Have family in Stillwater, but luckily none of them were at the parade yesterday. None of my friends from that neck of the woods were hurt either, so that's good. I do know some of the responders and they will be pretty shook up for a while I'm sure.
Still waiting on a lot of details to come out of course. There are a lot of rumors floating around, but nothing official yet other than the DUI. I'm not even sure if it will end up being alcohol just based on the driving and the look on her face.
The state did a good job in coming together yesterday, and it was a very nice gesture to see the big football rivals during their moment of silence today:
senseless tragedy. You make an informed decision when you do not have a prior plan to drinking, for transportation purposes. Life sentence would be fair.
Also should probably get a federal investigation into how many drunk driver deaths happen each year and look into banning vehicles that go fast, because its the cars fault for sure. bigger engines mean they go faster, so lets ban all V8s, V6s, and Inline 4 souped up engines, so as to prevent high speed killings with cars.
And to keep with the discussion of Murder/Manslaughter in another thread here is the law for Oklahoma:
1.When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
I second that. If not, she should be forced to have pictures of the deceased in her cell at all times so she can never forget, especially since one of them was only 2 years old.
My thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their families.
It is now very likely that the Oklahoma lady was not intoxicated at the time of the crash, so I don't know if you want to keep these two in the same thread.
It is now very likely that the Oklahoma lady was not intoxicated at the time of the crash, so I don't know if you want to keep these two in the same thread.
I'll wait and see what happens with the bloodwork and then change it up. Looks like you called it right on the charges if it comes back she was impaired:
Because they got hit by a car that drove into the crowd? At least that would be my guess. But alcohol seems to be unrelated to the Oklahoma case now.
I'm guessing Relapse is combining the two because of the alcohol factor, it is something that he feels very strongly about and rightfully so, but I just wasn't sure if he wanted to keep the two cases combined since one of them appears to be heading towards a psychological issue instead of a alcohol issue.
It is now very likely that the Oklahoma lady was not intoxicated at the time of the crash, so I don't know if you want to keep these two in the same thread.
I'll wait and see what happens with the bloodwork and then change it up. Looks like you called it right on the charges if it comes back she was impaired:
If I had nothing else to go by except that look on her face when she was arrested and on the mug shot I would definitely expect her to be impaired, she really didn't look like she was all there behind those eyes. The question will just be "how and why". Alcohol should have been easy to exclude during the arrest, and it is interesting that the arresting officers basically just said "probably cause for DUI" and didn't mention anything in particular. I wonder if they will release the arrest report sometime soon and if the officers smelled anything. I would imagine that if she was sauced enough for this then there should be a definite alcohol odor.
But even without that we could still have drugs or a psychiatric breakdown, in addition to a few physical problems that could cause delirium.
This means that you are making not paying attention while driving a capital offense. That is the actual act.
Incorrect. My judgement lies in the act of killing 4 people and injuring 44 more. If it were a gun, it would be a mass shooting and people would be having a conniption fit.
Good to hear that if someone had a mini-stroke and blacked out for a second, you'd still press for the death penalty anyway, because you care only about outcomes and not intent.
At some point, the moderators are going to realize your schtick of going into threads and saying outrageous gak to provoke responses is de facto trolling. Until then - godspeed!
Ouze wrote: Good to hear that if someone had a mini-stroke and blacked out for a second, you'd still press for the death penalty anyway, because you care only about outcomes and not intent.
At some point, the moderators are going to realize your schtick of going into threads and saying outrageous gak to provoke responses is de facto trolling. Until then - godspeed!
You know, I've been confused for about the last week, because I always though he was a bit of an extremely loud soft spoken liberal, in all the stereotypical ways. Now he just seems a little TOO much like an extremely loud old testament guy, in all the stereotypical ways, and with zero explanation for why.
I'd expect such talk out of other members of the forum, but I'm surprised here.
Ouze wrote: Good to hear that if someone had a mini-stroke and blacked out for a second, you'd still press for the death penalty anyway, because you care only about outcomes and not intent.
At some point, the moderators are going to realize your schtick of going into threads and saying outrageous gak to provoke responses is de facto trolling. Until then - godspeed!
Saying what a lot of us have been thinking for the past week, exalt!
d-usa wrote: Looks like 4 counts of 2nd Degree Murder.
And to keep with the discussion of Murder/Manslaughter in another thread here is the law for Oklahoma:
1.When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
There you go. A Death Penalty case requires serious intent, and often is reserved only for specific categories (like the guy who executed the cop at the gas station).
They have a similar case in Austin where somoene plowed into a bunch of people and she got ten years suspended sentence. unacceptable.
Yeah don't think there's much mystery about it. Parades can get pretty crowded, and from the video in thread, looks like she was going decently fast when the accident occurred. People aren't exactly much of a road block
The thing that I was wondering at the first, but I haven't seen answered yet, is if she had a prior record of charges. If this is the case, then impaired driving is likely the cause, otherwise, it could be a number of factors that were not her fault.
d-usa wrote: Looks like 4 counts of 2nd Degree Murder.
And to keep with the discussion of Murder/Manslaughter in another thread here is the law for Oklahoma:
1.When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
There you go. A Death Penalty case requires serious intent, and often is reserved only for specific categories (like the guy who executed the cop at the gas station).
They have a similar case in Austin where somoene plowed into a bunch of people and she got ten years suspended sentence. unacceptable.
d-usa wrote: Looks like 4 counts of 2nd Degree Murder.
And to keep with the discussion of Murder/Manslaughter in another thread here is the law for Oklahoma:
1.When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
There you go. A Death Penalty case requires serious intent, and often is reserved only for specific categories (like the guy who executed the cop at the gas station).
They have a similar case in Austin where somoene plowed into a bunch of people and she got ten years suspended sentence. unacceptable.
The impaired driving laws & punishments on both sides of our border are in need of a serious overhaul...
Personally, having known those who've lost friends/loved ones to an impaired driver, they should just do away with the distinction of vehicular homicide/dangerous driving causing death/injury and charge it as either manslaughter or murder where appropriate.
2nd degree murder should definitely be an automatic charge to those who kill while impaired when they're already under licence suspension for DUI.
