Sure. But you know they aren't as close as this makes it. One tool was meant to take life as the primary function. The other to get someplace.
Woman falls down stairs while carrying her baby, she killed him, accident. Woman throws her baby off the balcony, she killed him, murder. Both cases the baby was killed, both sad. But they are different.
The difference in intent makes sense. The difference in primary function does not, killing a person with a kitchen knife is no better than with a gun.
The problem with car accidents is that it’s difficult to know the intent of a person, especially carelessness kills a lot more people via cars than via kitchen knifes, and we can’t know for sure when it was an honest mistake by the driver.
Yeah, intent tends to be everything with unfortunate events.
I can argue that the woman may have fallen down the stairs with her baby on purpose. We can say she didn't take proper precautions, use the hand rails, ran down/up the stairs, only carry the baby in a safe device like a car seat, or that she simply should not allow the child to risk traversing up/don the stairs.
With a gun/balcony, the intent was pretty clear. With the stairs/car, they are both presumed accidents.
I think if you ignore the intention of the manufacturer for a moment and focus on the acts of the individual, they'll seem closer.
Both cars and guns are dangerous devices. Both can be used for intentional murder.
Both guns and cars are so dangerous that they should not ever be used carelessly. In fact, it would be the height of recklessness to use either one without constant vigilance. You could easily kill somebody.
But with guns, people generally accept that there is a wrong way to use them, and that it's your fault if you don't have trigger discipline, or if you ever point the barrel at someone without thinking.
On the other hand, the same cannot be said about cars. Just look how people react when you mention defensive driving, a system of disciplines that make driving safer for both the driver and anyone else near the road.
People are so used to getting away with driving poorly that they are willing to accept deaths rather than even hearing about safer driving habits.
Stairs might be pretty close to the same danger level as cars. If you consider how many people don't live or work in a 2 plus story building, maybe more so compared to cars.
"Approximately one million people in the U.S. are injured on stairs each year, making stair-related accidents the second leading cause of accidental injury. These injuries result in over $90 billion in direct and indirect costs annually, according to a study published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Number of Injuries: Over 1 million people are injured annually due to falls on stairs.
Leading Cause of Injury: Stairway accidents are the second leading cause of accidental injury, behind motor vehicle accidents.
Fatalities: Approximately 12,000 deaths result from stairway accidents each year."
But cars are used by licensed individuals who meet some minimum skill requirement. Most accidents are caused by reckless behavior from a person who is an adult who has been trained not to drive that way and who understands that other people would say that they are doing something wrong.
There is a huge gulf between a car accident and a stair accident. Far less of a gulf between cars and guns.
Are you afraid of a little discussion about cars in the fuck cars community? Do you want an echo chamber or a forum?
Is this a serious question? You're in a place called "fuck cars".
Edit: You can tell from their response that this is as far as they read.
Here is the description from the sidebar:
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let’s explore the bad world of Cars!
It's not about being "afraid of a little discussion". It's about being able to read the room. The basis for this forum is that cars are "bad". If you want to defend cars, you're in the wrong place. People here have already decided that cars are bad enough that they say "fuck cars."
If you go into the "Science" community and want to post to defend astrology, and somebody says, "Really? You're going to defend astrology in a science community?" it's not an issue of being "afraid of a little discussion" or of it being "an echo chamber". It's that everybody there has decided that astrology is not worth defending in that place.
Safe design should be done a lot more. I am actually generally not a friend of harsh punishment, but the people who design unsafe roads need to get their act together.
100% agree. Safer practices need to be everywhere. That said, I agree distracted driving should be punished harsher than non-distracted accidents, but proving such goes into robbing people of privacy further. I really don't want more monitoring systems.
Texting and driving should be harsh, running stop signs/red lights as well. But accidents of not seeing a stop sign at night are going to happen, or even a pedestrian crossing not at a crosswalk with no way to see them in the dark. Hopefully we find good solutions, but our losses won't be near 0 unfortunately for awhile
That's fair. I was thinking about your comment in relation to the comic, so I'm glad we're on the same page. My city is currently redesigning formerly unsafe roads into something bike, transit, and pedestrian friendly. It would certainly be easier if they were designed that way to begin with
I don't admire their situation. Then again... I can't say I could have ever accepted some of the things they did to get there. If I had money in the bank to buy a place outside of any of the counties fighting to be super powers right now I'd do so. The U.S., Russia, U.K., China, and a few others just all seem to be toxic for lack of better terms right now.
