AZ Mercedes Accident scene pics and Info.

Good old Juicee.

 

http://www.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224950

 

And on a side note did you guys see there was another street racing accident yesterday? WTF are these people stupid? Atleast cool it while the last accident is fresh in your mind.

Good old Juicee.

 

http://www.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224950

 

And on a side note did you guys see there was another street racing accident yesterday? WTF are these people stupid? Atleast cool it while the last accident is fresh in your mind.

where was the accident? and what was involved?

where was the accident? and what was involved?

Honda on indian school rd.

Honda on indian school rd.

and

 

http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopst...ng.e91943e.html

 

What?

Cripes, at this rate, your area is going to post speed-sensors or something along the stretches of road.

Cripes, at this rate, your area is going to post speed-sensors or something along the stretches of road.

We allready have cameras everywhere. its like a police state.

 

I am serious. This is a criminal negligence type of offense, not a hanging one. The family deserves justice for sure. But, they have options.... pressing for max jail time or a civil settlement or both. Lock him(and the POS driver) away for years, and the probablility of collecting the settlement(above and beyond the insurance payout) diminishes significantly. If the family pursues on the settlement option, justice will have been served, and if they use the money to better their own lives, good for them.

 

For all you guys speculating on the length of the prison sentence, I am sure the prosecutor will consult with the family before making any recomendations to the judge.

 

I disagree. I think this goes beyond negligence in this instance. It was willful and wanton.

 

And there are a multitude of ways to get out of paying civil lawsuit awards (just look at OJ). Incarceration is the deterrant to others who might decide to commit the same crime. Otherwise, we're setting a precedent that it's okay to go ahead and kill someone else so long as their family agrees to the monetary penalty. That leaves us with the question of how much cash value do you impart on the life of your loved one?

In my opinion we are all guilty of speeding, racing etc at one time or another. But their are 2 types of people who do it, those who have some sense or sensibility in the situation, and those who are fcuking crazy. For example Rakjoe, remember that crazy chineese guy we raced in the M6? The one who sees traffic and keeps going?

 

I agree. This guy is a perfect example of the latter.

Cripes, at this rate, your area is going to post speed-sensors or something along the stretches of road.

 

At this rate, the AZ legislature is going to have a field day like no f-ing tomorrow when they go back in session. Especially when one of their own got killed.

I disagree. I think this goes beyond negligence in this instance. It was willful and wanton.

 

And there are a multitude of ways to get out of paying civil lawsuit awards (just look at OJ). Incarceration is the deterrant to others who might decide to commit the same crime. Otherwise, we're setting a precedent that it's okay to go ahead and kill someone else so long as their family agrees to the monetary penalty. That leave's us with the question of how much cash value do you impart on the life of your loved one?

 

 

Who would want to accept money from the killer of your loved one anyway?!

 

I would only sue to make their life more difficult and give the money to charity.

I disagree. I think this goes beyond negligence in this instance. It was willful and wanton.

 

And there are a multitude of ways to get out of paying civil lawsuit awards (just look at OJ). Incarceration is the deterrant to others who might decide to commit the same crime. Otherwise, we're setting a precedent that it's okay to go ahead and kill someone else so long as their family agrees to the monetary penalty. That leaves us with the question of how much cash value do you impart on the life of your loved one?

 

He didn't willfully set out to T-bone the ex-senator. It was an ACCIDENT caused by crimminal negligence. The precedent of monetary reparations for this type of offense has been established for centuries so we are not talking about anything new. Yes, we cannot put a value on a loved one's life, but the courts do it all the time in wrongful death lawsuits.

He didn't willfully set out to T-bone the ex-senator. It was an ACCIDENT caused by crimminal negligence. The precedent of monetary reparations for this type of offense has been established for centuries so we are not talking about anything new. Yes, we cannot put a value on a loved one's life, but the courts do it all the time in wrongful death lawsuits.

 

The willful part means he didn't do it under duress.

 

Edited: (didn't come out right the first time)

 

IMO, an "accident" is me shooting you while I was hunting in the woods. I was aiming at a deer, you were out there hunting deer too, and I didn't see you and shot you. Let's say I'm skilled in this and have all the necessary licenses and permits. Was killing you foreseeable? Possibly, but way in the background.

