[Dave]

Woman, 92, given $20 ticket in wreck that killed newlywed | StarTribune.com

 

[Ducfer]

Woman, 92, given $20 ticket in wreck that killed newlywed | StarTribune.com

But if I shot four people by accident, it would be assault with a deadly weapon. This is no different and should be treated as such.......

 

[mikstr]

Poor dear, I hope she can afford to pay that monumental fine....:wacky

 

[stk0308]

State Highway Patrol Capt. Kyle Ternes needs his chain yanked. The old bitty killed 1 and maimed 2, and he believes $20 is all those peoples pain is worth. Un-F$CKING-beleiveable. Somebody run over his kids and lets see if he's OK with a $20 fine on that.

 

[fotomoto]

State Highway Patrol Capt. Kyle Ternes needs his chain yanked. The old bitty killed 1 and maimed 2, and he believes $20 is all those peoples pain is worth. Un-F$CKING-beleiveable. Somebody run over his kids and lets see if he's OK with a $20 fine on that.

That's for a prosecutor, judge and jury to decide not LEO's.

 

[banda]

It's my understanding that this is how they assess fines in England - The fine is for the infraction: speeding, crossing the center line, failure to maintain control, etc. and it doesn't change based on the outcome of the infraction.

So you get the same fine for failure to maintain control if you end up driving harmlessly across someone's lawn or if you plow through a convention of nuns.

Which is as it should be.

Before you freak out and say there's a huge difference, I have to tell you that I think you're right, of course. What I think is wrong is that we fine people so little for driving stupidly just because they were lucky enough not to kill a nun convention - this time.

Look at what you pay/lose in England for being a crap driver. They treat the happy "no one died" infractions as though someone could have. As they should.

We're messed up here in the states, with our "no harm, no foul" philosophy. That's what makes our drivers so utterly crap. People who wander over the centerline should be riding the bus way before they kill a biker.

 

[b.miller123]

That's for a prosecutor, judge and jury to decide not LEO's.

I'm pretty sure they could have written at least a reckless driving citation. That doesn't require approval of the prosecutor, judge or jury. (They will have their say later) She should have gotten one immediately, and then later the prosecutor should have to decide on filing more serious charges.


Pretty sure that she falls within the requirements set by the state of North Dakota:

39-08-03. Reckless driving - Aggravated reckless driving - Penalty. Any person is
guilty of reckless driving if the person drives a vehicle:
1. Recklessly in disregard of the rights or safety of others; or
2. Without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to
endanger or be likely to endanger any person or the property of another.

Except as otherwise herein provided, any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty
of a class B misdemeanor. Any person who, by reason of reckless driving as herein defined,
causes and inflicts injury upon the person of another, is guilty of aggravated reckless driving, and
is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t39c08.pdf

America as a whole needs to wake the fcuk up and realize that driving is a privilege and not a right. You can be sure that this isn't the first time that this lady has been driving and gone over the center line or had a close call. It should take more than a $25 written test and a $50 driving test to get a license. Penalties for things like driving without a license or insurance are ridiculously low. They should be tripled or quadrupled and each should carry at least a day or two of mandatory minimum jail time. We really need to have a driving examination done every five years, on EVERY SINGLE DRIVER. There is no excuse for not having it. Hell, the local governments could probably make money off it.

99.9% of accidents are not really accidents. They are a culmination of factors that cause a collision. Usually the top factor is someone not paying attention to what they are doing. To me, that is nowhere near an acceptable excuse.

In all reality, she should get a negligent homicide charge. Just like this guy: Driver in fatal crash charged with negligent homicide... | KXNet.com North Dakota News I see no difference between not paying attention to what you are doing and killing someone, or driving over the speed limit and killing someone.

If someone killed my wife or daughter on the road and all they got was a $20 fine I would burn their ****ing house down. With them in it.

 

[watskooo]

The main problem I have is absence of the phrase "license has been revoked". She's 92 and killed someone driving by not paying attention, at a minimum she never should drive again.

 

[916duc]

Involuntary Manslaughter

At the very minimum I think she would have been charged with "Involuntary Manslaughter": is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

 

[mikstr]

Moral of the story: if you want to off someone, just take them out by driving over the centerline. $20 later, mission accomplished..... "What a wonderful wor-r-r-r-r-r-ld...."

 

[stk0308]

At the very minimum I think she would have been charged with "Involuntary Manslaughter": is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

That or vehicular manslaughter. It's not murder, so the weakwilled won't go all frothy over charging this poor old woman with murder, but it's still a charge that someone died due to her actions, or inactions.

 

[sqd8r]

I'm sure the law is the same ni the states; care and control of the vehicle is your responsibility and loss of it carries a significant penalty regardless of whether drugs etc were involved. This is how they get you on speeding and stunting I would think crossing the line and taking out a number of people is on par. Since when did you need to be drugged, drunk or otherwise to be considered reckless driving? Impaired driving also includes being too tired or as is more likely in this case too old to drive safely. Please tell me they at least sent her for re-evaluation? Man the law took the easy way out on this one. I hope the survivors families sue the state for everything.

