PDA

View Full Version : America's Most Wanted


BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 10:54 PM
So I am checking it out tonight and they put on this last story. Two guys drag race and one of them loses control and strikes a women and kills her, both cars take off. Now I know if you drive off and leave somebody like that even if you were not the driver who did it there has to be a pretty serious price to pay however I never expected what came next. He was charged with murder. Charged with murder? WTF? Apparently if you engage in a speed contest and anyone dies you are charged with murder. Is it any wonder people take off and leave people like that, they don't have any choice. Every day I get more disgusted with our legal system, this is just the most thing to blow me away.

DanT
04-02-2005, 11:07 PM
Would there have been a murder charge if the driver hadn't taken off?

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:24 PM
Would there have been a murder charge if the driver hadn't taken off?

Yes, which forces people to leave, it's stupid.

KS Smitty
04-02-2005, 11:32 PM
Not a legal eagle by any means but it seems that this way the prosecution can get the perp to plea down to involuntary manslaughter and give them 5 years(?) versus charging them with involuntary manslaughter and them pleading down to something less.

It seems that most charges are usually pled down to something less, so at least this person will actually have to answer to what was the actual crime???

The justice system is so screwy in this country that it's hard to determine why certain charges are used for some crimes. :shrug:

Cochise
04-02-2005, 11:34 PM
I would think that should fall under manslaughter.

Per the Val. penal code:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

[Manslaughter is...] unlawful killing of a human being without the malicious intent or premeditation, either express or implied, required for murder. Manslaughter is a reckless killing or one done in the heat of the moment. The cases of manslaughter may be classified as those killings resulting from: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:35 PM
Not a legal eagle by any means but it seems that this way the prosecution can get the perp to plea down to involuntary manslaughter and give them 5 years(?) versus charging them with involuntary manslaughter and them pleading down to something less.

It seems that most charges are usually pled down to something less, so at least this person will actually have to answer to what was the actual crime???

The justice system is so screwy in this country that it's hard to determine why certain charges are used for some crimes. :shrug:

He is on America's most wanted for being in a speed contest. They said that anyone participating is such an event will be charged with murder if anyone is killed even if they didn't do it. That's ****ed up. Every day I lose more and more respect for our legal system.

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:38 PM
I would think that should fall under manslaughter.

Per the Val. penal code:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

[Manslaughter is...] unlawful killing of a human being without the malicious intent or premeditation, either express or implied, required for murder. Manslaughter is a reckless killing or one done in the heat of the moment. The cases of manslaughter may be classified as those killings resulting from: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.

IT was enought o land him on America's Most Wanted and he never hit anyone he was just in a speed contest. You know how many speed contests I was in as a kid, many. I can't even imagine the other guy losing control and me getting charged with murder, what a joke.

Cochise
04-02-2005, 11:41 PM
IT was enought o land him on America's Most Wanted and he never hit anyone he was just in a speed contest. You know how many speed contests I was in as a kid, many. I can't even imagine the other guy losing control and me getting charged with murder, what a joke.

Charge the guy who did it with manslaughter... get the other guy for reckless something or other...

KS Smitty
04-02-2005, 11:42 PM
He is on America's most wanted for being in a speed contest. They said that anyone participating is such an event will be charged with murder if anyone is killed even if they didn't do it. That's ****ed up. Every day I lose more and more respect for our legal system.

I agree, that's way wrong. I agree that our legal system needs to re-evaluate what are heinous crimes (especially child molesters) and what aren't. Charging some dude for murder because they were racing and didn't expect a person to be in the roadway (I am assuming that's where the race was taking place) is just as wrong as letting Chester the Molester get a job as a custodian at the local grade school so he can scope out likely prospects. And NO WAY should that guy be on America's Most Wanted. Is the law you mentioned a federal law or just the state he was in?

J Diddy
04-02-2005, 11:45 PM
[QUOTE=KS Smitty]Charging some dude for murder because they were racing and didn't expect a person to be in the roadway QUOTE]


Yeah that's wrong.


Unless you're the person innocently walking across the roadway.

KS Smitty
04-02-2005, 11:48 PM
[QUOTE=KS Smitty]Charging some dude for murder because they were racing and didn't expect a person to be in the roadway QUOTE]


Yeah that's wrong.


Unless you're the person innocently walking across the roadway.

If they were racing, the sound of screaming engines should have given them ample warning. Don't get me wrong I'm sorry as hell someone died, that always sucks, but it's kind of like folks that get hit by trains...are they paying ANY attention to WTF is going on around them?

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:48 PM
Charge the guy who did it with manslaughter... get the other guy for reckless something or other...

I agree

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=KS Smitty]Charging some dude for murder because they were racing and didn't expect a person to be in the roadway QUOTE]


Yeah that's wrong.


Unless you're the person innocently walking across the roadway.

The other guy lost control of his vehicle adn hit a woman who was crossing a side street. I still don't know how you charge the other guy with murder that's freakin ridiculous.

KS Smitty
04-02-2005, 11:52 PM
If they were racing, the sound of screaming engines should have given them ample warning. Don't get me wrong I'm sorry as hell someone died, that always sucks, but it's kind of like folks that get hit by trains...are they paying ANY attention to WTF is going on around them?
And before we go too much further, I had a friend that I grew up with that got pasted by a car when he was flying up a "major arterial" way over the speed limit on his motorcycle and got hit by a car that pulled out in front of him because they had no idea he was going that fast. It certainly wasn't the cars' driver that hit him fault.

Bob Dole
04-02-2005, 11:56 PM
Unless you're the person innocently walking across the roadway.

Pedestrians are never innocent.

There's a reason they're not driving a car.

BIG_DADDY
04-02-2005, 11:59 PM
Charge the guy who did it with manslaughter... get the other guy for reckless something or other...

Wreckless endangerment and speed contest sopunds about right. What blew me away was they were talking about the dark underworld of high stakes gambling on these dangerous speed contests that kill innocent people all the time. I was like "you gotta be kidding". I guess is was another excuse for Walsh to call the guy a dirtball. He cracks me up when he does that. All the murders, child molester and various monsters out there and this guy who wants to race his car makes America's Most Wanted top 12. Whatthe****ever man.

elvomito
04-03-2005, 12:33 AM
...What blew me away was they were talking about the dark underworld of high stakes gambling on these dangerous speed contests...
they must use "the fast and furious" as training material

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 12:44 AM
they must use "the fast and furious" as training material

THE LAW scares me more than the criminals do at this point.

mikey23545
04-03-2005, 05:33 AM
Street Race Turns Fatal

On October 8, 2001, authorities say that Mustapha Atat and Aaron Reynolds were street racing at speeds of more than 100 mph near Lincoln Park. The two were allegedly both driving modified Mustangs with a bet of $12,000 to the winner of the race. Witnesses say that Reynold's car went out of control, crossed a sidewalk and struck three people. The accident killed Denise Jones and injured Eric Draw and Rodney Ricks.

Atat and Reynolds were charged with second degree murder, failure to stop at the scene of a serious personal injury accident and two counts of felonious driving and drag racing. During a raid at Atat's residence police were surprised to find that, although Atat received welfare, he owned a large home and several luxury cars. Prosecutors say that Atat has failed to appear in court. He's been on the run ever since.

RNR
04-03-2005, 08:41 AM
Charge the guy who did it with manslaughter... get the other guy for reckless something or other...
I agree the guy who did not hit anyone should be charged with reckless endangerment or something. The driver on the other hand should get life. We used to drag race as kids, and took it out of town. Even as youngsters we were smart enough to keep other people, cars, ect, out of harms way. To be doing it in town is pretty stupid IMO.

Bowser
04-03-2005, 08:52 AM
Pedestrians are never innocent.

There's a reason they're not driving a car.

Probablly wrecked their car in a street race.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 09:04 AM
Street Race Turns Fatal

On October 8, 2001, authorities say that Mustapha Atat and Aaron Reynolds were street racing at speeds of more than 100 mph near Lincoln Park. The two were allegedly both driving modified Mustangs with a bet of $12,000 to the winner of the race. Witnesses say that Reynold's car went out of control, crossed a sidewalk and struck three people. The accident killed Denise Jones and injured Eric Draw and Rodney Ricks.

Atat and Reynolds were charged with second degree murder, failure to stop at the scene of a serious personal injury accident and two counts of felonious driving and drag racing. During a raid at Atat's residence police were surprised to find that, although Atat received welfare, he owned a large home and several luxury cars. Prosecutors say that Atat has failed to appear in court. He's been on the run ever since.
**** the bastard. He's been livin' off welfare takin' my taxes? I hope he gets the chair.

