If you could decide this person's penalty, what would it be?

[LilSaihah]

I want to ask people who say things like
"don't think the fate of the victim in the earlier crash influences the level of punishment for this action"

What if that victim is your loved one and you 100% know he/she would be alive if the ambulance can reach its destiny.
Your mother could hug you every morning, but instead she is in a grave because of the actions of 1 person.
You could kiss your boy who instead died slowly on the road in great pain.

What's your answer now?

Why aren't you blaming the person who caused the initial accident instead of the person who exacerbated the situation?

Don't get me wrong, the story's a fucking shitter, but keep in context who is doing what.

[Slant]

That much is true. Would you argue then, that there's no point in punishing anyone, because it won't bring the victim back?

I'd argue that there's no point in being lenient and look the other way, because that person lost their life just the same as another person who was murdered. Again, neither can be brought back to life, the result is the exact same.

The point of punishment is twofold: To prevent people that have problems with their moral compass from going off limits. Many people that lack morals nevertheless are deterred by punishment. Thus, you are protecting society as a whole. Once, through crime prevention (which is always the better) and once through removing offenders from society for a time and possibly rehabilitate them (thus again, preventing further crime). The second part of punishment is the old fashioned "justice". This bit goes a little in the direction of revenge, but there are many people who prefer not to see it as revenge. Or rather, if it's revenge, then it's the state sanctioned "good kind" of revenge. Little does it actually help people in their loss, however.

So yes, there is a point in punishment. But it's not revenge. The point is protection of society and yes, protection of the individual offender from himself, in a sense. The overarching goal for law and justice is to improve society, not necessarily care for everyone individually. As you notice, laws don't rule your everyday life. People can easily go through life without ever reading a lawbook and never once come into contact with authorities. Simply because law really tries to leave you alone for as long as you don't interfere with other people's rights.

Nobody is "looking the other way". They're looking very closely. Closer than you are, actually. They look at the actual action and what actually happened. What you see/hear seems to be "he did something and later down the road someone died". You kind of ignore that there are already laws dealing with his actions, that he will get punished and for some reason you're adamant about punishing him for a very specific crime... a crime that someone else is likely to be punished for already. So essentially, the crime is being dealt with in another situation and trial, yet because you are somehow offended that someone broke a law, he's liable for everything that's connected to that breaking of the law, regardless of how remote that connection is. That's a very simplistic view.

[Azadina]

Why aren't you blaming the person who caused the initial accident instead of the person who exacerbated the situation?

Don't get me wrong, the story's a fucking shitter, but keep in context who is doing what.

The OP never provided any information about that. Like, none. Maybe that's why.

[Slant]

Why aren't you blaming the person who caused the initial accident instead of the person who exacerbated the situation?

Don't get me wrong, the story's a fucking shitter, but keep in context who is doing what.

At least someone is keeping track of the important things here. I also find it fascinating that people keep ignoring this fact. It's like they want to punish as many people as possible to satiate the bloodthirst. Emotional outrage seldom is a good advisor on how to proceed.

- - - Updated - - -

The OP never provided any information about that. Like, none. Maybe that's why.

And that's probably why we're having the entire discussion. Because the bits and pieces that matter are not explained. It's a very one-sided story with obvious bias that's meant to enrage.

[GarlicGuy]

It was a 4 lane highway (2 each way) from the OP.

Not a highway.... a 4 lane road with a 35 MPH speed limit.

[Slant]

Not a highway.... a 4 lane road with a 35 MPH speed limit.

As they say... a picture says more than a thousand words. Not of a random road, but of this specific crime scene. For any discussion to have a worth, we need to know the lighting conditions, the layout of the area and so on. So for now, it's all just speculation and generalisations...

[GarlicGuy]

The OP never provided any information about that. Like, none. Maybe that's why.

Because I never saw the original accident.... probably happened 10 - 15 minutes prior to my arriving at the accident scene.

