4 ms·

America, as well, even in broad daylight: https://www.fox13news.com/news/suspected-bayshore-street-racers-get-january-trial-date-as-victims-father-criticizes-de

America, as well, even in broad daylight: https://www.fox13news.com/news/suspected-bayshore-street-racers-get-january-trial-date-as-victims-father-criticizes-delays https://www.fox13news.com/news/suspected-bayshore-street-rac...

spoonjim 6y ago
I'd have no hesitation as a juror sending these scumbags to life without parole.
- smabie 6y ago
  But you don't even know any of the facts of the case? How would you have no hesitation when you have no idea what happened and haven't even listened to the defenses argument?
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    * raced a car * killed someone That's enough for me. Don't care what the arguments are, how much they were peer pressured or what their home lives were like. Obviously if the argument is "the cops got the wrong guy" then I'll listen to it.
    - smabie 6y ago
      What if there was a bomb in the car that exploded if the car dropped below a certain speed (ala Speed, the movie)? If it was unclear, the point I'm making is that you are awfully quick to judge someone's guilt based on a web page you read. Also, you don't get to decide sentences as a juror, so your statement doesn't really make sense.
      - spoonjim 6y ago
        I know all of these things, and furthermore, I'm not in the jurisdiction so it's all a hypothetical. I'm saying that in the hypothetical where I am asked to pass judgment on, and sentence, someone who street raced (for any reason) and killed a person, I would with no hesitations sentence that person to life without parole, and would probably only hesitate about an hour before sentencing them to death.
      - zhte415 6y ago
        What if there was a shark in the passenger seat with a laser on it's head?
  - josefx 6y ago
    As far as I can find the lawyers are trying to get the only objective piece of evidence - the cars own logs - thrown out. Claim the witnesses are unreliable at judging speed and are clinging to an early statement that it might have been "low speed collision". If we give them the benefit of the doubt why would they try to get rid of evidence that they were driving within legal limits? Especially when they have to deal with several "unreliable" witnesses claiming that they were driving too fast?
craftinator 6y ago
Police killings are a bigger problem here.
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  Really? American police kill about 1000 people a year and the vast, vast majority of these killings are totally justified cases where deadly force was used to stop an imminent deadly threat. On the other hand about 36,000 people died on American roads last year and it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where any of them could have been necessary. The real difference is that road deaths are far less likely to trigger a media circus.
- Sebguer 6y ago
  I mean, structurally, you're right that police violence is a bigger problem, but I don't really understand the relevance to my comment when this entire thread was talking about cars.

spoonjim 6y ago

I'd have no hesitation as a juror sending these scumbags to life without parole.

smabie 6y ago
But you don't even know any of the facts of the case? How would you have no hesitation when you have no idea what happened and haven't even listened to the defenses argument?
- spoonjim 6y ago
  * raced a car * killed someone That's enough for me. Don't care what the arguments are, how much they were peer pressured or what their home lives were like. Obviously if the argument is "the cops got the wrong guy" then I'll listen to it.
  - smabie 6y ago
    What if there was a bomb in the car that exploded if the car dropped below a certain speed (ala Speed, the movie)? If it was unclear, the point I'm making is that you are awfully quick to judge someone's guilt based on a web page you read. Also, you don't get to decide sentences as a juror, so your statement doesn't really make sense.
    - spoonjim 6y ago
      I know all of these things, and furthermore, I'm not in the jurisdiction so it's all a hypothetical. I'm saying that in the hypothetical where I am asked to pass judgment on, and sentence, someone who street raced (for any reason) and killed a person, I would with no hesitations sentence that person to life without parole, and would probably only hesitate about an hour before sentencing them to death.
    - zhte415 6y ago
      What if there was a shark in the passenger seat with a laser on it's head?
- josefx 6y ago
  As far as I can find the lawyers are trying to get the only objective piece of evidence - the cars own logs - thrown out. Claim the witnesses are unreliable at judging speed and are clinging to an early statement that it might have been "low speed collision". If we give them the benefit of the doubt why would they try to get rid of evidence that they were driving within legal limits? Especially when they have to deal with several "unreliable" witnesses claiming that they were driving too fast?

craftinator 6y ago

Police killings are a bigger problem here.

whoooooo123 6y ago
Really? American police kill about 1000 people a year and the vast, vast majority of these killings are totally justified cases where deadly force was used to stop an imminent deadly threat. On the other hand about 36,000 people died on American roads last year and it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where any of them could have been necessary. The real difference is that road deaths are far less likely to trigger a media circus.
Sebguer 6y ago
I mean, structurally, you're right that police violence is a bigger problem, but I don't really understand the relevance to my comment when this entire thread was talking about cars.