One of the biggest life lessons I learned was from watching the show Breaking Bad. I think we all have a natural disgust / aversion to evil people. While it’s important as a social function for protecting communities from bad actors, it harms our ability to understand evil.
That’s the key. Understanding evil and how good people descend into it is the best way to protect ourselves from walking down that path. It starts with recognizing that bad circumstances and unaddressed feelings of resentment and perhaps a sense of entitlement all contribute to our ability to justify and rationalize our own actions internally.
Hitler couldn’t have carried out the Holocaust without the help of millions of German citizens who rationalized in exactly this way.
(Sort of a side note, but) I would argue that guns are designed to fire a projectile. That's it, nothing more. The other stuff comes in externally: What are you firing at, and why?That is what determines if you're hunting, target shooting, competing, murdering, self defensing, etc.
If you're firing a projectile at an animal for food? Hunting. At paper for practice? Target shooting. At paper for a good score compared to others? Competing. At people who aren't trying to kill you? Murdering. At people who are? Self defense. All depends on how you're using it.
Most calibers in use today were designed for military use, and their primary purpose was to be fired at a human. It just turns out they work well on animals too.
There's only a few that were designed for use on animals, most as a pest control round.
That'd be the specific caliber, not the gun itself necessarily, but also: Not really. The primary purpose is again "to fire," you have to make the distinction of what it is fired at.
Hell, most guns in the US never even shoot people nor animals over the course of their existence, most by far will only ever shoot paper or steel, so if you have to pick one it seems like they're designed for target shooting to me.
I'd argue the purpose of almost any handgun is to be fired at a human, any target practice is just preparation in case that happens.
There have only ever been two nuclear bombs dropped in anger in human history, does that mean the purpose of a nuke is to be carried around on a submarine or sit in a warehouse somewhere?
That depends on why you bought it. Did you buy it to carry and defend yourself, or did you buy it to leave in a box unloaded until you decide to hit the range?
Honestly? Yes, the point of nukes seems to be moreso MAD than actually blowing shit up.
Yea because a gun is literally designed as a weapon. If someone is wielding one and it "accidentally" goes off you were 100% being negligent in some way. With a car there are certainly situations where you can do everything as safely as possible but an accident still occurs.
Intent without premeditation. Heat of the moment: 2nd degree Murder
Doing something you weren't supposed to and killing someone: involuntary homicide
Failing to do something you were supposed to and killing someone: negligent manslaughter.
Who made this meme (and topic) and why is everyone so ignorant of the law? This almost certainly is vehicular manslaughter case or... If it can be suggested that it's the pedestrian maybe was partially at fault it might be negligent manslaughter (ex: failed to stop when someone jumped out).
In the US, deaths deaths cars are treated less harshly than deaths involving firearms. One common example used to teach about jury biases is deaths due to drunk driving. Many jury members can empathize with driving drunk because many Americans have driven after drinking, even if they were under the legal limit
IDK if you should be calling other people ignorant if you didn't even know that much
"less harshly" is not what the meme is OP responding to is saying. The meme is saying "vehicular manslaughter goes unpunished and you won't even be arrested" which isn't true at all.
I point out that in the USA, a dude can literally shoot an unarmed teenager with skittles in their pocket (likely 2nd degree murder or worse) and a Jury of his Peers will acquit him.
You can kill someone with a gun and have it be called an accident. You can also intentionally run someone down with your vehicle and have it be called vehicular homicide.
We can say "fuck cars" without false equivalencies.
To me whether this comic is being fair hinges on stuff like, how many people are being intentionally murdered with cars but the killer gets off easy because of the method? How many accidental gun deaths are prosecuted more harshly than they should be? I don't actually know the answer to these. It does seem relevant that guns are a tool designed for killing.
When dangerous design is inherent to the system and deaths are treated as the cost of doing business on the roadways, when does it go from accidental into societial negligence?
Guns may be a tool designed for killing, but cars are certainly able to kill as well and should be treated as such. Pointing a gun at someone is dangerous. Pointing a moving car at someone is dangerous. We are gentler on car accidents because almost everyone relies on them and they are so normalized.