[Azadina]

The point of punishment is twofold: To prevent people that have problems with their moral compass from going off limits. Many people that lack morals nevertheless are deterred by punishment. Thus, you are protecting society as a whole. Once, through crime prevention (which is always the better) and once through removing offenders from society for a time and possibly rehabilitate them (thus again, preventing further crime). The second part of punishment is the old fashioned "justice". This bit goes a little in the direction of revenge, but there are many people who prefer not to see it as revenge. Or rather, if it's revenge, then it's the state sanctioned "good kind" of revenge. Little does it actually help people in their loss, however.

So yes, there is a point in punishment. But it's not revenge. The point is protection of society and yes, protection of the individual offender from himself, in a sense. The overarching goal for law and justice is to improve society, not necessarily care for everyone individually. As you notice, laws don't rule your everyday life. People can easily go through life without ever reading a lawbook and never once come into contact with authorities. Simply because law really tries to leave you alone for as long as you don't interfere with other people's rights.

Nobody is "looking the other way". They're looking very closely. Closer than you are, actually. They look at the actual action and what actually happened. What you see/hear seems to be "he did something and later down the road someone died". You kind of ignore that there are already laws dealing with his actions, that he will get punished and for some reason you're adamant about punishing him for a very specific crime... a crime that someone else is likely to be punished for already. So essentially, the crime is being dealt with in another situation and trial, yet because you are somehow offended that someone broke a law, he's liable for everything that's connected to that breaking of the law, regardless of how remote that connection is. That's a very simplistic view.

I would say breaking the law to cause a car crash with an ambulance, thus causing another person to die, would most definitely qualify as interfering with other peoples rights. You are very quick to dismiss his actions for whatever reason. Also, it's nowhere near "remote" connection between his action and someones death. But you can go right ahead downplaying the fact that someone died because of him.

[jvbastel]

Whatever the fine would be if a person dying would not have been the result.

[GarlicGuy]

At least someone is keeping track of the important things here. I also find it fascinating that people keep ignoring this fact. It's like they want to punish as many people as possible to satiate the bloodthirst. Emotional outrage seldom is a good advisor on how to proceed.

- - - Updated - - -



And that's probably why we're having the entire discussion. Because the bits and pieces that matter are not explained. It's a very one-sided story with obvious bias that's meant to enrage.

Not at all meant to "enrage".... Just curious what people think they would want as the penalty. And I can't give details I don't have or remember.

But here it goes as BEST AS I CAN RECALL:

10 AM, pouring rain, the ambulance was coming west in the two lanes that were going east. I "think" I recall a siren. I know I saw flashing lights. The police were - my guess - going to let us pass the accident shortly, or why not just turn us around immediately?

That is all I know.

[Slant]

I would say breaking the law to cause a car crash with an ambulance, thus causing another person to die, would most definitely qualify as interfering with other peoples rights. You are very quick to dismiss his actions for whatever reason. Also, it's nowhere near "remote" connection between his action and someones death. But you can go right ahead downplaying the fact that someone died because of him.

We're talking in circles and you're accusing me of downplaying. Apparently I'm not getting through to you or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying. This pretty much concludes the discussion for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all meant to "enrage".... Just curious what people think they would want as the penalty. And I can't give details I don't have or remember.

But here it goes as BEST AS I CAN RECALL:

10 AM, pouring rain, the ambulance was coming west in the two lanes that were going east. I "think" I recall a siren. I know I saw flashing lights. The police were - my guess - going to let us pass the accident shortly, or why not just turn us around immediately?

That is all I know.

Lighting conditions, how long was the dude standing in that line, how long was the line of cars waiting, what did the police do to keep people in the line, where did the ambulance come from, how fast did it travel, how far was he into his u-turn? So many questions that affect the case.

[Azadina]

We're talking in circles and you're accusing me of downplaying. Apparently I'm not getting through to you or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying. This pretty much concludes the discussion for me.

You are downplaying his involvement. He's responsible for:

1. Illegal U-turn;
2. Which caused a crash with an ambulance;
3. Which caused someone to die.

All that, but you find it unfair to charge him for the last, that has become obvious. Why? Would your answer be the same if that dead person was your partner? Mine wouldn't change. I don't find someone I don't know to be worthless and dismissable by default. Kill someone, go to jail. That's my opinion. Don't want jail? Then don't get people killed. How much more simple could it be.