When it comes right down to it, a car is no different to any other blunt/heavy object, or an improperly stored/used firearm. Both things when misused by selfish/stupid people ruin lives.
Another decent tool to combat impaired driving is to follow on the lead of Alberta & B.C, where police can impound the vehicle of anyone just blowing within the 'warning range' for a couple days.
d-usa wrote: Looks like 4 counts of 2nd Degree Murder.
And to keep with the discussion of Murder/Manslaughter in another thread here is the law for Oklahoma:
1.When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
There you go. A Death Penalty case requires serious intent, and often is reserved only for specific categories (like the guy who executed the cop at the gas station).
They have a similar case in Austin where somoene plowed into a bunch of people and she got ten years suspended sentence. unacceptable.
*Recently diagnosed with Diabetes and un-managed blood sugar. Had not yet started treatment.
*Model employee and the restaurant she worked at, was at work right before accident with no issues to her performance.
*Was seen 'crying' as she left work that day. (I think was 30 minutes before the crash)
*Was not drunk, Possible drugs found in system, but not clear what kind (not released)
The two theories right now are:
1. She was suicidal and was trying to kill herself and has undiagnosed mental illnesses.
2. She had a diabetic coma which made her pass out or become severely disorientated due to un-managed blood sugar.
Yay, let's execute a bunch of people without even trying to understand why they did what they did !
Sigh.
Let me repeat, I do NOT care about "why." I care about outcomes.
If you plow your car into a crowd, kill 4 people & then send another 44 to the hospital your ass needs to be removed from society permanently. I view life-long incarceration as torture and inhumane, ergo I believe in a more aggressive application of the death penalty.
Like I said, if this were a drunk person with a gun instead of a drunk person with a car...
That's an interesting view. I view the death penalty as morally wrong, not because you re killing people, but because there is a chance that you might kill an innocent person. I'm not willing to take that chance. We've had people on death row been proved guilty long after the fact. And who knows how many innocent people we have executed. At least with life in prison, you have the chance of getting out eventually if the conviction is overturned if new evidence exonerating you appears. But it's very hard to un-execute people.
*Recently diagnosed with Diabetes and un-managed blood sugar. Had not yet started treatment.
*Model employee and the restaurant she worked at, was at work right before accident with no issues to her performance.
*Was seen 'crying' as she left work that day. (I think was 30 minutes before the crash)
*Was not drunk, Possible drugs found in system, but not clear what kind (not released)
The two theories right now are:
1. She was suicidal and was trying to kill herself and has undiagnosed mental illnesses.
2. She had a diabetic coma which made her pass out or become severely disorientated due to un-managed blood sugar.
I'd lean towards 2, if these are the only/main theories.
If I were suicidal, I would aim my car off a bridge or into a train, not a crowd of people.
Thats an inconsistent view. If you think killing an innocent person is totally unacceptable you should also think jailing an innocent person is totally unacceptable. I'm sure anyone who has been jailed wrongly wouldn't appreciate that their release in any way makes up for them being wrongly accused in the first place.
Thats why we have strict requirements for finding people guilty, especially for crimes which have Death as a punishment.
Sure, we have had people proven innocent long after the fact. Usually because more advanced forensic techniques such as DNA and Finger Printing came along which weren't around then. That sort of thing is less and less common today. Well within acceptable limits.
We should not let the possibility of screwing up prevent us from proceeding. Thats allowing fear of the unknown to rule our justice system. If we did that, we just wouldn't have laws. After all, we might punish the wrong person. Can't have that can we!
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's an interesting view. I view the death penalty as morally wrong, not because you re killing people, but because there is a chance that you might kill an innocent person.
Regarding the whole "possibly innocent" thing...
Much like James Holmes, there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that this woman committed the act in question.
Yeah don't think there's much mystery about it. Parades can get pretty crowded, and from the video in thread, looks like she was going decently fast when the accident occurred. People aren't exactly much of a road block
I got two cases confused.
But Diabetic Coma. if that is proven true, What happens to her? people are out for blood, so I doupt she will get her sentence reduced. But is it really here fault?
Grey Templar wrote: Thats an inconsistent view. If you think killing an innocent person is totally unacceptable you should also think jailing an innocent person is totally unacceptable. I'm sure anyone who has been jailed wrongly wouldn't appreciate that their release in any way makes up for them being wrongly accused in the first place.
Thats why we have strict requirements for finding people guilty, especially for crimes which have Death as a punishment.
Sure, we have had people proven innocent long after the fact. Usually because more advanced forensic techniques such as DNA and Finger Printing came along which weren't around then. That sort of thing is less and less common today. Well within acceptable limits.
We should not let the possibility of screwing up prevent us from proceeding. Thats allowing fear of the unknown to rule our justice system. If we did that, we just wouldn't have laws. After all, we might punish the wrong person. Can't have that can we!
There are no "acceptable limits" when it comes to executions. Even one innocent person killed is too much for me. That's why we have Life Without Parole. I'm not saying that we shouldn't convict people, or anything, just that we shouldn't use the death penalty. And innocent people will be jailed, but that I can live with, as there is a chance for redemption. There is a chance for freedom. When you execute someone, that's it. Nothing you can do to change that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's an interesting view. I view the death penalty as morally wrong, not because you re killing people, but because there is a chance that you might kill an innocent person.
Regarding the whole "possibly innocent" thing...
Much like James Holmes, there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that this woman committed the act in question.
Right, but if she were unconscious or impaired at the time due to diabetes then it would just be a tragic accident.
So, again, if someone was driving and had a stroke which caused them to lose control of their vehicle and kill 4 people, you are saying that person should be executed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's an interesting view. I view the death penalty as morally wrong, not because you re killing people, but because there is a chance that you might kill an innocent person.
Regarding the whole "possibly innocent" thing...
Much like James Holmes, there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that this woman committed the act in question.
Well, yes, but it isn't this case in particular (assuming they can prove intent), it's in general. It's the principle of it.
If she is aware of her condition, its something that she would be aware is happening prior to it occurring, and she did not take steps to prevent it, then I could see her being held responsible. In that case she willingly endangered everyone by operating a motor vehicle while having uncontrolled blood sugar. Not much different than someone who is drunk willingly endangering everyone by operating a motor vehicle.
