4 ms·

There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars. That would be a serious crime in

by 16s 14y ago

There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars. That would be a serious crime in the USA. If you did that, and you got caught, you would be in very serious trouble. And, it would not matter how rich you were. That's assault, perhaps with intent to harm or kill and civilized society does not tolerate it.

nbouscal 14y ago
> it would not matter how rich you were. Which USA do you live in?
- cellis 14y ago
  A valid question. I don't think someone would be able to get away with that in my USA (SF bay area) irrespective of wealth. But perhaps in a more provincial part, like, say Alabama...
- 16s 14y ago
  Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    It may not be as bad as some countries where you can just pay the cops but the rich and well connected in America definitely play by a different set of rules, especially with regard to punishment. Example: a rich old woman in my hometown was drunk in the morning and ran over a guy riding a bicycle and killed him. She ended up getting probation. Not a day in jail. Put a poor minority behind the wheel of that car and they are going to prison for a long time.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That's race/age not wealth. If it had been a young, rich, black guy in an Escalade what do you think a jury would have done?
      - wilfra 14y ago
        Depends who his lawyer was and how many people he and his lawyer know in the local criminal justice system. Connections are just as important as wealth - sometimes moreso. See George Zimmerman (father is a judge) who would have walked were it not for the Worldwide media shining a spotlight on the case.
    - corporalagumbo 14y ago
      That's an entirely different problem set from what seems to be happening in India. What you're describing in the US is a system where perceptions and punishment of superficially similar behaviour vary based on your position with society, namely based on whether you activate the sympathies or antipathies of the mainstream establishment. I.E. that old lady is much less likely to be perceived as aggressive and anti-social in court than a young minority member. The system is not completely fair, and you can argue about the extent to which the system is unfair, but the system at least holds fairness as an ideal, and the mainstream establishment identifies with this ideal. Cops and judges may not perceive it as unfair if a similar crime when committed by an old rich lady is more likely to be viewed as a regrettable mistake (especially if she appears distraught and repentant in court) than when committed by a minority member. In India it seems like fairness is not even part of the equation. It sounds like a seriously dog-eat-dog environment, where there are few if any checks on raw, ruthless antisocial behaviour. Society lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them. Basically it is the difference between a society where people are shocked and angered by unfairness and a society where people are desensitised or even perversely excited by unfairness.
      - chii 14y ago
        > ...lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them. i'd like to talk a bit about this "value system". While i'd like to believe that in a western society that the value system for me to not steal and murder is built in, i really doubt that's the case. The value system is one which is enforced by laws - and actual enforcement, instead of lip service. I assault a person, i get to go to jail. Imagine if the enforcement isn't there - i'd steal my way thru life! Forget about the morals, when you can have the latest shit for free! This is the exact psyche of a software pirate - because it is unenforceable. I would say that the value system is so poor or non-existent in india could be because they are unable to enforce their laws, or that those with money can get away from the punishment etc. Hence, the poor sees that and assumes that the laws are selectively applied, and that its OK if you get away with it. I m sure things will improve (as things have improved in western society over the past several hundred years - you'd see similar behaviour in the middle/dark ages in europe). It just takes time, and takes wealth build up in such a way that those who are most desperate aren't anymore.
  - trhtrsh 14y ago
    Of course it's illegal, and most people couldn't escape consequences. But the upper class can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_inci...
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      I'd like to think we've gotten better about it in the last 35 years. If nothing else, the national media would be less likely to keep quiet.
  - thrownaway2424 14y ago
