussion. No intent, no negligence. It happens all the time. Hopefully everyone is treated, and life goes on with some degree of normalcy. Same situation but someone loses both legs, maybe an arm. Tragic, but does this now determine that the otherwise typical collision has resulted in a criminal act? No.
The way I went to "law school", which is by watching television shows like Law and Order, "felony murder" is that you can be charged with murder if someone dies as a result of your actions, even unintentionally, during your commission of a felony. For example you might commit kidnapping and grand theft auto, i.e. carjacking, and one of the passengers dies when you wreck the car trying to escape the police. The idea is that since you intended to commit the felony, you are responsible for the resulting death. I am wondering if a charge of "felony maiming" should be applied if the passenger survives, but with life altering injuries.
I am not familiar with the "mayhem" crime. I think it is because my "law school" was in New York City (Law and Order, Law and Order: Criminal Intent).
I am not suggesting that any random action you take that results in the tragic injuring someone else should automatically be a crime.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - OWC Jamie - 11-16-2013
I hope the bicyclist owns real property because Ms Green deserves a good sized chunk of it.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - RAMd®d - 11-16-2013
The way I went to "law school", which is by watching television shows like Law and Order, "felony murder"
That's why TV is considered entertainment far more often than it's considered education. Given considerable creative license is one reason why Harvard won't except two or three seasons of L&O for credit.
More to the point, felony maiming wouldn't be a crime, nor be made one. The crime would be the act that resulted in maiming someone. The "felony" part is not part of the criminal charge for murder, it's merely the doctrine that allows for the charging of murder for participants under the circumstances you described. I was commenting on the "include such a charge" part.
In CA that are crimes which include felony or misdemeanor in the charging and are called warblers, because the prosecutor can charge either class depending on the circumstances of the crime.
Most importantly, even if a "felony maiming" law as you describe could be enacted, it wouldn't have made any difference in this case, as the DA or ADA didn't charge anybody. Just a WAG here, but if there was any way he could have, I think he would have.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - TheTominator - 11-16-2013
RAMd®d wrote:
The way I went to "law school", which is by watching television shows like Law and Order, "felony murder"
Given considerable creative license is one reason why Harvard won't except two or three seasons of L&O for credit.
And that's a cryin' shame.
At least my Quincy credits transferred when I enrolled in Crossing Jordan and later attended Body of Proof.
RAMd®d wrote:
Most importantly, even if a "felony maiming" law as you describe could be enacted, it wouldn't have made any difference in this case, as the DA or ADA didn't charge anybody. Just a WAG here, but if there was any way he could have, I think he would have.
I noticed that after I read the linked article. When I made the suggestion, I thought he would have been charged with some felony for his action vs the bicyclist. My impression was the outrage over his lack of culpability regarding the injured bystander.
I agree that the result would not have been different in this case since the cab driver was not charged with any felony at all.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - M A V I C - 11-16-2013
mattkime wrote:
>>Matt, do you believe the cyclist was fully within his rights to cut in front of the driver? Do you think the cyclist bears zero responsibility for the injuries to the woman?
people get cut off in traffic constantly in nyc traffic. how does that result in jumping a curb?
Olivo made a sharp turn in the cab’s path, with the taxi plowing into the bicyclist.
When Olivo landed on the hood of the taxi, the vehicle jumped the curb and struck Sian — with the whole terrifying incident lasting about three seconds, the source indicated.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - gabester - 11-16-2013
Sorry, to me the facts speak pretty clearly for intent:
"drove a quarter of a block on a Midtown sidewalk"
It's pretty hard to drive a quarter block even if you "accidentally" step on the gas.
It's a lot harder to "accidentally" drive a quarter of a block with your foot on the gas.
This is a HUGE problem in the American Criminal Justice system - the requirement of the recognizance of the wrongdoer to having done wrong. It is far to easy to claim accident/ignorance and far too difficult to prove intent.
It's how the corporate crooks get off every time.
Re: FU: why some cyclists feel the enforcement of our traffic laws are unfair and even deadly (no charges in case) - M A V I C - 11-16-2013
gabester wrote:
Sorry, to me the facts speak pretty clearly for intent:
"drove a quarter of a block on a Midtown sidewalk"
It's pretty hard to drive a quarter block even if you "accidentally" step on the gas.
It's a lot harder to "accidentally" drive a quarter of a block with your foot on the gas.
Blocks are different sizes. The block next to mine is probably 4-5x as big as my block. From the time the cyclist swerved in front of the car, until the woman was hit, only about 3 seconds elapsed. That's more telling.