4 ms·

I think you're missing the point. IANAL, but some law students explained this to me once (I hope to be accurate). If you drive your vehicle, then park, and lea

I think you're missing the point. IANAL, but some law students explained this to me once (I hope to be accurate). If you drive your vehicle, then park, and leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, and it's a crime, because your action - or inaction - killed somebody. From a criminal standpoint, the last driver - and only the driver - will be liable. OTOH in this case it was somebody else committing the infringement, be it civil or criminal. For each, there's a procedure. Here, it should have been the driver - not the owner of the car! - the one who got a fine. It's a personal responsibility of the driver, not an "objective one" for the vehicle. There's simply no mean, in most laws of any state of the world, for which such a responsibility could be transferred from who does the act to the one who owns something which is employed to commit such act. Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer? Speeding is an infringement committed by whoever speeds; the vehicle's owner has nothing to do with it. The whole "automated traffic control" systems were started with the wrong foot, without a proper legal basis.

developer2 10y ago
>> Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer? Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. Why do you hand out your killing utensil to someone else? It's just senseless. Same with your car. It is your car. Hand it to someone else and frankly yes, I blame you for their behavior while using it. At a minimum, I expect you to have knowledge of who is in possession of your vehicle, and that you be willing to offer up their identity in place of your own when they break the law. I have never handed my car to anyone else. I don't understand people who do. I am sensible enough to agree that it's quite far from the same degree of severity (car vs. gun). But the excuse of "it wasn't me driving my car!" is a copout, and exactly that - an excuse, designed to shove the blame on someone else. Well, someone other than the perpetrator - "it was an unknown person driving my car, even though my car wasn't stolen!". The worst part is, you know who sped with your car. If you knowingly provided your gun to an acquaintance and they killed someone, would your conscience really be comfortable claiming "I didn't commit the murder... and I know who did it, but I won't tell on them!". Come on now. People only rationalize this because they think that speeding is "normal" and not "a real crime". They know the law has been broken, but because they personally believe it to be a minor "everyman" offense, they make excuses to justify the situation. tldr; Either you, or the person you allowed to drive your car, broke the law. Grow up and pay the damn ticket. You're not a genius for nitpicking over "it wasn't me and you can't prove that I didn't know who was driving my non-stolen car!" - when clearly you or someone you have authorized to drive your vehicle is at fault.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  You think if someone goes hunting with my gun and commits murder instead, I'm an accessory to murder?
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. No, you're not, unless you (or rather, a rational person in your place) had a reason to believe that the person you lent it to was going to commit a crime with it, and the fact that you knew can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is how it should be.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
OliverJones 10y ago
> leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, true. It's also true if the brake fails, whether or not you maintained it correctly. > and it's a crime false. It's a tort -- a misdeed against the victims, for which they or their heirs can sue you to recover damages. The legal theory is "strict liability." It applies also to farmers whose bulls escape into the village and wreak havoc, and to factories whose molasses tanks collapse and flood streets. The victim need not prove negligence to collect actual damages. To collect punitive damages the victim does need to prove negligence.
- bb611 10y ago
  Torts exist in the civil system, not the criminal system. The driver in this scenario would likely be criminally liable for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or one of their many legal equivalents in state law.
- sjy 10y ago
  >false. It's a tort They're not mutually exclusive. Criminal negligence exists throughout the common law world.

developer2 10y ago

>> Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer? Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. Why do you hand out your killing utensil to someone else? It's just senseless. Same with your car. It is your car. Hand it to someone else and frankly yes, I blame you for their behavior while using it. At a minimum, I expect you to have knowledge of who is in possession of your vehicle, and that you be willing to offer up their identity in place of your own when they break the law. I have never handed my car to anyone else. I don't understand people who do. I am sensible enough to agree that it's quite far from the same degree of severity (car vs. gun). But the excuse of "it wasn't me driving my car!" is a copout, and exactly that - an excuse, designed to shove the blame on someone else. Well, someone other than the perpetrator - "it was an unknown person driving my car, even though my car wasn't stolen!". The worst part is, you know who sped with your car. If you knowingly provided your gun to an acquaintance and they killed someone, would your conscience really be comfortable claiming "I didn't commit the murder... and I know who did it, but I won't tell on them!". Come on now. People only rationalize this because they think that speeding is "normal" and not "a real crime". They know the law has been broken, but because they personally believe it to be a minor "everyman" offense, they make excuses to justify the situation. tldr; Either you, or the person you allowed to drive your car, broke the law. Grow up and pay the damn ticket. You're not a genius for nitpicking over "it wasn't me and you can't prove that I didn't know who was driving my non-stolen car!" - when clearly you or someone you have authorized to drive your vehicle is at fault.

jjnoakes 10y ago
You think if someone goes hunting with my gun and commits murder instead, I'm an accessory to murder?
int_19h 10y ago
> Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. No, you're not, unless you (or rather, a rational person in your place) had a reason to believe that the person you lent it to was going to commit a crime with it, and the fact that you knew can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is how it should be.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

OliverJones 10y ago

> leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, true. It's also true if the brake fails, whether or not you maintained it correctly. > and it's a crime false. It's a tort -- a misdeed against the victims, for which they or their heirs can sue you to recover damages. The legal theory is "strict liability." It applies also to farmers whose bulls escape into the village and wreak havoc, and to factories whose molasses tanks collapse and flood streets. The victim need not prove negligence to collect actual damages. To collect punitive damages the victim does need to prove negligence.

bb611 10y ago
Torts exist in the civil system, not the criminal system. The driver in this scenario would likely be criminally liable for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or one of their many legal equivalents in state law.
sjy 10y ago
>false. It's a tort They're not mutually exclusive. Criminal negligence exists throughout the common law world.