Friday December 13, 2013
Jump to content
Suppose you are driving down a narrow alley and you see someone standing there, directly in front of you and looking at you. Suppose there is time enough for that someone to step out of the way, but no way for you stop in time. You hit him. He dies.
Are you guilty of anything?
No. That was self destruction.
It may be a matter of speed under the conditions and the condition of the driver (toxicology). The former is difficult to verify except through witness testimony or skid mark analysis. The later is fairly cut-and-dry. Normally I would guess that the driver would be found faultless.
Here again we have the situation where a life is lost. Historically such has always required a "justification" or accountability for that loss of life. The life was taken via the vehicle, not the driver directly. But also historically we hold the driver responsible because they are supposed to be in control of the vehicle "at all times", supposedly in order to provide for the safety of others. As you see there are just a whole bunch of suppositions here. That is the reason as much of the factual information and circumstances need to be determined prior to determining causation and culpability or responsibility. That is also the reason we have a whole industry referred to as the "legal profession" to ascertain that information. Only if we had someone with the wisdom of a Soloman, but alas.
Depends on who investigates and if charged what judge they go before.
Ronald, In order to have a "legal profession" there must be "professional" laws. But the trident system corrupted the profession, which lead to this mess we are all in. Lets put the professional back in the law.
Any law, ordnance, rule, regulation or code that interferes with the US Constitution is unjust. It is imperative that all people have control of themselves and their choices in life. R v. W did try to establish that for women but there was a mistake by dividing the pregnancy into 3 parts. In doing this, it established people as property of the state. This part of R v. W was later over turned but the damage was done. Somehow this allowed states to move in and create unjust laws that I can't see at this time, due to time constraints. The overturning of the Glass - Steagall Act is a huge issue, this removed the "firewall" protection between the banks and the people. Citizens United v. FEC is an atro city. The Pat Act is most unpatriotic. Gore v. Bush? Deregulation created monopolistic mega-corps. No Child Left Behind? Privatization of health, military, jail, school = in san ity. Anything that interferes with separation of church and state, will lead to corruption. Uncapped admin fees for any corporation that obtains tax dollars is unacceptable, admin is just a job, like any other. Any subsidy that goes to oil, Monsanto, Halliburton or "pork barrel" is unacceptable.
There are subsidies that go to a lot of other things besides the ones you mentioned.
Some subsidies are ok, just not those.
Meanwhile back at the ranch....
I see that most of you seem to agree that the driver would be held harmless as long as there was a matter of choice involved on the behalf of the person who was killed. Am I right? In other words, if he chose to be where he was, and to be doing what he was doing, then he himself was at fault for what happened to him. Right?
Another example just to be sure.
Two jerks decide to do something they both know is dangerous. Let's see....
Oh I've got it. I've actually seen this one (but not what happened in this example). Two jerks are standing 100 feet from the base of a rock escarpment and firing their 45's at it, trying to hit loose pebbles sitting on low ledges. They have both been drinking, by the way. Bullets continually ricochet past them, showing that the danger of doing something so stupid is very clear. Then one of the two jerks is hit in the head by a ricochet and dies. The bullet came from the gun of the other one. Is the shooter guilty of anything except stupidity? Or was it the voluntary choice of both idiots to put themselves in a situation where they could have been killed or badly injured? (In the real life occurrence neither man got hurt. They just got chewed out by one very angry NCO--me.)
Oh, and here's another example I just thought of--again true. Three people go "varmint shooting" on a small Texas ranch. Two of them want to go into a low area, but the third man wants to go around a rise. They are all going to be shooting. They agree that the one going around the rise will not shoot at anything to the left of a tree they all know well, and that the other two will not shoot at anything to its right.
Thirty minutes later the two men who went into the low area have to hit the ground because rounds from a .45 are buzzing past them. They crawl out of the low area and go around the rise. They find the third man, who is shooting away happily, being careful not to shoot to the left of the agreed tree. But they realize that they made an error. If you walk far enough it is possible to go so far that even if you do not shoot "left" of some tree you can be shooting almost directly back where you came from. This is what happened. Just plain stupidity on the part of all three.
