5 6 7 8
Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
9/29/21 2:01 p.m.

While I disagree strongly with WHY others are stating that the kid shouldn't have been arrested, not to mention numerous of their opinions and interpretations of the associated legal matters being discussed, I am going to defend not rushing to judge the police decision to not arrest the kid at this point in time for the singular following reason:

Based even on what little is known so far, I still do not believe it is a lack of 'facts' (evidence) preventing the police from having probable cause of multiple laws being broken by the driver of the truck. Remember it's probable cause, not legally determined guilt, that we think of as putting people in handcuffs at the scene and taking them to jail before the investigation is complete. Multiple corroborating eye witness accounts could certainly be considered probable cause. But probable cause of what exactly?

I'd put money that the police have (right, wrong, or indifferent) decided the law(s) that the probable cause is most applicable (defensible) to, as a result of the eye witness accounts and immediately available evidence on the scene, were (at least initially) determined to be misdemeanors and/or gross misdemeanors... Both of which are NOT actually arrestable only under probable cause, unless it specifically occurs in the presence of the police.

Is it possible that they were also a bit (overly?) generous in that assessment for one reason or another? Absolutely, but not necessarily.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/29/21 2:57 p.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

Well said

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter)
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
9/29/21 4:15 p.m.

I have nothing to offer other than I love discovering threads like this with 7 pages.  I read page 1, then I read page 7 just to see how far off the topic we've gone laugh

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/29/21 5:07 p.m.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

7 pages = 7 degrees of separation.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
9/29/21 10:25 p.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

First I would point out other first world countries have shown a downward trend in traffic deaths in the last two decades and the US ranked among the worst for first world nations. Study These countries face the same things the US does as far as distractions from phones and lazy people because people don't change that much country to country in my experience.

Death rates for pedestrains massively increase with speed. Study Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Wheelchair users, low income and minorities are killed at a higher level then other groups. Link Link

Regarding the J-walkers, T4America’s analysis of the national traffic safety database reveals that more than 52 percent of pedestrian deaths happen on arterial roads designed to accommodate many cars on many lanes at high speeds, with little to no accommodation for people on foot. Those roads often lack sidewalks, crosswalks, and medians for safe pedestrian crossings. “All too often, the consequences of this lack of basic infrastructure are fatal,” the authors note. “Of the 40,037 pedestrian fatalities for which the location of the collision was known, more than 40 percent were killed where no crosswalk was available.”

Separated bike lanes have many benefits for both bikers and the less of road users. https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-who-dont-ride-bikes.html

I get that stupidity will still get people killed but I still argue that the way city roads are built massively contribute to that.

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy Dork
9/29/21 11:33 p.m.

One more statement to clear up some obvious confusion. 

If the driver of the truck is guilty, he absolutely deserves to face whatever punishment the courts decide. 

He also absolutely deserves due process and the presumption of innocence until that guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Without these, we don't have the rule of law. 

Let's give the authorities a chance to do their job before breaking out the pitchforks and torches. 
 

I agree with this 100%. I give myself a 72 hour rule on any news story, because initial reports can be so misleading. Then in something like this, we often won't hear all of the facts until it goes to court. If all this turns out to be true, I hope they throw the book at him. But not only he, our society, deserves due process. Facts and evidence first, then determine criminality, not the other way around. 
 

As for cyclist and pedestrian safety, motorists should do everything they can to avoid collisions. But pedestrians and cyclists bear an even greater responsibility, because they are the ones who stand to be seriously hurt or killed if there is a collision. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I tried riding on back roads a couple of times, wasn't for me. Never got comfortable looking over my shoulder or hoping one of the cars whizzing by didn't hit me. I stick to trails now and limit my time shared with cars as much as possible. When on a bike or on foot, I assume that I'm invisible and any car that I cross in front of will hit me. It's not a cyclist's or pedestrian's fault if a driver breaks a law and hits them, but they put themselves at the scene of the accident.

OHSCrifle
OHSCrifle UltraDork
9/30/21 5:18 a.m.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Wisdom 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter)
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
9/30/21 6:43 a.m.

We live in a society that is eagerly destroying due process, rule of law, and doesn't care about facts.  But you can keep thinking people today are supa smaht if you want.  
 

If any wants to make a sequel to Idiocracy, you can just use live modern day footage.  

dculberson
dculberson MegaDork
9/30/21 7:46 a.m.