In Colorado they have a law that states if you are involved in a felony crime and someone with you kills someone else, you also are charged with felony murder. It's not all felony crimes, but just ones that have a high tendency for violence, like robbery, assault, rape, etc. I don't know which crines it is though.

Anyway, I think he should get several years for it.

CosmicPal
04-03-2005, 09:46 AM
He will most likely get involuntary manslaughter.

You have to understand that this is a drag-race between two people. They both agreed to the race and both knowingly engaged in an illegal activity. If someone gets killed during the race, they are both at fault 'cause the prosecutor will simply prove that the race would never have occured if BOTH suspects did not agree to the race. Therefore, if one driver kills someone during the race- the other one is an immediate accomplice.

It's the same thing if I were to drive you to the bank. If you went in and robbed the bank and shot everyone inside, I'm an accomplice to that since I willingly drove you to the scene. Had I not driven you to the bank, they can say that the robbery and murders of innocent peeps would never have happened.

So, since you are willingly engaging in a drag race with another person- you thus make yourself vulnerable to any consequences that might occur. It sounds like BS, but the court will say that the race would not have occured if you didn't participate, and nobody would have died. Therefore, you are at fault as well.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 10:26 AM
Would there have been a murder charge if the driver hadn't taken off?
Probably not.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 10:28 AM
He will most likely get involuntary manslaughter.

You have to understand that this is a drag-race between two people. They both agreed to the race and both knowingly engaged in an illegal activity. If someone gets killed during the race, they are both at fault 'cause the prosecutor will simply prove that the race would never have occured if BOTH suspects did not agree to the race. Therefore, if one driver kills someone during the race- the other one is an immediate accomplice.

It's the same thing if I were to drive you to the bank. If you went in and robbed the bank and shot everyone inside, I'm an accomplice to that since I willingly drove you to the scene. Had I not driven you to the bank, they can say that the robbery and murders of innocent peeps would never have happened.

So, since you are willingly engaging in a drag race with another person- you thus make yourself vulnerable to any consequences that might occur. It sounds like BS, but the court will say that the race would not have occured if you didn't participate, and nobody would have died. Therefore, you are at fault as well.

Not necessarily. Not all states amend murder charges. Which is why some prosecutors are wary to charge with 1st degree (a horrible fault IMO). If charged with 1st degree and the jury cannot find justifiable reason that the defendant premeditated, but had irrevocable proof that the murderer did kill, he would be found not guilty.

For him to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, he would have to be charged with the crime before trial.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 10:30 AM
According to the article, they were both charged with 2nd degree. What are the main differences between 1st and 2nd? I'm assuming there is a slight difference in penalties, but I don't know the "definitions" of the two.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 10:31 AM
According to the article, they were both charged with 2nd degree. What are the main differences between 1st and 2nd? I'm assuming there is a slight difference in penalties, but I don't know the "definitions" of the two.
Premeditated vs not.

jspchief
04-03-2005, 10:35 AM
Unfortunately, thats how law works. They try and make punishments that are severe enough to deter people from commiting the crime. Unfortunately, most peole don't think they'll get caught (or don't consider the consequences of being caught) when they engage in criminal activity.

If that's the law, that's what the kid should be charged with. It's his own dumbass fault for racing, and then fleeing the scene of an accident. I'm sure it will be pleaded down anyway.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 10:36 AM
OK, well that fits better.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately, thats how law works. They try and make punishments that are severe enough to deter people from commiting the crime. Unfortunately, most peole don't think they'll get caught (or don't consider the consequences of being caught) when they engage in criminal activity.

If that's the law, that's what the kid should be charged with. It's his own dumbass fault for racing, and then fleeing the scene of an accident. I'm sure it will be pleaded down anyway.

Which is almost ALWAYS what happens. Had the dumbass actually stopped to check on the people hit, he probably wouldn't have been charged with anything. The fact that he ran after he knew people were injured showed that he was merely out for himself and didn't give a damn about anyone else who may need immediate medical attention due to his complicity.

Adept Havelock
04-03-2005, 10:59 AM
These two idiot drivers should have the book thrown at them. Murder may not be an appropriate (as I don't see how this qualifies as 2nd or 3rd degree) charge. Likely it's a plea bargin tactic from the prosecutor.

Let's hit them for Reckless Endangerment, Leaving the Scene of an accident, Vehicular Manslaughter, and anything else that applies.

Do the crime, do the time.
Just think of removing these idiots from the gene pool for a while as evolution in action.

Some people may want to whine that they are throwing the book at these fools. Tell that to the family of the deceased. I'll reserve my sympathy for them.

wazu
04-03-2005, 12:10 PM
The man who hit this woman took a life because he was being reckless and not considering the extreme danger that his actions could cause to others. A motor vehicle is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a fool.

Throw the book at him. I don't want him on the road ever again.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 12:13 PM
These two idiot drivers should have the book thrown at them. Murder may not be an appropriate (as I don't see how this qualifies as 2nd or 3rd degree) charge. Likely it's a plea bargin tactic from the prosecutor.

Let's hit them for Reckless Endangerment, Leaving the Scene of an accident, Vehicular Manslaughter, and anything else that applies.

Do the crime, do the time.
Just think of removing these idiots from the gene pool for a while as evolution in action.

Some people may want to whine that they are throwing the book at these fools. Tell that to the family of the deceased. I'll reserve my sympathy for them.
Exactly. Our liberal society is on a bent to the extreme of defending the poor poor slob who committed a crime while totally denying the victim. Let's be honest, this idiot didn't leave a dying woman because he was afraid of being charged with murder, he left because he thought he could get away with it.

Rain Man
04-03-2005, 12:16 PM
If someone is being a brainless bonehead and kills a completely innocent person, they should be punished for it. Put the guy in prison for a few years, and then make him give up 80 percent of his income to the victim's family for the rest of his life. Give him just enough to keep from starving.

If he destroys someone else's life by being stupid, then his life should be destroyed in return.

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 12:16 PM
Wasn't it last week you basically came out against perjury?

jspchief
04-03-2005, 12:38 PM
Wasn't it last week you basically came out against perjury?
No. He was for perjury. He's against punishing people for perjury.

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 12:43 PM
No. He was for perjury. He's against punishing people for perjury.
Heh, when I wrote it I was thinking of...."the idea of perjury being a part of our court system. But yes, you described it better.

Wacky intraweb.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 12:53 PM
Probably not.

I already said yes. They said on the show that anyone involved in these type of activities will be charged with murder if someone is killed. It's complete crap.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 12:58 PM
Unfortunately, thats how law works. They try and make punishments that are severe enough to deter people from commiting the crime. Unfortunately, most peole don't think they'll get caught (or don't consider the consequences of being caught) when they engage in criminal activity.

If that's the law, that's what the kid should be charged with. It's his own dumbass fault for racing, and then fleeing the scene of an accident. I'm sure it will be pleaded down anyway.

That kind of thought is very scary. What's next making jay walking a felony punishble by 10 years in prison? "If that's the law, that's what the kid should be charged with. It's his own dumbass fault for walking across the street like that in an undesignated zone" :rolleyes:

What makes this worse is it encourages people to take off and not try and help someone in the very rare event that something should happen.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:00 PM
I already said yes. They said on the show that anyone involved in these type of activities will be charged with murder if someone is killed. It's complete crap.
Charged and convicted are two separate issues. You guys with your bent against any type of law enforcement always used "charged" as an excuse. We have repeatedly shown that those initially charged with a crime are rarely convicted of the initial charge.

Also let's consider the victim, er I mean offender. Do you think he knew the person was dead? I sincerely doubt even a doctor could make that determination from a high speed vehicle passing by. Are you stating it was more important for him to run than to see if he could help another human being live due to his own foolishness?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:00 PM
If someone is being a brainless bonehead and kills a completely innocent person, they should be punished for it. Put the guy in prison for a few years, and then make him give up 80 percent of his income to the victim's family for the rest of his life. Give him just enough to keep from starving.

If he destroys someone else's life by being stupid, then his life should be destroyed in return.