Suppose that instead of just having had to duck those .45 caliber rounds, one of the two men had caught one--in the head. Would the third man have been at fault?
Just realized that you had made a comment about "toxicology."
I meant to cover that in the statement, "Suppose there is time enough for that someone to step out of the way, but no way for you stop in time."
That was meant to be an absolute. "no way" to stop in time. No matter whether the driver was stone sober or drunk out of his mind, in the example the car could not be stopped in time. As in the two new examples, I am trying to get at the question of "choice" in placing yourself at hazard.
Does that cover the toxicology question?
What I'm coming to is "proximate cause," that is "the one thing without which the incident could not have occurred." In the original example, a drunk man could have run up and down that alley for a week and no one would have been harmed; the man could not have been killed unless he voluntarily and deliberately stepped out in front of the car.
But if the driver had one beer he would have been found guilty.
I have seen a lot of drunks that drive better than the sober people here in Payson.
After the explanation of skid marks I read about the other day to determine speed, they should be thrown out for any kind of evidence.
"Two jerks are standing 100 feet from the base of a rock escarpment and firing their 45's at it, trying to hit loose pebbles sitting on low ledges. They have both been drinking, by the way. Bullets continually ricochet past them, showing that the danger of doing something so stupid is very clear. Then one of the two jerks is hit in the head by a ricochet and dies. The bullet came from the gun of the other one. Is the shooter guilty of anything except stupidity? Or was it the voluntary choice of both idiots to put themselves in a situation where they could have been killed or badly injured? " Completely different situation. Yes the shooter should have been investigated for at least involuntary manslaughter. What are the rules for drinking and fire arms in the military?
Tom, those legal examples pale in comparison to what is actually happening in AZ and the US at this present time in the hear and now. There is an absolute push to globalize and it is very close to being our future. That is not OK with me, and I doubt that is OK with any true American. The US Constitution does form a perfect union under GOD, and America is a "brain trust." There IS a war of subterfuge against we the people. It is so complicated and complex, it is nearly impossible for one person to unravel.
Trivia: Are there any mineral deposits of gold/silver/copper in the pine/straw or payson area?
Who or what receives more tax subsides, cows or firefighters? (I know the answer.) Which would you rather spend tax dollars on?
Do people or cows have more rights in Arizona?
Tom, Pat and Ronald, Here's another crazy "thought" for you to ponder. The Payson area only has an approximate population of 15k people. The Phoenix area has a population of 6-7 million people. It would be very easy for Phoenix to absorb the population of this area. As part of the "plan" one of the initiatives is to push people into large cities. What would happen to our area if there was a fire in the same proportion that happened with the Wallow Fire? Do you really think we are immune from this kind of thing happening? Or is this a real threat?
Cows do not get tax subsidies nor do ranchers. We owned a ranch for 13yrs. No one gave us a penny.
I don't know about subsidies for firefighters in fire depts. But I think Forest service fire fighters or the forest service does. I could tell you an unbelieveable story about what the FS does when there is a forest fire.
Cows, Arizona is an open range state so ranchers do not have to fence them in. They do it to seperate the different ranches and cattle. If they get in your yard, it is your fault because you don't have a fence. If you hit one with your car, you pay for it, and no you do not get the meat to eat.
Any more trivia? I am a native of Gila County. First part of family here since 1872.
Cows absolutely do get subsidies, under the US farm bill, to the tune of billions of dollars per year. But the subsidies do only go to a handful of cow people. I doubt they are real ranchers like you though.
You slipped in another post while I was typing.
Phoenix won't absorb us but if some of the people don't get off thier rear and trim some of the trees and brush here in town, there will be a really big problem with fire one of these days.
I was at a meeting a few years ago when this was talked about and one dumb woman said she wasn't worried because she had lived in her house surrounded by trees and had never had a fire. Wait and see.
Pat, I agree. I'm sorry if this is too much reality at once, but it's a serious situation, so a girls got to do, what a girls go to do. So, hold your breath and sit down! Have everybody pull out their home owners policies and see how many "loop holes" you can find. Cuz' if you think those companies have your best interest in mind, well. You might be a red neck (Sorry, hahaha:))
I had my answers on seperate lines on the trivia answers.but the computer never agrees with what I do.
