AZ Mercedes Accident scene pics and Info.

...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").

I see. What was it in the intersection the accident happened? Arrow or not?

I see. What was it in the intersection the accident happened? Arrow or not?

There was no light at all as far as I know, the light was just for the sake of EXAMPLE of another possible scenario.

 

FYI, most lights in the US are "Two Way" lights meaning that if you make a Left turn there is a fat chance that oncoming traffic might get in your way..

 

There was no light at all as far as I know, the light was just for the sake of EXAMPLE of another possible scenario.

 

FYI, most lights in the US are "Two Way" lights meaning that if you make a Left turn there is a fat chance that oncoming traffic might get in your way..

 

And if I'm not mistaken, you are allowed to run a red light if you are turning right too? And you have very few roundabouts? No wonder there are so many accidents over there

And if I'm not mistaken, you are allowed to run a red light if you are turning right too? And you have very few roundabouts? No wonder there are so many accidents over there

 

There is an arrow there. Speeding and hitting someone is one thing, racing and killing someone is criminal negligence, vehicular homicide.

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.

 

An "Act of God", used in contract law and other instances, is an outside circumstance that is not controllable by the parties involved, i.e, damage caused by flood, hurricane, tornado. The three different parties were at the exact same location at the very same point of time at their own choosing (the two racing morons just got there quicker) and it had nothing to do with an "Act of God". They made the decision to be there. Those two made the decision to drive their cars fast on a busy street. There were no other circumstances or other forces of nature that would constitute an Act of God.

 

 

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).

 

A jury is going to hold that to the "reasonable person" standard. What would a reasonable person have done in that situation and what would a reasonable person expected? A reasonable person would not have expected two people to be racing at high rates of speed in that area and, even more so, what is the reality of expectation of the victim to realize how fast these idiots were going when a) there is a posted speed limit that would indicate otherwise, b. street racing in the middle of the day on this roadway in traffic is not a common occurrence, and c) speeding might be expected in everyday driving but not at such a rate in this instance given the circumstances

 

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..)

 

Sorry Joe, but it doesn't look like a mistake was made by the victim. He made a turn and the average driver would not have realized that the two cars ahead were accelerating at such a rapid pace. A reasonable, and might I add "law-abiding", person would make the assumption that the other cars were traveling at a modest rate of speed. Unless you're skilled in car racing, watching a car zip towards you is much different than watching one zip by you. The angle that you are viewing the traveling vehicle at will greatly alter your perception of it's actual speed.

 

Plus, the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population doesn't drive over 80 mph and doesn't do 3.9 sec 0-60 accelerations. Because of your driving experience, you're looking at this like the victim should have realized how fast the other cars were approaching. That's not how the rest of the world works. And that's exactly how the jury is going to look at it.

 

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~

 

Tell that to the jury and you might as well have your client give the family a blank check. Plaintiff's counsel will rip your client to shreds in this case if you go before a jury and try to convince them that the victim was 80% AT FAULT- LOL! That might work with a simple car wreck with limited injuries but someone got killed here. Unless that jury is packed with people who've had their licenses revoked for speeding, they're going to have so much contempt for you and your client he'll be lucky to own a pair of pants. That jury will be thinking it could have been their child, spouse, or other loved one making that turn and asking themselves- "is it reasonable to think that I, or anyone other normal driver, would have been able to realize just how fast these guys were approaching?" Answer is NO, especially when the timeslips, internet posts, and 1/4 mile times are presented as evidence

Tell that to the jury and you might as well have your client give the family a blank check. Plaintiff's counsel will rip your client to shreds in this case if you go before a jury and try to convince them that the victim was 80% AT FAULT- LOL!

 

Gil, I can't address all the points you made as I don't have the time now but that particular one:

 

My friends statement is merely a Blueprint for the CRIMINAL case only, be rest assured that come civil case the play will be different however as he clearly states that line of defence WILL compromise the civil case..

 

...and also dividing the blame 80/20 is basically a tactic used to reach a favourable plea rather then going all in for full acquittal which might come accross as a slap in the dead man's face and not fly with angry jury.

There is an arrow there.

 

A traffic light ?

 

Then it's news to me, who had the Red then ?

 

 

My friends statement is merely a Blueprint for the CRIMINAL case only, be rest assured that come civil case the play will be different however as he clearly states that line of defence WILL compromise the civil case..