Were not even talking about that guy dude, were talking about the person who just raced his car and hurt nobody. Were talking about tge law justifying charging both of the these people with the same crimes.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:02 PM
What makes this worse is it encourages people to take off and not try and help someone in the very rare event that something should happen.
If you are encouraged to run away when a person is dying due to your own stupidity, then you deserve to be locked up from reasonable human beings.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:02 PM
If that dumbass tries to walk accross a 5 lane highway (yes I have seen this before) and causes a mulit-vehicle pile up, hell yes the dumbass should fry.

I just think we (at least me as I didn't see the show) are missing a lot of information. The fact that the asshole was betting $12,000 on the race, lives in a nice house with multiple vehicles, and collects welfare is case in point.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:04 PM
Charged and convicted are two separate issues. You guys with your bent against any type of law enforcement always used "charged" as an excuse. We have repeatedly shown that those initially charged with a crime are rarely convicted of the initial charge.

Also let's consider the victim, er I mean offender. Do you think he knew the person was dead? I sincerely doubt even a doctor could make that determination from a high speed vehicle passing by. Are you stating it was more important for him to run than to see if he could help another human being live due to his own foolishness?
Don't forget, the guy hit THREE people. He could have rendered assistance to the other two that did live.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:07 PM
Don't forget, the guy hit THREE people. He could have rendered assistance to the other two that did live.
The one who died may have lived if he had stopped. We'll never know.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:08 PM
Charged and convicted are two separate issues. You guys with your bent against any type of law enforcement always used "charged" as an excuse. We have repeatedly shown that those initially charged with a crime are rarely convicted of the initial charge.

Also let's consider the victim, er I mean offender. Do you think he knew the person was dead? I sincerely doubt even a doctor could make that determination from a high speed vehicle passing by. Are you stating it was more important for him to run than to see if he could help another human being live due to his own foolishness?

Two seperate issues

1. I am not for creating laws that are so draconian in nature that everyone feels they need to plead guilty whether they are or not because they will lose their entire life if they are found guilty. Another bad side effect of the ridiculous overdone nature of the charge it creates and atmosphere where people need to bail rather than stay and try to help and face a reasonable charge.

2. Leaving her there to die is terrible and he should charged with something serious for doing it. I do understand why he did it though considering the outrageous nature of what he was facing.

2. Leaving the scene

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:09 PM
Don't forget, the guy hit THREE people. He could have rendered assistance to the other two that did live.

I just addressed that. If you and your buddy decided to have a little race and he ****ed up and hit somebody and you knew you were now facing a murder charge would you stay?

jspchief
04-03-2005, 01:10 PM
That kind of thought is very scary. What's next making jay walking a felony punishble by 10 years in prison?

What do you suggest? That's how laws have worked for centuries. If the punishment doesn't deter the crime, you increase the punishment.

You seem to want the punishment to fit your idea of what is fair.

I think that if a jury of this driver's peers don't think he's guilty of murder, he won't be convicted of it. That's what keeps it fair. The DA can charge him with whatever the hell he deems fit, the jury will determine if it fits his actions.

jspchief
04-03-2005, 01:11 PM
I just addressed that. If you and your buddy decided to have a little race and he ****ed up and hit somebody and you knew you were now facing a murder charge would you stay?

If they are stupid enough to think they are better off fleeing, that's their own problem.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:12 PM
Two seperate issues

1. I am not for creating laws that are so draconian in nature that everyone feels they need to plead guilty whether they are or not because they will lose their entire life if they are found guilty. Another bad side effect of the ridiculous overdone nature of the charge it creates and atmosphere where people need to bail rather than stay and try to help and face a reasonable charge.

2. Leaving her there to die is terrible and he should charged with something serious for doing it. I do understand why he did it though considering the outrageous nature of what he was facing.

2. Leaving the scene
No one said he had to plead anything. Should he be charged with murder? Obviously not. But I guarantee he didn't run because his first thought was "gee that other guy committed murder, I had better run or I will be charged as well".

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:14 PM
Well, I don't think I'm stupid enough to get in to that position in the first place, but yeah, I would have stayed.

Had I been racing for a living and defrauding the government I would likely be a less moral person to begin with and left.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:15 PM
The one who died may have lived if he had stopped. We'll never know.

Why isn't anyone mad about a law on the books that creats an atmosphere where people must run? :shrug:

I don't know about you guys but I used to do speed contests when I was a kid. I can't even imagine being charged with murder.

Wait and see what new laws they impliment next. They were talking on the show about the amount of horsepower these cars produce like they think it would be a good idea to pass some legislation to stop this sort of thing. They did it with motorcycles awhile back not wanting them to exceed a certain speed whent h ZX-12 came out. Maybe they should just outlaw all fun and we can be done with it.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:17 PM
Why isn't anyone mad about a law on the books that creats an atmosphere where people must run? :shrug:

I don't know about you guys but I used to do speed contests when I was a kid. I can't even imagine being charged with murder.

Wait and see what new laws they impliment next. They were talking on the show about the amount of horsepower these cars produce like they think it would be a good idea to pass some legislation to stop this sort of thing. They did it with motorcycles awhile back not wanting them to exceed a certain speed whent h ZX-12 came out. Maybe they should just outlaw all fun and we can be done with it.
Why must you run?

No matter what I was involved in, if I witnessed a grievously injured human being and I could be instrumental in saving that person's life and I chose not to - then I honestly don't deserve the outrage you are giving. Murder charges be damned - I was instrumental in hurting another human being, there is no excuse for running away.

Both people who ran are scum, period.

Oh, and the same limits to engines were noted in the early 70s, it didn't happen then, it won't now.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:18 PM
No one said he had to plead anything. Should he be charged with murder? Obviously not. But I guarantee he didn't run because his first thought was "gee that other guy committed murder, I had better run or I will be charged as well".

You know exactly what I am saying and your avoiding addressing it, all of it.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:18 PM
You know exactly what I am saying and your avoiding addressing it, all of it.
No, I just believe it is not as important as a woman bleeding to death on the ground.

Obviously, you and I have seriously different priorities in life.

jspchief
04-03-2005, 01:19 PM
If the punishment is so bad that they had to run, and they were aware of it, why was the punishment not so bad that they simply would not commit the crime in the first place?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:23 PM
Why must you run?

No matter what I was involved in, if I witnessed a grievously injured human being and I could be instrumental in saving that person's life and I chose not to - then I honestly don't deserve the outrage you are giving. Murder charges be damned - I was instrumental in hurting another human being, there is no excuse for running away.

Both people who ran are scum, period.

Oh, and the same limits to engines were noted in the early 70s, it didn't happen then, it won't now.

I am not used to you skirting issues. The issue was charging him with murder for being in a speed contest where someone dies and whether this is a good idea considering the atmosphere this type of law creates. What he should be charged with for leaving her there is an entirely seperate issue and does not justify having a ridiculous law like that. Why do you always side with seriously stupid overlegisaltion?

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 01:24 PM
I don't know about you guys but I used to do speed contests when I was a kid. I can't even imagine being charged with murder.
That seems to be the basis of a lot of your analysis of the law.
"I did this, and it was fun, and I can't imagine getting in trouble for it."

Thing is, drag racing is dangerous and often results in people dying.
Lawmakers got tired of it and started passing laws prohibiting it.
The laws weren't enough of a deterrent and people continued to die.
Lawmakers made stronger punishments.
Eventually, they decided to make all those who participate in a drag racing incident responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise out of it.
Don't like it? Don't DRAG RACE!!!! Can't you see that they're trying to deter you? Do you feel you have the RIGHT as a MERKIN to engage in this dangerous behavior without consequence?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:25 PM
No, I just believe it is not as important as a woman bleeding to death on the ground.

Obviously, you and I have seriously different priorities in life.

Your skirting the issue again. Bringing up my priorities is a low blow and completely uncalled for. Why can't you address the nature of this type of law without hurling rocks at me personally?

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 01:26 PM
I am not used to you skirting issues. The issue was charging him with murder for being in a speed contest where someone dies and whether this is a good idea considering the atmosphere this type of law creates. What he should be charged with for leaving her there is an entirely seperate issue and does not justify having a ridiculous law like that. Why do you always side with seriously stupid overlegisaltion?
Only an idiot would hear that "if someone dies while you are drag racing, you are responsible even if it wasn't your car that killed them" and respond "well, I better keep drag racing, and get ready to hightail it if the other guy kills somebody."

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 01:27 PM
Your skirting the issue again. Bringing up my priorities is a low blow and completely uncalled for. Why can't you address the nature of this type of law without hurling rocks at me personally?
Sorry, you saw it that way.