    Whatever one does in America, in a car, is not a crime, even if a dozen people die. http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/immune-from-prosecution-curb-jumping-nyc-motorists-claim-more-victims/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/immune-from-prosecutio... As a bicyclist, I can tell you as a matter of personal experience that Americans do in fact run bicyclists off the road frequently. I have never heard of such things being prosecuted, even when the cyclists were seriously injured, or when their bike is ruined. Now, why does this happen? It's because the American in his expensive 4-wheel drive Porsche SUV abomination has a certain mindset that he's entitled to something, because he paid a lot of money for his car. When someone is walking or cycling down the road at less than 60 MPH, that person's sense of entitlement becomes enflamed, and they sometimes reach the point of violence. Don't take my word for it. It is a proven fact that people in more expensive cars break the law much more frequently than those in less expensive cars. So you see, sense of entitlement is not just for India. In America, cars are for real people, and anyone on a bicycle must be in the lower caste.
    - spikels 14y ago
      I appears you have not heard about the man sentenced to 10+ years in prison for hitting and injuring a bicyclist in Healdsburg, CA (about 70 miles north of San Francisco). The article also mentions two other ongoing prosecutions of drivers for hitting bicyclists in the same area. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121130/ARTICLES/121139980 http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121130/ARTICLES/12113...
      - thrownaway2424 14y ago
        That was a hit-and-run. If you kill someone with a car, stay at the scene, and aren't obviously intoxicated, police officers will publicly exonerate you in front of local television reporters. This is not true for any other class of crime in America.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- scarmig 14y ago
  The USA has mostly evolved (I use that word advisedly) beyond that. There's certainly all kinds of horrific things about the USA's class system. But the USA has to a large extent depersonalized them: if you as an individual commit physical violence against another individual, you go through our legal system and you get punished. Where the USA's class system goes wrong is in vaguer systemic issues. Everyone equally has the chance to get an expensive lawyer to argue you down to a lesser sentence, but few can afford the best. Everyone equally has the chance to purchase a house that's not in an ex-radiological waste dump, but that's mighty abstract to the folks in Hunter's Point. It's pretty brilliant, because you really can't focus on any individual in particular to punish for its sins. Which in the end makes the USA's class system much more fault tolerant, because revolt against it has to take the form of amorphous, unactionable rants about the System.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That county DA doesn't give a shit how rich you are. Being rich doesn't get you out of "poor people" crimes that revolve around physical evidence (as opposed to "rich people" crimes that revolve around knowledge/intent). There's a great scene in "Michael Clayton" where a rich banker calls his lawyer because he hit a bicyclist in his car and fled the scene. The lawyer basically tells him: "I don't know what you think I can do for you, you're fucked." It's a realistic depiction of this situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ckEptxp3s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ckEptxp3s.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The lawyer can give legal advice on what to say and not say, how best to approach the issue, what looks best when taking it to court. Maybe not get off scot-free, but minimise the punishment. Are there any options other than fronting up to court? Mediation? Medical costs? Perhaps filing your admission in a different jurisdiction might help (though I doubt it in the given case)? Even just having someone who's calm, collected, and dispassionate speak at the trial can be an advantage.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      In a criminal charge for something like battery, a lot of the usual legal maneuvering isn't available. There's no mediation, no settlements, no forum shopping jurisdictions, no expert witnesses. All you've got is a prosecutor who is trying to make an example out of you and police with evidence showing you did it. Ultimately, you're going to get the punishment the judge and the jury think you should get. Now, that doesn't mean you're going to get the same punishment as the poor black guy, but that's not because it helps to be rich, but because it hurts to be poor or black. Juries don't give poor black guys the benefit of the doubt, they have trouble empathizing with people of a different race, their character witnesses don't come across as sympathetic, etc.
neckbeard 14y ago
Must be a different USA to this one: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078 http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/107...