[Slant]

You are downplaying his involvement. He's responsible for:

1. Illegal U-turn;
2. Which caused a crash with an ambulance;
3. Which caused someone to die.

All that, but you find it unfair to charge him for the last, that has become obvious. Why? Would your answer be the same if that dead person was your partner? Mine wouldn't change. I don't find someone I don't know to be worthless and dismissable by default. Kill someone, go to jail. That's my opinion. Don't want jail? Then don't get people killed. How much more simple could it be.

You're insinuating certain attitudes you think I display that are quite untrue. It's becoming a bit insulting. Just letting you know before you go any further than that. As for your last remarks... Why aren't you arguing to punish the mother of the driver that caused the ambulance accident?

[GarlicGuy]

We're talking in circles and you're accusing me of downplaying. Apparently I'm not getting through to you or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying. This pretty much concludes the discussion for me.

- - - Updated - - -



Lighting conditions, how long was the dude standing in that line, how long was the line of cars waiting, what did the police do to keep people in the line, where did the ambulance come from, how fast did it travel, how far was he into his u-turn? So many questions that affect the case.

Ah you are one of THOSE people...... just like to argue. I think we can know what was done from police procedures, and things I already said.....

[Azadina]

You're insinuating certain attitudes you think I display that are quite untrue. It's becoming a bit insulting. Just letting you know before you go any further than that. As for your last remarks... Why aren't you arguing to punish the mother of the driver that caused the ambulance accident?

Was the mother driving or not?

[GarlicGuy]

You are downplaying his involvement. He's responsible for:

1. Illegal U-turn;
2. Which caused a crash with an ambulance;
3. Which caused someone to die.

All that, but you find it unfair to charge him for the last, that has become obvious. Why? Would your answer be the same if that dead person was your partner? Mine wouldn't change. I don't find someone I don't know to be worthless and dismissable by default. Kill someone, go to jail. That's my opinion. Don't want jail? Then don't get people killed. How much more simple could it be.

Well, there are accidents.... but making a U-Turn in this situation was a choice... a bad choice. Also, I never said that I knew for a fact that the person died because of the U-Turn, because I don't know that to be the case..... HOWEVER, it sure didn't help him any.

My feelings are similar to yours, but I am trying to think about it from a legal perspective.

[Azadina]

Well, there are accidents.... but making a U-Turn in this situation was a choice... a bad choice. Also, I never said that I knew for a fact that the person died because of the U-Turn, because I don't know that to be the case..... HOWEVER, it sure didn't help him any.

My feelings are similar to yours, but I am trying to think about it from a legal perspective.

Yes, there are accidents, and the person responsible should be tossed to jail. If car A crashes into car B, being at fault, then here's how I see it:

Does person A die, but B lives? His own fault.
Does person A live, but B dies? Jail.
Do both A and B die? A's fault, but he's too dead for jail.
Oh, and if both live: A pays it all.

One more edit: You didn't confirm he died because of what happened, but that was the assumption in the conversation. If not, then the answer would be different to it.

[Slant]

Well, there are accidents.... but making a U-Turn in this situation was a choice... a bad choice. Also, I never said that I knew for a fact that the person died because of the U-Turn, because I don't know that to be the case..... HOWEVER, it sure didn't help him any.

My feelings are similar to yours, but I am trying to think about it from a legal perspective.

Are you serious? Goddamn, I'm outta here...

[GarlicGuy]

Are you serious? Goddamn, I'm outta here...

I can't help it if people want to make their own assumptions. The guy died a few days later. Might he have lived if the 1st ambulance was not hit by the illegal U-Turn? I don't know. I said in my original post that I was telling people what I saw, and that was all.

[Spiffums]

I'm with the folks who don't think the fate of the victim in the earlier crash influences the level of punishment for this action. If not, you could convict a pickpocket of murder because the money was meant to pay for medicin which the victim now couldn't afford. Comeon...

He obstructed/endangered an ambulance and made an illegal u-turn. No idea what punishment is set for that.

Well they did want to call Brady a victim of gun violence when he died years later because John Hinkle shot him when he shot Ron. I think that's reaching in my opinion. Traffic violation and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Of course you can convince a jury of anything.