The law seems sound to me, for exactly the reason that occurred. The scumbag ran instead of helping a dying woman. If he hadn't been breaking the law, she wouldn't have died.

Seems damned simple to me.

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 01:27 PM
Why can't you address the nature of this type of law without hurling rocks at me personally?
heh

Why do you always side with seriously stupid overlegisaltion?

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 01:29 PM
If the punishment is so bad that they had to run, and they were aware of it, why was the punishment not so bad that they simply would not commit the crime in the first place?
Because BD has been drag racing, and it is FUUU-UUUNNN!!!!

And everybody knows fuuu-uuunnn stuff shouldn't be illegal.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I meant 'engaged in a speed contest.'

Rain Man
04-03-2005, 01:32 PM
Why isn't anyone mad about a law on the books that creates an atmosphere where people must run? :shrug:



Don't laws against shooting someone have that same impact?


I think it would be really fun to fire catapults. If I had a catapult, though, I'd only fire it in areas where it's not going to have a chance of killing anyone. If I fired my catapult in central Denver, I'd kind of be asking for trouble. So why is this guy drag racing in some place other than a drag strip?

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:45 PM
If the punishment is so bad that they had to run, and they were aware of it, why was the punishment not so bad that they simply would not commit the crime in the first place?
BINGO!!!

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:47 PM
Don't laws against shooting someone have that same impact?


I think it would be really fun to fire catapults. If I had a catapult, though, I'd only fire it in areas where it's not going to have a chance of killing anyone. If I fired my catapult in central Denver, I'd kind of be asking for trouble. So why is this guy drag racing in some place other than a drag strip?
I believe there is a waiver in the law stating that if you hit a Starbuck's you are no longer liable as the greater good has been performed.

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 01:50 PM
I believe there is a waiver in the law stating that if you hit a Starbuck's you are no longer liable as the greater good has been performed.
ROFL

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 01:50 PM
That seems to be the basis of a lot of your analysis of the law.
"I did this, and it was fun, and I can't imagine getting in trouble for it."

No, I just can't imagine being charged with murder for simply engaging in a race where I didn't personally hit or kill anyone. I'll bet there isn't another country in the world that has a law like this on their books irregarless of how unfair their legal system is.

Thing is, drag racing is dangerous and often results in people dying. ? Often, OK. We have a street behind where I live now and that's where kids race, 3rd Avenue. All the years I have been here I have yet to hear of anyone getting hurt of dying. I saw many races as a kid too. When I was real young they had a track for it but people thought it was dangerous to let kids on the track so they passed legislation to keep them off of there. Naturally it just went to the street. Nobody around us then ever got killed too. I would say often is a bit overdone considering there are thousands of these races around the country every night. It's more popular than it has ever been.

Lawmakers got tired of it and started passing laws prohibiting it.
The laws weren't enough of a deterrent and people continued to die.
Lawmakers made stronger punishments.
Eventually, they decided to make all those who participate in a drag racing incident responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise out of it.
Don't like it? Don't DRAG RACE!!!! Can't you see that they're trying to deter you? Do you feel you have the RIGHT as a MERKIN to engage in this dangerous behavior without consequence?

Were tired of enforcing the laws so we will make draconian laws that encourage people to leave the scene and let people die. If you don't like it that's just too bad. Whatever floats you boat man. Personally I think an approved stretch of pavement for kids to race on would be the answer but I suppose there are those that find that uncivilzied.

LiL stumppy
04-03-2005, 01:52 PM
Isn't manslaughter and Murder a different thing?

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 01:53 PM
Isn't manslaughter and Murder a different thing?
Yes.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 01:54 PM
Isn't manslaughter and Murder a different thing?
Only in name and in penalty. Either way, someone died.

LiL stumppy
04-03-2005, 01:55 PM
Shouldn't he be charged with manslaughter instead of Murder then?I thought man slaughter was cases like these.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 01:57 PM
So if I'm in a gun battle in the middle of downtown and happen to hit NOTHING with all 50 shots (yes, my aim is bad), but the man I'm battling kills an innocent bystander than I should expect no more than a $50 fine for discharge of a firearm within city limits?

Come on BD, you have to realize there are always penalties for accomplices.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Shouldn't he be charged with manslaughter instead of Murder then?I thought man slaughter was cases like these.
No. He got behind the wheel knowing that his actions could cause harm or even death to others. That's called premeditation.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 01:58 PM
So if I'm in a gun battle in the middle of downtown and happen to hit NOTHING with all 50 shots (yes, my aim is bad), but the man I'm battling kills an innocent bystander than I should expect no more than a $50 fine for discharge of a firearm within city limits?

Come on BD, you have to realize there are always penalties for accomplices.
i.e. the driver of the getaway car from a bank robbery.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 01:59 PM
Personally I think an approved stretch of pavement for kids to race on would be the answer but I suppose there are those that find that uncivilzied.
They're called drag strips. They exist all over the place. But they cost money, and you have to wait your turn, and wear a helmet, and all that godawful Gov't SH!T!!!

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:01 PM
No. He got behind the wheel knowing that his actions could cause harm or even death to others. That's called premeditation.
Actually, that's called reckless indifference.

Premeditation would be making sure the person was gonna be on the sidelines, making sure you could pick her out as you were speeding down the stretch, and purposely targeting her with your car.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 02:03 PM
Actually, that's called reckless indifference.

Premeditation would be making sure the person was gonna be on the sidelines, making sure you could pick her out as you were speeding down the stretch, and purposely targeting her with your car.
Dude, I'm on your side. Why you gotta be like that? :p

Point is, he didnt accidentally find himself behind the wheel.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Sorry, you saw it that way.

The law seems sound to me, for exactly the reason that occurred. The scumbag ran instead of helping a dying woman. If he hadn't been breaking the law, she wouldn't have died.

Seems damned simple to me.

You continue to address the whole issue instead breaking down the implimentation of this law. If you were to allow that to happen we would have something to talk about. You do this on purpose and already fully understand my point but refuse to aknowlege it. I understand why people get frusterated trying to discuss issues with you when your like this. I think we had another discussion once that went just like this one and I reached the same conclusion. When the person you are discussing an issue with makes it a priority to try and win instead of trying to actually talk about the finer points of something the conversation is worthless.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 02:07 PM
Personally I think an approved stretch of pavement for kids to race on would be the answer but I suppose there are those that find that uncivilzied.
They're called drag strips. They exist all over the place. But they cost money, and you have to wait your turn, and wear a helmet, and all that godawful Gov't SH!T!!!
Exactly. Using BD's theory, it would be fine and dandy to set up a shooting range in the back alley instead of going to an approved shooting range. Let the general public be damned if a stray bullet happens to kill a toddler a few houses over.

These laws are designed to PROTECT the general public. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for some people?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:08 PM
So if I'm in a gun battle in the middle of downtown and happen to hit NOTHING with all 50 shots (yes, my aim is bad), but the man I'm battling kills an innocent bystander than I should expect no more than a $50 fine for discharge of a firearm within city limits?

Come on BD, you have to realize there are always penalties for accomplices.

I never said there shouldn't be a penalty. MOF I think he should be in serious trouble for leaving. My issue was justifying charging somebody with murder for simply being in a speed contest. Leaving someone on the pavement is a seperate issue that should be discussed seperately. I think the law is very bad because it encourages people to leave the scene when somebody is hurt or dying. Passing draconian laws is never the answer to the problem.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Dude, I'm on your side. Why you gotta be like that? :p
Ummm, because words. . mean. . uhh. . . things?? :p


Seriously, not busting on ya. Just making sure the nomenclature is tight.

MoF, my crimlaw in this area is rusty, but I have the notion that the term reckless indifference wouldn't apply to this particular situation, as it appears to be a violation of a specific statute [ie, if someone's killed in the course of a race. . . ]. Reckless indifference indicates something that isn't necessarily against the law, but you go about it so negligently that you should be criminally responsible for harm. Say selling gallons of milk, or fish, or poultry out the back of your truck that have been sitting in the sun all day.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 02:10 PM
IMy issue was justifying charging somebody with murder for simply being in a speed contest.
Ths is really easy to explain.

SPEED CONTESTS ARE ILLEGAL EXCEPT ON APPROVED RACE TRACKS!!!

Why can't you understand that?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:12 PM
They're called drag strips. They exist all over the place. But they cost money, and you have to wait your turn, and wear a helmet, and all that godawful Gov't SH!T!!!