Pointing a gun at someone is dangerous. Pointing a moving car at someone is dangerous. We are gentler on car accidents because almost everyone relies on them and they are so normalized.
Is that a wrong approach though? I don't have to point a gun at anyone to visit family, but practically I do have to get behind the wheel of a car. That can be fixed by being rich, but not everyone can be rich. The reason people drive despite the inherent risk to themselves and others is more about infrastructure than poor personal choices. I think it might be better to focus on solving the infrastructure problem than being more willing to put people in prison for driving mistakes, because the latter isn't going to deter people from driving when most of us basically have to in order to live a normal life.
Like you said, it's societal negligence. With guns, owning one is truly optional for almost everyone, and I think it's reasonable to impose a much higher standard of personal responsibility on their use than with basically anything else. If you have a gun you better be capable of always using it correctly under pressure or else you should not have chosen to have one and criminal liability makes perfect sense.
Again a ridiculous argument. One is literally intended to kill someone, the other is a means of transportation. I'm not a fan of cars either but if you actually want to get people on board with the cause equating anyone who drives with Wernher Von Braun is a bad move.
The rockets you were referencing were never a means of transport, only a long distance weapon used by Nazis. And apparently I'm not an ally because I don't think literally everyone who drives is as bad as a Nazi war scientist who made some of the Nazis deadliest weapons? Are literally just a troll to make this sub look bad?
When rockets take people to space then we do care where they come down, and that's strategically decided to avoid killing people. If you mean rockets with explosives attached that are designed with the intent to kill people, then your comparison is equally as dumb as your first one.
Somebody (@Jhex) else posted that there is apparently research giving some creedence to this.
But I agree, this meme is death-spiral-cult level. It's for fellow anti-car folks to commiserate, but it's probably net negative overall to post memes like this since they can be easily mocked by carbrainers.
I think everyone where I live would much rather walk places. It's just that "Car is Necessary". And I live in a walkable town, can walk to grocery store, restaurants, library, hospital (although that's not the best example I guess), you name it. But unless your job is here you're driving often. And if you have young kids, you're probably driving, because they walk so slow.
I think if you kill somebody through negligent discharge of a firearm the charge would be manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, not murder. And I think that if you intentionally run a person over with your car you'd get charged with murder.
If you hit someone with a hammer, it's assault and you go to jail. If you drop a hammer on someone accidentally, it was an accident and nothing happens to you. See how dumb that sounds?
While working in auto claims, I handled a case involving a wealthy individual who, after drinking at a country club, caused an accident that sent another car into a pond. Instead of calling for help, he drove home to sober up before contacting the authorities. Tragically, the young driver drowned, and his family had to sue the insurance company. This case stuck with me as a stark reminder of how selfish actions, fueled by privilege, can have devastating consequences.
Reminder to everyone, you can downvote bad memes. No offense to the OP, but I don't think it's good optics to have this kind of highly questionable content.
Side note: I gather "singer" must be the author's signature, but it sure looks like the criminal is being identified as a singer for some reason.
Literally my friend was killed on his bike by a tow truck driver. The driver got like probation or something, maybe. And the company he works for has "move over and slow down, it's the law Tow Lives Matter"
Assuming those stickers weren't put on due to your friends death, I'm okay with them. Tow truck divers have to work on the side of highways and some have been struck and injured or killed on the job. Cars and their infrastructure suck, but we should still try to protect those who have to work on our roadways.
We can slow down and move over for both cyclists and tow trucks. It doesn't need to be exclusive.
Weight matters more than size, but that’s omitted from this graphic. I suspect the tanks are much heavier.
But speed matters exponentially more than weight. (kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared) And I’d imagine that trucks regularly go much faster than tanks.
The height of the impact point also matters
The higher the front grill/bumper, the more lethal the impact. The current fad for high vehicles with flat front grills has significantly increased pedestrian deaths.
These vehicles are unacceptable large for public spaces. The threshold for CDL style licensing needs to be lowered to make modern trucks/SUVs require the training their design deserves. Also tax the bajesus out of them when they're in city spaces. Either they're in the neighborhood for business reasons or get out.