I believe it's worth noting that comments in a forum do not count as due process.

ShawnG
ShawnG UltimaDork
9/30/21 9:21 a.m.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

We live in a society that is eagerly destroying due process, rule of law, and doesn't care about facts.

This needs to be posted again, for emphasis.

maschinenbau
maschinenbau UltraDork
9/30/21 9:32 a.m.

You can talk about due process all you want, but the cops who failed to arrest this psychopath are the same ones that suicided Sandra Bland in her jail cell after a traffic stop. And the same DA who didn't further investigate her death in their custody. But I'm sure these cyclists will get their justice though, only because they can afford to based on the cost of their bikes. 

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/30/21 11:07 a.m.

What the heck; we are so far out in the weeds now we're 3 counties over.

Profiling - we dislike Coal Rollers because of we find their behavior obnoxious and irresponsible....................so naturally when something happens we assume it's all their fault as they have proven themselves to be irresponsible or put more simply all obnoxious douche bags are instantly guilty by virtue of being an obnoxious douche bags.

Seems logical to me. LOL

 

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
9/30/21 12:09 p.m.
Boost_Crazy said:

As for cyclist and pedestrian safety, motorists should do everything they can to avoid collisions. But pedestrians and cyclists bear an even greater responsibility, because they are the ones who stand to be seriously hurt or killed if there is a collision. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I tried riding on back roads a couple of times, wasn't for me. Never got comfortable looking over my shoulder or hoping one of the cars whizzing by didn't hit me. I stick to trails now and limit my time shared with cars as much as possible. When on a bike or on foot, I assume that I'm invisible and any car that I cross in front of will hit me. It's not a cyclist's or pedestrian's fault if a driver breaks a law and hits them, but they put themselves at the scene of the accident.

What a load of victim blaming crap. Cyclist have a right to the road. Pedestrians should be able to cross roads safely. If the current road systems don't allow for that then solutions should be found not just saying well they shouldn't have been walking or cycling there.

There are plenty of people who don't have cars for any number of reasons from not being able to afford one to not being able to drive to not wanting the environmental impact of owning a car. These people should be able to safely move around without worrying about getting killed on the road. At least in urban and suburban environments

Opti
Opti Dork
9/30/21 12:35 p.m.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Hes not victim blaming, hes saying people should pay attention and walk and cycle defensively because ultimately if you get hit by a car, the cyclist/pedestrian is the one likely to die, so be aware of that and watch out, because other people wont be. They literally teach bikers this "Assume you are invisible."

The points arent mutually exclusive, he wants people to be aware that cycling and walking is dangerous (because of other people, literally everything becomes more dangerous when you introduce other people) so treat it like that. Your saying places should be better for cyclists and pedestrians. Yes, both of those things are true

Pepe
Pepe New Reader
9/30/21 1:22 p.m.
Opti said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

hes saying people should pay attention and walk and cycle defensively

Funnily enough, one of the best ways to ride "defensively" is to take the lane, ie, ride right in the middle of it. Yet that just causes drivers to get enraged and shout about how those idiot cyclists think that they own the road. For most drivers, riding defensively = stay out of my berkeleying road.

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy Dork
9/30/21 10:05 p.m.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

What a load of victim blaming crap. Cyclist have a right to the road. Pedestrians should be able to cross roads safely. If the current road systems don't allow for that then solutions should be found not just saying well they shouldn't have been walking or cycling there.

There are plenty of people who don't have cars for any number of reasons from not being able to afford one to not being able to drive to not wanting the environmental impact of owning a car. These people should be able to safely move around without worrying about getting killed on the road. At least in urban and suburban environments
 

Sorry, that was not my intent at all. I'm not  blaming the victims. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation. You can be in the right yet still put yourself in danger. If I got paralyzed because a red light runner hit me in the crosswalk, I'd find little solace in being right. I still can't walk. So I assume absolutely nothing about deadly weapons operated by strangers. If a car is approaching an intersection, I assume it will run the red light. I don't step in front of a stopped car unless I make eye contact with the driver. Not all that different from handling a loaded gun. There are things that I can do to lower my risk, so I do them. 

As for cyclists- I certainly don't blame them for getting hit by a car if they were not at fault. But the reality is that the consequences for them is much different than the person in the car. The risk/ reward for riding a bike in traffic is just too unbalanced for me, which sucks because I enjoy cycling. But I don't want my family talking at my funeral about how I had right of way. 

