- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: a-hole driver of the year award
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:36 pm to FLBooGoTigs1
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:36 pm to FLBooGoTigs1
quote:
Tiger you definitely sound like you know what you are talking about but this video along could bring charges based on testimony from witnesses including the guy filming the video. If the video is used as evidence it could be shown that this old man only veered over when the motorcycle was passing and never not once did he do this prior too the motorcycle trying to pass him. Once again it will depend on the lawyers,witnesses,evidence, and the jury. I am done here.
Can we call the guy who is providing the video an unbiased witness? He was also driving at high speeds and making illegal passes. His reactions in the video also make him clearly more sympathetic to the injured motorcyclist.
The old man never swerved before because no one was filming him until that 5 second window. He might have been pissed that he hit the guy because he assumed he was just making a swerve and knowing its a no pass lane to his left he thought there would be little consequence if he was in the lane for a split second. We know it wasn't an empty lane though.
This post was edited on 10/18/15 at 11:38 pm
3
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:39 pm to sleepytime
turd says he din't care...wow...
if you watch closely, the biker passes pretty close to the old man [ not giving an excuse ] just noticing how close is all.
I never had any jerk pull out on me while on my scooter years ago.
the old man was just a dikk wadd
if you watch closely, the biker passes pretty close to the old man [ not giving an excuse ] just noticing how close is all.
I never had any jerk pull out on me while on my scooter years ago.
the old man was just a dikk wadd
This post was edited on 10/18/15 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:42 pm to tiggerthetooth
Like I said we could go back and forth all day based on who we are defending. Save your legal lingo for someone who gives a shite. I know how it works. I would like to see how it turns out in the courts though. No hard feeling I am just done with this. 
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:44 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
The old man never swerved before because no one was filming him until that 5 second window. He might have been pissed that he hit the guy because he assumed he was just making a swerve and knowing its a no pass lane to his left he thought there would be little consequence if he was in the lane for a split second. We know it wasn't an empty lane though.
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:46 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
tiggerthetooth
Stop dodging me.
You maintain that the only person that unequivocally broke the law was the motorcyclist. That's 100% untruthful. The old man failed to maintain control of his vehicle (a violation of the law) and crossed a double yellow line (also a violation of the law)- with almost deadly results.
Intent may matter for vehicular assault charges but the video shows clear violations by the old man.
As far as how "biased" the man recording the video, that makes no difference. The tape shows what it shows. And all your talk is legal smoke. There aren't many juries that aren't going to say this wasn't done on purpose. And even if the old man walks criminally, civilly he's fricked. That hot head is about to get his wallet raped.
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:53 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Intent doesn't matter. He (the old man) failed to maintain control of his car and moved into the other lane.
What? Do you know anything about assault laws?
quote:
Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to someone else, including your spouse.
Intentionally or knowingly threaten someone else, including your spouse, with imminent bodily injury.
Intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
Intent is everything if you want to charge someone with assault.
Im against this mob mentality of "lets hang anyone we think based on our immediate reactions" is completely ridiculous and barbaric. Have our citizens really come to this? We want to burn everyone we have bad feelings about?
And I consistently go after the motorcyclist because he was showing the clearest intent of law breaking/weckless driving with a clear pattern/consistency of said driving. Also, because I've read (in comments on various articles) asking for this guy to get the death penalty....
Wtf people. This is monarchy justice, this is what the US escaped from. This is the justice the jihadist and Isis reproduce. Supposed transgressions, and assumed allegiances to particular perspectives.
Posted on 10/18/15 at 11:55 pm to FLBooGoTigs1
quote:
Like I said we could go back and forth all day based on who we are defending. Save your legal lingo for someone who gives a shite. I know how it works. I would like to see how it turns out in the courts though. No hard feeling I am just done with this
I thought you were already done.
I also don't give a shite about the incident itself.
Its the irrational mob mentality thats getting to me. Anyways, take it easy.
This post was edited on 10/18/15 at 11:56 pm
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:00 am to sleepytime
There were two assholes in that video. One was on a bike.
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:00 am to tiggerthetooth
No, retard. You specifically stated that the old man did not clearly violate any laws. I stated that he did, in fact, violate the law at least twice when he crossed the double yellow. You're either being obtuse or just plain stupid. Are you denying that the old man crossed the double yellow line?
I'll say it again- intent doesn't matter when it comes to careless operation/failure to maintain control of a vehicle OR crossing a yellow line. Those are both violations of the law. REGARDLESS OF INTENT.
To prove vehicular assault WOULD require the proof of intent. But I think that's pretty easy here. And like I said earlier, even if he walks from the criminal charges, he's fricked civilly. And so is his insurance company.
I'll say it again- intent doesn't matter when it comes to careless operation/failure to maintain control of a vehicle OR crossing a yellow line. Those are both violations of the law. REGARDLESS OF INTENT.
To prove vehicular assault WOULD require the proof of intent. But I think that's pretty easy here. And like I said earlier, even if he walks from the criminal charges, he's fricked civilly. And so is his insurance company.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:05 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:05 am to BabyrayS2k
quote:
You don't get to kill people for breaking traffic laws. You dumb frick.
He may have been startled by the bike and turned the wheel when he turned his head.