 

[banda]

Disagree

Punishment should be higher for bad driving regardless of the outcome. No piling on because of who or how many were killed/maimed/scared/etc.

The point is to prevent bad driving, not to let lucky bad drivers off and throw unlucky bad drivers in jail to rot. The message then is "go ahead, drive bad, it's no biggie as long as no one gets off'ed."

I prefer the "don't drive bad ever" message.

It's prevention, not vengeance. Vengeance just makes the vengeful feel better - it doesn't prevent, because it's just a result of the "bad luck" of squishing a nun or whatever, not a certain result of being a crappy driver.

The hard part is that vengeance is so very American. It's our culture. We love it. Even when it doesn't work worth a damn.

 

[duckdawg]

why is it that you can get a license at 16 and drive past the point of good vision or sense, as long as you pay the state the renewal tax?...

 

[DesperateSP2]

If someone is local he should keep us posted IF the old coot will be persecuted or not. Perhaps (and I really hope so) the local authorities are just deciding what to charge her with. In a world where even old ladies are treated like potential terrorists while boarding a plane (my grandmother was detained by airport authorities in Miami because a plaque of metal she has in her leg off the metal detector... and it's written in her passport in a number languages) it seems utterly ridiculous someone can get away with running over people in the middle of the road with the lightest possible fine.

 

[waterproof]

This is, most likely, not over yet. Lawyers are forming an orderly line.......

 

[varium]

Disagree

Punishment should be higher for bad driving regardless of the outcome. No piling on because of who or how many were killed/maimed/scared/etc.

The point is to prevent bad driving, not to let lucky bad drivers off and throw unlucky bad drivers in jail to rot. The message then is "go ahead, drive bad, it's no biggie as long as no one gets off'ed."

I prefer the "don't drive bad ever" message.

It's prevention, not vengeance. Vengeance just makes the vengeful feel better - it doesn't prevent, because it's just a result of the "bad luck" of squishing a nun or whatever, not a certain result of being a crappy driver.

The hard part is that vengeance is so very American. It's our culture. We love it. Even when it doesn't work worth a damn.

Playing devils advocate here........what if someone shots off a round into the air at a B-B-Q or some other type gathering(nobody gets hurts). Should doing so carry the same charges as someone firing the gun in the air as opposed to firing it at your head? After all it basically boils down to a discharge of a gun. What about an accidental discharge......does that make anyone any less dead?

So do you charge the person with murder for shooting into the air, or let a murderer slip by with a fine for discharging a firearm?



I think the problem is the way in which one perceives law(s). On the whole there is a base line for trying to keep order(even though that gets pushed further and further everyday). Its not about a one size fits all. The worse an outcome is or the potential for a bad outcome the more stringent the repercussions are.

 

[20_RC51_00]

perhaps there is a case to be made against the state that licensed the old bag. If the state is confident enough to grant her a license to drive then they are saying that they back her skills barring any intoxication or negligence. the scarry thing is that really old people with reflexes that are slower then shit still think they should be operating a 2 tonne bullet.... there need to be certain standards in place to prevent dangerous drivers from driving. for example it is up to the individual diagnosed with a medical condition that could be potentially dangerous if driving (such as epilepsy) to report it to the dmv...!!!??? right.....

 

[banda]

Playing devils advocate here........what if someone shots off a round into the air at a B-B-Q or some other type gathering(nobody gets hurts). Should doing so carry the same charges as someone firing the gun in the air as opposed to firing it at your head? After all it basically boils down to a discharge of a gun. What about an accidental discharge......does that make anyone any less dead?

So do you charge the person with murder for shooting into the air, or let a murderer slip by with a fine for discharging a firearm?



I think the problem is the way in which one perceives law(s). On the whole there is a base line for trying to keep order(even though that gets pushed further and further everyday). Its not about a one size fits all. The worse an outcome is or the potential for a bad outcome the more stringent the repercussions are.

Bullets leaving guns isn't the problem. Gun owners losing control of guns is the problem - just as drivers losing control of cars is the problem. Lose control, lose your privilege, I say. Doesn't matter if no one snuffs it. We don't need to wait till someone gets killed to recognize who is dangerous among us.

Shooting in the air - in control, and in all actuality, fairly harmless.
Shooting at my head - in control, but deliberately destructive
Discharging accidentally - out of control, demands consistent, stiff penalty, regardless of injury or lack thereof.

 

[Area 51]

Last year I waited for a 90+ lady to move her car out of the way, in a parking lot. She was so bad that I yelled out the window, "learn to drive". Then some fifty-something businessman came over and told me to respect elders. So I told him off too. I don't care what your age is, if you can't drive you shouldn't be driving.