I don't think there is any doubt that she will be held responsible, it's just a matter of whether this will be manslaughter or murder (and then 2nd or 1st)
Grey Templar wrote: If she is aware of her condition, its something that she would be aware is happening prior to it occurring, and she did not take steps to prevent it, then I could see her being held responsible. In that case she willingly endangered everyone by operating a motor vehicle while having uncontrolled blood sugar. Not much different than someone who is drunk willingly endangering everyone by operating a motor vehicle.
Except a sudden drop or spike in blood sugar can happen very fast. If she has not yet been prescribed insulin or anything else to control her blood sugar then her options for controlling her sugar herself are very limited.
Also, it is possible that she had never had this happen to her before. Diabetes will generally cause a lack of energy but not to an extent that hampers your ability to do everyday activities such as driving. Losing consciousness due to blood sugar is a very extreme occurrence, even for diabetics.
Either way, because there will be so many counts she is going away for a long time. Unless she serves the sentences simultaneously and not cumulatively.
44 counts of some form of assault with a deadly weapon, and thats only if we count actual injured victims and not the potential victims. Potentially aggravated depending on how the whole DUI/Coma thing hashes out.
Grey Templar wrote: If she is aware of her condition, its something that she would be aware is happening prior to it occurring, and she did not take steps to prevent it, then I could see her being held responsible. In that case she willingly endangered everyone by operating a motor vehicle while having uncontrolled blood sugar. Not much different than someone who is drunk willingly endangering everyone by operating a motor vehicle.
Except a sudden drop or spike in blood sugar can happen very fast. If she has not yet been prescribed insulin or anything else to control her blood sugar then her options for controlling her sugar herself are very limited.
Also, it is possible that she had never had this happen to her before. Diabetes will generally cause a lack of energy but not to an extent that hampers your ability to do everyday activities such as driving. Losing consciousness due to blood sugar is a very extreme occurrence, even for diabetics.
Possible, but given the rarity of such a thing happening I doubt its undiagnosed.
Grey Templar wrote: If she is aware of her condition, its something that she would be aware is happening prior to it occurring, and she did not take steps to prevent it, then I could see her being held responsible. In that case she willingly endangered everyone by operating a motor vehicle while having uncontrolled blood sugar. Not much different than someone who is drunk willingly endangering everyone by operating a motor vehicle.
Except a sudden drop or spike in blood sugar can happen very fast. If she has not yet been prescribed insulin or anything else to control her blood sugar then her options for controlling her sugar herself are very limited.
Also, it is possible that she had never had this happen to her before. Diabetes will generally cause a lack of energy but not to an extent that hampers your ability to do everyday activities such as driving. Losing consciousness due to blood sugar is a very extreme occurrence, even for diabetics.
Possible, but given the rarity of such a thing happening I doubt its undiagnosed.
Diagnosed does not automatically mean prescribed medication. In many cases the first step is to try treating diabetes through a controlled diet alone. If that doesn't work then medication is prescribed.
So, she could have been diagnosed as a diabetic without having a severe diabetic attack (e.g complains to doctor of feeling lethargic, one fasting blood test later and diabetes diagnosed due to blood sugar being abnormal), but who then had a severe blood sugar drop/rise.
Grey Templar wrote: If she is aware of her condition, its something that she would be aware is happening prior to it occurring, and she did not take steps to prevent it, then I could see her being held responsible. In that case she willingly endangered everyone by operating a motor vehicle while having uncontrolled blood sugar. Not much different than someone who is drunk willingly endangering everyone by operating a motor vehicle.
Except a sudden drop or spike in blood sugar can happen very fast. If she has not yet been prescribed insulin or anything else to control her blood sugar then her options for controlling her sugar herself are very limited.
Also, it is possible that she had never had this happen to her before. Diabetes will generally cause a lack of energy but not to an extent that hampers your ability to do everyday activities such as driving. Losing consciousness due to blood sugar is a very extreme occurrence, even for diabetics.
Possible, but given the rarity of such a thing happening I doubt its undiagnosed.
Diagnosed does not automatically mean prescribed medication. In many cases the first step is to try treating diabetes through a controlled diet alone. If that doesn't work then medication is prescribed.
So, she could have been diagnosed as a diabetic without having a severe diabetic attack (e.g complains to doctor of feeling lethargic, one fasting blood test later and diabetes diagnosed due to blood sugar being abnormal), but who then had a severe blood sugar drop/rise.
She works at a milkshake shop... For all we know she had a milkshake at the end of her shift and had a horrible reaction.
Often when diagnosed with something, especially diabetes, they are not going to immediately begin the treatment for acute symptoms, even if that is what is probably needed.
I have a friend who had a horrible brain bleed during childbirth and has spent a year trying to get her to a place where she could be 'safe' to be unsupervised. They try lots of medications and treatments. Some cause seizures, some cause memory issues. She has a new born infant who she can't be left alone with. Others may not be so lucky where they end up with a casually diagnosed symptom and then the first time they have a serious reaction they cause extreme harm to 'someone'.
Such an attitude basically would criminalize any health condition. "you have high blood sugar? you can't drive a vehicle legally now because you could potentially be a risk."
How many personal freedoms would need to be stripped from the ill or disabled to 'protect' society from them? Nevermind the forced incarceration of anyone on a drug with possible 'suicidal thoughts' as a side effect.
We will have to let the legal system run its course here and see what happened and what circumstances were involved... but this is why we don't do lynch mobs anymore and have due process.
nkelsch wrote: How many personal freedoms would need to be stripped from the ill or disabled to 'protect' society from them? Nevermind the forced incarceration of anyone on a drug with possible 'suicidal thoughts' as a side effect.
I for one welcome our new "We're going to take your rights away on the off chance you might hurt someone" Overlords. Obviously, all people should be confined to their home at all time. No wait... if we leave people unattended at home who knows what might happen. So we'll need to put cameras in every room in America. That way the government can always watch to make sure you aren't hurting anyone or anything. And we'll need cameras in the camera rooms to so that we can protect the people watching the cameras from themselves too. But the government is run by people and they could hurt people so obviously we need to create a super machine to run the government for us. That way there's no chance anyone could ever hurt anyone. Actually we'll just make this simple and put a Nanny Robot in every home and all the people will wear straight jackets tied to their beds and feed by IV.
