Hopefully this was nobody on here...

[BlazeRunner]

And if the dead guy had been in a seat with a belt on, he'd still be alive like the rest of them. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

They're all dumbasses, but the only guy at fault is the dead guy. Charging the driver with homicide is utterly ridiculous, and typical of the Left Coast pass-the-buck mentality.

I said I agree with not charging him with homicide. I just think there should be something along the lines of reckless endangerment or something... whatever it would be classified as by those doing the investigation, since we aren't left with much to go by.
Charging him with homicide would be ridiculous, but by driving in the manner he did was surely reckless. The driver is still to blame for causing an accident. It was clearly the passengers choice to ride standing up like that, and that's what caused his death. However, if the driver was responsible, no accident would have been caused to amplify his friends poor choice. He was an irresponsible driver, not a murderer I agree completely. I don't know what you think I originally meant.

 

[LuckyRunnerLTD]

What a terrible way to start your week. What a tragic thing for all sides of this accident. It took me flipping 2 cars to stop driving reckless, I sure am glad I never had to wake up to this nightmare.

 

[KidVermicious]

Charging him with homicide would be ridiculous, but by driving in the manner he did was surely reckless. The driver is still to blame for causing an accident. It was clearly the passengers choice to ride standing up like that, and that's what caused his death. However, if the driver was responsible, no accident would have been caused to amplify his friends poor choice. He was an irresponsible driver, not a murderer I agree completely. I don't know what you think I originally meant.

The driver is absolutely responsible for rolling his truck, and it's absolutely reasonable to hold him just as accountable as any other goofball that rolls their vehicle in a quarry while showing off. What's not reasonable is throwing extra penalties at him because his passenger happened to be a damned fool.

Get this - he is not responsible for the actions of other adults in his truck, and any law that holds him to be so is a crime against the principles of personal liberty and personal accountability.

 

[segafan1989]

It took me flipping 2 cars to stop driving reckless, I sure am glad I never had to wake up to this nightmare.

TWO cars?! Flipping the first one didn't open your eyes?

 

[BlazeRunner]

The driver is absolutely responsible for rolling his truck, and it's absolutely reasonable to hold him just as accountable as any other goofball that rolls their vehicle in a quarry while showing off. What's not reasonable is throwing extra penalties at him because his passenger happened to be a damned fool.

Get this - he is not responsible for the actions of other adults in his truck, and any law that holds him to be so is a crime against the principles of personal liberty and personal accountability.

Here's my analogy; if your friend asked for a ride to the bank then robbed it without your knowledge, you would still get in trouble. The difference here is that the driver actually knew somebody was at risk by how they were situated in the vehicle, yet he still chose to drive recklessly. His vehicle, his passengers, his responsibility.
That's the thing about laws, not everybody agrees on them. That is the law in some states though, and with this case I wouldn't be surprised if involuntary manslaughter is charged. It doesn't mean its the right way to go about it, but its just how the cookie crumbles. Don't like it? Go be a senator or something and change it. We obviously have different points of view.
Driving Deaths and Manslaughter - Lawyers.com

 

[02SE]

The driver is absolutely responsible for rolling his truck, and it's absolutely reasonable to hold him just as accountable as any other goofball that rolls their vehicle in a quarry while showing off. What's not reasonable is throwing extra penalties at him because his passenger happened to be a damned fool.

Get this - he is not responsible for the actions of other adults in his truck, and any law that holds him to be so is a crime against the principles of personal liberty and personal accountability.

We need a button that 'Likes' all of a poster's comments in a given thread. It would save time..

 

[BlazeRunner]

So if you had people sitting in the bed of your pickup, and you drove like an ******* therefore causing their death, you wouldn't be responsible? Oh, but they chose to sit there, right? How are they to know how much of a shitty driver somebody could be? If you still don't understand, maybe you should take a ride with my Grandma driving and tell me how safe you feel even with a seatbelt on. In layman's terms, the driver determines how safe passengers are regardless of how they are being transported.