Yea well they used the one we had where I grew up until some mamby pamby candy ass overly protective, overly concerned citizens thought it was unsafe to allow kids to drag race. After that they took it to the street.

The government still owns 70% of the land in this country. It costs nothing to lay down some pavement and say race out there if your going to.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:12 PM
My issue was justifying charging somebody with murder for simply being in a speed contest.
Because 'speed contests' are dangerous, have resulted in deaths, and the lawmakers are determined to stop them from occurring in unregulated areas.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:13 PM
Ths is really easy to explain.

SPEED CONTESTS ARE ILLEGAL EXCEPT ON APPROVED RACE TRACKS!!!

Why can't you understand that?


I have explained it numerous times on here dude.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:15 PM
Yea well they used the one we had where I grew up until some mamby pamby candy ass overly protective, overly concerned citizens thought it was unsafe to allow kids to drag race. After that they took it to the street.
That's your take, my suspicions are insurance companies heard about it, and either hiked the insurance for the owners of the land, or hiked the insurance for participants.
And besides, if people think it's too dangerous to do in a controlled environment, your solution is to let them do it wherever they want?

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 02:16 PM
I have explained it numerous times on here dude.
Explain it all you like. The FACT is, it's illegal. Doing something ILLEGEAL is called COMMITTING A CRIME. When one commits a crime, there is a PENALATY to pay.

You may not like ceratin laws but it does not exempt you from them or their penalties for breaking those laws.

LiL stumppy
04-03-2005, 02:17 PM
No. He got behind the wheel knowing that his actions could cause harm or even death to others. That's called premeditation.



Oh, I see :thumb:

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:17 PM
Because 'speed contests' are dangerous, have resulted in deaths, and the lawmakers are determined to stop them from occurring in unregulated areas.

Draconian laws never work, look at our war on drugs. Drag racing has never been more popular irregarless of these laws and I know several kids out here that have their hopped up little rice burners they race. Our incarceration rate in this country is off the scales. Continuing to impliment more stupid laws isn't helping anyone.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:19 PM
Draconian laws never work, look at our war on drugs. Drag racing has never been more popular irregarless of these laws and I know several kids out here that have their hopped up little rice burners they race. Our incarceration rate in this country is off the scales. Continuing to impliment more stupid laws isn't helping anyone.
Talk about just wanting to 'win' rather than discuss. You've been inundated with reasonable explanations for what's going on, and your response is a mumbled "it's still stoopid."

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:20 PM
Explain it all you like. The FACT is, it's illegal. Doing something ILLEGEAL is called COMMITTING A CRIME. When one commits a crime, there is a PENALATY to pay.

You may not like ceratin laws but it does not exempt you from them or their penalties for breaking those laws.

I fully understand that dude, I just don't see laws like this working and think they are stupid. It encourages people to leave somebody behind dying. Charging some kid for murder for racing isn't going to do our society any good either.

4th and Long
04-03-2005, 02:23 PM
Draconian laws never work
Do you even know what a Draconian law is? Draconian laws had NOTHING to do with irresponsible acts that lead to the deaths of innocent people.

Draconian law stated that death was made the penalty for every tiny crime, even the stealing of an apple from an orchard.

Running over an innocent individual with your car, who was minding their own business and killing them dead on the spot is hardly comparable to Draconian law.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:31 PM
Running over an innocent individual with your car, who was minding their own business and killing them dead on the spot is hardly comparable to Draconian law.
The other guy hit her.
BD thinks it's Draconian to expect kids to know how good a driver the person they're going up against is.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:33 PM
Talk about just wanting to 'win' rather than discuss. You've been inundated with reasonable explanations for what's going on, and your response is a mumbled "it's still stoopid."

That's not true or far\ir but if it makes you feel better to say it.

No, I have said much more than that over and over.

1. It encourages people to leave the scene of an accident where somebody may die now as a result of having this draconian law.

2. Draconian laws never work as is evidenced by drag racing never being more popular than it is now or just look at the war on drugs if you need more convincing.

3. Locking this person up long term on a murder beef does society not good. It is extremely expensive and by the time he gets out he will be a career criminal as nobody is going to hire the dreaded murderer. Funny thing is most of the kids I know that have these cars are great kids. Work hard, good natured tax paying citizens. The cost to society of putting kids like this on the other end of the balance sheet is staggering. Just look at the war on drugs again if you need more evidence of this.

4. Another bad side effect of a law like this is once someone knows they are facing a murder charge you now have somebody who is very dangerous to law enforcement as well for no reason. This is the same problem I had before they modified the 3 strikes law. The last thing I wanted for my sister was to get wasted by some druggy because he didn't want to face his 3rd strike on a stupid law.

The 1st issue is the biggest. I have said it over and over yet nobody has addressed that yet including you with your. "IT'S THE LAW AND THE LAW IS THE LAW, WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND" answer.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 02:33 PM
I never said there shouldn't be a penalty. MOF I think he should be in serious trouble for leaving. My issue was justifying charging somebody with murder for simply being in a speed contest. Leaving someone on the pavement is a seperate issue that should be discussed seperately. I think the law is very bad because it encourages people to leave the scene when somebody is hurt or dying. Passing draconian laws is never the answer to the problem.
And I don't believe he left the scene due to the law.

That is where our difference of opinion begins. You seem to think that a drag racer charged off the scene because he was afraid of being charged with murder. There is no proof or evidence to sustain the belief.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:40 PM
1. It encourages people to leave the scene of an accident where somebody may die now as a result of having this draconian law.
Racing in an unregulated environment where people are in the line of flight a serious crime, and should have serious consequences. When people do things with dire consequences, the importance of deterring them overrides the possibility of them being scared of the consequences and fleeing.

2. Draconian laws never work as is evidenced by drag racing never being more popular than it is now or just look at the war on drugs if you need more convincing.
Again, how fuuu-uunnn something is, is secondary to how dangerous it is to society, and the lengths we are obliged to go to deter it.

3. Locking this person up long term on a murder beef does society not good. It is extremely expensive and by the time he gets out he will be a career criminal as nobody is going to hire the dreaded murderer. Funny thing is most of the kids I know that have these cars are great kids. Work hard, good natured tax paying citizens. The cost to society of putting kids like this on the other end of the balance sheet is staggering. Just look at the war on drugs again if you need more evidence of this.
It does society good to deter behavior that runs this much of a risk of killing people. If they're such good kids, they'll pony up to find a safe place to race, insure the area and themselves, and make sure the proper safety precautions are implemented.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:42 PM
Do you even know what a Draconian law is? Draconian laws had NOTHING to do with irresponsible acts that lead to the deaths of innocent people.

Draconian law stated that death was made the penalty for every tiny crime, even the stealing of an apple from an orchard.

Running over an innocent individual with your car, who was minding their own business and killing them dead on the spot is hardly comparable to Draconian law.

I think it is. Obviously it's the whole BB is against me on this issue. Nobody has even addressed the part about this encouraging people to leave others behind to die part yet either. I'm getting out of here to work out. I need a break after this. Maybe I can find someone who wants to race my Toyota pickup on the way down there. :)

In closing for now I will just say that I always thought he should face charges and a very serious one for leaving with her on the pavement. I still see no validation in charging a person for just racing with murder though. It takes an attorney or law maker to try and validate that kind of shit. Even stranger to me is the fact that we have people out there who are mass murders, terrorists and the like and this guy makes America's Most Wanted Top 12. WTF is that all about?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:43 PM
And I don't believe he left the scene due to the law.

That is where our difference of opinion begins. You seem to think that a drag racer charged off the scene because he was afraid of being charged with murder. There is no proof or evidence to sustain the belief.

I got 3 words for you Russ "TWO SEPERATE ISSUES"

jspchief
04-03-2005, 02:45 PM
So basically, only the guy that screws up in the drag race should get in trouble.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 02:46 PM
I got 3 words for you Russ "TWO SEPERATE ISSUES"
IF they are separate issues and you don't want to discuss it, why do you keep bringing it up?

Is it any wonder people take off and leave people like that, they don't have any choice
Yes, which forces people to leave, it's stupid.
What makes this worse is it encourages people to take off and not try and help someone in the very rare event that something should happen.
If you and your buddy decided to have a little race and he ****ed up and hit somebody and you knew you were now facing a murder charge would you stay?

jspchief
04-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Ok Big Daddy, how about this...

Getaway drivers for bank robbers, when the robbery resulted in the death of a security guard. What do you think the driver should be charged with?