The point I was snarkily trying to make is that lining up tanks and trucks is a nonsense comparison, any point such a comparison attempts to make is based entirely on a knee jerk emotional reaction, one worthy of r/circlejerk
Even comparing kinetic energy of different vehicles is pretty silly, tanks were never designed for nor get used as battering rams, they're a mobile armored gun meant to shoot shit far away. The typical truck on the road today is meant to give suburban dads a delusional sense of masculinity, to the point of sacrificing near vehicle visibility.
One was designed to kill people far away, one kills people nearby due to operator negligence
If it collided with something that caused it then sure, but it could also just be called a rollover. The whole point is to avoid the word accident as it implies no fault when the fault lies between the drivers and the road design/ rules.
no? both of them can be either an accident or murder in principle; maybe it is more common for gun killings to be murders and car killings to be accidents, but that isn't a matter of law
It's not misinformation. It's explaining that if you want to off someone, proving murder with a car is much more difficult. You have reason to be driving a car. You have less reason to be brandishing a gun.
As a person who spent more than a few days riding around in the back of an Amp-a-Lamps, I've never been to any kind of "accident" scene that was truly an "accident". If you really take the time to look at the scene and trace your finger backwards, you can always see the point where someone got stupid and started the following chain of stupidity. Sometimes others join in the stupid. Sometimes only one person is responsible for the whole stupid. And you are adjudged at least 10% at fault just for being there.
This applies to all those little/minor "accidents" also. Y'all do the stupid. Even me.
It's mens rea, lit. "guilty mind", e.g. intent. If you take an action with the intent to cause a death, that's murder (in my state, that would specifically be malice murder). If you take an action that is likely to cause a death with reckless indifference, but not intent, that's usually something like murder in the second degree. If you cause a death through negligence or by accident, that's usually some form of manslaughter.
Most traffic accidents are negligent; people don't (...usually...) get into a car with the intent to kill someone, nor are they usually driving in a way that the know is likely to cause harm to other people. There are obvs. factors that will affect this--such as driving drunk--but causing a death is usually unintentional, and not through reckless indifference.
Sure. But you know they aren't as close as this makes it. One tool was meant to take life as the primary function. The other to get someplace.
Woman falls down stairs while carrying her baby, she killed him, accident. Woman throws her baby off the balcony, she killed him, murder. Both cases the baby was killed, both sad. But they are different.
The difference in intent makes sense. The difference in primary function does not, killing a person with a kitchen knife is no better than with a gun.
The problem with car accidents is that it’s difficult to know the intent of a person, especially carelessness kills a lot more people via cars than via kitchen knifes, and we can’t know for sure when it was an honest mistake by the driver.
Yeah, intent tends to be everything with unfortunate events.
I can argue that the woman may have fallen down the stairs with her baby on purpose. We can say she didn't take proper precautions, use the hand rails, ran down/up the stairs, only carry the baby in a safe device like a car seat, or that she simply should not allow the child to risk traversing up/don the stairs.
With a gun/balcony, the intent was pretty clear. With the stairs/car, they are both presumed accidents.
Cars will end the world in fire. Maybe already have.
Cant really do that with small arms fire.
I think if you ignore the intention of the manufacturer for a moment and focus on the acts of the individual, they'll seem closer.
Both cars and guns are dangerous devices. Both can be used for intentional murder.
Both guns and cars are so dangerous that they should not ever be used carelessly. In fact, it would be the height of recklessness to use either one without constant vigilance. You could easily kill somebody.
But with guns, people generally accept that there is a wrong way to use them, and that it's your fault if you don't have trigger discipline, or if you ever point the barrel at someone without thinking.
On the other hand, the same cannot be said about cars. Just look how people react when you mention defensive driving, a system of disciplines that make driving safer for both the driver and anyone else near the road.
People are so used to getting away with driving poorly that they are willing to accept deaths rather than even hearing about safer driving habits.
Stairs might be pretty close to the same danger level as cars. If you consider how many people don't live or work in a 2 plus story building, maybe more so compared to cars.
"Approximately one million people in the U.S. are injured on stairs each year, making stair-related accidents the second leading cause of accidental injury. These injuries result in over $90 billion in direct and indirect costs annually, according to a study published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Number of Injuries: Over 1 million people are injured annually due to falls on stairs. Leading Cause of Injury: Stairway accidents are the second leading cause of accidental injury, behind motor vehicle accidents. Fatalities: Approximately 12,000 deaths result from stairway accidents each year."