Are you talking about Fire and storm insurance policies or title insurane policies on your home?
I am an Arizona Red Neck that was a Realtor for 23 yrs. along with the other things I did.
I had a real estate license as well, but it didn't behoove me to keep it. I totally love Arizona Red Necks, that would include everybody in my family. Anyways, look specifically at fire coverage, but I'm willing to bet, that there are "loop holes" in all the areas. (I'm terrible with computers, so mistakes - I make, but, I will be most happy to clarify anything confusing.)
First of all you have to have a good insurance agent. I had one that was fantastic and she would sell you cheaper insurance if it was better. She was there to help you. Your insurance is only as good as your agent. They will know where the loopholes are and tell you. If you have a claim they will fight for you. So sorry she had to move. Now I have to start over.
Most of the ins. advertised on TV is the highest priced and has the most loopholes.
I have had estimates from most of them and they can't compare with the ones I have.
"Completely different situation."
Completely different from what?
"Yes the shooter should have been investigated for at least involuntary manslaughter."
Why? Was the person who was hit not been voluntarily where he was and doing what he was doing? Is that not an "intervening event?"
"What are the rules for drinking and fire arms in the military?"
ANFM 27/43.102 §108.88 part A1H2. Voluntary off-duty range safety
a. Sight picture.
b. Breath control.
c. Trigger squeeze.
e. Pick up brass.
f. Shoot in direction of officers.
g. Clean weapon when through firing.
h. Return weapon and secure in rack.
I try to follow the thread , and limit my responces to the topic. Robbin seems to think that she can take the conversation or topic and change it. If it made any sense....that would be fine, but someone needs to tell her that you need to opine about the subject at hand.
Rexm you just did.
How do you like ANFM 27/43.102 §108.88 part A1H2. Voluntary off-duty range safety, folks?
I like step f.
On another note....my wife was just diagnosed with cancer. Over the past years I have been impressed with your strength. Thank you for that. We will meet in the future....but you have helped me...Thank you.
Thank you. I haven't done anything that millions of others don't do every day. The only difference is that I happen to be someone who has a platform on which to air his views.
Nothing I say could possibly convey how I feel about that news. I'm sure than everyone joins me in hoping that the outcome will be a good one.
On a happier note, I wondered how many people would read carefully enough to notice f. It's nice to kid around sometimes.
Tom, You and Pat, are the platform. I am nobody except a neutral witness. I have no agenda except to protect my family, heritage, state and country with love. My thoughts are hard core truth and aren't for everybody, and, like I already stated most people will not be able to understand, yet. The bags have to pulled off their heads first. I see clearly what is going on, I have all the puzzle pieces, and man there is a lot of them. But it does me no good to have all this information if others can't see, also, what is going on. There may not be another person on this planet who has my unique skill set, and apparently our area is also very special because of the unique skill set of the people who live here. I am just exercising "free speech" while we still have that right, but, this is a private paper and I imagine that I could be blocked from accessing these blogs anytime.
My most sincere, heartfelt prayers out to you and your wife. 3 years ago I lost my wife of 47 years to cancer. It was a real roller coaster ride. Had not it been for the strength I drew from my endearing faith, I would have certainly lost it. Stay strong, stay close, and support her in every way possible. Do as much research as you can regards the various treatment options and the latest advancements in the treatment for her particular cancer. We live in a time of rapid evolution in the treatment protocols for that deadly affliction and the survival rates are considerably better today than years past. I know from experience the helplessness one feels after being a "provider" for all those years and then be confronted with a circumstance we are relatively helpless to do anything directly to resolve. My best to you both.
Mr. Hinshaw, I am sorry to hear your recent news and understand full well you are on an emotional roller coaster. I echo the advice given above and would also suggest that you ask if any clinical trials are taking place for the cancer your wife has been diagnosed with. Right now I'm sure your days are full of Doctor appointments and tests and hopefully soon your wife will be advised exactly what her treatment plan will consist of. In the meantime I wish you and your wife strength and good thoughts during this difficult time.