Rain Man
04-03-2005, 02:52 PM
While I think Big Daddy is on the far edge of the bell curve on this one, I will agree with him on a point.

You have to kill someone to be charged with murder.

If he's saying that the SECOND driver is being wanted for "murder," that's not right. The second driver should be charged with reckless endangerment, fleeing the scene of a fatal accident, not rendering aid to a nearby person, not reporting a murder, perhaps being an accessory to a murder, and probably fifty other crimes, he shouldn't be charged with murder.

With "crimes of stupidity", putting someone in prison is a losing proposition for everybody. Were these racers stupid? Yes. Should society be protected from their future stupidity? Yes. The question is whether there's another punishment that will help out the victim's family while not throwing them into the clink to consort with people who have committed "crimes of evil intent."

I'm not sure what the answer is, because you probably can't keep people like this from driving or otherwise endangering innocent people. If you could, maybe you could work out a system like I mentioned earlier - require them to turn over $XX dollars per month to the victim's family for the next 50 years, and never drive a car again.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:55 PM
Racing in an unregulated environment where people are in the line of flight a serious crime, and should have serious consequences. When people do things with dire consequences, the importance of deterring them overrides the possibility of them being scared of the consequences and fleeing.


Again, how fuuu-uunnn something is, is secondary to how dangerous it is to society, and the lengths we are obliged to go to deter it.


It does society good to deter behavior that runs this much of a risk of killing people. If they're such good kids, they'll pony up to find a safe place to race, insure the area and themselves, and make sure the proper safety precautions are implemented.

You deserve a longer answer than what I am going to give you here but thanks for being the fiest one to address my concern after all of this. I saw the video and that area of street certainly looked like nobody would be there. I don't expect that Walsh guy to give me the straight story either. I wonder if she was there to see the race and actually is partailly responsible for her own situation. I guess we will never know because that Walsh guy always refers the most wanted as dirt balls and the victim as being and angel in this world who's life was suddenly and viciously snuffed out. I also wonder if this includes being responsible for the other driver as well. For example I am racing him in an area with no people around and he loses control flips his car and dies. Am I up on a murder wrap for that too? It certainly sounded like it based upon the way they said this works last night. All I know is these kids race all the time. It won't be long before all of them know what their facing and they all leave people to die when something goes wrong. That in the end will be the effect of the law.

The cost of locking up just one person and ruining their entire life is enough money to put down pavement in many areas.

Rain Man
04-03-2005, 02:55 PM
Ok Big Daddy, how about this...

Getaway drivers for bank robbers, when the robbery resulted in the death of a security guard. What do you think the driver should be charged with?

Truthfully, I think that's a little bit different. In the getaway car, the entire group is attempting to victimize another party. They're all willingly committing a crime that's intended to hurt another party.

In the street racing example, it's just a bunch of mouth-breathers who are committing a crime, but a crime that is usually (not always) victimless. A more relevant example might be a person who drives someone to pick up a prostitute, and then their friend kills the prostitute. Should they be charged with murder?

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 02:55 PM
Anyway I am out of here for now

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 02:56 PM
Ok Big Daddy, how about this...

Getaway drivers for bank robbers, when the robbery resulted in the death of a security guard. What do you think the driver should be charged with?
Actually, something more extreme happened in Riverside MO about 5 or 6 years ago.

Two drug dealers went to buy drugs from sting Federal Agents. They were both armed, but only one went to the hotel room to buy the drugs. He drew on the Federal agents and they shot him. When they confronted the guy in the car waiting for the deal to go down, he drew on the officers but did not fire when he saw he was outnumbered. He was charged and convicted with the murder of his own partner in crime.

Now, the mandatory "if drugs weren't illegal" crap will come from some on this board, but as BD is want to say, that is a separate issue. The fact is that two men willing to kill other people over profit are either dead or jailed - personally, I find that satisfying for my neighborhood.

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 02:58 PM
While I think Big Daddy is on the far edge of the bell curve on this one, I will agree with him on a point.

You have to kill someone to be charged with murder.

If he's saying that the SECOND driver is being wanted for "murder," that's not right. The second driver should be charged with reckless endangerment, fleeing the scene of a fatal accident, not rendering aid to a nearby person, not reporting a murder, perhaps being an accessory to a murder, and probably fifty other crimes, he shouldn't be charged with murder.

With "crimes of stupidity", putting someone in prison is a losing proposition for everybody. Were these racers stupid? Yes. Should society be protected from their future stupidity? Yes. The question is whether there's another punishment that will help out the victim's family while not throwing them into the clink to consort with people who have committed "crimes of evil intent."

I'm not sure what the answer is, because you probably can't keep people like this from driving or otherwise endangering innocent people. If you could, maybe you could work out a system like I mentioned earlier - require them to turn over $XX dollars per month to the victim's family for the next 50 years, and never drive a car again.
The question though, given the manner in which these races take place, on city streets, with the onlookers so close to the action, is this a crime of stupidity or simply a crime?
If this were the first time this had happened, and there was no legislation on the books outlining the crime and it's punishment, I'd possibly be in the same boat, but the link between racing and fatality has been sufficiently established to give rise to the law, and the racers have had an opportunity to be given notice of said law. And that takes their conduct from the realm of 'those wacky kids' to 'criminals, responsible for the consequences of their actions.'

Baby Lee
04-03-2005, 03:01 PM
All I know is these kids race all the time. It won't be long before all of them know what their facing and they all leave people to die when something goes wrong. That in the end will be the effect of the law.
And like I said, if their response to knowing what they're facing, and their response it to continue to race and prepare to flee, instead of stopping racing or finding an approved venue, they're idiots. Fug 'em.

el borracho
04-03-2005, 03:23 PM
The government still owns 70% of the land in this country. It costs nothing to lay down some pavement and say race out there if your going to.
It costs a lot of money to send police/fire/medical assistance to the accidents which would surely occur. Anyway, there are legit tracks where one could pay to race, there is no reason the government should provide a free track.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 03:28 PM
Several things not mentioned on this thread yet:

#1. Crazy Moe, the guy charged with the crime is a welfare recipient, yet had 4 hot rods in his name on his property when they went to arrest him.

#2. His house had 30 lbs of heroin hidden in the floorboards.

#3. He was racing for 10,000, yet he is on welfare?

#4. Mustapha Atat (aka Crazy Mo) is 30 years old

#5. The officers at the scene (yup, cops were watching the race) have been charged with several felonious crimes as well.


This is not the case of a couple of wild and crazy teenagers just deciding to see who can pull to the next stoplight. And before BD says they are separate issues, I am aware. But the description BD has used to note the criminals and the crime are simply not accurate.

Yes, it is horrendous that someone can be charged with murder even they are not a direct party to the crime. No, I don't give a damn if Atat is locked away forever and won't lose a seconds sleep on a drug dealing welfare scabbing thief.

BD - I agree that the charge was extreme, but you aren't going to garner any sympathy with the scab in question.

|Zach|
04-03-2005, 03:30 PM
I don't know a single person who street races.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 04:08 PM
Truthfully, I think that's a little bit different. In the getaway car, the entire group is attempting to victimize another party. They're all willingly committing a crime that's intended to hurt another party.

In the street racing example, it's just a bunch of mouth-breathers who are committing a crime, but a crime that is usually (not always) victimless. A more relevant example might be a person who drives someone to pick up a prostitute, and then their friend kills the prostitute. Should they be charged with murder?
Sorry Rain Man, gotta disagree here.

The reason street racing IS A CRIME, is because of the potential for harm and serious injury.

unlurking
04-03-2005, 04:10 PM
Several things not mentioned on this thread yet:

#1. Crazy Moe, the guy charged with the crime is a welfare recipient, yet had 4 hot rods in his name on his property when they went to arrest him.

#2. His house had 30 lbs of heroin hidden in the floorboards.

#3. He was racing for 10,000, yet he is on welfare?

#4. Mustapha Atat (aka Crazy Mo) is 30 years old

#5. The officers at the scene (yup, cops were watching the race) have been charged with several felonious crimes as well.


This is not the case of a couple of wild and crazy teenagers just deciding to see who can pull to the next stoplight. And before BD says they are separate issues, I am aware. But the description BD has used to note the criminals and the crime are simply not accurate.

Yes, it is horrendous that someone can be charged with murder even they are not a direct party to the crime. No, I don't give a damn if Atat is locked away forever and won't lose a seconds sleep on a drug dealing welfare scabbing thief.