Nooooo way for anyone to get hurt I for one welcome our new Robot Overlords
My view is if they have proof there was alcohol in her system and she was intoxicated? String her up.
If she suffered from a diabetic coma and this happened? It was a tragedy, and nothing can do her more harm than the knowledge of the damage she caused. Shouldn't be a sentence.
Attempted suicide by pills and driving into this situation? Psychiatric ward.
Death penalty only requested if she made a conscious choice to drink and drive (into a crowd).
Yay, let's execute a bunch of people without even trying to understand why they did what they did !
Sigh.
Let me repeat, I do NOT care about "why." I care about outcomes.
If you plow your car into a crowd, kill 4 people & then send another 44 to the hospital your ass needs to be removed from society permanently. I view life-long incarceration as torture and inhumane, ergo I believe in a more aggressive application of the death penalty.
Like I said, if this were a drunk person with a gun instead of a drunk person with a car...
And what about diabetic people ? Epileptic people ? My... Uh... *forgot the english word* godfather (?) once lost consciousness for two whole minutes while driving, and woke up in the middle of a field.
“There was just some things that she said in the past and some, just recently, she had a mental hospital she went to in Wagoner at one time. They had her for a couple of weeks and they released her and there’s really nothing else they could do for her. So I took her to another place when she got out of there and basically the same thing. She was feeling fine and, you know, at the point she was 21, so I’d done all I could do as a father. I didn’t know where else to turn and what to do,” he said.
Yay, let's execute a bunch of people without even trying to understand why they did what they did !
Sigh.
Let me repeat, I do NOT care about "why." I care about outcomes.
If you plow your car into a crowd, kill 4 people & then send another 44 to the hospital your ass needs to be removed from society permanently. I view life-long incarceration as torture and inhumane, ergo I believe in a more aggressive application of the death penalty.
Like I said, if this were a drunk person with a gun instead of a drunk person with a car...
And what about diabetic people ? Epileptic people ? My... Uh... *forgot the english word* godfather (?) once lost consciousness for two whole minutes while driving, and woke up in the middle of a field.
Holy crap, I'll bet he was scared as hell. What happened after he woke up?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: More info on the mental health suspicion:
“There was just some things that she said in the past and some, just recently, she had a mental hospital she went to in Wagoner at one time. They had her for a couple of weeks and they released her and there’s really nothing else they could do for her. So I took her to another place when she got out of there and basically the same thing. She was feeling fine and, you know, at the point she was 21, so I’d done all I could do as a father. I didn’t know where else to turn and what to do,” he said.
I wonder if this a case where she didn't take medication.
nkelsch wrote: Such an attitude basically would criminalize any health condition. "you have high blood sugar? you can't drive a vehicle legally now because you could potentially be a risk."
And that's exactly how it should be. If you can't safely drive a car then you shouldn't be allowed to. If you have high blood sugar (or whatever other condition you want to consider) and can demonstrate to a doctor that the problem is under control and does not present a safety risk then you can get a license with conditions attached (continuing treatment, etc). That's exactly what I have to go through to fly a tiny single-engine plane, so why should the operator of a vehicle that is much more likely to hurt someone be treated any differently? The only reason why we ignore blatant safety issues like this is that we, as a culture, seem to have decided that god has granted everyone the right to drive a car and that right can only be taken away under the most extreme circumstances.
And no, it doesn't criminalize any health condition. It criminalizes driving a car with them. Nobody is going to be thrown in jail merely for having a condition that would prevent them from driving safely.
I agree with Perigrine on this one. If someone has a condition that makes them a danger on the road, and it can't or isn't being controlled, that person should not be driving. Any accidents they cause should be criminally prosecuted.
Relapse wrote: I agree with Perigrine on this one. If someone has a condition that makes them a danger on the road, and it can't or isn't being controlled, that person should not be driving. Any accidents they cause should be criminally prosecuted.
It's a nice sendiment, but than we run into the reality that the US is a car culture with crap transportation options for people who don't have cars and you are pretty much condemning people to poverty.
I doubt that communities will ever be willing to make the investment required to fix that problem on either front: fix our healthcare system where conditions are more easily mitigated or fix communities so that not having a car doesn't become an instant economic hardship.
d-usa wrote: It's a nice sendiment, but than we run into the reality that the US is a car culture with crap transportation options for people who don't have cars and you are pretty much condemning people to poverty.
I doubt that communities will ever be willing to make the investment required to fix that problem on either front: fix our healthcare system where conditions are more easily mitigated or fix communities so that not having a car doesn't become an instant economic hardship.
The problem is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we allow ourselves to fall back on the idea that everyone has a right to drive as an excuse for not fixing our car-dependent society then we're never going to do anything about the problem. The best thing for society would be for 90% of drivers to permanently lose their licenses, and for the government to face mass rioting if they don't fix our public transportation infrastructure.
Relapse wrote: I agree with Perigrine on this one. If someone has a condition that makes them a danger on the road, and it can't or isn't being controlled, that person should not be driving. Any accidents they cause should be criminally prosecuted.
It's a nice sendiment, but than we run into the reality that the US is a car culture with crap transportation options for people who don't have cars and you are pretty much condemning people to poverty.
I doubt that communities will ever be willing to make the investment required to fix that problem on either front: fix our healthcare system where conditions are more easily mitigated or fix communities so that not having a car doesn't become an instant economic hardship.
Are you willing to hand over 10% of your paycheck for the rest off eternity? Is the rioting mob?
The world would also be a better place if 90% of the people would be taken off the internet, but that's not happening either.
We are at the point where what we have is what we accept: accidents from medical conditions are much lower than drunk driving or even distracted driving. I'm willing to bet that more people are hurt by people changing their radio station or their play list or hitting the skip button on pandora than by people having diabetes. At this point it seems society has decided that the current system is working.
