slvoid

Can we beat her to death then?

Brian

And bickering on the forums solves what?

slvoid

It allows us to express how we feel. Pretty damn angered.

Brian

Fair enough. And I'm hoping everyone will respect the fact that Joe owns and runs the forums, and would not appreciate bikeforums.net being used as a platform for negative actions that may cause him any undue legal grief.

If you want to write someone, send them a letter or email. If you want to express indignity, go ahead. But please don't turn this into a big ugly mess, pitting members against each other. We want to maintain a sense of community, even if we don't agree.

Bikepacker67

We can be a bit more creative than that.

I say we duct tape some hands-free earphones to her, then amp up her ringtone to lethal decibels.

We'll draw spokes to decide who gets to make the deadly phone call.

slvoid

Fair enough too. Since this is a privately owned forum, we don't have any inherent individual rights of speech here. I would suggest then, that people take to making her life a living hell elsewhere.

However, I'm trying it hard to find anyone that would disagree that it's a good idea to remove the threat she places on society, permenantly, and the stupid little DA who's too afraid to prosecute. (Write to the higher up's too people, even the DA works for somebody).

Mars

It's very difficult for me to see how Joe or the forums can be held legally responsible for people responding to this outrage. The forum, nor its staff, are encouraging these actions.

Polaris43

She's 19, not 16 and I thought what she said was just lame. Are you giving her points for grammar?

Brian

You all have rights of free speech here. You just need to abide the community guidelines. No yelling "Fire" in Joe's theater.

I agree that the DA took the path of least resistance. I'm just here to keep the peace on the forums. Now put the glove down, and back away slowly.

slvoid

Alright, let's all calm down... easy there.. won't wanna see anyone get gloved.

Brian

The forums are providing the platform. And that was never the intention. If someone suggests that a letter writing campaign be started, that would show the members working as a community towards good. But if someone is suggesting violence, that is against the guidelines, and will cause the thread to be closed and trashed.

So please take the constructive path here.

Brian

No glove, no love?

Mars

Hmmm. I don't believe that anyone here really thinks that slvoid wants this girl beaten to death. And I don't think that anyone would do something like that because slvoid says that. Internet communications are far more vibrant and direct than nearly anything else, and people speak their minds. If it looked like members were forming a lynch mob, then I guess that mod intervention is called for. This, at least in my judgement, is a good example of a community trying to get their heads around an outrage that demands a response. Any one of us could have been that guy killed. The tepid response by the perp and the legal system is stunning in its disregard for the victim.

I believe that discussing this issue, venting feelings, and providing information to each other is the natural and effective way for this group to formulate an action and understand what happened. That includes expressions of anger and outrage.

Letter writing campaign? How 20th century of you.

Brian

Mars, I don't disagree. But you've been around long enough to know that things can get out of hand quickly around here.

Yes, letters. 10 people will have to handle it before it gets to her desk. She can delete emails pretty easily though.

slvoid

Believe me, if anyone's planning to take her out, they sure as hell won't announce it online.

billh

This last sentence at least shows a little empathy for the family of the deceased.

vendorz

Uhhh, law student... now you might wanna go look up the law, which appears to require recklessness, not negligence.

Polaris43

Too little and the structure of the sentance indicates that her main concern is herself. She didn't even have the consideration to let the concern for Matt's family stand alone.

Instead, her thought process was "think about them but think about ME more, ok"? Sorry, but that's the way it reads to me and, apparently, many others on this forum.

I think most people are in agreement that what she's having a hard time with is what people think about her and not the fact that she killed a guy because a ring tone was more important than paying attention to the task at hand - driving. I hope that ring tone was worth it.

nebben123

What a sad story

This girl should be sent to jail for at least 5 years, and then have her license revoked for another 5 years after that. We do not need people like her on the road! How can you not see a cyclist? She should be charged with negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment leading to homicide, or whatever it is. I can't believe that she only got a slap on the wrist!!! She killed someone!

DCCommuter

Reckless

Definition - adj
: characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances
[ ~ state of mind may be inferred from conduct]

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 2001.

What element of recklessness is not present in this case?

donnamb 

I think that's the heart of the problem. I am not in any legal profession, but it seems to me that it is the interpretation of what terms like "recklessness" and "criminal negligence" encompass in traffic laws. Some states have statute language that clearly define what those words can mean. In other states, the interpretation has been at the judicial level and has remained the same for a long time. In Oregon for instance, killing someone because you were distracted while driving by a cell phone, DVD movie, bending down to pick up a CD, etc., does not meet the definition of "criminal negligence". We currently have no vehicular homicide law, and so drivers that kill others only get traffic citations, most of which have a $242 fine. I don't think that 30+ years ago anyone could have imagined the kinds of distractions that would be available to a driver. Combine that with abyssmal driver education, and what happened with this 19 year old doesn't surprise me in the least. (Her seeming lack of remorse is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

I believe we need to ask ourselves if it is time to change the legal meaning of words like reckless and criminally negligent. Should we as a society (through our legal system) continue to simply consider it an "accident" if someone deliberately chooses to engage in highly distracting activities whilst driving and end up killing someone because of their lapse of attention? There are so many more than there used to be, and most of them are a simple matter of choice. We have decided that we no longer consider a death due to a drunk driver accidental. We tend to believe that drinking alcohol/using drugs and driving is something people choose to do. Is that what we want to decide for these other distractions?

mike

Do you honestly believe she wrote the statement herself? Of course not. Her parents had lawyers write the speech for her. There is no way she would post something publicly with her own pen.

threephi

Let's see... self-absorbed idiot 19-year-old with a dangerous obsession for popular new media formats posts an idiotic, self-absorbed blog entry? Yeah, that's totally out of character.

If I had hired lawyers and that nearly incoherent drivel is what they'd come up with, I'd fire them and not post it.

mastershake916

So what did the blog entry say?

Bikepacker67

It was saved on another cycle related forum: