Who caused the Wreck on 85-N?

[chunky]

Now I see where you're getting me all mixed up. Every time you've posted a rebuttal, you've alluded to me saying something I never said. Where did I EVER say that he killed these people with intent. I never did. Don't try to read more into my opinions than what's in there. He knew what he was doing could be dangerous. He knew what could happen. And knowing this, he did it anyway. With the outcome we all see. That's why I say he should at least get manslaughter. And not involuntary because he was intending on driving recklessly. That doesn't mean he volunteered to kill those people. But he did volunteer to drive the way he did thus resulting in their demise.


Now that I think I cleared up a misconception you had of my words, I will stand by my previous post and stay out. Later, QD.

I wasn't mixed up regarding your words at all. In fact, I stated previously that "You are trying to implicate that he intentionally killed these people," not that you did actually state that he willfully killed the occupants of the SUV. You make the link that he intentionally drove in a reckless fashion, which I do not disagree with. Then you state that the intention behind his manner of driving should escalate the charges, that point I do disagree with. In short, to escalate the charges, you would have to accuse him of having the intent to kill.

The present charges of vehicular homicide are appropriate because they encompass the reckless operation of a motor vehicle resulting in homicide but without any notions of the intent to kill. Vehicular homicide is a felony in the state of GA with a prison term of 3-15yrs. Involuntary manslaughter is actually a somewhat lesser charge - Since he was committing a misdemeanor (reckless) when the homicide occurred, it would be a felony involuntary manslaughter. That carries a prison term of 1-10yrs. He is up for the most prison time that the circumstances allow without upgrading to a charge that carries intent to kill.

I'm not a lawyer, but that is how I see things. If there are any lawyers reading this, I would gladly yield to your more qualified opinions.

My main point is that he should not be charged with any sort of intention to kill. Since we both agree on that, he's already up for the stiffest penalty available under the law for murder without intent. Vehicular homicide > involuntary manslaughter.

[quickdodge®]

In fact, I stated previously that "You are trying to implicate that he intentionally killed these people," not that you did actually state that he willfully killed the occupants of the SUV.

But I never implicated anything. I said he knew the possible outcomes and ignored them. If he had not ignored them, the family may still be here. He just figured this wouldn't happen, I'm sure.

My main point is that he should not be charged with any sort of intention to kill. Since we both agree on that, he's already up for the stiffest penalty available under the law for murder without intent. Vehicular homicide > involuntary manslaughter.

Agreed. Either way, it will be interesting to see how this plays out even more. You see where this dude now states that he had a passenger? Lolol. His side is just getting more bizarre and confusing each day. Later, QD.

[chunky]

But I never implicated anything. I said he knew the possible outcomes and ignored them. If he had not ignored them, the family may still be here. He just figured this wouldn't happen, I'm sure.



Agreed. Either way, it will be interesting to see how this plays out even more. You see where this dude now states that he had a passenger? Lolol. His side is just getting more bizarre and confusing each day. Later, QD.

The implication is clearly there. You said, "And not involuntary [manslaughter] because he was intending on driving recklessly." You're applying his intent to drive recklessly to his intent to kill. I don't agree with that at all. That's what I addressed when I made the distinction between partaking in a risky activity and partaking in a risky activity with the intent to cause harm.

Anyhow, I'm mostly interested to read about seat belt/child safety seat usage. This guy is going to have all kinds of wild stories before he (hopefully) just breaks down and accepts tells the truth. Hopefully it'll be something like this.

"Yes, I was driving too fast. I realized I needed to slow down and hit the brakes, but I saw that I could not stop in time. I attempted to utilize the emergency lane to avoid a collision, but the SUV swerved first into me, and then the opposite direction. I deeply regret being the trigger for the deaths of the occupants of the SUV. It was not my intention to kill anyone, but now that it has happened, I can only apologize and plea for mercy."

I'd have a lot more faith in the human spirit if this kid would just man up instead of trying to dodge the consequences.

[quickdodge®]

The implication is clearly there. You said, "And not involuntary [manslaughter] because he was intending on driving recklessly." You're applying his intent to drive recklessly to his intent to kill.

Actually, you are implying that that's what I said. You're reading more into this than I am. I guess to make you not look wrong? I don't think you're wrong in this. Just wrong about you THINK that I actually am saying.

But anyway.....

I'd have a lot more faith in the human spirit if this kid would just man up instead of trying to dodge the consequences.

You and me both, homey. Later, QD.

[chunky]

Actually, you are implying that that's what I said. You're reading more into this than I am. I guess to make you not look wrong? I don't think you're wrong in this. Just wrong about you THINK that I actually am saying.

But anyway.....



You and me both, homey. Later, QD.

I said:

"You are trying to implicate that he intentionally killed these people. "

You said:

"In a sense he did. He drove like this knowingly and willingly. He knew the dangers of his driving habit."

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...&postcount=105

Just thought I'd throw that out there. Anyhow, that point of contention is of no real consequnce anymore. :p

[quickdodge®]

I said:

"You are trying to implicate that he intentionally killed these people. "

You said:

"In a sense he did. He drove like this knowingly and willingly. He knew the dangers of his driving habit."

And it's true. In a sense he did. In a sense are the key words. We both know that that wasn't his intent.

Anyhow, that point of contention is of no real consequnce anymore.

Yessir. Later, QD.