Stairs are dangerous, yes, but if you push someone down the stairs, it still counts as murder. What you're saying has nothing to do with the topic.
Are you intentionally trying to defend cars in the fuck cars community?
No I'm saying accident vs non accident is a huge difference.
But cars are used by licensed individuals who meet some minimum skill requirement. Most accidents are caused by reckless behavior from a person who is an adult who has been trained not to drive that way and who understands that other people would say that they are doing something wrong.
There is a huge gulf between a car accident and a stair accident. Far less of a gulf between cars and guns.
I think he's saying we need a fuckstairs forum.
Are you afraid of a little discussion about cars in the fuck cars community? Do you want an echo chamber or a forum?
Is this a serious question? You're in a place called "fuck cars".
Edit: You can tell from their response that this is as far as they read.
Here is the description from the sidebar:
It's not about being "afraid of a little discussion". It's about being able to read the room. The basis for this forum is that cars are "bad". If you want to defend cars, you're in the wrong place. People here have already decided that cars are bad enough that they say "fuck cars."
If you go into the "Science" community and want to post to defend astrology, and somebody says, "Really? You're going to defend astrology in a science community?" it's not an issue of being "afraid of a little discussion" or of it being "an echo chamber". It's that everybody there has decided that astrology is not worth defending in that place.
You could have just responded with "echo chamber".
Sorry, you were looking for fuckcars@lemmynsfw, this is [email protected]
Easy mistake.
Accidental and intentional killing should both be discouraged.
Discouraging accidental death is not achieved via harsh punishment. It's done through safer design and education
Safe design should be done a lot more. I am actually generally not a friend of harsh punishment, but the people who design unsafe roads need to get their act together.
100% agree. Safer practices need to be everywhere. That said, I agree distracted driving should be punished harsher than non-distracted accidents, but proving such goes into robbing people of privacy further. I really don't want more monitoring systems.
Texting and driving should be harsh, running stop signs/red lights as well. But accidents of not seeing a stop sign at night are going to happen, or even a pedestrian crossing not at a crosswalk with no way to see them in the dark. Hopefully we find good solutions, but our losses won't be near 0 unfortunately for awhile
That's fair. I was thinking about your comment in relation to the comic, so I'm glad we're on the same page. My city is currently redesigning formerly unsafe roads into something bike, transit, and pedestrian friendly. It would certainly be easier if they were designed that way to begin with
Of course
TIL: the primary function of balconies is murder!
Similar to windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration
Well unless you're Michael Jackson and just want to play Simba with the child, haha
Or you’re Putin looking side-eyed at yet another traitorous regional governor!
I don't admire their situation. Then again... I can't say I could have ever accepted some of the things they did to get there. If I had money in the bank to buy a place outside of any of the counties fighting to be super powers right now I'd do so. The U.S., Russia, U.K., China, and a few others just all seem to be toxic for lack of better terms right now.
One of the biggest life lessons I learned was from watching the show Breaking Bad. I think we all have a natural disgust / aversion to evil people. While it’s important as a social function for protecting communities from bad actors, it harms our ability to understand evil.
That’s the key. Understanding evil and how good people descend into it is the best way to protect ourselves from walking down that path. It starts with recognizing that bad circumstances and unaddressed feelings of resentment and perhaps a sense of entitlement all contribute to our ability to justify and rationalize our own actions internally.
Hitler couldn’t have carried out the Holocaust without the help of millions of German citizens who rationalized in exactly this way.
Any tool or item can be used to take a life or cause injury.
It could be argued guns are designed for hunting, and cars are designed for travel, but both can be used to cause harm.
Hell even a shopping cart design to haul groceries can be used to harm. Relevant video in the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePmc1656EVo
(Sort of a side note, but) I would argue that guns are designed to fire a projectile. That's it, nothing more. The other stuff comes in externally: What are you firing at, and why? That is what determines if you're hunting, target shooting, competing, murdering, self defensing, etc.
If you're firing a projectile at an animal for food? Hunting. At paper for practice? Target shooting. At paper for a good score compared to others? Competing. At people who aren't trying to kill you? Murdering. At people who are? Self defense. All depends on how you're using it.
Most calibers in use today were designed for military use, and their primary purpose was to be fired at a human. It just turns out they work well on animals too.
There's only a few that were designed for use on animals, most as a pest control round.