In Oklahoma you can lose your license for seizures I think, but I'm not exactly sure about the process. If you are diabetic they place a restriction on your license showing that you are required to always have food in reach while driving and an officer can write you a ticket if you do. For the rest of the people that have a wreck and kill someone because they have a stroke due to untreated high blood pressure we have decided that the court system will sort that out.
d-usa wrote: Are you willing to hand over 10% of your paycheck for the rest off eternity? Is the rioting mob?
Are you seriously suggesting that better bus/rail/whatever systems would cost 10% of my paycheck, after accounting for the fact that my car-related expenses would be slashed to almost nothing, if not eliminated entirely?
The world would also be a better place if 90% of the people would be taken off the internet, but that's not happening either.
Having undesirable people on the internet doesn't get people killed. Having unsafe drivers does.
We are at the point where what we have is what we accept: accidents from medical conditions are much lower than drunk driving or even distracted driving. I'm willing to bet that more people are hurt by people changing their radio station or their play list or hitting the skip button on pandora than by people having diabetes.
Why the false dilemma fallacy? It's entirely possible to support efforts to stop drunk driving AND to stop who can't drive safely for medical reasons.
And, again, this isn't just a hypothetical question, it's FAA policy for pilots (even pilots of small planes which are much less likely to hurt anyone than an average car). We didn't just say "well, a lot of crashes are pilot error, so it's not worth worrying about medical issues", we imposed strict medical requirements and don't let people fly if they can't prove that they are healthy enough to do it safely. The only reason we let people take much greater risks by driving a car is that we, as a society, refuse to admit that we have a problem.
In NZ we have heaps of laws around who can and cannot drive. Epilepsy rules out your ability to drive for example, as does having site deemed too poor for driving and I am sure there are more.
I thought it was normal for countries to restrict driving licenses from people in these conditions? Otherwise you could have drivers getting seizures on the high way or people with Parkinsons attempting to drive straight without jerking into traffic etc...
Of course since these people cannot get a license they cannot drive, so if they drive and get caught they are punished etc.
Or we, as a society, realize that unless you live in a small Alaskan fishing village you probably don't "need" a pilots license to get to work or buy groceries.
I'm not saying that making a city like Oklahoma City walkable and building an actual usable public transport system is a bad idea. It would be awesome and it would be nice if people wouldn't have to rely on a vehicle for everything. I'm totally behind that idea and I voted for our street car and I'm always pushing for light rail.
I'm just realistic about what's happening in the US and that the majority of voters think that public transportation is a socialist handout and that only the drunks and lazy will use it because good citizens will have jobs and own cars and won't need public transit.
Don't confuse "I don't think it's realistic" with "I think it's stupid".
d-usa wrote: Or we, as a society, realize that unless you live in a small Alaskan fishing village you probably don't "need" a pilots license to get to work or buy groceries.
You don't need a car for that, it just makes it a lot more convenient. You can take a bus/taxi/etc, or even walk. And in places where that's not an option it's only that way because we as a society refuse to acknowledge that we have a problem.
I'm just realistic about what's happening in the US and that the majority of voters think that public transportation is a socialist handout and that only the drunks and lazy will use it because good citizens will have jobs and own cars and won't need public transit.
Thus the "90% lose their license" comment. If only a few poor people lose their licenses then there's no incentive to change. But if getting a driver's license has the same level of requirements as getting a pilot's license ($15k in training costs and a very difficult practical test before you get your license, strict medical requirements with annual renewals, etc) there would actually be an impact on wealthier people that they couldn't ignore. And any government that ignores the needs of 90% of its citizens is quickly going to find itself out of power.
d-usa wrote: Or we, as a society, realize that unless you live in a small Alaskan fishing village you probably don't "need" a pilots license to get to work or buy groceries.
You don't need a car for that, it just makes it a lot more convenient. You can take a bus/taxi/etc, or even walk. And in places where that's not an option it's only that way because we as a society refuse to acknowledge that we have a problem.
.
Your serious? You dont need a car to do groceries? Let me tell you, it is near impossible to get any meaningful amount of groceries without a car. You wanna take 5 or 6 large bags on the bus(Maybe with like 2 kids cause dads off at the mine or something)
Face it. a car is needed in america, to get a job, to shop. to live life.
Swastakowey wrote: In NZ we have heaps of laws around who can and cannot drive. Epilepsy rules out your ability to drive for example, as does having site deemed too poor for driving and I am sure there are more.
I thought it was normal for countries to restrict driving licenses from people in these conditions? Otherwise you could have drivers getting seizures on the high way or people with Parkinsons attempting to drive straight without jerking into traffic etc...
Of course since these people cannot get a license they cannot drive, so if they drive and get caught they are punished etc.
We have similar laws.
However its a system where you are presumed to be free of defects till proven otherwise. Only thing you get physically tested on is your sight at the DMV office. They don't do epilepsy tests or see if you have a chronic condition.
But if your doctor diagnoses you with a condition that disqualifies you from driving I believe they are required to report it to the DMV.
I do disagree on needing a car for groceries. I grew walking with my mom to get groceries. Sometimes as often as every other night. It's amazing what your capable of accomplishing when you don't have a choice.
I know several people without cars. Instead of whining they get stuff done. About and overcome.
They are reporting that she deliberately drove around a barricades so it likely rules out that she was passed out at the time. Unless she was magically "sleep-steering".
If it was intentional, as it appears to be I hope they upgrade the charges to 1st degree for the 4 fatalities and attempted murder on the other injuries.
yellowfever wrote: I do disagree on needing a car for groceries. I grew walking with my mom to get groceries. Sometimes as often as every other night. It's amazing what your capable of accomplishing when you don't have a choice.
I know several people without cars. Instead of whining they get stuff done. About and overcome.
My closest grocery store is 5 miles from my house, so a 10 mile round trip if I was walking. That's also the closest bus stop as well.
Owning a bike helps big time for a lot of car less issues. But if you cannot drive it is likely you should also not be biking.
Remember it is not societies fault if someone is a danger on the roads nor is it the persons fault (usually) due to disability. It's one of those situations where the person simply has to live a harder life to prevent others from becoming a casualty. If you value the right for all to drive over the life of those who have to share those roads then I think you need to consider the implications.
