Topic: 'Trump Designates Antifa "A Terrorist Organization"' - page 7. (Read 3214 times)

Yes, it does.  You could get hurt or killed.  

Not getting out of the way of a car coming at you has consequences?

Yes.  

Someone ran over and killed someone else in a reckless way.

Protesting in the middle of the highway is clearly reckless and dumb - but it's not like someone jumped in front of a car doing 70 on an open highway.

So the protesters were reckless, and the police closed it, and then a-now-designated-reckless driver hit reckless protestors? Where did those Darwin Awards go to?

It was closed for the protest, not for maintenance or some other reason.


The police had a choice to clear the highway or to close it. They chose to close it. After the accident they're taking a different approach and removing protestors. I agree that the latter makes more sense but that still doesn't change the fact that they did indeed close it that day. Driving through or around a police blockade is reckless, whether it's a freeway closed for protesters or a suburban cul-de-sac closed for trick-or-treating.

If one person can Announce that This Road is Closed then another can Announce that This Road is Open.

Oh, wait... Neither of them can do that? Then it's a question of who put themself in harm's way.

Do you? Simple logic and reason does not require any of this. That's right, the media would never publish anything misleading now would they? P.S. the word is deduce. I am using a deductive reasoning process, not doing your taxes.




Ah, I see. So they prearranged to have a protest on the highway and had a permit? Oh no, more like these idiots blocked off a highway as the police desperately attempted to save them from their own stupidity in an emergency. Just because they tried to stop these retards from killing themselves doesn't make their actions, safe, reasonable, or legal.

Yes, you do want to ruin this black mans life. Of course that is fine because, repeat with me, "Black Lives Matter", thus as in the holy books, all sins are washed clean and all dangerous and idiotic actions are sanctified by virtue of cultural revolutionary diktat.

How is this?

"RCW 47.52.120
Violations specified—Exceptions—Penalty.

"(1) After the opening of any limited access highway facility, it shall be unlawful for any person to:...(e) stop or park any vehicle or equipment within the right-of-way of such facility, including the shoulders thereof, except at points specially provided therefor, and to make only such use of such specially provided stopping or parking points as is permitted...

(3) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon arrest and conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the city or county jail for not less than five days nor more than ninety days, or by both fine and imprisonment."

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.52.120



"RCW 46.61.570
Stopping, standing, or parking prohibited in specified places—Reserving portion of highway prohibited.
(1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:
(a) Stop, stand, or park a vehicle:
...
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to reserve or attempt to reserve any portion of a highway for the purpose of stopping, standing, or parking to the exclusion of any other like person, nor shall any person be granted such right."

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570

I.E. The police don't have the legal authority to grant this right.

If the road was closed I really don't think they were allowed to be there. Being the victim does make you right in this situation. If the road was closed for whatever reason, you can bet it was not allowed for anyone to go there for liability reasons.

Still, there are many, MANY cases where a jaywalker is hit by a car. Jaywalking is illegal, also, that's effectively what the morons were doing on the freeway. In a fair number of these cases it's determined the driver was not at fault. If the morons on the freeway had had on fluorescent orange safety vests, that's one thing. If they had black clothes on and were hard to see, that's another.

Both parties were doing illegal, unsafe things.

If the road was closed it was not illegal to have cars parked on it. And I have already provided the timeline from WSP that clearly shows the road was indeed closed.

I don't want to ruin anyone's life. One person is dead, we can't undo it. But if the driver can prove that the road was not closed and it was ok to drive on it at speed - that's fine with me. However there are no publicly known facts showing that and you're not providing any proof of that. Just repeating "illegal" doesn't make it so.

I pointed out the parked cars because you insist he was just driving down the road, nothing else:



Do you know someone was there or something?  Were you there?  Because you're speaking as if you have first hand knowledge.  I think that this is just another example of you thinking you're able to deduct exactly what happened and/or what's going to happen from media reports.  But your conclusion is the opposite of what's being reported....so....what's going on.

That is funny, "parked cars" as if they were in a designated parking spot and not illegally blocking a highway. "Swerved around" is also known as avoiding an imminent collision. Also "fleeing the scene" in this case is also acting in order to prevent an reasonable expectation of a threat to life or injury from a violent mob chasing after him. If they had not blocked the roadway with vehicles no one would be dead. If they had not illegally been on the highway at night wearing all black, no one would be dead. The injured party in this case was not acting reasonably, which is the standard for liability for a defendant in a criminal case.

Yeah who, ever heard of applying the law in a criminal case right? Fuck his rights under the law, what is important is fucking morons endangering themselves are not at fault because wokeness. Black lives matter, but only as long as long as they fit the narrative of the cultural revolution. This black man is inconvenient so fuck his life.






"Make it ok to kill them" is not the standard. The fact that they were acting in an unreasonable and self endangering manner is the standard. As the legal precedent I linked states very clearly:

"The defendant may offer proof that the act of another person was a superseding or intervening cause of the accident, in which case he is not liable for the death."