Yes, Rex. We're all with you, praying for the right outcome.
I just returned from Tulsa where my wife is starting treatments. Thank you all for your kind thoughts and advice. It is greatly appreciated.
I have to comment on robbin's remark about subsidies for cattle. She lives in a different world than me.
No rancher I know in Arizona or my husband and I ever received any subsidies. Don't know about the ones I never met.
Oh, Mr. Hinshaw, my heartfelt prayers go out to you and your wife. Tom is correct when he says that we are all with you.
Oh my goodness Robbin...I had not read this thread after the first couple of posts. I just caught up on it and...wow!!! I've not seen such an audacious and condescending comment on here in quite a while, "...like I already stated most people will not be able to understand, yet. The bags have to pulled off their heads first. I see clearly what is going on, I have all the puzzle pieces, and man there is a lot of them. But it does me no good to have all this information if others can't see, also, what is going on. There may not be another person on this planet who has my unique skill set,..." There may not be another person on this planet who cares about your "unique skill set" if you continue to post comments such as this.
Each of us on this forum possess a certain level of intelligence, as well as intellectual diversity; and I know that I for one, absolutely DO NOT appreciate your condescending and patronizing comments, as though you, and you alone possess the keys to the universe. You claim to have all of this knowledge and information, along with, supposedly, a Masters degree; however, your spelling, punctuation, grammar and general verbiage leave a lot to be desired. Ms. Flower's, you are relatively new to the forum, perhaps before you suggest that we need to have "the bags pulled off" our heads, you pull yours out of the clouds.
Finally, on another thread, I believe, Pat suggested that you accord some respect to Tom and others who are clearly your elders, I add my voice to that suggestion.
This blog is so full of sound bites, it's no wonder I'm confused about the topic. What was it again???
This isn't twitter or facebook where you coax your buddies to join in the conversation. This is a small town paper where people know your name. Say something nice or say nothing at all might work since most aren't interested in someone else's unique skill set. Offer input, present a solution or real information on the subject. Otherwise, keep the sound bites to yourself.
Kim and Susan,
Best posts I have read in quite a while. (:
Okay, going to jump in here, may regret it. Ms. Flowers does indeed have a "unique" approach to adding to the discussions. Although I probably am as flabbergasted as others as to that "approach", I for one choose to not be too harsh as regards some of her comments. One of the aspects that I really like about this blog is the variety and diversity of opinion and the ways in which those views are put forth. I know for certain that this particular method of interaction seldom truly reflects the true character, personality, or social ideology of those that post. When we hit "Post Comment", we have put whatever we wrote into the cyberworld, to be interpreted by those that read it through whatever glasses they are looking through. Can't tell you how many times I wish I could take it back the second I hit "Post Comment". I know I often come across in a manner that belies my "moderate" world view. I get passionate about certain "hot button" issues and can be strongly entrenched in those views during a debate or discussion on this blog. But as some can attest, in a face to face discussion, my more moderate views surface. So I say welcome aboard Ms. Flowers, and do expect as we have all come to, that it may get hot in the kitchen and your feelings may on occasion get burned. And as has been noted, do try to add to the topic of the discussion above all else in what you offer. Don't take responses it too personal.
Speaking of having a bag over one's head. There was an alcoholic gentleman who used to live here in Payson. After imbibing a large amount of his favorite whisky, he decided it would appropriate to Rob a local Pizza Parlor one evening. SOooooo...., he acquired a brown paper bag, placed it over his head just before stumbling through the restaurant front door. As soon as he entered he yelled in a slurred voice, this is a robbery, give me all the money. As he stood there, all he could hear was loud laughing. You see, he failed to cut out paper eye sockets so he could see what he was doing. He had no visible weapons. Upon only hearing the laughter, he quickly turned around, and began to run. He ran directly into the metal door frame and knocked himself out, falling to the pavement. That is how the police found him. Still with a paper bag over his head. He was arrested and charged. The moral of the story: Sometimes it's a good thing to have a bag over your head!
