4 ms·

Still stupid. This following article wouldn't have happened if the vehicle was automated, it would have seen something was wrong, and also already have the cor

Still stupid. This following article wouldn't have happened if the vehicle was automated, it would have seen something was wrong, and also already have the correct signage from it's database - 3 Are Sentenced to 15 Years in Fatal Stop Sign Prank https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/06/21/3-who-stole-traffic-signs-sentenced-to-15-years/14c0a68c-e8fd-42ba-881c-454f442a27f8/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/06/21/3... What does need to stop is moving vehicles having uncovered street signs on them, if it's not in place cover it up.

ec109685 5y ago
As an aside, those defendants were eventually exonerated: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4362 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedeta...
- aaron695 5y ago
  I like these totally contradictory witness statements. Why you can't trust witness's and the article doesn't seem to even notice - "At a hearing on the motion, several witnesses testified that they had driven by the intersection days before the accident and the stop sign was already down" "A man who was driving to a luncheon the day before the crash testified that as he pulled up to the intersection, he saw a semi-truck backing up across the road toward the sign. He said that when he came back after lunch, the stop sign was on the ground."
  - eutectic 5y ago
    Maybe someone put it back up inbetween?
    - aaron695 5y ago
      I hope one day you are my jury.
      - eutectic 5y ago
        Not sure if this was intended as a compliment or an insult :)
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > those defendants were eventually exonerated That's not what the link says: > In March 2001, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the manslaughter convictions of all three defendants. The court held that the prosecution had made improper comments during closing argument. The court did not reverse the grand theft convictions. So nobody believed they'd committed the crime, and this was corrected by expunging their conviction for manslaughter, but officially they still stole the sign, even though, if that were true, they would also have committed the manslaughter.

ec109685 5y ago

As an aside, those defendants were eventually exonerated: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4362 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedeta...

aaron695 5y ago
I like these totally contradictory witness statements. Why you can't trust witness's and the article doesn't seem to even notice - "At a hearing on the motion, several witnesses testified that they had driven by the intersection days before the accident and the stop sign was already down" "A man who was driving to a luncheon the day before the crash testified that as he pulled up to the intersection, he saw a semi-truck backing up across the road toward the sign. He said that when he came back after lunch, the stop sign was on the ground."
- eutectic 5y ago
  Maybe someone put it back up inbetween?
  - aaron695 5y ago
    I hope one day you are my jury.
    - eutectic 5y ago
      Not sure if this was intended as a compliment or an insult :)
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> those defendants were eventually exonerated That's not what the link says: > In March 2001, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the manslaughter convictions of all three defendants. The court held that the prosecution had made improper comments during closing argument. The court did not reverse the grand theft convictions. So nobody believed they'd committed the crime, and this was corrected by expunging their conviction for manslaughter, but officially they still stole the sign, even though, if that were true, they would also have committed the manslaughter.