For the people talking about 75th street, the victims weren't crossing 75th, they were crossing 33rd. So the drunken monster either was coming down 33rd or he turned onto it from 75th. The speeders on 75th weren't the issue.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
@95: Has there been an interview with the drunk guy's family? How do you know what his family is responsible for?
Ummm...according to every news report I've seen you're wrong. Every local outlet reports that the truck was headed westbound on 75th and that the peds were crossing 75th from south to north @33rd. Today's Seatimes has a very nice little graphic showing it all.
Your point is interesting. "Murder requires intent. He did not intend to kill anyone. He committed a horrible crime, and in my kingdom he'd be gone for a long time. But he is not a murderer."
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, DA, judge or police officer, so please weigh in with legalese.
What if, especially with repeat offenders like this guy, when there are records that a person has undegone DUI counseling and has taken a class about alcoholism and driving, that the question of intent is an assumed one, in that: a person with such counseling is considered informed about the risks of driving while intoxicated and understands that they are risking the lives of others when they drive a vehicle under the influence--but they value their ability 'to be drunk while going faster than their legs can carry them', as evidenced by this guy and at least one other, overheard by Cienna Madrid saying: "legs are pretty fucking slow."
Should we not in such a case say: he did in fact intend to kill others--having weighed the risks of driving drunk against others' lives, he decided against other people's right to life and decided to drive drunk at the statistically probable cost to theirs? Or would that still be some form of manslaughter?
This would not apply to first-time offenders.
She was convicted of two counts of manslaughter and associated crimes, and sentenced to just under 17 years in prison.
This was in Oregon, about five years ago.
On the other hand, we can call this what it is: vehicular manslaughter. Calling things by their real name does not imply approval. It's just accurate, that's all. Look, I'm fine with very harsh penalties for guys like that. I really am. But this urge to call it something that it's not is a variant of the usual over-emoting and sloppy thinking that leads weepy patriots to call their kid a "hero" because he joined the Army, or to shout "get your government hands off my Medicare" because they're afraid of Obama's health care plan.
From all appearances, the driver was horribly, horribly negligent, not to mention non-compliant with the order to equip his truck with an interlock. I do not for a microsecond forgive any of it. But there is no evidence that he intended to kill anyone. If he'd done so, you wouldn't think he'd stop right away, and then be photographed with his head in his hands.
Pending contrary evidence, I'd say he's a rip-roaring, out-of-control drunkard who finally fucked up in just about the worst way he could have. He damned well should have buried his head in his hands, and I for one hope he'll be doing that for 20 to life. But he did not commit "murder" as I understand it to be defined.
Can I actually be the only person who's wondering exactly how this guy was able to evade the interlock requirement after having been ordered to equip his truck with one?
After everyone's through weeping about how he's a murderer and advocating the collective punishment of every driver in Seattle, and expansion of mass transit, and 20 mph speed limits, and of course more bike lanes, how about taking a really close look at how the interlock requirement is, or is not, enforced?
If that guy's truck had had an interlock, there's a damn strong chance this never would've happened. But 20 mph speed limits or more mass transit or calling vehicular manslaugher murder wouldn't have changed a fucking thing.
Loaning your car to a person with a suspended license also should result in vehicle forfeiture. @56 should lose his driving privileges for a long time as well.
None of this will happen, of course. Nobody really cares about drunk drivers. We'll make some noise about this guy, but nothing will actually happen.
70,000 people a year are injured by cars while pedestrians. More than 4,000 of them are killed. The numbers are increasing, as more people are trying to get around without cars, but increased facilities for pedestrians are not made.
The number one reason given for pedestrian deaths? "Walkers are put at risk by the preponderance of wide, high-speed roads designed to move large numbers of vehicles but not with pedestrians in mind."
You think we don't like drinking alcohol too?
Apples and oranges. Did you actually read my post #99? I couldn't seize the vehicle and sell it. I didn't own it. My name wasn't on the title. Next time, if you're going to cite a posting you might try actually responding to it.
The last time the statistics were compiled (2010), the percentage of people in Seattle living in a household with a car was the same as it had been 10 years earlier (84%). More people live in households with three cars than with no cars. I realize how much you despise cars, but you're in the minority.
I know they like drinking booze. That's the reason I've been bringing it up.
Drunk driver kills people and what's the response here? Throw the guy in jail, or take his car away (because many people here also hate cars), or both. Nobody suggests alcohol is too easy to get.
If someone kills people with a gun though? Oh, it's all because guns are too easy to get.
People's prejudices show up like a mushroom cloud on these blogs.
It's perfectly understandable to me, and should be to you, that a large percentage of people will be uncomfortable with guns, including many of those who will concede their practical utility and necessity in the real world, and who view themselves as being, in the cliche of the moment, "pro-second amendment." Depending on the specifics, gun incidents have the ability to be pretty shocking.
It's easier to separate the use and misuse of alcohol, because there is a peaceful use of alcohol that's absent with guns, which other than with target shooters, are always about violence.