3 ms·
I think this is the correct take from this. It's also one of those situations where US law would be superior over poorly coded civil law (like Russia apparently
by joecool1029 7y ago
I think this is the correct take from this. It's also one of those situations where US law would be superior over poorly coded civil law (like Russia apparently has). As I understand they only evaluate that the violation occurred (i.e.: person dead, in crosswalk, done by attacker on vehicle). Absent additional information like cam footage showing them jumping out of a bush at the last moment into the crosswalk for insurance fraud, the case will result in a conviction.
It is simply the case that things happen out of a driver's control. In the US you'd be looking at a consideration for involuntary manslaughter charge (or perhaps a lesser negligence charge) if it was found that they were speeding or impaired. Absent those circumstances, it's unlikely any charge would be brought forth. There are some other ways a similar charge could be brought in an investigation, but that's generally how it goes.
A final note on the topic of getting drunk and playing in traffic. I highly recommend you get people that do stuff like this to sign up for organ donation. I have a good friend who had a congenital heart defect that benefited from a heart transplant. This was after the donor walked into traffic blitzed on holiday. So it might be that out of the tragedy of a wasted life they might be able to save someone else's.
- MiroF 7y ago> I think this is the correct take from this. The correct take is jail time for non-violent crime and no jail time for programmers who (regardless of whether we believe his story) killed someone?