 

...

 

I see. Got confused. When you said he was a trial lawyer I automatically assumed civil litigation and did not consider the criminal side.

A traffic light ?

 

Then it's news to me, who had the Red then ?

westbound traffic turning onto Scottsdale Road

I see. Got confused. When you said he was a trial lawyer I automatically assumed civil litigation and did not consider the criminal side.

 

The civil case is a bridge you deal with when you get there, he needs to worry about the DA first.... IF there's gonna be charges filed.

 

Judging from the 219MPH incident, the Scottsdale DA is NOT a fast shooter..

 

 

westbound traffic turning onto Scottsdale Road

 

I see, so both had Green...

 

Doesn't change anything IMO..

 

And you have very few roundabouts? No wonder there are so many accidents over there

 

There are a few roundabouts in my area and you have not experienced a dangerous situation until you have tried to negotiate a roundabout in the US. It seems very few people understand how they work even though there are signs clearly indicating how traffic should flow. Yield is a concept that escapes most people in my area. It might have something to do with the fact that most people have a cell phone in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the other.

Never fear, Inspector Cleuseu is here. I believe in AZ at some point speeds over the limit become a felony.

It is true, alot of this thread was to get under the skin of the Mercedesfags, especially Juicee63 and I did find it ironic that this happened to one of the blowjobs who was most vocal in talking shit about us. I can see how people would place a portion of the blame on the guy in the camaro, I can see how people feel its sad for more lives to be ruined and I can see how if this happened to me I too would feel it is an accident.

 

But the facts remain inmo:

 

1. Gaurenteed they were going at speeds way over 100mph, in my guestimate 120mph. At that speed, isnt their some sort of a law that then qualifies the car as a weapon? No prudent person would have attempted to continue at those speeds for any length of time. Inmo what happened was that Bluemax actually was NOT that far in front of the Mustang, so he kept pushing to try and get a better lead, hence more bragging rights. I myself said previously that the road in the right circomstance could actually led itself to a quick streetrace rather well. I myself said that if prodded by a worthy opponent, I too would have most likely taken the bait, but no ifs and or buts, would have been back down to safe operating speed before the next intersection which is 6ths of a mile away.

 

2. Bluemax has a history of speeding, including criminal speed.

 

3. If Bluemax and the Mustang were going at anywhere near the speed limit, even 10-20mph over, the accident would not have had the severe consequences it, and maybe could have even been avoided.

 

4. Yes, this is a crime that at some point we are all guilty of, whether or not racing or just speeding. Everyone does it. But not everyone kills someone. He did, its sad, but he will have to pay for a crime dearly because of lack of judgement. In this state, they are crazy about wanting to lock everyone and everyone up. He will most certainly get a significant amount of jail time, and be ruined financialy. All we can hope for is that his wife and family stick by him.

 

 

As far as street racing, as you know Rakjoe, I took you too my special street racing place. You yourself said it is PERFECT for street racing. Why? Because it is straight as an arrow for miles, nothing to block your vision, 2 lanes on each side, divided by a median which cannot be crossed. In either direction you travel there very limited spots where anyone could turn infront of you and the gaps in between those areas are soo large you have done your street race 10 times already and could still back down to safe speeds before coming across the person who would be making the turn. The traffic on this street is also very limited, and of course you always back down to safe speed before even approaching anyone. So if there is a more responsible form of street racing, inmo this would be it.

 

There are crazy people everywhere, in all cars though. There are crazy people in the Lambo world. When I was in NYC, and went on a Poker Run, I was vocal on the board in saying how rediculously crazy they drove. Inmo, there is absolutely no excuse to ever be going so fast and to be passing people in the emergency lane. Another reason why I would not want to be involved in any of the so called rallies. Or how about when the 2 Gallardo guys came to my house when I got the flat tire? Those crazy bastards were going at ludicrous speeds for 100's of miles at a time. I was getting left behind at every instant. Lets not forget the California truck flip. Over 30 lambos, all of them speeding, only one taking it to the extreme and being a total idiot.

 

Lastly, as I said, when you have a car like the E63, and it is your everything, your grocery getter, your race car etc, inmo, you put yourself in the position for something to happen at far better odds. Inmo, you are speeding far more often. Thats why I choose to drive slow cars for the most part, thereby reducing my risk and even reducing my ability to go fast. In the end, that reduces my odds of getting into this situation.