 

Now let's say I'm skilled with firearms and I brought my trusty gun with me to a busy mall. I meet up with you, who also happened to bring a gun. We decide to do some target practice inside the busy mall. We both shoot a lot, have our gun permits (even the concealed ones), and are very comfortable with our guns. Unfortunately, one of us shoots a small child and kills her while we're aiming at the "R" on the Radio Shack sign. What does this say about the situation now? Would anyone here be discussing how we accidentally shot a child?

 

Just my take on it.

The willful part means he didn't do it under duress.

 

Edited: (didn't come out right the first time)

 

IMO, an "accident" is me shooting you while I was hunting in the woods. I was aiming at a deer, you were out there hunting deer too, and I didn't see you and shot you. Let's say I'm skilled in this and have all the necessary licenses and permits. Was killing you foreseeable? Possibly, but way in the background.

 

Now let's say I'm skilled with firearms and I brought my trusty gun with me to a busy mall. I meet up with you, who also happened to bring a gun. We decide to do some target practice inside the busy mall. We both shoot a lot, have our gun permits (even the concealed ones), and are very comfortable with our guns. Unfortunately, one of us shoots a small child and kills her while we're aiming at the "R" on the Radio Shack sign. What does this say about the situation now? Would anyone here be discussing how we accidentally shot a child?

 

Just my take on it.

 

Godamm, that was one helluva example to think up Gil....In reply, we would be discussing the stupidity of the shooter, just as we have done with the street racers.

It was an ACCIDENT caused by crimminal negligence.

Thats a non-sequiter.

 

An accident is an act of God beyond the control of the people involved. Criminal Negligence is harm caused by the ACTIONS of another.

 

And Gils example is dead on as far as the law is concerned, except the hunter in scenario one really WAS involved in an accident... Theres no negligence there.... He had no reason to believe somebody was behind the deer.

 

Negligence in that case would be KNOWING there were other hunters in the area, and shooting at unidentified movement in a bush, thinking its a deer... OOPS! Its a hunter! (This scenario happens ALL THE TIME in hunting season.... Is it MURDER? Nope... Is it an "Accident" nope.... Its negligent homicide)

 

Take it to the next level, firing the gun were YOURE LIKELY to hit another person, thats RECKLESS, and that makes it murder in the second degree.

Thats a non-sequiter.

 

An accident is an act of God beyond the control of the people involved.

 

What is an Act of God, exactly? Care to spell out those acts, and are you prepared to call God as a witness?

 

I'm not being pedantic, I just want to know what comprises the the Acts of God and how those acts can be applied and proven in a court of law. Is there a document or a collection of documents that comprise the entirety of this document, AKA, "Acts of God?"

 

 

Is there a legal precedence for an "Act of God", if so, how can I contact "God" for a bit of cross examination?

 

Fire, brimstone, all that I get. However, neither fire nor brimstone were found at the scene of the accident....so we naturally have to defer to logic here...and therefore must call God as a material witness. You invoked the name of God, so I must invoke his name on cross.

 

 

Thats a non-sequiter.

 

An accident is an act of God beyond the control of the people involved. Criminal Negligence is harm caused by the ACTIONS of another.

 

And Gils example is dead on as far as the law is concerned, except the hunter in scenario one really WAS involved in an accident... Theres no negligence there.... He had no reason to believe somebody was behind the deer.

 

Negligence in that case would be KNOWING there were other hunters in the area, and shooting at unidentified movement in a bush, thinking its a deer... OOPS! Its a hunter! (This scenario happens ALL THE TIME in hunting season.... Is it MURDER? Nope... Is it an "Accident" nope.... Its negligent homicide)

 

Take it to the next level, firing the gun were YOURE LIKELY to hit another person, thats RECKLESS, and that makes it murder in the second degree.

 

Ok..... I was using the word accident in the common vernacular of the layman. Let me rephrase, It was a CAR WRECK, caused by criminal negligence.

 

Lets get out woods(and the mall!) and back to the street...... We have two cars speeding down the road at well above the posted speed limit and alleged to be street racing. As they pass thru an intersection with a green light(they have the right of way), another car makes a left and they t-bone the car, killing the occupant. Since the alleged street racers had the right of way, they were NOT LIKELY to hit another vehicle. That eliminates RECKLESS and murder in the second degree.