That'd be the specific caliber, not the gun itself necessarily, but also: Not really. The primary purpose is again "to fire," you have to make the distinction of what it is fired at.
Hell, most guns in the US never even shoot people nor animals over the course of their existence, most by far will only ever shoot paper or steel, so if you have to pick one it seems like they're designed for target shooting to me.
I'd argue the purpose of almost any handgun is to be fired at a human, any target practice is just preparation in case that happens.
There have only ever been two nuclear bombs dropped in anger in human history, does that mean the purpose of a nuke is to be carried around on a submarine or sit in a warehouse somewhere?
That depends on why you bought it. Did you buy it to carry and defend yourself, or did you buy it to leave in a box unloaded until you decide to hit the range?
Honestly? Yes, the point of nukes seems to be moreso MAD than actually blowing shit up.
If you kill someone with a gun and it was completely accidental, you're still likely going to do some time for it. Not so with a car.
Yea because a gun is literally designed as a weapon. If someone is wielding one and it "accidentally" goes off you were 100% being negligent in some way. With a car there are certainly situations where you can do everything as safely as possible but an accident still occurs.
Then it won't be your fault.
In (almost) every automobile "accident" someone was at fault. That person bears responsibility for whatever results from the "accident."
I think you meant to go to ![email protected]
This is ![email protected]
Easy mix up.
You have to put a "!" before it, My app just opened a mail to [email protected]
Whoops! Sorry
Doesn't exist. My disappointment is immeasurble.
Wtf?
Who made this meme (and topic) and why is everyone so ignorant of the law? This almost certainly is vehicular manslaughter case or... If it can be suggested that it's the pedestrian maybe was partially at fault it might be negligent manslaughter (ex: failed to stop when someone jumped out).
In the US, deaths deaths cars are treated less harshly than deaths involving firearms. One common example used to teach about jury biases is deaths due to drunk driving. Many jury members can empathize with driving drunk because many Americans have driven after drinking, even if they were under the legal limit
IDK if you should be calling other people ignorant if you didn't even know that much
"less harshly" is not what the meme is OP responding to is saying. The meme is saying "vehicular manslaughter goes unpunished and you won't even be arrested" which isn't true at all.
What the fuck in the George Zimmerman are you talking about? Did you fall asleep through the entirety of Black Lives Matters?
I point out that in the USA, a dude can literally shoot an unarmed teenager with skittles in their pocket (likely 2nd degree murder or worse) and a Jury of his Peers will acquit him.
You can kill someone with a gun and have it be called an accident. You can also intentionally run someone down with your vehicle and have it be called vehicular homicide.
We can say "fuck cars" without false equivalencies.
To me whether this comic is being fair hinges on stuff like, how many people are being intentionally murdered with cars but the killer gets off easy because of the method? How many accidental gun deaths are prosecuted more harshly than they should be? I don't actually know the answer to these. It does seem relevant that guns are a tool designed for killing.
When dangerous design is inherent to the system and deaths are treated as the cost of doing business on the roadways, when does it go from accidental into societial negligence?
Guns may be a tool designed for killing, but cars are certainly able to kill as well and should be treated as such. Pointing a gun at someone is dangerous. Pointing a moving car at someone is dangerous. We are gentler on car accidents because almost everyone relies on them and they are so normalized.
Is that a wrong approach though? I don't have to point a gun at anyone to visit family, but practically I do have to get behind the wheel of a car. That can be fixed by being rich, but not everyone can be rich. The reason people drive despite the inherent risk to themselves and others is more about infrastructure than poor personal choices. I think it might be better to focus on solving the infrastructure problem than being more willing to put people in prison for driving mistakes, because the latter isn't going to deter people from driving when most of us basically have to in order to live a normal life.
Like you said, it's societal negligence. With guns, owning one is truly optional for almost everyone, and I think it's reasonable to impose a much higher standard of personal responsibility on their use than with basically anything else. If you have a gun you better be capable of always using it correctly under pressure or else you should not have chosen to have one and criminal liability makes perfect sense.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328812169_If_You_Want_to_Get_Away_with_Murder_Use_Your_Car_A_Discursive_Content_Analysis_of_Pedestrian_Traffic_Fatalities_in_News_Headlines
It could even be murder, if you can prove the driver had intent/premeditation.