For example we have someone at our wargames club with epilepsy. Great guy. He went to get some sushi the other night and had a seizure on the way. Had he legally been allowed to drive and he drove to get sushi he likely would have crashed on his way there. Not only putting himself at harm but also anybody nearby. He and all of us are glad he is not allowed to drive, if he could then there is a strong possibility he would have caused a lot of harm at least once in his life.
Unfortunate but if you cannot see the obvious reasons for barring someone from driving due to disabilities or illness then you are clearly not thinking about the consequences.
Lets put it this way, if you could have a seizure at any second would you willingly drive around like you do today?
stanman wrote: They are reporting that she deliberately drove around a barricades so it likely rules out that she was passed out at the time.
Still too early to call it but that would definitely seem to indicate some degree of premeditation.
Your article also has a lot of quotes indicating mental issues, but so far I'm kind of writing them off since they all seem to be coming from her family or lawyer, who obviously have a vested interest in pushing that angle. Oklahoma has the death penalty, after all.
Second Degree Murder wouldn't be eligible for the death penalty anyway, it's 10-life for that.
More info from the probable cause affidavits for the initial arrest:
According to the probable cause affidavit, officials say Chambers was suicidal at the time of the crash.
“Upon booking, defendant admitted to having a history of suicidal attempts and admitted to booking staff that she was suicidal at the time of the incident but not at the time of booking,” the affidavit reads.
d-usa wrote: Or we, as a society, realize that unless you live in a small Alaskan fishing village you probably don't "need" a pilots license to get to work or buy groceries.
You don't need a car for that, it just makes it a lot more convenient. You can take a bus/taxi/etc, or even walk. And in places where that's not an option it's only that way because we as a society refuse to acknowledge that we have a problem.
.
Your serious? You dont need a car to do groceries? Let me tell you, it is near impossible to get any meaningful amount of groceries without a car. You wanna take 5 or 6 large bags on the bus(Maybe with like 2 kids cause dads off at the mine or something)
Face it. a car is needed in america, to get a job, to shop. to live life.
Plenty of people get groceries without a car, both in the US and throughout the world.
d-usa wrote: Second Degree Murder wouldn't be eligible for the death penalty anyway, it's 10-life for that.
Thanks for that.
Maybe they should have waited a bit to charge her.
Possibly charging her with something so they don't have to release her? Isn't there a maximum time they can hold you without a charge or did I watch too much Law & Order?
There's always that small percentage that would have a difficult time getting groceries without a vehicle. Nothing is 100 percent true for 100 percent of the people. But in most cases people could walk. They just grew up not having to so don't want to. Or they just don't do it because they don't have too. Still when your forced to do something you'll find a way.
Of course a majority of people would find getting groceries to be a multiple hour ordeal just to get there and back without a car or other form of transportation.
I live a good 5 miles from the nearest grocery store. I once had to walk to and from the car service station a block away from it and it took me a good 45 minutes to walk one way. And that was without carrying anything. If I had to walk to get groceries it probably would have taken me a good hour and a half. And anything frozen or refrigerated would be pretty nasty by the time I got back.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course a majority of people would find getting groceries to be a multiple hour ordeal just to get there and back without a car or other form of transportation.
I live a good 5 miles from the nearest grocery store. I once had to walk to and from the car service station a block away from it and it took me a good 45 minutes to walk one way. And that was without carrying anything. If I had to walk to get groceries it probably would have taken me a good hour and a half. And anything frozen or refrigerated would be pretty nasty by the time I got back.
In the US we also just end up getting a ton of groceries as well since most people shop once or twice a week. I find that in Germany people seem to only buy for a couple days at a time and make more frequent trips.
Now take the usual "I can make it in one trip" bag-carrying gymnastics that we all do from the driveway to the kitchen and imagine doing that for 5 miles .
My fingers turn blue just thinking about it...
Now the obvious answer would be that you would adjust and to more smaller trips instead of one weekly big one.
But people in Germany don't live more than 10-15 minute walk/bus ride from the market. They don't have suburbs or semi-rural areas in any quantity like we do which makes your own vehicle much more important.
I'm out of sugar. In Europe, I could just pop out for a half hour and get it. In the US, its more like an hour total. So there is more incentive to make bigger trips.
And even in areas of the US where everything is in walking distance, grocery stores are actually quite rare. In urban centers most people buy food from convenience stores because super markets aren't profitable in dense urban areas.
d-usa wrote: Now take the usual "I can make it in one trip" bag-carrying gymnastics that we all do from the driveway to the kitchen and imagine doing that for 5 miles .
Or take a backpack instead of carrying the bags in your hands.
But really, the idea wasn't that removing cars and changing nothing else is a good idea, it was that removing cars would happen along with improving public transportation. So you aren't walking several miles to a store, you're taking a bus. And just maybe you're living closer to the store because nobody wants to buy houses in the subdivision sprawl and the developers have had to rethink their business model.
Shopping for groceries while not having a car is like winning a free membership to the strongman gym. Just think about how buff and ripped you'll be after a few trips.
Grey Templar wrote: But people in Germany don't live more than 10-15 minute walk/bus ride from the market. They don't have suburbs or semi-rural areas in any quantity like we do which makes your own vehicle much more important.
I'm out of sugar. In Europe, I could just pop out for a half hour and get it. In the US, its more like an hour total. So there is more incentive to make bigger trips.
And even in areas of the US where everything is in walking distance, grocery stores are actually quite rare. In urban centers most people buy food from convenience stores because super markets aren't profitable in dense urban areas.
nkelsch wrote: Such an attitude basically would criminalize any health condition. "you have high blood sugar? you can't drive a vehicle legally now because you could potentially be a risk."
And that's exactly how it should be. If you can't safely drive a car then you shouldn't be allowed to. If you have high blood sugar (or whatever other condition you want to consider) and can demonstrate to a doctor that the problem is under control and does not present a safety risk then you can get a license with conditions attached (continuing treatment, etc). That's exactly what I have to go through to fly a tiny single-engine plane, so why should the operator of a vehicle that is much more likely to hurt someone be treated any differently? The only reason why we ignore blatant safety issues like this is that we, as a culture, seem to have decided that god has granted everyone the right to drive a car and that right can only be taken away under the most extreme circumstances.
