Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was referring to the families. Our justice system has no way to recompense the dead for their loss.

Boy, you are really wading into the deep water without wearing your arm floaties.



Yes, our justice system does have a way to recompense for the taking of life. Money, and lots of it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

SO after all that, the bottom line is you don't know.

I think it would be marvelous (assuming this is a genuine accident) if the family extended some mercy. That's all I ever intended to say.

It's not my fault that makes you angry.

Originally Posted by creekster

Our justice system is not abotu compensation. That would be our civil system. Our crimnal system is about punishment.

So in your mind, the family's wishes are irrelevant?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think it would be marvelous (assuming this is a genuine accident) if the family extended some mercy. That's all I ever intended to say.

It's not my fault that makes you angry.



So in your mind, the family's wishes are irrelevant?

I am not angry. I am an advocate.

In this case the families' wishes are irrelevant to the need to prosecute and are immaterial to the ability to prosecute.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

In this case the families' wishes are irrelevant to the need to prosecute and are immaterial to the ability to prosecute.

To the former, I disagree. To the latter, I have said as much repeatedly.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

To the former, I disagree. To the latter, I have said as much repeatedly.

I am glad you said it repeatedly. Even if you said it REPEATEDLY, or perhaps if you had said it repeatedly, it would not change the fact that you asked me what my opinion was, so I was answering your question. But thanks for jumping on it to try to make it appear that I was somehow trying to put words in your mouth. As you know, I was not.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am glad you said it repeatedly. Even if you said it REPEATEDLY, or perhaps if you had said it repeatedly, it would not change the fact that you asked me what my opinion was, so I was answering your question. But thanks for jumping on it to try to make it appear that I was somehow trying to put words in your mouth. As you know, I was not.

I wasn't trying to make it appear that way. I'm emphasizing that I agree that they have the right. Some have characterized my comments otherwise.

(not speaking specifically to creekster now) I confess to being surprised at the heavy backlash on this topic. Mercy is apparently only appropriately extended to people when one doesn't have a personal emotional connection to the circumstance. Otherwise, "punish the bastard!"

I'll keep that one mind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wasn't trying to make it appear that way. I'm emphasizing that I agree that they have the right. Some have characterized my comments otherwise.

(not speaking specifically to creekster now) I confess to being surprised at the heavy backlash on this topic. Mercy is apparently only appropriately extended to people when one doesn't have a personal emotional connection to the circumstance. Otherwise, "punish the bastard!"

I'll keep that one mind.

You're missing several points here, because you are a statist, an establishment guy.

If the families forgive the killer, that is mercy.

However, in light of the public issues at stake, cautious driving and watching out for cyclists, the state cannot take a position of leniency.

Specific and general intent for crimes are complex and not understood by most lay persons and also not by many lawyers.

In this instance, I can see no reason for mercy to rob justice. If it were a private crime with no public consequences, then I could see an argument for it. However, in this instance, tragic deaths resulted by one who was supposed to guard against it. It is a very tragic crime.

I find it incomprehensible that Tex cannot say, "he should be prosecuted," even if it would be a nice gesture if the families forgave him. I think they should forgive him, but he must pay the price of this tragic crime, as notice to others. Police should not believe they are above the law.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by creekster

Backlash? There was none. He said they should not be prosecuted, I striongkly disagreed, and I pointed out why. (Btw, he did not originally say the families should be forgiving, he said that if they decided not to prosecute it would be anice gesture; if your child had been killed like this how would you react if someon dropped by and casually said "sure would be a nice gestuire if you let the guy go without prosecution"?) Tex then tried to have both ways, saying they shouldn't be proscuted, even citing the prophet's words, but also claiming he had never said they shouldn't be proscuted. WHen asked to take a position, he failed to do so. THere is no backlash. I and others who have faced idiotic drivers ahve very strong feelings about this. Tex chooses to continue to play his little "dance around the position without taking one to get maximum flexibility" rhteorical game and so he gets what he deserves. (And I don't care that he plays the game. We all play those srot fo games here. But he's a big boy and if he is going to paly the game than he can't be surprised when he gets called on it once in a while.)

No offense intended, but this is a big pile of bull-hooey.

1. Backlash did, in fact, take place, and is fully evident in this post.
2. Tex NEVER said "he should not be prosecuted". He did, in fact, say "though it would be a remarkable gesture if the families chose not to". Which is true - it would certainly be remarkable. Please don't confuse the issue by putting words in his mouth.
3. The fact that many people would NOT be willing to 'not prosecute' is what makes his statement true - it would be a remarkable gesture.
4. 'called on it once in awhile' != backlash? Interesting logic, that.


You're confusing two separate arguments. On the one hand is the reaction by the families of the unfortunates. On the other is the proper course of discipline to be taken in regards to the perpetrator.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Spaz is dumb enough to fall for Tex's rhetorical games.

Ah, yes, the inevitable name-calling from someone without the ability to challenge the poster directly. Which of us is the dumb one, again?

[Coach McGuirk]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wasn't trying to make it appear that way. I'm emphasizing that I agree that they have the right. Some have characterized my comments otherwise.

(not speaking specifically to creekster now) I confess to being surprised at the heavy backlash on this topic. Mercy is apparently only appropriately extended to people when one doesn't have a personal emotional connection to the circumstance. Otherwise, "punish the bastard!"

I'll keep that one mind.

To this point I would have no problem with the families of the victims asking for mercy on the Deputy during sentencing. I would not have a problem with the judge granting such leniency. But to not prosecute at all would be a crime unto itself. I feel for all involved, but he needs to be held responsible.

What kind of mercy are we talking here?