What if the people wearing seatbelts had gotten injured? This would have probably been reacted to differently

 

[KidVermicious]

Here's my analogy; if your friend asked for a ride to the bank then robbed it without your knowledge, you would still get in trouble.

And that's wrong.

You're obviously incapable or unwilling to think about this critically, so I'm done here. I'm going to go beat my head against a brick wall, I think I'll enjoy that more.

 

[BlazeRunner]

And that's wrong.

You're obviously incapable or unwilling to think about this critically, so I'm done here. I'm going to go beat my head against a brick wall, I think I'll enjoy that more.

That's your opinion. I asked questions to try and understand where you're coming from, but now it's real obvious where this conversation has ended up.:flamewar:

 

[BrianSD_42]

only the driver is responsible. it wasn't a bank robbery.

 

[BlazeRunner]

This is to educate people, based on reckless and negligent driving.
If the driver had been responsible, aka not doing donuts in a gravel pit knowing somebody is at risk, then I would have sided with no form of punishment. The law is the law, and they're there for a reason. Please read this entire post, the information about being reckless or negligent is the main point here. It's obviously not a cut and dry case, we have no idea what the details are. However, the driver wasn't just going down the road for a Sunday drive doing the speed limit. He was recklessly doing donuts in a high COG vehicle knowing his friend is at risk by the way he was standing. If you have a personal opinion, great, but spewing uneducated fantasies about how you think it should be dealt with is ignorant. This is the law of the land.

"Involuntary Manslaughter
In many states, a motorist who drives an automobile recklessly or in a grossly negligent manner and unintentionally kills another is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Generally, this means driving without any thought of or care for the safety of others.

Likewise, a driver who commits a non-felony crime or misdemeanor that results in the unintentional death of another person can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter is by far the most common crime charged in vehicle-related deaths. Good examples include:

•A driver running a red light and then crashing into another car, killing the other driver
•Speeding, losing control of the car, crossing over into opposite lanes of travel and colliding with another car, killing a driver or passenger
•Driving at night without headlights and striking and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk
Driving a car is a big responsibility. It's your job to drive safely, not only to protect yourself and your passengers, but also everyone else who's on the road or sidewalks. The law is there to protect everyone, and it will come crashing down a driver who causes another person's death."

 

[LuckyRunnerLTD]

TWO cars?! Flipping the first one didn't open your eyes?

Nope, somehow I got out of a 85+ mph were my new "USED" back tire came off the rim and sent me into a boulder at the driver door, which flipped the car (90 integra LS) unto its roof an slid right before a tree. Second was a 88 civic HB with b18 about 10 months after the first the sun got into my eyes and I hit a telephone pole passenger side which flipped it over from the driver side and again slid next to a tree. BOTH on the same road about 16 miles apart. THANK GOD!! I was the only person ever involved in my accidents..

 

[smithTR4]

Nope, somehow I got out of a 85+ mph were my new "USED" back tire came off the rim and sent me into a boulder at the driver door, which flipped the car (90 integra LS) unto its roof an slid right before a tree. Second was a 88 civic HB with b18 about 10 months after the first the sun got into my eyes and I hit a telephone pole passenger side which flipped it over from the driver side and again slid next to a tree. BOTH on the same road about 16 miles apart. THANK GOD!! I was the only person ever involved in my accidents..

How did you end up hitting a light pole because the sun was in your eyes? I dont think you had your eyes on the road..

 

[Brian757]

How did you end up hitting a light pole because the sun was in your eyes? I dont think you had your eyes on the road..

He was looking at the sun. :biggrin1:

 

[LuckyRunnerLTD]

He was looking at the sun. :biggrin1:

The sun was going down an musta been right in my eyes, a slight left corner I didn't make an went straight into the pole.. I'll try to dig up some pics.
Before

 

[smithTR4]

that doesnt look like a road you should have been driving 85mph on.. did you hit the pole from the side or straight on? looks like you went into the pole sideways..