As for people less risk adverse- more power to them. Everyone needs to make decisions for themselves. Just remember that for the most part, the law doesn't protect them, it just punishes those responsible after they are injured or killed. No mater how safe we make society, everyone still has a responsibility for their own safety. 

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
10/1/21 7:36 a.m.

I'm going to add one post, since the big sticking point seems to be about assuming guilt on either party. 
 

while we don't know what happened, we do know that the coal rollers are law breakers. They have tampered with their trucks to make them put out high PM. So forgive people for thinking the odds of them being more at fault are higher since it's clear that they have already broken the law before the interaction. 

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
10/1/21 9:04 a.m.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Ok fair enough. I guess I misread your post.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) PowerDork
10/1/21 10:34 a.m.
alfadriver said:

So forgive people for thinking the odds of them being more at fault are higher since it's clear that they have already broken the law before the interaction. 

It's a big jump from rolling coal to murder, I don't think this is a fair assumption.

 

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
10/1/21 10:49 a.m.

A statement from the DA's office in this case:

Rolling coal when a person is in the vicinity and when the individual rolling coal intentionally or knowingly causes that excess exhaust to contact that bystander is AT A MINIMUM an assault. They are causing their vehicle to “spit” on a living, breathing, human being that is worthy of dignity and not having his or her person violated. That simple assault is easily elevated to a jail eligible offense if bodily injury occurs, which can be caused by entry of toxic particles into mouth, nose and eyes.

Like the vast majority of truly douchey driving actions, regardless of whether or not it is ultimately enforced or enforceable, rolling coal with others in close proximity is an inherently illegal act.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
10/1/21 10:59 a.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
alfadriver said:

So forgive people for thinking the odds of them being more at fault are higher since it's clear that they have already broken the law before the interaction. 

It's a big jump from rolling coal to murder, I don't think this is a fair assumption.

 

I thought they just hit some bikers, not killed them.

My point is more about thinking fault w/o evidence.  I know nothing about the story, but given that I KNOW that the coal rollers broke the law already, it makes sense to me to just think they are likely to be more at fault.  That's just how people think.  I'm not saying it's a 50/50 to 100/0 against, but without any other info, I would at least think 60/40 against just because they break the law in a manner that's less than nice to people.

It's up to the justice system to actually do something about it, but they should at least communicate with the public to explain what they are doing (or not) and why.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
10/1/21 11:03 a.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

First to reiterate I'm not on the side of coal roller kid BUT

Please Mr DA show us what statue says that this is an assault; because if it is you are also going to have to charge, gravel trucks city buses and a whole host of other vehicles that pass close to pedestrians and cyclists. This is a hyperbolic statement by the DA in response to (understandable) public outrage. If there actually is a statue, then enforce it.

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
10/1/21 11:25 a.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

None of your (false) 'equivalencies' were illegally modified to intentionally spray an extra-noxious substance at nearby pedestrians, cyclists, and/or motorists that is intended to attack and inhibit their ability to see, breathe, and rightfully operate in a safe manner on the roadway. You're basically arguing that if it's illegal to rig a remote operated can of OC 'bear spray' to the muffler and spray it out the exhaust pipe at pedestrians, cyclists, and/or motorists, then all other tail pipe emissions must also be equally illegal. Lets not obfuscate the matter with logical fallacies.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
10/1/21 12:44 p.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

I deal with this all day long at work (write contracts for a government entity); it's not a logical fallacy, nor is it a false equivalency, it's the classic slippery slope and if this does go to court the kid's attorney will be all over this. I really don't want to go back and forth on the minutia but it's a stretch to call coal rolling in of itself assault...............regardless of how you and I may feel. It needs to meet the legal standard in a court.

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
10/1/21 12:52 p.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

You're limiting yourself to legal guilt. I'm including factual guilt. A lack of legal guilt does not absolve one of factual guilt.

Oh, and FYI: 'Slippery slope" is one of the primary argument types specifically defined as a logical fallacy.

5 6 7 8
Birthdays
Our Preferred Partners
nMQJh2X8d2SdgS6dS7OoFs9ylJR5Ru6pHy0rB7eIYxmBdJJl79gV4aKbJ1uPxG9O