5 ms·

Maybe the person lying on the street should shoulder some of the blame. I do think courts in other parts of the world would have seen a lot of mitigating facto

Maybe the person lying on the street should shoulder some of the blame. I do think courts in other parts of the world would have seen a lot of mitigating factors.

ivan_gammel 7y ago
I think that it’s better to stop victim-blaming. There’s no reason to assume that in this case justice failed. Russian courts aren’t perfect, but they are not worse than anywhere but few countries.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  When you are sending someone to jail, you want to make sure of their degree of fault, don't you? The person lying on the ground wasn't killed. The woman trying to drag him out of the road was. She was presumably innocent. (although she may have played a role as well, I understand she was intoxicated too, but in the moment she was trying to help her friend to safety) Regardless, who suffered is a completely separate issue from who is responsible. Do you really want to distort the process of determining who is responsible, out of fear of "victim blaming"? It could have happened ever-so-slightly differently, and it might have been the motorcyclist who was killed. Does that automatically shift responsibility?
  - ivan_gammel 7y ago
    I don’t get your argument. Two courts already decided who is guilty, there’s no process to distort unless you consider this thread a retrial. What happens here is that despite court decisions people still try to prove something and shift responsibility to victims of the incident. This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      "This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case." Well, you're mixing issues. Those are two completely separate arguments. 1) victim blaming, and 2) it's already been tried On point 2. I don't necessarily agree that once a court has tried something, it is automatically correct and shouldn't be discussed. I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a full week in trial in San Francisco, against corrupt lawyers, representing myself, and was one of the very few that prevailed in such a situation. I have seen some awful stuff, so no, I don't trust the legal system to always produce correct results, even here. Regardless, that wasn't my point. For people such as yourself being so quick to cry "victim blaming" is a very good indication to me that bias in such situations is common. Again, why should you assume that because one person was harmed that the other person was responsible? Surely you recognize that there can be a clearcut cases where the victim (i.e. the one harmed or killed) was the one who caused the accident? Right? And again, the real "victim" (the woman killed) isn't the one I am suggesting might be partially to blame.
      - ivan_gammel 7y ago
        Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question. I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.
        robbrown451 7y ago
        You used the term "victim blaming" to shut down conversation. The other stuff, whether or not the courts work, is irrelevant to that. I think the other people who have responded to your use of the term "victim blaming" state my points as well as I could, so I'll leave it at that.
- tasuki 7y ago
  Does the person who was lying on the street drunk bear no responsibility? Is it the case they bear no responsibility because they turned out to be a victim afterwards? I'm not sure I understand the concept of "victim-blaming". If a bank robber gets hurt during a bank robbery, will you say they're a victim and shouldn't be blamed for the bank robbery?
- joecool1029 7y ago
  >I think that it’s better to stop victim-blaming. Let's say instead someone gets ripshit drunk and drives the wrong way down a highway in a smartcar. A snowplow runs into them, can't avoid. Kills drunk driver, truck's damaged only slightly. Who's the victim? The trucker's still got to live knowing they killed someone. Has to pay for damage to their truck. Dead person doesn't have to deal with emotional trauma or bills, they're dead. Where cases like this get complicated is whether the driver killing the other driver abandoned their duty of care and contributed to causing the collision. Maybe the trucker was texting, now in some states he'd share some of the burden for this collision.

Maybe the person lying on the street should shoulder some of the blame. I do think courts in other parts of the world would have seen a lot of mitigating factors.

ivan_gammel 7y ago

I think that it’s better to stop victim-blaming. There’s no reason to assume that in this case justice failed. Russian courts aren’t perfect, but they are not worse than anywhere but few countries.

robbrown451 7y ago
When you are sending someone to jail, you want to make sure of their degree of fault, don't you? The person lying on the ground wasn't killed. The woman trying to drag him out of the road was. She was presumably innocent. (although she may have played a role as well, I understand she was intoxicated too, but in the moment she was trying to help her friend to safety) Regardless, who suffered is a completely separate issue from who is responsible. Do you really want to distort the process of determining who is responsible, out of fear of "victim blaming"? It could have happened ever-so-slightly differently, and it might have been the motorcyclist who was killed. Does that automatically shift responsibility?
- ivan_gammel 7y ago
  I don’t get your argument. Two courts already decided who is guilty, there’s no process to distort unless you consider this thread a retrial. What happens here is that despite court decisions people still try to prove something and shift responsibility to victims of the incident. This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    "This is victim blaming by definition and it is pointless, because justice already decided on this case." Well, you're mixing issues. Those are two completely separate arguments. 1) victim blaming, and 2) it's already been tried On point 2. I don't necessarily agree that once a court has tried something, it is automatically correct and shouldn't be discussed. I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a full week in trial in San Francisco, against corrupt lawyers, representing myself, and was one of the very few that prevailed in such a situation. I have seen some awful stuff, so no, I don't trust the legal system to always produce correct results, even here. Regardless, that wasn't my point. For people such as yourself being so quick to cry "victim blaming" is a very good indication to me that bias in such situations is common. Again, why should you assume that because one person was harmed that the other person was responsible? Surely you recognize that there can be a clearcut cases where the victim (i.e. the one harmed or killed) was the one who caused the accident? Right? And again, the real "victim" (the woman killed) isn't the one I am suggesting might be partially to blame.
    - ivan_gammel 7y ago
      Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question. I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        You used the term "victim blaming" to shut down conversation. The other stuff, whether or not the courts work, is irrelevant to that. I think the other people who have responded to your use of the term "victim blaming" state my points as well as I could, so I'll leave it at that.
tasuki 7y ago
Does the person who was lying on the street drunk bear no responsibility? Is it the case they bear no responsibility because they turned out to be a victim afterwards? I'm not sure I understand the concept of "victim-blaming". If a bank robber gets hurt during a bank robbery, will you say they're a victim and shouldn't be blamed for the bank robbery?
joecool1029 7y ago
>I think that it’s better to stop victim-blaming. Let's say instead someone gets ripshit drunk and drives the wrong way down a highway in a smartcar. A snowplow runs into them, can't avoid. Kills drunk driver, truck's damaged only slightly. Who's the victim? The trucker's still got to live knowing they killed someone. Has to pay for damage to their truck. Dead person doesn't have to deal with emotional trauma or bills, they're dead. Where cases like this get complicated is whether the driver killing the other driver abandoned their duty of care and contributed to causing the collision. Maybe the trucker was texting, now in some states he'd share some of the burden for this collision.