 

So, are we back to the legal definition of crimminal negligence? Also, don't you think the street racing charges will be hard to prove in a court of law? No doubt the, excessive speed involved will be enough to convict these guys, but I think you need more than a couple of witnesses to determine with out a doubt that racing was involved.

 

btw, I am just yaking here and I am NOT part of the defense team...... obviously, they were street racing and fucked up big time, just like that dumbass hunter in your example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is an Act of God, exactly? Care to spell out those acts, and are you prepared to call God as a witness?

 

I'm not being pedantic, I just want to know what comprises the the Acts of God and how those acts can be applied and proven in a court of law. Is there a document or a collection of documents that comprise the entirety of this document, AKA, "Acts of God?"

Is there a legal precedence for an "Act of God", if so, how can I contact "God" for a bit of cross examination?

 

Fire, brimstone, all that I get. However, neither fire nor brimstone were found at the scene of the accident....so we naturally have to defer to logic here...and therefore must call God as a material witness. You invoked the name of God, so I must invoke his name on cross.

 

LMAO!

 

are you foreal?

Ok..... I was using the word accident in the common vernacular of the layman. Let me rephrase, It was a CAR WRECK, caused by criminal negligence.

 

Lets get out woods(and the mall!) and back to the street...... We have two cars speeding down the road at well above the posted speed limit and alleged to be street racing. As they pass thru an intersection with a green light(they have the right of way), another car makes a left and they t-bone the car, killing the occupant. Since the alleged street racers had the right of way, they were NOT LIKELY to hit another vehicle. That eliminates RECKLESS and murder in the second degree.

 

So, are we back to the legal definition of crimminal negligence? Also, don't you think the street racing charges will be hard to prove in a court of law? No doubt the, excessive speed involved will be enough to convict these guys, but I think you need more than a couple of witnesses to determine with out a doubt that racing was involved.

 

btw, I am just yaking here and I am NOT part of the defense team...... obviously, they were street racing and fucked up big time, just like that dumbass hunter in your example.

 

 

Vroom

 

Think your example is flawed or maybe needs a rethink.

 

If and I say "if" they were speeding at our estimated speeds of 100+. I would think right of way would be irrelevant. Due to them doing twice the legal speed limit, this will be easily be reckless driving. Especially when taken into account the time of day and the location of the road.

 

To prove if they were racing all the police has to do is break one of the three people in the cars. In majority of cases it will be the woman. If that happens cased closed!

 

 

 

To prove if they were racing all the police has to do is break one of the three people in the cars. In majority of cases it will be the woman. If that happens cased closed!

 

 

Not sure if a women's testimony should be admitted ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I had a chance to run this case by a friend who happens to be a trial lawyer, this is his thoughts in my words as I remembered from our conversation.

 

 

By all means it was an ACCIDENT and not a CRIME.

 

Act of god WAS involved here, an act that put Three different parties at the exact same location (ground zero) at the very same point of time.

 

Out of the Three parties involved Two of them had a reason to be there, they were traveling on a straight road that naturally led them to that point, the fact that they were committing a speeding offence at the time of collision is very losely relevant to the commencement of that same collision and more relevant to the SEVERENCE of it.

Party Number Three (old man) had NO REASON to be at Point of collision at the same time with the other parties as he was to CHECK AND VERIFY that the road is clear and safe BEFORE turning. Weather there was Two numbnuts racing in front of him or there was a pedestrian crossing it was No#3's responsibility to verify that time was right to approach ground zero (point of collision).

 

So is the speed completely irrelevant here? No, it is relevant on Two separate levels:

1) the high rate of speed of the Two numbnuts INCREASED THE LIKELYHOOD OF THE OLD MAN TO MAKE A MISTAKE and it can be argued that the old man was put in very hard almost unreasonable position to make the right decision but it was still his responsibility to make a good call.

 

2) the high speed contributed to the severe body injury of the old man, no doubt about it but... so did the lack of safety features in the old Camero (seat belts, air bags etc..)

 

If we were to put everything in numbers and we would assign each party a percentage of the blame then the Party#3 should have 80% for making the call to enter ground zero and 10% for each parties #1 and #2 for reducing the chances of party number #3 to arrive to a sound decision (turn or not to turn).

 

The contribution of the parties involved to the severance of the body injury can be broken down to numbers too, we should put a bigger number this time on parties 1 and 2, common sense would have it as a split 50%-50% between high speed and lack of reasonable safety features as the contributors to Mr lawmaker's unfortunate death.