You can't get more superseding than putting an illegal road block on a highway and LARPING soy ninjas on the highway at night. That fucking idiot ended THEIR OWN LIFE, and people like you want to run this man's life so you don't have to admit they are fucking idiots. Idiots which you support in their dangerous and illegal activities.

We only know the basics of what happened:

He drove onto a closed highway swerved around a bunch of parked cars, ran two people over and the fled the scene.  One of them died.

Why are you guys going all Johnny Cochran over this?  "He was simply driving down the road, exactly nothing else" give me a break.

Obviously there could be more to this story but it def looks like he checks enough boxes:

It was closed enough for the driver to take the exit ramp. It had been closed for more than an hour prior to the accident:

https://www.wsp.wa.gov/2020/07/06/wsp-detectives-seeking-witnesses-to-i-5-hit-and-run/


The victims allegedly being engaged in an unlawful activity before the highway was closed doesn't make it ok to kill them. They were no longer "jaywalking" once the highway had been closed.

I don't "want" anything here, just commenting on the issue so simmer down, would you.

"RCW 46.61.520

Vehicular homicide—Penalty.
(1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:
(a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or
(b) In a reckless manner; or
(c) With disregard for the safety of others."

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.520



"RCW 46.61.500Reckless driving—Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.500



For a cherry on top, here is some legal precedence:

"The jury instructions in a vehicular homicide case are very complicated. The state must prove that the defendant was a “Proximate Cause” of the injury that lead to death, and that the defendant driver was either driving recklessly or in “disregard for safety” of others, which is an aggravated form of negligence. The defendant may offer proof that the act of another person was a superseding or intervening cause of the accident, in which case he is not liable for the death."

https://www.markmuensterlaw.com/blog/2018/07/washington-court-reverses-vehicular-homicide-conviction/

"Driver Charged With Vehicular Homicide in Death of Seattle Protester"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/dawit-kelete-seattle-protest-driver-charges.html

The problem with your logic is that fault does not rest on the driver alone. If a bicycler was on a restricted highway for example, they would share some if not all of the liability. These roadways are restricted form pedestrians for a reason. Even on non-restricted roadways, if a person crosses the street outside of a crosswalk, they are legally seen to have partial if not full liability for any injuries.

You are also glossing over the fact that the driver did not cause injury while in the act of driving negligently. You argue the road was closed, but it was not officially closed, but "attempted" to be closed as an emergency protective measure for the people violating the law by blocking it. You seem to want to hold the driver fully responsible when the "protestors" made the most significant contributions towards making themselves unsafe.

"Criminal Negligence Law and Legal DefinitionCriminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/


"Contributory Negligence

The concept of contributory negligence is used to characterize conduct that creates an unreasonable risk to one's self. The idea is that an individual has a duty to act as a reasonable person. When a person does not act this way and injury occurs, that person may be held entirely or partially responsible for the resulting injury, even though another party was involved in the accident.For example, Dave, a motorist, strikes Sally, a pedestrian who was crossing the street without carefully checking traffic or heeding the warning of the do-not-cross sign of the nearby streetlight. Who's at fault in this situation?After an injured party files a negligence claim, the defendant (the person sued) may then assert a contributory negligence claim against the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit), effectively stating that the injury occurred at least partially as a result of the plaintiff's own actions. This would be a contributory negligence counterclaim, a common defense to negligence claims.If the defendant is able to prove the contributory negligence claim, the plaintiff may be totally barred from recovering damages or her damages may be reduced to reflect her role in the resulting injury. The pedestrian in the example, Sally, probably would be considered at least partially at fault (and therefore liable for contributory negligence) for carelessly crossing the street.



Comparative Negligence

Most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach to contributory negligence, wherein each party's negligence for a given injury is weighed when determining damages.Traditionally, the courts viewed contributory negligence as a total bar to the recovery of any damages. Under the traditional view, if a person had contributed to the accident in any way, the person was not entitled to compensation for his or her injuries. In an attempt to reduce the harsh, oftentimes unfair outcomes resulting from this approach, most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach."

https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/contributory-and-comparative-negligence.html



Under civil law, if a person fails to act reasonably and acts in such a manner to endanger themselves, the defendant may be liable for less, or have no liability at all. As you can see, criminal law sets a higher bar for negligence claims than does civil law, thus it is clear that a claim of criminal negligence on the part of the plaintiff simply would not hold water. This prosecution is purely a political one designed to appease the riot mob and has no basis in law.

Or manslaughter.

Okay, if I was on that jury I'd be strongly inclined to let the guy off, but you don't have to worry about that. He'll no doubt plea bargain for a couple of years and this particular ugly incident will be taken off the radars.

Need to clear up some media time and space for the election propaganda, right?

Except when you kill someone.  Then it's more.



No.  I don't think it's capital murder.

Vehicular homicide is a thing and that's what you can get charged with if you go the wrong way (or do something similarly reckless with your car) and kill someone. A ticket is what you get when you're pulled over before killing someone.