As far as street racing, as you know Rakjoe, I took you too my special street racing place. You yourself said it is PERFECT for street racing.

 

 

It is perfect no doubt, it is a HWY if I recall correctly not a street though.

 

The most PERFECT and safest place to race is your TV screen using Playstation..

It is perfect no doubt, it is a HWY if I recall correctly not a street though.

 

The most PERFECT and safest place to race is your TV screen using Playstation..

 

 

Yes, that is why I choose to street race there instead of the middle of town. You and I both know eachother, I know how you drive,u know how I drive, 99% of the time especially you, we drive below the limit.

 

I figured out my calling! Im writing " STREET RACING FOR DUMMIES"

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.

 

 

I hestitate to waste my time on this, but "ACT OF GOD" is a legal term of art.... You will find it in your insurance documtnts if you have any.. It means events which are outside the realm of human control (floods, lightning bolts and "shit happening" which people don't cause to happen)... Now stop being a dumbshit and grow up.

I know how you drive,u know how I drive, 99% of the time especially you, we drive below the limit.

 

lol.. that's so true, I drive below the speed limit like an old fart unlike the M6 pilot.... "oooooh...95 is ok.."

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.

 

 

Youre analogy is based upon a flawed assumption. THE RACERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!

 

Because they are not supposed to be travelling at those speeds in the first place. The driver who has no reason to expect that the vehicle 700 feet away is going twice the speed limit has the right of way because he LEGALLY ASSUMES THAT A VEHICLE THAT FAR AWAY IS GOING THE SPEED LIMIT AND IS NOT A THREAT TO HIM WHILE HE MAKES HIS TURN....

 

Societies revolve upon assumptions like these.... I ASSUME you are obeying the law, and therefore, I act accordingly. You didnt hold up your end of the bargain, which made my assumption to be false. YOU are in the wrong.... NOT I.

lol.. that's so true, I drive below the speed limit like an old fart unlike the M6 pilot.... "oooooh...95 is ok.."

Dude, he is one of those certifiable crazies!

I agree with Rakjoe's 80/20. Thats exactly what I posted somewhere in the middle of this thread.

 

 

Allan about the rallies in NY. Yes people drive like maniacs, I know I've participated/organized many of them. But it mostly tends to be the "always something to prove" M5/M6 and AMG/V.ette crowd. Ferraris/Lamborghinis usually wait for a nice open road to open it up. For the record, I'm talking about the majority, not every single one of them.

 

 

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?

 

What else would you like to be guilty of?

 

 

The fact is, given what you describe, thats what you were guilty of...

 

I assume the other driver wasnt killed?

 

Because then you would certainly be guilty of vehicular manslaughter and/or murder depending on the totality of the circumstances..... (and YES... I KNOW a person who went to PRISON for 18 months for a car "accident" where all he was doing was driving too fast... He said 75 in a 55 but I tend to add about 10MPH to what people tell me because people tend to fudge a bit in their own favor... He was out for a while when I knew him and he still couldnt legally drive, nor did he have any desire too because his conscience was still troubled and he was afraid to get back behind a wheel.... ANYWAYS...The point is, this DOES happen to people... Day in and day out).

 

AND THATS THE DIFFERENCE with this case. There is a DEAD GUY! And that adds the big charges.

 

Theres no such thing as "reckless battery" or "reckless assault"... But there is reckless murder.

 

Thats the point.... Our justice system punishes the INJURY, not the INTENT... A person who stabs somebody 47 times and the victim LIVES, is guilty of a much less serious crime (attempted murder) than a person who stabs somebody ONCE and the person DIES.

 

The guy who drives 219 and doesnt hurt anybody is guilty of a much less serious crime (reckless driving/endangerment) thatn the guy who drives 100 and kills somebody... (MURDER /MANSLAUGHTER)

 

If I go in the back yard and to celebrate New years, I shoot my gun up into the air, Im legally guilty of Negligent discharge of a firearm... Its a misdemeanor... No biggie. BUT... its incredibly unlikely Ill even get caught.... Unless somebody saw me (in which case I'll get busted) they arent going to put up road blocks and bring out the CSI team to figure out who shot that bullet...

