If he used a car purposefully to kill the CEO, no- he would most certainly NOT be free right now.
Murder is murder, regardless of the chosen method.
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
309 points (80.5% liked)
Fuck Cars
9784 readers
991 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He would obviously just lie and say it was an accident. I would match his story.
That’s not how vehicular manslaughter trials work. It’s like any other murder prosecution. He’d need to prove it was an accident. And mowing down someone with a car in front of witnesses in broad daylight?
Yeah…
Guilty.
This is incredibly reductive and makes us look like idiots who don't understand "intent".
I get it, fuck cars, but this is ridiculous and only serves to make us look like a joke
That’s exactly what it’s doing.
I'm sure that kid in Texas totally didn't have intent when he ran over 12 people then backed up over them again
And did that kid get off with a "oopsies!"? No? Then how is that related to this thread?
"Oops, my foot slipped on the wrong pedal."
Intent without confessions and manifestos may not be that easy to prove.
They're not comparable.
If I'm at a firing range, where it is expected that people are carrying guns and ammunition, I can pull the same "oops, my finger slipped" excuse.
Similarly, if I drive my car around the side of your house and into your back yard to run you over, I can't claim "my foot slipped".
Seriously, stop with the mental gymnastics. We don't need to reach for more reasons to say "fuck cars." There are plenty within arms reach
Well, we shouldn't build our cities around hundreds miles of firing ranges then, right?
You are the one doing mental gymnastics bro. What is that back yard comparison? Obviously you just swerve off the road, run him over and say you fell asleep - long day, had to work long hours to pay off my medical debt. Or have an old person run over CEOs, 80yo in cars kill people all the time because they should not be driving anymore. They always get off easy.
Murder is with the intention to kill. This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
But they are too lenient on deathly accidents with gross negligence.
This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
Unless the driver admitted to wanting to kill someone on purpose with their car, the grey area between "I didn't see them" to "I don't know what happened." makes it so that drivers are often only given a citation for a traffic violation (i.e. not stopping at a stop sign), if the victim is lucky enough for that level of "justice".
It's very rare to see a driver be convicted of anything beyond vehicular manslaughter, including when you have a history of driving offences, and run off like a coward after running over a cyclist.
edit: grammar
With a random killing you might get indeed away, but murders are usually targeted. In case a deadly accident happens, and it can be proven the driver had a conflict with that person, it does turn the case around.
Plot twist, the person killed is a protester.
do that next year, and you'll get a medal and a cabinet post.
But only if he's also a singer.
And if you setup a system were people die preventable, unnecessary deaths the cops will work for you.
So, luigi should have used a car instead?
Got it.
True for Germany, too. The killers sometimes even get to keep their drivers licenses.
... with judges explaining their non-judgements with some totally rediculous arguments like: he has already suffered the worst... having to live with the fact he klilled someone, so there's no reason for further punshment.
But there was a case where someone was convicted for murder because he was involved in an illegal car race and should have known better. Yes, illegal car races are a thing in Germany
Edit: This isn't the case I had in mind. I remember vague that the victim was an (elderly) man
Might be worth mentioning that "illegal car race" does not (necessarily) mean fast and the furious style street racing.
According to § 315d StGB (the German penal code), driving recklessly and violating traffic laws with the intention of reaching the highest speed does constitute an illegal race.
Works for the Walton family. You know, for those nights of heavy drinking, where you just wanna bounce some peasants off your grill.