But to answer your questions RE: meme/law, look which comm this is in lol. Can't let logic get in the way of "car bad."
I suppose when you remove intent and literally all other context, this makes sense.
At what point is driving a car (outside of a closed track; thwts fine) not murderous intent?
Literally every single time you don't intend to murder someone.
What a dumbass question.
Again a ridiculous argument. One is literally intended to kill someone, the other is a means of transportation. I'm not a fan of cars either but if you actually want to get people on board with the cause equating anyone who drives with Wernher Von Braun is a bad move.
Rockets don't exist purely to kill people.
In fact, they are a mode of transit! Can you get a man to the moon in a car?
Cool story.
The rockets you were referencing were never a means of transport, only a long distance weapon used by Nazis. And apparently I'm not an ally because I don't think literally everyone who drives is as bad as a Nazi war scientist who made some of the Nazis deadliest weapons? Are literally just a troll to make this sub look bad?
And guns are just dangerous toys you take out to the range sometimes. It's cool.
do you work on the moon
When rockets take people to space then we do care where they come down, and that's strategically decided to avoid killing people. If you mean rockets with explosives attached that are designed with the intent to kill people, then your comparison is equally as dumb as your first one.
Totally different than cars though. Because reasons.
They are. You ever heard of a car being launched from a gun or a plane with the intent to kill someone?
Maybe this will help clear things up...
intent
1 of 2
noun
in·tent in-ˈtent
Synonyms of intent
1 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim
the director's intent
2 a : the act or fact of intending : purpose
especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act
admitted wounding him with intent
b : the state of mind with which an act is done : volition
Cool story bro. Try arguing in good faith.
You're really not making yourself look intelligent here.
I havent seen any indicator that's what this space was for.
This is a bad take lol. You can be charged with manslaughter if it's an accident and murder if you were trying to kill someone with your car.
Blatantly wrong takes like this just increase the cognitive dissonance between the anti car movement and everyone else.
Somebody (@Jhex) else posted that there is apparently research giving some creedence to this.
But I agree, this meme is death-spiral-cult level. It's for fellow anti-car folks to commiserate, but it's probably net negative overall to post memes like this since they can be easily mocked by carbrainers.
You can be but often aren't, especially if the pedestrian or cyclist was on the road at the time
It's worse than that.
You don't generally blame someone for being shot by a random stranger.
But kill a cyclist or pedestrian by car? What did or didn't they do?!?! 🧐
Its a strange world were somehow we have been conditioned to belive travel on foot or cycling is somewhat "lesser" then travel by car.
Hopefully the notion of "Car is King" dies one day, and we build cities once again for the people living in them.
I think everyone where I live would much rather walk places. It's just that "Car is Necessary". And I live in a walkable town, can walk to grocery store, restaurants, library, hospital (although that's not the best example I guess), you name it. But unless your job is here you're driving often. And if you have young kids, you're probably driving, because they walk so slow.
Where do you live where such a notion is the norm?
I think if you kill somebody through negligent discharge of a firearm the charge would be manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, not murder. And I think that if you intentionally run a person over with your car you'd get charged with murder.
Here the charge is nothing.
https://www.thewhig.com/feature/kingston-ontario-cyclist-fatality-police
Except people frequently do get charged with murder for pedestrian fatalities, all over the world in fact. If you can prove intent, it's murder.
This is a rubbish take.
If you hit someone with a hammer, it's assault and you go to jail. If you drop a hammer on someone accidentally, it was an accident and nothing happens to you. See how dumb that sounds?
While working in auto claims, I handled a case involving a wealthy individual who, after drinking at a country club, caused an accident that sent another car into a pond. Instead of calling for help, he drove home to sober up before contacting the authorities. Tragically, the young driver drowned, and his family had to sue the insurance company. This case stuck with me as a stark reminder of how selfish actions, fueled by privilege, can have devastating consequences.
What an obscure and strange tale!!
Reminder to everyone, you can downvote bad memes. No offense to the OP, but I don't think it's good optics to have this kind of highly questionable content.
Side note: I gather "singer" must be the author's signature, but it sure looks like the criminal is being identified as a singer for some reason.
