4 ms·

If you define killing people with cars to be out of scope then you're just drawing the system boundaries incorrectly. Let me ask you this: if it's not a crime

If you define killing people with cars to be out of scope then you're just drawing the system boundaries incorrectly. Let me ask you this: if it's not a crime to kill someone with a car, as long as you're sober and you don't flee the scene, why does anyone murder someone else in New York with a knife or a gun? Wouldn't running them down with a car be the rational choice? After all, they aren't prosecuting the guy who ran over and killed a 3-year-old in a crosswalk, even though there's a video recording of the act. You can be captured on video running down and killing someone and not be prosecuted. Only a fool would choose another weapon.

gamblor956 12y ago
Because crime in the US is a matter of intent. If you intend to kill someone, and then do, the exact means of killing are largely irrelevant; you have committed some sort of homicide crime. (The exact means of killing may determine what particular homicide crime has been committed, such as manslaughter vs murder.) That is why people above have been saying that most accidents are not criminal--the driver does not intend to hit the cyclist/pedestrian/whatever. Negligence is generally not a crime in the US except in exceptional circumstances (i.e., negligent homicide, in which the driver's gross negligence while driving--such as texting while the car is moving--results in accident in which someone else dies).