"This blog is so full of sound bites, it's no wonder I'm confused about the topic. What was it again???
This isn't twitter or facebook where you coax your buddies to join in the conversation. This is a small town paper where people know your name. Say something nice or say nothing at all might work since most aren't interested in someone else's unique skill set. Offer input, present a solution or real information on the subject. Otherwise, keep the sound bites to yourself."
Thanks, Ron. We have occasionally run into a problem before, as you know, but it has always been when someone went off the deep end and began genuinely insulting other people. It's really not hard to avoid doing that though it takes a bit more doing than it does to post to the average blog, where some radical makes snappy comments and then sits back and lets the pro and con folks tear each other to shreds. Not much point in that, is there?
The way to avoid running head on into the Roundup Terms of Agreement is to read what Tom Brossert, former editor, took time out to write one day. Here it is:
“The purpose of the blog is to have an open discussion about issues, it is not to call people names or liars. It is fair to disagree with people, it is fair to present your views on any issue, but name calling of any kind will not be tolerated. You can say you disagree with policy, issues or methods of operation and explain why in as much detail as you want, but NO name calling. Keep comments professional and not personal. Getting personal does not solve any issue; only a discussion of issues can solve problems.”
I like. :-)
I also like your story, Don. :-)
It looks like I'm missing way too much fun.
Hop in, Dan.
If you have any stories like the one Don told, have at it. :-)
Kim, The comment about me having a unique skill set also applies to you and everyone on these blogs. That's what makes all human beings unique. You are unique. I didn't mean that to be condescending. I really don't like this computer stuff and I will continue to have many errors. Sometimes things may appear as erroneous but isn't. A skill set is what you know, and you are what you know. You have many skills, that I do not possess. I am not offended by that, and I would never say anything to offend you.
Additionally, The last time I was on this computer, blogging, I had a lot more to type, but, we suddenly had a power outage that lasted almost six hours. Then life happens.
Kim, I will should show you some of what I am grappling with. Oh, and believe me, there is much more. I'm just going to run it all together. Law, energy, health care, finances, government, legislation, religion, education, corporate and business practices, media, technology, MIC, criminal justice, mining, land and property rights, food and farming, taxes/ irs, pollution, waste disposal, scouts/congress/cic, boards and licensure, technology, marketing, the US constitution (city, county, state and country rights and sovereignty,) world sovereignty, human rights, banking, textiles, bill of rights, war on drugs, and security.
I highly recommend reading the Declaration of Sentiments (1848.)
grapple away if that is your thing, but please keep it off the board.
Everyone thought I couldn't keep on a subject. Ha
"Suppose you are driving down a narrow alley and you see someone standing there, directly in front of you and looking at you. Suppose there is time enough for that someone to step out of the way, but no way for you stop in time. You hit him. He dies.
Are you guilty of anything?"
Isn't it the driver's responsibility to avoid a collision of any sort? I would hope there were, at a minimum, skid marks showing the driver made an attempt to stop. Then my guess would be he would be off the hook.
"Isn't it the driver's responsibility to avoid a collision of any sort?"
That is the way some people would like to interpret the phase "in control of the vehicle at all times."
You can be in control of the vehicle on an icy road, for example, but you can do nothing more than use the controls you were supplied with; gravity and a lack of friction between you and the road may determine where that car goes and what it does. Some people would like to believe that any person who enters a car and gets in the driver's seat is:
a. Able to predict the future.
b. Supplied with God-like controls not supplied by Detroit.
Getting a driver's license doe snot make us omniscient.
Pat, Keep it off the board? Where should one use free speech? Like it or not, every person is grappling with what I put out there, in one way or another.
Rex, I am very sorry to learn that your wife has been diagnosed with cancer. I hope that it was found in time to have a good outcome. The American Cancer Society sponsors many support groups. Does anyone know of any in the Payson area? It also puts out a catalogue TLC which markets many things at reasonable prices that can make the treatment period less bothersome.
I will keep you guys in my prayers.
Thank you Bernice.
Posting comments requires a free account