by 16s 14y ago

nbouscal 14y ago

> it would not matter how rich you were. Which USA do you live in?

cellis 14y ago
A valid question. I don't think someone would be able to get away with that in my USA (SF bay area) irrespective of wealth. But perhaps in a more provincial part, like, say Alabama...
16s 14y ago
Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.
- wilfra 14y ago
  It may not be as bad as some countries where you can just pay the cops but the rich and well connected in America definitely play by a different set of rules, especially with regard to punishment. Example: a rich old woman in my hometown was drunk in the morning and ran over a guy riding a bicycle and killed him. She ended up getting probation. Not a day in jail. Put a poor minority behind the wheel of that car and they are going to prison for a long time.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's race/age not wealth. If it had been a young, rich, black guy in an Escalade what do you think a jury would have done?
    - wilfra 14y ago
      Depends who his lawyer was and how many people he and his lawyer know in the local criminal justice system. Connections are just as important as wealth - sometimes moreso. See George Zimmerman (father is a judge) who would have walked were it not for the Worldwide media shining a spotlight on the case.
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    That's an entirely different problem set from what seems to be happening in India. What you're describing in the US is a system where perceptions and punishment of superficially similar behaviour vary based on your position with society, namely based on whether you activate the sympathies or antipathies of the mainstream establishment. I.E. that old lady is much less likely to be perceived as aggressive and anti-social in court than a young minority member. The system is not completely fair, and you can argue about the extent to which the system is unfair, but the system at least holds fairness as an ideal, and the mainstream establishment identifies with this ideal. Cops and judges may not perceive it as unfair if a similar crime when committed by an old rich lady is more likely to be viewed as a regrettable mistake (especially if she appears distraught and repentant in court) than when committed by a minority member. In India it seems like fairness is not even part of the equation. It sounds like a seriously dog-eat-dog environment, where there are few if any checks on raw, ruthless antisocial behaviour. Society lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them. Basically it is the difference between a society where people are shocked and angered by unfairness and a society where people are desensitised or even perversely excited by unfairness.
    - chii 14y ago
      > ...lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them. i'd like to talk a bit about this "value system". While i'd like to believe that in a western society that the value system for me to not steal and murder is built in, i really doubt that's the case. The value system is one which is enforced by laws - and actual enforcement, instead of lip service. I assault a person, i get to go to jail. Imagine if the enforcement isn't there - i'd steal my way thru life! Forget about the morals, when you can have the latest shit for free! This is the exact psyche of a software pirate - because it is unenforceable. I would say that the value system is so poor or non-existent in india could be because they are unable to enforce their laws, or that those with money can get away from the punishment etc. Hence, the poor sees that and assumes that the laws are selectively applied, and that its OK if you get away with it. I m sure things will improve (as things have improved in western society over the past several hundred years - you'd see similar behaviour in the middle/dark ages in europe). It just takes time, and takes wealth build up in such a way that those who are most desperate aren't anymore.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  Of course it's illegal, and most people couldn't escape consequences. But the upper class can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_inci...
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    I'd like to think we've gotten better about it in the last 35 years. If nothing else, the national media would be less likely to keep quiet.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  Whatever one does in America, in a car, is not a crime, even if a dozen people die. http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/immune-from-prosecution-curb-jumping-nyc-motorists-claim-more-victims/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/immune-from-prosecutio... As a bicyclist, I can tell you as a matter of personal experience that Americans do in fact run bicyclists off the road frequently. I have never heard of such things being prosecuted, even when the cyclists were seriously injured, or when their bike is ruined. Now, why does this happen? It's because the American in his expensive 4-wheel drive Porsche SUV abomination has a certain mindset that he's entitled to something, because he paid a lot of money for his car. When someone is walking or cycling down the road at less than 60 MPH, that person's sense of entitlement becomes enflamed, and they sometimes reach the point of violence. Don't take my word for it. It is a proven fact that people in more expensive cars break the law much more frequently than those in less expensive cars. So you see, sense of entitlement is not just for India. In America, cars are for real people, and anyone on a bicycle must be in the lower caste.
  - spikels 14y ago
    I appears you have not heard about the man sentenced to 10+ years in prison for hitting and injuring a bicyclist in Healdsburg, CA (about 70 miles north of San Francisco). The article also mentions two other ongoing prosecutions of drivers for hitting bicyclists in the same area. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121130/ARTICLES/121139980 http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121130/ARTICLES/12113...
    - thrownaway2424 14y ago
      That was a hit-and-run. If you kill someone with a car, stay at the scene, and aren't obviously intoxicated, police officers will publicly exonerate you in front of local television reporters. This is not true for any other class of crime in America.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
scarmig 14y ago
The USA has mostly evolved (I use that word advisedly) beyond that. There's certainly all kinds of horrific things about the USA's class system. But the USA has to a large extent depersonalized them: if you as an individual commit physical violence against another individual, you go through our legal system and you get punished. Where the USA's class system goes wrong is in vaguer systemic issues. Everyone equally has the chance to get an expensive lawyer to argue you down to a lesser sentence, but few can afford the best. Everyone equally has the chance to purchase a house that's not in an ex-radiological waste dump, but that's mighty abstract to the folks in Hunter's Point. It's pretty brilliant, because you really can't focus on any individual in particular to punish for its sins. Which in the end makes the USA's class system much more fault tolerant, because revolt against it has to take the form of amorphous, unactionable rants about the System.
rayiner 14y ago
That county DA doesn't give a shit how rich you are. Being rich doesn't get you out of "poor people" crimes that revolve around physical evidence (as opposed to "rich people" crimes that revolve around knowledge/intent). There's a great scene in "Michael Clayton" where a rich banker calls his lawyer because he hit a bicyclist in his car and fled the scene. The lawyer basically tells him: "I don't know what you think I can do for you, you're fucked." It's a realistic depiction of this situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ckEptxp3s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ckEptxp3s.
- vacri 14y ago
  The lawyer can give legal advice on what to say and not say, how best to approach the issue, what looks best when taking it to court. Maybe not get off scot-free, but minimise the punishment. Are there any options other than fronting up to court? Mediation? Medical costs? Perhaps filing your admission in a different jurisdiction might help (though I doubt it in the given case)? Even just having someone who's calm, collected, and dispassionate speak at the trial can be an advantage.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    In a criminal charge for something like battery, a lot of the usual legal maneuvering isn't available. There's no mediation, no settlements, no forum shopping jurisdictions, no expert witnesses. All you've got is a prosecutor who is trying to make an example out of you and police with evidence showing you did it. Ultimately, you're going to get the punishment the judge and the jury think you should get. Now, that doesn't mean you're going to get the same punishment as the poor black guy, but that's not because it helps to be rich, but because it hurts to be poor or black. Juries don't give poor black guys the benefit of the doubt, they have trouble empathizing with people of a different race, their character witnesses don't come across as sympathetic, etc.

neckbeard 14y ago

Must be a different USA to this one: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078 http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/107...