And no, it doesn't criminalize any health condition. It criminalizes driving a car with them. Nobody is going to be thrown in jail merely for having a condition that would prevent them from driving safely.
Well, here in France the only health condition preventing someone to drive is a poor eyesight (less than 5/10 for both eyes). Well, maybe others, but this is the only one directly checked.
Preventing someone to drive would in most case condemn him/her to poverty and even unemployment in some cases anyway.
paulson games wrote: Shopping for groceries while not having a car is like winning a free membership to the strongman gym. Just think about how buff and ripped you'll be after a few trips.
Why is he straining so much? Corn Flakes aren't that heavy.
How many personal freedoms would need to be stripped from the ill or disabled to 'protect' society from them? Nevermind the forced incarceration of anyone on a drug with possible 'suicidal thoughts' as a side effect.
We will have to let the legal system run its course here and see what happened and what circumstances were involved... but this is why we don't do lynch mobs anymore and have due process.
Agreed on letting the legal system run it's course. Let's see what the courts/authorities find and disclose.
As for personal freedoms being stripped, driving in a privileged, not a constitutional right. If you are unfit to drive for any reason (vision, alzheimer's, loss of hand-eye coordination, feinting spells, severe reactions from various illnesses, frequent seizures, etc.) you SHOULD lose the privilege of driving until you get your gak together. Now, I still agree with you that a lynch mob should not make that decision, and we still don't know what happened in the OK incident fully.
As for personal freedoms being stripped, driving in a privileged, not a constitutional right. If you are unfit to drive for any reason (vision, alzheimer's, loss of hand-eye coordination, feinting spells, severe reactions from various illnesses, frequent seizures, etc.) you SHOULD lose the privilege of driving until you get your gak together. Now, I still agree with you that a lynch mob should not make that decision, and we still don't know what happened in the OK incident fully.
But considering 'the flu' can make anyone feint at any time and 90% of medications have side effects which COULD cause feinting or imparment, applying a string application can disenfranchise millions.
And even if there were stricter medical restrictions on driving, guess what? a 'first time' diabetic coma on someone newly diagnosed wouldn't be covered by it I bet.
Talk about captain hindsight.
And following the 'suicide' aspect. Virtually every drug on the market has 'possible suicidal thoughts' as a possible side effect. Are we going to restrict everyone on a prescribed drug which might have 'suicidal thoughts' as a side effect as a ban from driving? Let alone people with good old fashion undiagnosed and untreated depression that the second they seek help, we strip their licence? :Oh? you have been having depression symptoms? ok police, seize her licence, restrict her ability to exist in society and forever ban her from driving as the drugs to help treatment have a side effect of possible suicidal thoughts.
This is all Captain hindsight talk for a statistically low item which can't be protected against in a reasonable way without violating people's due process and right to have their individual situations identified. This is basically the reason abortion bans are illegal because every case is different and blanket laws based upon such 'might have a symptom of fainting or suicidal thoughts' denies due process.
This is all Captain hindsight talk for a statistically low item which can't be protected against in a reasonable way without violating people's due process and right to have their individual situations identified. This is basically the reason abortion bans are illegal because every case is different and blanket laws based upon such 'might have a symptom of fainting or suicidal thoughts' denies due process.
Cute meme.
As for your CH talk, I my comment wasn't directed at this lady, per se. It was directed at people that have known impairments, which I'll gladly repeat (vision, alzheimer's, loss of hand-eye coordination, feinting spells, severe reactions from various illnesses, frequent seizures, etc.) that affect their ability to drive. It is not unreasonable to restrict, limit, or forbid people with significant health issues from getting behind the wheel of a 2,000 vehicle and endangering lives.
But you can feel free to post more pictures and not listen to what I'm saying.
Plenty of people get groceries without a car, both in the US and throughout the world.
Does nobody do grocery deliveries in the US?
https://www.ocado.com/ All the supermarkets here are into it in a big way.
A bit more OT, we recently had a bin/refuse lorry crash into people waiting for a bus. IIRC, the driver was found to have had regular blackouts, and hid it from his employers.
Something similar for a 77-year-old bus driver. Inquest is ongoing.
This happens a lot....
There are some places that deliver, but it's not a "big thing" here. The major grocery stores want you to come in and browse. The more time you spend in a store, the more money you spend in the store, or so went some study I read an article about that one time at the doctors.
This is all Captain hindsight talk for a statistically low item which can't be protected against in a reasonable way without violating people's due process and right to have their individual situations identified. This is basically the reason abortion bans are illegal because every case is different and blanket laws based upon such 'might have a symptom of fainting or suicidal thoughts' denies due process.
Cute meme.
As for your CH talk, I my comment wasn't directed at this lady, per se. It was directed at people that have known impairments, which I'll gladly repeat (vision, alzheimer's, loss of hand-eye coordination, feinting spells, severe reactions from various illnesses, frequent seizures, etc.) that affect their ability to drive. It is not unreasonable to restrict, limit, or forbid people with significant health issues from getting behind the wheel of a 2,000 vehicle and endangering lives.
But you can feel free to post more pictures and not listen to what I'm saying.
Let's implement oppressive and invasive oversight by our government to our personal freedoms to solve an issue which doesn't need solving due to a knee-jerk reaction to a situation which would not have even been impacted by such proposed ideas.
Who determines 'known imparments'? How do you regulate HIPAA and patient confidentiality inr egards to government issued IDs? How do you test for such imparments without breaching people's rights? Who makes the determinations? doctors? Bureaucrats? How frequent or risk of frequent does it need to be before it is a 'risk'? Is there a zero tolerance policy? Is simply being a possible symptom on medication enough?
There is no way to predict or judge every scenario and no way to do it without robbing people of personal privacy rights and due process.
Plenty of people get groceries without a car, both in the US and throughout the world.
Does nobody do grocery deliveries in the US?
https://www.ocado.com/ All the supermarkets here are into it in a big way.
