Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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!

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Death penalty please.

Prove it was deliberate then maybe.

I don't care about intention, only outcomes.

Yay, let's execute a bunch of people without even trying to understand why they did what they did !

Sigh.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still. how did 44 get injured though?

Because she drove through a big fething crowd?

 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.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still. how did 44 get injured though?

Because she drove through a big fething crowd?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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 Austin incident was at the SXSW concert, right? That was the drunk that killed 4 people: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/car-crash-kills-2-sxsw-2014

He only got a suspended sentence?

Holy hell.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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 Austin incident was at the SXSW concert, right? That was the drunk that killed 4 people: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/car-crash-kills-2-sxsw-2014

He only got a suspended sentence?

Holy hell.

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.



Another tragic example of just how incredibly selfish & stupid drunk drivers are: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-charged-in-fatal-crash-part-of-influential-toronto-area-family-1.2584890

Hopefully his family's money won't protect him, and he'll rot in prison for a very long time.

 kronk wrote:


The Austin incident was at the SXSW concert, right? That was the drunk that killed 4 people: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/car-crash-kills-2-sxsw-2014

He only got a suspended sentence?

Holy hell.

Drunk and evading police... My friend was there at SXSW.

APPARENTLY no alcohol. Mental Illness and Diabetic coma so they say now...

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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 Austin incident was at the SXSW concert, right? That was the drunk that killed 4 people: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/car-crash-kills-2-sxsw-2014

He only got a suspended sentence?

Holy hell.

Maybe but there have been several.

nkelsch wrote:

 kronk wrote:


The Austin incident was at the SXSW concert, right? That was the drunk that killed 4 people: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/car-crash-kills-2-sxsw-2014

He only got a suspended sentence?

Holy hell.

Drunk and evading police... My friend was there at SXSW.

APPARENTLY no alcohol. Mental Illness and Diabetic coma so they say now...

I was considering going to SXSW when I still lived in Houston. Expensive, but it would be a fun weekend for sure.

Never got the chance, now that I'm in Chicago. Ah, well.

/Off Topic.

Apparently:

*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.

Are we talking about the OK incident or the Austin incident, nkelsch? Sorry, I R confused.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Death penalty please.

Prove it was deliberate then maybe.

I don't care about intention, only outcomes.

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...

 kronk wrote:
Are we talking about the OK incident or the Austin incident, nkelsch? Sorry, I R confused.

The Oklahoma one... the one this thread was about.

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.

Edit: ninjed.

nkelsch wrote:
Apparently:

*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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still. how did 44 get injured though?

Because she drove through a big fething crowd?

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.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 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.

Which is absolute bollocks.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 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.

Then the 4 counts of manslaughter/homicide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.