You should back those things up with more than "because I said so" is what you should do.
This conspiracy theory doesn't make much sense to me. If they wanted to they could have just gave him probation and sent him on his way, right? Why go through this convoluted path of charging him and convicting him, and let him go?
Am I misunderstanding you? It feels like I'm misunderstanding you.
I'm not sure your second point is as strong as you believe it to be. Do you have a specific example in mind? I think most vehicle problems that would require an emergency responder will have easy access to a tow service to deal with the car with or without a human being involved. It's not like just because a human is there that the problem is more easily solved. For minor-to-moderate accidents that just require a police report, things might get messy but that's an issue with the law, not necessarily something inherently wrong with the concept of self driving vehicles.
Also, your first point is on shaky ground, I think. I don't know why the metric is accidents with fatalities, but since that's what you used, what do you think having fewer humans involved does to the chance of killing a human?
I'm all for numbers being crunched, and to be clear (as you were, I think) the numbers are the real deciding metrics here, not thought experiments.
And I think it's 100% true that autonomous transportation doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans. Not that you disagree with this, but it is probably what people are thinking when they say "humans do this too".
I appreciate what you mean but the idea that human rights aren't granted is just a philosophy, not something that actually matches reality.
That is to say, whether I agree with your premise or not doesn't change reality at all.
I can't speak for anyone else but I fully support their right to vote for him even after he dies.
I'm not going to lie, I fully expected this to be a fake quote, but it mostly isn't.
The real version doesn't mention fool or narcissist.
What are you bitter about, precisely?
Wait.. our national parks are the example you came up with?
What about our system do you think qualifies at "working"?
That's probably a typo, read the title.
And speaking of this weak ass defense you've got going, let's take it one step higher. Do you think developing countries should use America as the shining example of what to be? Surely there are better countries in the world to strive to emulate than America.
How sure are you? If licenses were such valuable troves of information, surely one person would have thought of a small hidden camera, right?
Double check the OPs question.
.. but he still has a sentencing hearing. It's right in the title. This conspiracy theory doesn't hold up at all.