It's a comic by Andy Singer
Literally my friend was killed on his bike by a tow truck driver. The driver got like probation or something, maybe. And the company he works for has "move over and slow down, it's the law Tow Lives Matter"
Assuming those stickers weren't put on due to your friends death, I'm okay with them. Tow truck divers have to work on the side of highways and some have been struck and injured or killed on the job. Cars and their infrastructure suck, but we should still try to protect those who have to work on our roadways.
We can slow down and move over for both cyclists and tow trucks. It doesn't need to be exclusive.
Cars are like tanks.. there I said it
Literally
I'm confused, how exactly is a size comparison of two vehicles meant to add anything to the conversation here? Size implies lethality?
A standard city bus is about twice as long as those tanks, so is a bus twice as problematic?
Weight matters more than size, but that’s omitted from this graphic. I suspect the tanks are much heavier.
But speed matters exponentially more than weight. (kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared) And I’d imagine that trucks regularly go much faster than tanks.
The height of the impact point also matters The higher the front grill/bumper, the more lethal the impact. The current fad for high vehicles with flat front grills has significantly increased pedestrian deaths.
These vehicles are unacceptable large for public spaces. The threshold for CDL style licensing needs to be lowered to make modern trucks/SUVs require the training their design deserves. Also tax the bajesus out of them when they're in city spaces. Either they're in the neighborhood for business reasons or get out.
The point I was snarkily trying to make is that lining up tanks and trucks is a nonsense comparison, any point such a comparison attempts to make is based entirely on a knee jerk emotional reaction, one worthy of r/circlejerk
Even comparing kinetic energy of different vehicles is pretty silly, tanks were never designed for nor get used as battering rams, they're a mobile armored gun meant to shoot shit far away. The typical truck on the road today is meant to give suburban dads a delusional sense of masculinity, to the point of sacrificing near vehicle visibility.
One was designed to kill people far away, one kills people nearby due to operator negligence
I think it makes the point that needlessly large cars add even more risk than necessary.
Buses on net reduce the number of vehicles on the road which makes them a net benefit for safety.
Puppies and toddlers have accidents.
Vehicles have collisions.
Would you call a single car roll-over a collision?
If it collided with something that caused it then sure, but it could also just be called a rollover. The whole point is to avoid the word accident as it implies no fault when the fault lies between the drivers and the road design/ rules.
The term accident does not imply no fault.
For example, I accidentally spilled my coffee.
It collided with the environment, so yes.
My brother unintentionally incinerated himself when he put his car into a tree sideways, I don’t consider it an accident.
I'm sorry for your loss.
no? both of them can be either an accident or murder in principle; maybe it is more common for gun killings to be murders and car killings to be accidents, but that isn't a matter of law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
also explained in comic form here: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173
Let's not spread misinformation just because it helps a good cause.
It's not misinformation. It's explaining that if you want to off someone, proving murder with a car is much more difficult. You have reason to be driving a car. You have less reason to be brandishing a gun.
Yeah, but if you run over your ex while they're out for their morning jog, for example, the police will absolutely be after you.
And the police can do either and it’s called justice!
Why was the car guy named "Singer"? Was there an infamous hit-and-runner named Singer?
I think they misspelled "Sicko"
As a person who spent more than a few days riding around in the back of an Amp-a-Lamps, I've never been to any kind of "accident" scene that was truly an "accident". If you really take the time to look at the scene and trace your finger backwards, you can always see the point where someone got stupid and started the following chain of stupidity. Sometimes others join in the stupid. Sometimes only one person is responsible for the whole stupid. And you are adjudged at least 10% at fault just for being there.
This applies to all those little/minor "accidents" also. Y'all do the stupid. Even me.
This is so oversiplyfied that it's basically just a lie.
So if you're defending yourself or others from kidnappers (an epidemic these days), use a vehicle. At least that's what I got out of this.
It's mens rea, lit. "guilty mind", e.g. intent. If you take an action with the intent to cause a death, that's murder (in my state, that would specifically be malice murder). If you take an action that is likely to cause a death with reckless indifference, but not intent, that's usually something like murder in the second degree. If you cause a death through negligence or by accident, that's usually some form of manslaughter.
Most traffic accidents are negligent; people don't (...usually...) get into a car with the intent to kill someone, nor are they usually driving in a way that the know is likely to cause harm to other people. There are obvs. factors that will affect this--such as driving drunk--but causing a death is usually unintentional, and not through reckless indifference.