quote:
"intent" is getting muddied here. His intent was to drive drunk. the consequence was killing someone.

but he did not get behind the wheel with a clear mind thinking "i want to kill someone." by law, it was an accident.

I legit responded to both of those points in my post you quoted regarding law and intent.

I also stated he did not not intend to harm someone. But to reiterate from the post you replied to, he did 100% intend to be drunk and drive 156mph. Doing so, he should reasonably assume something terrible can happen, and a logical argument can be made that he should suffer the most severe consequences IMO when that does happen due to his intentional recklessness decisions.

This post was edited on 8/9/23 at 12:45 pm

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Diseasefreeforall

Member since Oct 2012

5594 posts

Posted on 8/9/23 at 1:11 pm to shel311

It may have been early in the morning but the guy was doing 150 mph through a suburban neighborhood. If he hadn't hit the car his vette probably would have wound up in somebody's bedroom.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by dukke v

PLUTO

Member since Jul 2006

203832 posts

Posted on 8/9/23 at 1:18 pm to shel311

His intent was to show off to his GF who n his fancy car while drunk on his arse going over 120 MPH through a neighborhood . Doing that is what caused the event. Which is the death of another human being and could have caused even more fatalities due to his actions. He should have gotten like 50 years.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by BlacknGold

He Hate Me

Member since Mar 2009

12057 posts

Posted on 8/9/23 at 2:01 pm to shel311

quote:
I would argue 3-10 years isn't severe enough. I get the response of losing a decade of his life, losing millions, all fair points. The simple counter is a person died due to his intentional recklessness, that trumps money and a few years IMO

Except there are laws in place that determine this.

2 ...

Report Post

More Sports - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board