Its starting to appear in some places. But again I remind you of the large distances involved here. Its not very profitable to deliver $20 worth of groceries when your delivery stops might be 20+ minutes apart. Its really only a thing in a few cities. A huge chunk of our population lives in suburban or rural areas. And people who live in the suburbs almost certainly own a vehicle, usually multiple vehicles.
nkelsch wrote: Who determines 'known imparments'? How do you regulate HIPAA and patient confidentiality inr egards to government issued IDs? How do you test for such imparments without breaching people's rights? Who makes the determinations? doctors? Bureaucrats? How frequent or risk of frequent does it need to be before it is a 'risk'? Is there a zero tolerance policy? Is simply being a possible symptom on medication enough?
There is no way to predict or judge every scenario and no way to do it without robbing people of personal privacy rights and due process.
You seem to have missed it earlier, so I'll say it again: these things that you are objecting to have already been dealt with in the case of pilot's licenses. This is not a hypothetical situation we're describing, it's the real FAA medical policies currently in use. The only thing preventing us from simply applying the same policies to driver's licenses is the belief (right or wrong) that everyone should be allowed to drive a car regardless of how qualified they are to do it.
The problem is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we allow ourselves to fall back on the idea that everyone has a right to drive as an excuse for not fixing our car-dependent society then we're never going to do anything about the problem. The best thing for society would be for 90% of drivers to permanently lose their licenses, and for the government to face mass rioting if they don't fix our public transportation infrastructure.
I'd settle for less, if I thought that there could be any real support for improving public transportation without taking away most driver's licenses and forcing a situation where the government must fix the problem. If you can dismiss inadequate bus/train/etc service with a belief that only poor people need those things (and they're poor because they're lazy) then nothing will ever be done. There will only be demand for changes if the middle class and up actually feel the pain of inadequate public transportation and appallingly bad city planning, and that's never going to happen as long as we treat driving as a god-given right.
Let me guess, you are not part of that 90%
You guess wrong. I don't care about driving as long as I can get where I want to go without a car. Of course given that I managed the medical and training requirements (which are far stricter than any plausible driver's license equivalent) to get my pilot's license I'd be willing to bet that I could be in the 10% if I wanted to. But I probably wouldn't care enough. Flying is worth the effort, driving isn't.
And who is part of the 90%?
Anyone who can't pass the medical or training requirements. I'd guess that a lot more than 10% would be able to pass the medical part, but wouldn't be willing to invest the time and effort to do 50-100+ hours of training, go through mandatory re-tests every two years, etc, if they can just take a bus wherever they want to go.
STILLWATER — Police looking for suicide notes at the Stillwater home of the driver blamed for the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash seized a handwritten letter and three handwritten notes from her Bible.
Police told a judge in a request for the search that Adacia Avery Chambers, 25, was overheard saying just before the incident that she was "going home forever."
Police earlier had reported Chambers admitted she was suicidal at the time of the incident.
Stillwater police Sgt. Jeff Dillon stated in the request that "Ms. Chambers boyfriend, Jesse Gaylord, stated she had been treated in the past by a mental health professional after making a suicide threat."
The woman's attorney has also stated she has a history of mental illness.
Police did not reveal in the list of items seized what the handwritten letter and notes stated. Police also seized a laptop, a hard drive, a tablet and an Xbox One controller.
Police searched the home Oct. 24, the day of the crash that killed four parade spectators and injured dozens. Chambers is awaiting charges in the Payne County jail
A woman accused of killing four people and injuring dozens more at Oklahoma State University's Oct. 24 homecoming parade had a blood alcohol content below the minimum level to be considered legally intoxicated, court papers showed.
According to a brief filed on Thursday with the Payne County District Court by defense attorney Tony Coleman, a blood draw conducted on the day of the accident showed that 25-year-old Adacia Chambers had a blood alcohol content of 0.01 percent.
Due to a gag order, officials with the police department in Stillwater, Oklahoma, said on Friday they could not comment specifically on the case or the accuracy of the brief's contents.
In Oklahoma, the minimum blood alcohol content to be considered under the influence is 0.08 percent for those 21 and older.
Chambers' attorney, Coleman, had filed the brief in support of a motion requesting court funds to finance bringing in an expert witness in psychology and accident reconstruction.
The suspect's father, Floyd Chambers, and her attorney have said she has a history of mental illness and sought treatment twice in recent years.
Facing four counts of second-degree murder and 46 counts of assault and battery, Chambers is due back in court on Dec. 10 and is currently being held in lieu of $1 million bond.
LordofHats wrote: Depends on severity of potential mental illness and culpability if any for neglecting treatment (if we even do that, I don't know XD)
Severity of mental illness would affect her ability to be found competent enough for trial, not necessarily will it affect sentencing. Neglecting treatment is something that isn't really considered either.
A woman accused of killing four people and injuring dozens more at Oklahoma State University's Oct. 24 homecoming parade had a blood alcohol content below the minimum level to be considered legally intoxicated, court papers showed.
According to a brief filed on Thursday with the Payne County District Court by defense attorney Tony Coleman, a blood draw conducted on the day of the accident showed that 25-year-old Adacia Chambers had a blood alcohol content of 0.01 percent.
Due to a gag order, officials with the police department in Stillwater, Oklahoma, said on Friday they could not comment specifically on the case or the accuracy of the brief's contents.
In Oklahoma, the minimum blood alcohol content to be considered under the influence is 0.08 percent for those 21 and older.
Chambers' attorney, Coleman, had filed the brief in support of a motion requesting court funds to finance bringing in an expert witness in psychology and accident reconstruction.
The suspect's father, Floyd Chambers, and her attorney have said she has a history of mental illness and sought treatment twice in recent years.
Facing four counts of second-degree murder and 46 counts of assault and battery, Chambers is due back in court on Dec. 10 and is currently being held in lieu of $1 million bond.
This could get very interesting when it gets to court (assuming the accused does not plead out)
LordofHats wrote: Depends on severity of potential mental illness and culpability if any for neglecting treatment (if we even do that, I don't know XD)
Severity of mental illness would affect her ability to be found competent enough for trial, not necessarily will it affect sentencing. Neglecting treatment is something that isn't really considered either.
Definitely the courts should give the woman treatment. Sticking her away in prison without any might as well be a death sentence, so she shouldn't go there if she is found lacking mental faculties.
I for one welcome our new Robot Overlords 
.