BD - I agree that the charge was extreme, but you aren't going to garner any sympathy with the scab in question.
Very good points. Someone mentioned the welfare, gambling, and street rods earlier, but the heroin is new to me.

Come on BD. You know this guy isn't running because he is afraid of a murder charge. Hell, I bet he didn't even think of it. He is running because he is a CAREER CRIMINAL.

chiefs4me
04-03-2005, 04:32 PM
I could care less what happens to anybody that street races.....:harumph: they have the proper places for such an activity if they wanna race.


And to top it off....he lives the high life off of the american people, I say hang him.:harumph:

DanT
04-03-2005, 05:12 PM
The drag race happened in October 8, 2001. Interestingly, the two drivers turned themselves in 4 months later:

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/date9_20020209.htm

DETROIT: Drivers charged in drag-race death

February 9, 2002


Two drivers accused in a deadly drag race in Detroit that killed a spectator and injured two bystanders turned themselves in to police Friday and were arraigned on second-degree murder charges. Aaron Reynolds, 34, of Detroit and Mustapha Atat, 30, of River Rouge could face up to life in prison if convicted. Other charges include failure to stop at the scene of a personal injury accident, which carries a 5-year maximum sentence; felonious driving, which has a 2-year maximum sentence, and drag racing, a 90-day misdemeanor. Bonds for both men were set at $75,000.

Denise Edwards, 35, of Detroit was killed when Reynolds' car allegedly hit her Oct. 8 at 1:45 a.m., Wayne County prosecutors said. Reynolds and Atat were racing at 100 m.p.h. down Fort Street in Detroit, which has a posted speed limit of 35, prosecutors said.

Reynolds allegedly lost control of his car, which left the road and struck Edwards and Detroit residents Eric Draw and Rodney Ricks.

Draw, 35, sustained a fractured pelvis. Ricks, 32, suffered a broken ankle.

By Ben Schmitt


Here's more info on the victims, including what happened to the person who died. It doesn't explain why she was on the sidewalk at that time of the night. Also note that there were 4 police officers from a nearby town who were at the race as spectators.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0204/09/d07-460314.htm
DETROIT: Drivers charged in drag-race death

February 9, 2002


Two drivers accused in a deadly drag race in Detroit that killed a spectator and injured two bystanders turned themselves in to police Friday and were arraigned on second-degree murder charges. Aaron Reynolds, 34, of Detroit and Mustapha Atat, 30, of River Rouge could face up to life in prison if convicted. Other charges include failure to stop at the scene of a personal injury accident, which carries a 5-year maximum sentence; felonious driving, which has a 2-year maximum sentence, and drag racing, a 90-day misdemeanor. Bonds for both men were set at $75,000.

Denise Edwards, 35, of Detroit was killed when Reynolds' car allegedly hit her Oct. 8 at 1:45 a.m., Wayne County prosecutors said. Reynolds and Atat were racing at 100 m.p.h. down Fort Street in Detroit, which has a posted speed limit of 35, prosecutors said.

Reynolds allegedly lost control of his car, which left the road and struck Edwards and Detroit residents Eric Draw and Rodney Ricks.

Draw, 35, sustained a fractured pelvis. Ricks, 32, suffered a broken ankle.

By Ben Schmitt

DanT
04-03-2005, 05:14 PM
So Mustapha Atat became a fugitive sometime after turning himself in.

DanT
04-03-2005, 05:22 PM
About 3 months after Atat had turned himself in, there was another drag race in Detroit that resulted in a fatality to a bystander. The people involved in that race also fled the scene:


http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm9022_20020504.htm

Businessman, 62, killed in drag race

Saturday, May 4, 2002

BY BEN SCHMITT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER



Harry Bolling, who cut hair in Detroit for nearly 40 years at his downtown barber shop, was killed early Saturday when police say a Corvette involved in a drag race slammed into his car on Gratiot.

Bolling, 62, had just closed the bar he owned, Bo-Mac's Lounge, and was driving home on Gratiot, near Fisher, about 2:40 a.m. when a dark-colored Corvette, racing another car, crashed into his Jaguar, police said. Bolling was killed almost instantly as his car hit a pole on the side of the road. The drivers of the other cars fled the scene.

``He's very popular and well-loved throughout the city of Detroit,'' said Bolling's son Harry Bolling Jr., 41, who flew in from Miami Saturday after hearing of his father's death. ``To me, he was more like a brother. He was my best friend.''

Bolling, who had six children, owned Atlantic Barber Shop on Broadway and Gratiot for nearly 40 years. He cut the hair of doctors, lawyers, judges and other professionals

Bolling also owned Bo-Mac's Lounge on Gratiot for about 14 years. His son recalled when former Mayor Dennis Archer threw a party at the bar several years ago.

At Atlantic Barber Shop, Bolling continued to cut hair daily.

``He was the greatest guy in the world,'' said Larry Jenkins, a barber at the shop. ``We all loved working for him.''

Police searched Saturday for suspects involved in the race. No one was in custody Saturday night.

Jenkins pleaded for those involved to turn themselves in.

``I don't think they realized the damage they actually caused at the time of the crash,'' he said. ``I'm sure they know now. It's just a matter of time before they're caught, so I say they should come forward.''

Anyone with information on Bolling's death is asked to call the Detroit Police 7th (Mack) Precinct at (313) 596-5700.

DanT
04-03-2005, 05:31 PM
In between the October accident and when Mr. Atat turned himself in, the following grim tale happened:


With illegal drag racing, search for thrills sometimes turns tragic

By SUE ANNE PRESSLEY Washington Post

Sunday, March 24, 2002

Miami -- Dwight Samples learned a terrible lesson about the dangers of illegal drag racing one evening just before Christmas. In his 1987 Mustang, Samples had been racing another Mustang on a rural road near Orlando, hitting speeds over 100 mph, police said, when he suddenly slammed into the rear of a Chevrolet Cavalier in his path. What he realized next will no doubt haunt the 21-year-old for the rest of his life.

"It's Momma! I've killed Momma!" a stricken Samples said in a cell phone call from the scene to his father, according to a police transcript.

Samples' mother, Diane, 45, was killed in the Dec. 19 crash, along with her passenger, Vivian Green, 72. The two had been riding around near their home town of Umatilla, Fla., looking at Christmas lights.

...


Rest of article at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_200203/ai_n10760641

DanT
04-03-2005, 05:37 PM
I think it's immoral to use the threat of a disproportionate sentence to get folks to agree to plea bargains that they wouldn't otherwise take.

mikey23545
04-03-2005, 07:48 PM
I think it's immoral to pursue highly dangerous activities you know to be risky to innocent people for your own selfish pleasure.

Hope they catch Atat and he spends many happy years being ass-raped in prison...

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 07:52 PM
Ok Big Daddy, how about this...

Getaway drivers for bank robbers, when the robbery resulted in the death of a security guard. What do you think the driver should be charged with?

I know all you people will think I am insane but I think someone should be prosecuted for murder because:

1. They murdered someone.
2. They conspired to murder someone and did irregarless of who pulled the trigger.
3. Hired someone to murder somebody and it went down.
4. They gave the order to kill and it happened.

I don't think people should be guilty by association just because they chose to break another law with said person. In this case he is already facing bank robbery and an assortment of other charges. I also believe there should be an enhancement of the charges because somebody did die but I still think the idiot who pulled the trigger with no regard for someone's life should have to face a worse charge. The one thing I will say for the other side in this particular case is what is the probability that somebody will get killed when said incident went down? Pretty damn high especially with a security guard there. If that's the case I could see you charging both. In the car race case the probability of somebody getting killed is very low. I hear them all the time out here behind my house where they race. We used to do it all the time when I was a kid without anyone getting hurt as well. Where is the personal responsibility for someone that chooses to go to one of these events when something goes wrong? They knew there was some risk when they went out there. What's the difference between that and when somebody goes to a monster truck competition and gets killed. Oh that's right they had a ****ing license. I am sure that eases the pain of the family who lost their loved one. Nobody gets charged with anything much less murder.

You have to be careful once you start implimenting a "He's guilty of everything because he broke the law" type mentality. This is already being taken too far in many areas. Let me give you a quick example. One of my friends was telling me about a guy he knows who was ****ing with his radio when he went into oncoming traffic and got into a head on. People were injured but the other guy had no insurance. Guess what, because the other guy had no insurance the car shouldn't have been there in the first place therefore he was guilty. That's complete BS IMO.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 07:56 PM
IF they are separate issues and you don't want to discuss it, why do you keep bringing it up?