 

On the other hand, if it comes down and strikes my next door neighbor's 4 year old, IVE JUST DONE THE EXACT SAME THING, BUT THIS TIME I AM FUCKED! I will be charged with AT LEAST manslaughter and probably murder, just like these guys.... THEY WILL BRING OUT THE CSI TEAM... THEY WILL BALLISTICS THE BULLET... THEY WILL CANVESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WILL PROSECUTE MY ASS BECAUSE A PERSON IS DEAD!

Youre analogy is based upon a flawed assumption. THE RACERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!

 

Because they are not supposed to be travelling at those speeds in the first place. The driver who has no reason to expect that the vehicle 700 feet away is going twice the speed limit has the right of way because he LEGALLY ASSUMES THAT A VEHICLE THAT FAR AWAY IS GOING THE SPEED LIMIT AND IS NOT A THREAT TO HIM WHILE HE MAKES HIS TURN....

 

Societies revolve upon assumptions like these.... I ASSUME you are obeying the law, and therefore, I act accordingly. You didnt hold up your end of the bargain, which made my assumption to be false. YOU are in the wrong.... NOT I.

 

In real life, assumptions like that can get you killed!! My argument is just about ready to fall apart... of course the racers should of slowed down before the interesection.... but I am not buying into the legal assumption idea 100% either. They teach defensive driving in high school for a good reason. Any driver who cannot judge speeds is dangerous as well.

 

What else would you like to be guilty of?

The fact is, given what you describe, thats what you were guilty of...

 

I assume the other driver wasnt killed?

 

Because then you would certainly be guilty of vehicular manslaughter and/or murder depending on the totality of the circumstances..... (and YES... I KNOW a person who went to PRISON for 18 months for a car "accident" where all he was doing was driving too fast... He said 75 in a 55 but I tend to add about 10MPH to what people tell me because people tend to fudge a bit in their own favor... He was out for a while when I knew him and he still couldnt legally drive, nor did he have any desire too because his conscience was still troubled and he was afraid to get back behind a wheel.... ANYWAYS...The point is, this DOES happen to people... Day in and day out).

 

AND THATS THE DIFFERENCE with this case. There is a DEAD GUY! And that adds the big charges.

 

Theres no such thing as "reckless battery" or "reckless assault"... But there is reckless murder.

 

Thats the point.... Our justice system punishes the INJURY, not the INTENT... A person who stabs somebody 47 times and the victim LIVES, is guilty of a much less serious crime (attempted murder) than a person who stabs somebody ONCE and the person DIES.

 

The guy who drives 219 and doesnt hurt anybody is guilty of a much less serious crime (reckless driving/endangerment) thatn the guy who drives 100 and kills somebody... (MURDER /MANSLAUGHTER)

 

If I go in the back yard and to celebrate New years, I shoot my gun up into the air, Im legally guilty of Negligent discharge of a firearm... Its a misdemeanor... No biggie. BUT... its incredibly unlikely Ill even get caught.... Unless somebody saw me (in which case I'll get busted) they arent going to put up road blocks and bring out the CSI team to figure out who shot that bullet...

 

On the other hand, if it comes down and strikes my next door neighbor's 4 year old, IVE JUST DONE THE EXACT SAME THING, BUT THIS TIME I AM FUCKED! I will be charged with AT LEAST manslaughter and probably murder, just like these guys.... THEY WILL BRING OUT THE CSI TEAM... THEY WILL BALLISTICS THE BULLET... THEY WILL CANVESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WILL PROSECUTE MY ASS BECAUSE A PERSON IS DEAD!

 

It was my lucky day. I totalled my car, walked away from it, the other guy lived and got the ticket, and I used the insurance money to buy my first 5 series BMW.

 

Theres no such thing as "reckless battery" or "reckless assault"... But there is reckless murder.

 

Isn't reckless murder when you drop and lose your cellphone next to the body of the dude you just stubed to death, trip and fall into the blood pudle on your bare hands and use your own car to escape the scene ?

 

 

With all seriousness, how can someone who ran into a car that pulled in front of him illegally can be charged with a Murder or manslaughter is beyond me...

 

 

I know it sucks because we all know that Bluemax was an accident waiting to happen (like some other notorious LP members) but those are very unfortunate turn of events nonetheless that BM should not be held LEGALY responsible for.