3 ms·

> I don't know that I would even feel that sorry for her, >there is only so much we can (and should) do to protect... This strikes me as a good example of will

by cmurf 9y ago

> I don't know that I would even feel that sorry for her, >there is only so much we can (and should) do to protect... This strikes me as a good example of willful blindness and could subject a person to a charge of criminally negligent homicide. And I even see that possibility in this video, that the driver was maladapted for night conditions due to a display in the car that maybe wasn't supposed to be there. Imagine a condition with this car not recognizing and then hitting an animal (elk, moose, horse, cow) such that the animal goes right through the windshield and kills everyone inside the car. This is a real problem worth solving, regardless of whether you personally care about humans outside the car. Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed.

CamperBob2 9y ago
This strikes me as a good example of rebutting a point that nobody made. I didn't say I'd hit her on purpose. But if the conditions depicted in the video are accurate -- meaning, not artificially manipulated to make the lighting appear darker than it was -- then it would be awfully easy to rationalize away any guilt I might feel. If that amounts to victim-blaming, then so be it. When no malice is present, sometimes the victim really is to blame. Put another way, this is one of those cases where it's better to focus on fixing the problem rather than the blame.
- cmurf 9y ago
  Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide. What you described is a blase attitude that suggests it's OK to have no imagination of risks that can get people killed, and that's OK because after all they're drunk or stupid. Your words. Malice is not required for criminally negligent homicide. And yes, indeed, much better to fix the problem, that was my point. Not blame drunk or stupid people, which was your point.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    (Shrug) I'll defer to your GED in Law on this one.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide Any killing of a human by a human is homicide, even the kind that is not criminal; what you probably mean is that it would have been murder (or maybe voluntary manslaughter.)

by cmurf 9y ago

CamperBob2 9y ago

This strikes me as a good example of rebutting a point that nobody made. I didn't say I'd hit her on purpose. But if the conditions depicted in the video are accurate -- meaning, not artificially manipulated to make the lighting appear darker than it was -- then it would be awfully easy to rationalize away any guilt I might feel. If that amounts to victim-blaming, then so be it. When no malice is present, sometimes the victim really is to blame. Put another way, this is one of those cases where it's better to focus on fixing the problem rather than the blame.

cmurf 9y ago
Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide. What you described is a blase attitude that suggests it's OK to have no imagination of risks that can get people killed, and that's OK because after all they're drunk or stupid. Your words. Malice is not required for criminally negligent homicide. And yes, indeed, much better to fix the problem, that was my point. Not blame drunk or stupid people, which was your point.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  (Shrug) I'll defer to your GED in Law on this one.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide Any killing of a human by a human is homicide, even the kind that is not criminal; what you probably mean is that it would have been murder (or maybe voluntary manslaughter.)