 

 

That would be my play if I was he defence council, solid argument for criminal case but exposes my client to a civil suit by admitting partial guilt for the cause of death.

 

 

 

 

~Mr trial lawyer~

One more example he used and I forgot to mention, if you make a left turn INTO the oncoming traffic and cause an accident then you are at fault even if the other party who collide with you was running a Red light and speeding AND snorting coke all at the same time...

 

Now if he was EXESIVLY speeding then he gets a slap on the wrist too for... reckless driving.

 

 

and... he said they can prosecute Bluenuts for street racing REGARDLESS from the accident (like it never happened) that if they came up with tons of credible witneses who DIDN'T SEE OR HEAR OF the ACCIDENT AND THEREFORE ARE NOT "POISENED" BY IT.

Rakjoe beat me to the punch:

 

Instead of arguing this to death leme throw this out. I t-boned a guy over 20 years ago. I was speeding , 90mph in a 45mph zone (in an Alfa spider). I was lucky enough to get some braking done before I slammed into the car that pulled on the road directly in front of me. I think I hit him going around 45 mph. The cops came and did their thing, including measuring skid marks.

 

I wasn't street racing, but besides that my wreck was very similar to the recent one in PHX. So, besides being stupid, reckless, etc, what was I guilty of?

Nothing!!!

Not sure if a women's testimony should be admitted ....

So I had a chance to run this case by a friend who happens to be a trial lawyer, this is his thoughts in my words as I remembered from our conversation.

 

 

By all means it was an ACCIDENT and not a CRIME.

 

Act of god WAS involved here, an act that put Three different parties at the exact same location (ground zero) at the very same point of time.

 

Out of the Three parties involved Two of them had a reason to be there, they were traveling on a straight road that naturally led them to that point, the fact that they were committing a speeding offence at the time of collision is very losely relevant to the commencement of that same collision and more relevant to the SEVERENCE of it.

Party Number Three (old man) had NO REASON to be at Point of collision at the same time with the other parties as he was to CHECK AND VERIFY that the road is clear and safe BEFORE turning. Weather there was Two numbnuts racing in front of him or there was a pedestrian crossing it was No#3's responsibility to verify that time was right to approach ground zero (point of collision).

 

So is the speed completely irrelevant here? No, it is relevant on Two separate levels:

1) the high rate of speed of the Two numbnuts INCREASED THE LIKELYHOOD OF THE OLD MAN TO MAKE A MISTAKE and it can be argued that the old man was put in very hard almost unreasonable position to make the right decision but it was still his responsibility to make a good call.

 

2) the high speed contributed to the severe body injury of the old man, no doubt about it but... so did the lack of safety features in the old Camero (seat belts, air bags etc..)

 

If we were to put everything in numbers and we would assign each party a percentage of the blame then the Party#3 should have 80% for making the call to enter ground zero and 10% for each parties #1 and #2 for reducing the chances of party number #3 to arrive to a sound decision (turn or not to turn).

 

The contribution of the parties involved to the severance of the body injury can be broken down to numbers too, we should put a bigger number this time on parties 1 and 2, common sense would have it as a split 50%-50% between high speed and lack of reasonable safety features as the contributors to Mr lawmaker's unfortunate death.

That would be my play if I was he defence council, solid argument for criminal case but exposes my client to a civil suit by admitting partial guilt for the cause of death.

~Mr trial lawyer~

 

Hmmmm? Things must be different in the US to the UK.

 

Accident and not a crime? that definately would not fly over here.

 

I always thought american justice was harsher than ours....

 

Maybe Bluemax will be ok then! - Lucky man.

 

 

One more example he used and I forgot to mention, if you make a left turn INTO the oncoming traffic and cause an accident then you are at fault even if the other party who collide with you was running a Red light and speeding AND snorting coke all at the same time...

Even if you have a green light yourself? Wtf is the point with the lights then? And do we know the old man was running a red light? And if the Benz and Mustang did run a red light, then a "crime" was commited, was it not?

Even if you have a green light yourself? Wtf is the point with the lights then? And do we know the old man was running a red light?

 

Red light was just another example, not part of the Bluemax accident.

 

...and yes, if you make a Left turn in the US it is your sole responsibility to make sure it's a safe move (unless there is a seperate Left turn light "Left Arrow" that tells you "Go").