Either way, both drivers did something that neither should have done.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:07 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:10 am to member12
Whats funny is "his girl" was not his first concern after he got hit.
I wonder how she feels about all of this. Also, so others don't get emotional over this again: his speed claims that he was going the speed limit, and the other driver was going 20 under isn't necessarily true by his admission alone.
I know i would know if I was going 60 or 65 mph. Certainly he seems confused on his speed quite possibly.
Basically, just because this guy says this, doesn't mean its true. There are two sides to the story, and both must be heard, and witnesses of course, who I'm sure will speak up soon enough.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:12 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:13 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
his speed claims that he was going the speed limit
Doesn't make it okay to cross the double yellow. I wish that I could pass slow moving cars in no passing zones sometimes too, but I'm not a a-hole that wants to risk the life of his passengers to save a few seconds.
He broke the law just like the guy he claims hit him on purpose. Those assholes both crossed a double yellow.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:15 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:16 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
To prove vehicular assault WOULD require the proof of intent. But I think that's pretty easy here.
No, it wouldn't be easy. It would actually be very difficult to prove intent.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:20 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:17 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
No, retard. You specifically stated that the old man did not clearly violate any laws.
Whoa. This is where the grown folks discuss things, so you can keep your childish name calling for your irl friends if thats what you do with them.
I am not aware of what the law is concerning the double-yellow line in terms of simply crossing it for a very short amount of time. What i read, the law seems rather vague. If the old man can prove he had reason to maneuver in that way, then that'll be hard to charge him with.
It was a split second line cross vs. a purposeful clearly patterned line cross. One was clearly not like the other.
quote:
I'll say it again- intent doesn't matter when it comes to careless operation/failure to maintain control of a vehicle OR crossing a yellow line. Those are both violations of the law. REGARDLESS OF INTENT.
If he can prove he had reason to maneuver in that way, then he's clear on that.
quote:
he's fricked civilly. And so is his insurance company.
How is his insurance company screwed?
quote:
To prove vehicular assault WOULD require the proof of intent. But I think that's pretty easy here.
If its easy, please provide the evidence. I've been waiting all night, yet not a single person has been able to point to anything that proves his intent to harm/injure the motorcyclist.
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:28 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
As far as how "biased" the man recording the video, that makes no difference.
Its wikipedia but...oh well
quote:
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed, however this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased. Due to this, many countries and states within the US are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court
Juries will evaluate if a testimony has motive to paint one party in a particular light relative to the other. Clearly, the second gentlemen on the motorbike showed his view on the video.
Oh yeah, and its absolutely NO coincidence that he ALSO rides a motorcycle, and ALSO was making similar illegal passes. (sarcasm)
quote:
And all your talk is legal smoke.
I dont even know what this means, or if it even makes sense, or if you even understand a thing about simple courtroom procedures.
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:36 am to tiggerthetooth
How about him stopping this indicates he knew what happened. And his first response was" I don't care"when the witness said that he hit the motorcyclists. Sounds like good evidence to me.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:42 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:47 am to FLBooGoTigs1
quote:
How about him stopping this indicates he knew what happened. And his first response was" I don't care"when the witness said they he hit the motorcyclists. Sounds like good evidence to me.
He knew what happened in what way? As in: he knew his "plan" had been completed to what he hoped? (Pre-meditated)
Or collision occurs--->he sees what happened--->stops to see what all had occurred.
I've seen live, in person a very similar occurrence where a vehicle hit another vehicle in EXACTLY that same spot (back left corner), and the vehicle that hit from behind went into a tailspin in the median, and the car in front didn't even have a clue (medium to heavy traffic), and simply moved along until a decent ways down the road.
Of course the collision was violent enough to catch his attention. Maybe he hadn't fully processed what occurred, which is why it took so long to stop.
Also, there are certainly people who are always obsessed with clearing themselves of any crimes, and their reactions (albeit highly unsympathetic) are always geared towards setting their part "right" as they see fit.
You know the whole accident, then you're like "oh shite, it looks like i did it on purpose, how can i convince them I didn't", then his plan was to say "WELL YOU CROSSED THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE".
It was damned if he did, damned if he didnt. If he shows immediate sympathy (while clearly better from a humanity standpoint), it might also more easily be spun to indicate guilt on his part. He decided that crossing the yellow line did the motorcyclist in by his account.
OKAY. I have spent way too much fricking time on this. Everything I said could be more than debunked in roughly 16 hours or less (although I still maintain unless someone heard from him he was "out to get those kids on the bikes", that intent will be crazy hard to prove), so I'll shut up until all the facts are straight.
Hopefully that guy stops worrying about himself, and takes care of "his girl" like a true gentleman.
Good night.
This post was edited on 10/19/15 at 12:49 am
Posted on 10/19/15 at 12:50 am to tiggerthetooth
Good night I got 4 more hours at work
Posted on 10/19/15 at 1:06 am to FLBooGoTigs1
Last thing
quote:
Dub Gillum, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, says the agency has seen the video. He says that the investigating trooper will meet with prosecutors Monday and that the car's driver could face felony charges.
Posted on 10/19/15 at 1:13 am to tiggerthetooth
And it begins 
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News