3 ms·

As a side note, I find - as always - this part disturbing: >The driver, Rafael Vasquez, 44, served time in prison for armed robbery and other charges in the ea

by jaclaz 9y ago

As a side note, I find - as always - this part disturbing: >The driver, Rafael Vasquez, 44, served time in prison for armed robbery and other charges in the early 2000s, according to Arizona prison and Maricopa County Superior Court records. He served time in prison for armed robbery more than 15 years ago, what kind of relevance would have this? Presumably he has a valid driving license issued by the State, and was not under the effect of alcohol or drugs. Having committed armed robbery has seemingly no connection (I mean it isn't like he was condemned for having killed someone while driving a car or something like that), and even if that was the case some State must have issued (or renewed) his driving license, meaning that he was legally authorized to drive the car.

lancepioch 9y ago
In the US, once you commit a crime, it'll follow you for the rest of your life, even after you paid your time and money.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >In the US, once you commit a crime, it'll follow you for the rest of your life, even after you paid your time and money. I know, and understand how this (right or wrong as it might be[1]) could be of use for the police or for the judiciary system, what I am highlighting is just how gratuitious it is on a piece of news. [1] this is a (lesser known) writing by G.K Chesterton: "The perpetuation of punishment" (page 504 of "On Lying in Bed and Other Essays") circa 1907 https://books.google.it/books?id=QtWvMclbR9YC&pg=PA504 https://books.google.it/books?id=QtWvMclbR9YC&pg=PA504
adrianmonk 9y ago
I imagine they're trying to imply that someone who was convicted of a serious crime could still be an unreliable, irresponsible, or untrustworthy person. It's another question whether it's fair to assume that. I don't think it is, though personally I think it's reasonable to take the information into account as long as you restrain yourself from jumping to any conclusions.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >I imagine they're trying to imply that someone who was convicted of a serious crime could still be an unreliable, irresponsible, or untrustworthy person. Sure, the whole point being that it is meaningless and IMHO disturbing to imply that. Not that I am familiar with bank robbers, and of course have no idea on the specific crime for which the driver was earlier condemned, but I believe that bank robbers need to be actually rather punctual, have planning capabilities and usually be exceptionally good drivers, at least this is what Hollywood usually shows us. >I don't think it is, though personally I think it's reasonable to take the information into account as long as you restrain yourself from jumping to any conclusions. I wonder how you take that into account without making any conclusion or however influence your opinion, this kind of info is IMHO either relevant or not (gratuitious). It is a car accident, where the automatic means failed and the driver supposed to take commands in case of failure of the automated system didn't or couldn't, the criminal past of the guy has no relevance, it is more likely that the whole thing happened too fast, or that he was distracted, and unless and until it is established that the accident was caused voluntarily or by "voluntary inaction". What if the driver was differently "marked" by society? Like - say - known to belong to the Communist Party or to the Neo Nazi's? Or if he was mentioned as being (choose one) gay, transgender, black, latino, illegally immigrated? What kind of added info is that in the context of a car accident?

by jaclaz 9y ago

lancepioch 9y ago

In the US, once you commit a crime, it'll follow you for the rest of your life, even after you paid your time and money.

jaclaz 9y ago
>In the US, once you commit a crime, it'll follow you for the rest of your life, even after you paid your time and money. I know, and understand how this (right or wrong as it might be[1]) could be of use for the police or for the judiciary system, what I am highlighting is just how gratuitious it is on a piece of news. [1] this is a (lesser known) writing by G.K Chesterton: "The perpetuation of punishment" (page 504 of "On Lying in Bed and Other Essays") circa 1907 https://books.google.it/books?id=QtWvMclbR9YC&pg=PA504 https://books.google.it/books?id=QtWvMclbR9YC&pg=PA504

adrianmonk 9y ago

I imagine they're trying to imply that someone who was convicted of a serious crime could still be an unreliable, irresponsible, or untrustworthy person. It's another question whether it's fair to assume that. I don't think it is, though personally I think it's reasonable to take the information into account as long as you restrain yourself from jumping to any conclusions.

jaclaz 9y ago
>I imagine they're trying to imply that someone who was convicted of a serious crime could still be an unreliable, irresponsible, or untrustworthy person. Sure, the whole point being that it is meaningless and IMHO disturbing to imply that. Not that I am familiar with bank robbers, and of course have no idea on the specific crime for which the driver was earlier condemned, but I believe that bank robbers need to be actually rather punctual, have planning capabilities and usually be exceptionally good drivers, at least this is what Hollywood usually shows us. >I don't think it is, though personally I think it's reasonable to take the information into account as long as you restrain yourself from jumping to any conclusions. I wonder how you take that into account without making any conclusion or however influence your opinion, this kind of info is IMHO either relevant or not (gratuitious). It is a car accident, where the automatic means failed and the driver supposed to take commands in case of failure of the automated system didn't or couldn't, the criminal past of the guy has no relevance, it is more likely that the whole thing happened too fast, or that he was distracted, and unless and until it is established that the accident was caused voluntarily or by "voluntary inaction". What if the driver was differently "marked" by society? Like - say - known to belong to the Communist Party or to the Neo Nazi's? Or if he was mentioned as being (choose one) gay, transgender, black, latino, illegally immigrated? What kind of added info is that in the context of a car accident?