I have been trying to discuss both issues seperatly. What you posting is me saying that this type of law encourages people to take off and leave people to die and it does. There were 2 seperate acts of will involved here.

1. He willfully chose to enter in an illegal race. This is not a will of malice intent he just wants to see if he is faster.

2. He chose to leave somebody to potentially die if they had not already. To me this is much worse.

These are two seperate issues that should be addressed legally apart. To say so otherwise would be to say that that there is no legal difference between someone that leaves and someone who stays and tries to help. You know this already you just choose to ignore it.

Murder is killing someone with malicious intent. Manslaughter is killing somebody accidentally. This race was just a race, the death was an accident. There was no malicious intent involved here. To change the law in these cases inparticular is simply wrong. This guy was not more guilty than some guy who drinks himself into the ground and drives anyway and ends up killing somebody. The fact that you want to make it worse is wrong and complete horseshit. It's really quite simple there is either malice intent or not.

DEFINED:

HOMICIDE—The killing of one human being by another, either lawfully or unlawfully. Homicide includes Murder and Manslaughter.

MURDER—The unlawful and unjustified killing of another human being with Malice Aforethought. (Penal Code §187). “Malice Aforethought” is defined as an intention to unlawfully kill a human being.

MANSLAUGHTER—The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER—A person who drives a vehicle and unintentionally but unlawfully kills another human being.


I know you support all feel good any means to an end legislation irregardless of whether it turns our legal system into an abortion or not. This case is a prime example. The war on drugs was another. I guess it makes you feel safer in your little world but your not looking at the long term effects.

DanT
04-03-2005, 07:58 PM
I think it's immoral to pursue highly dangerous activities you know to be risky to innocent people for your own selfish pleasure.

Hope they catch Atat and he spends many happy years being ass-raped in prison...


I agree with your first statement and I share your hope that they catch Atat. I do not hope that he be raped in prison.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 07:58 PM
Actually, something more extreme happened in Riverside MO about 5 or 6 years ago.

Two drug dealers went to buy drugs from sting Federal Agents. They were both armed, but only one went to the hotel room to buy the drugs. He drew on the Federal agents and they shot him. When they confronted the guy in the car waiting for the deal to go down, he drew on the officers but did not fire when he saw he was outnumbered. He was charged and convicted with the murder of his own partner in crime.

Now, the mandatory "if drugs weren't illegal" crap will come from some on this board, but as BD is want to say, that is a separate issue. The fact is that two men willing to kill other people over profit are either dead or jailed - personally, I find that satisfying for my neighborhood.

This is complete crap and exactly what I was refering to. You support feel good, any means to an end legislation no matter how assinine. Why should you be any different here? To hell with the fact that he didn't kill anyone prosecute him for murder anyway. Never mind the fact that guns got pulled on him first and that would be his natural reaction.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 08:00 PM
I think it's immoral to use the threat of a disproportionate sentence to get folks to agree to plea bargains that they wouldn't otherwise take.

I completely agree, great post. Never mind that though, any means to an end. :)

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 08:02 PM
This is complete crap and exactly what I was refering to. You support feel good, any means to an end legislation no matter how assinine. Why should you be any different here? To hell with the fact that he didn't kill anyone prosecute him for murder anyway. Never mind the fact that guns got pulled on him first and that would be his natural reaction.
And if it involves the police you automatically take a stance against them. We can deal in false generalities all day.

As I stated (twice on this thread), but you chose to ignore, the legislation is ridiculous. However, the two examples on this thread leave me no pity for their actions. The "guy" was informed they were federal agents, he still drew on them. The one in the hotel room fired at them after he was notified. If you are looking for pity legislation, find better candidates than scum.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 08:04 PM
And like I said, if their response to knowing what they're facing, and their response it to continue to race and prepare to flee, instead of stopping racing or finding an approved venue, they're idiots. Fug 'em.

The issue was never whether people like this should be punished. It's an issue of whether they shuld be charged and convicted of crimes with malice when there wasn't any. It's whether this type of legislation makes and abortion of our legal system and creates more problems than it addresses. To me somebody kills someone on purpose is far worse than somebody that accidentally kills someone. Apparently so did all of our law makers when they made a difference between Murder and Manslaughter. Never mind all that though lets just throw all that out the window and start conviction people of murder with intent when that's not the case. Then you expect people to respect the law? Slippery slope.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 08:05 PM
I have been trying to discuss both issues seperatly. What you posting is me saying that this type of law encourages people to take off and leave people to die and it does. There were 2 seperate acts of will involved here.

1. He willfully chose to enter in an illegal race. This is not a will of malice intent he just wants to see if he is faster.

2. He chose to leave somebody to potentially die if they had not already. To me this is much worse.

These are two seperate issues that should be addressed legally apart. To say so otherwise would be to say that that there is no legal difference between someone that leaves and someone who stays and tries to help. You know this already you just choose to ignore it.

Murder is killing someone with malicious intent. Manslaughter is killing somebody accidentally. This race was just a race, the death was an accident. There was no malicious intent involved here. To change the law in these cases inparticular is simply wrong. This guy was not more guilty than some guy who drinks himself into the ground and drives anyway and ends up killing somebody. The fact that you want to make it worse is wrong and complete horseshit. It's really quite simple there is either malice intent or not.

DEFINED:

HOMICIDE—The killing of one human being by another, either lawfully or unlawfully. Homicide includes Murder and Manslaughter.

MURDER—The unlawful and unjustified killing of another human being with Malice Aforethought. (Penal Code §187). “Malice Aforethought” is defined as an intention to unlawfully kill a human being.

MANSLAUGHTER—The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER—A person who drives a vehicle and unintentionally but unlawfully kills another human being.


I know you support all feel good any means to an end legislation irregardless of whether it turns our legal system into an abortion or not. This case is a prime example. The war on drugs was another. I guess it makes you feel safer in your little world but your not looking at the long term effects.

That is a very long winded way of saying you don't mind addressing the separate issues as long as it is solely on your terms.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 08:07 PM
And if it involves the police you automatically take a stance against them. We can deal in false generalities all day.

As I stated (twice on this thread), but you chose to ignore, the legislation is ridiculous. However, the two examples on this thread leave me no pity for their actions. The "guy" was informed they were federal agents, he still drew on them. The one in the hotel room fired at them after he was notified. If you are looking for pity legislation, find better candidates than scum.

Silly me, I think people should be convicted of the crimes they commit instead of whether they are scum as you put it or dirt balls as John Walsh puts it.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 08:10 PM
That is a very long winded way of saying you don't mind addressing the separate issues as long as it is solely on your terms.

There were two acts of will here, you refuse to address that because it isn't convenient for you. The law breaks down every other crime like that but you don't want to here/ It doesn't matter anyway. What's the point of trying to have a logical discussion on this issue with someone that wants to convict people based upon how scummy they are instead of whether they really did the crime. Your a scary individual when it comes to your viewpoints on this subject dude.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 08:10 PM
Silly me, I think people should be convicted of the crimes they commit instead of whether they are scum as you put it or dirt balls as John Walsh puts it.
Yup, you are right.

Atat should be locked up for welfare fraud, felonious acts of endangerment, and possession with the intent to distribute. He should not be locked up for murder. He should also lose his license for the rest of his life to prevent the situation from occuring again.

I just feel no pity for the asshole running from the law. I guess he wasted all his food stamps on his exotic racing cars and didn't have any left over for lawyers.

KCWolfman
04-03-2005, 08:11 PM
There were two acts of will here, you refuse to address that because it isn't convenient for you. The law breaks down every other crime like that but you don't want to here/ It doesn't matter anyway. What's the point of trying to have a logical discussion on this issue with someone that wants to convict people based upon how scummy they are instead of whether they really did the crime. Your a scary individual when it comes to your viewpoints on this subject dude.
Again, you pull generalities out to create a paper tiger to battle.

Either quote me where I stated he should be locked up because he is scum or stop drawing the ridiculous correlation.

BIG_DADDY
04-03-2005, 08:13 PM
Yup, you are right.

Atat should be locked up for welfare fraud, felonious acts of endangerment, and possession with the intent to distribute. He should not be locked up for murder. He should also lose his license for the rest of his life to prevent the situation from occuring again.

I just feel no pity for the asshole running from the law. I guess he wasted all his food stamps on his exotic racing cars and didn't have any left over for lawyers.

That was a great post and on this I agree with you mostly, lets just leave it at that. :thumb: