Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 22:59:55 GMT -5
When does she go on trial for causing a death by driving above the speed limit? Driving 10KM over the speed limit isn't that big of a difference in feel. In fact photo radar tickets don't snap unless someone is going over 12KM the speed limit. Unless it was in a school zone during school zone hours. Plus cops will rarely ever stop you for speeding over 0-12 km/h the speed limit. In fact speeding is considered excessive after going 15km/h the limit. But yes that excuse will not work in court at all.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 9, 2014 23:03:35 GMT -5
When does she go on trial for causing a death by driving above the speed limit? Driving 10KM over the speed limit isn't that big of a difference in feel. In fact photo radar tickets don't snap unless someone is going over 12KM the speed limit. Unless it was in a school zone during school zone hours. Plus cops will rarely ever stop you for speeding over 0-12 km/h the speed limit. In fact speeding is considered excessive after going 15km/h the limit. But yes that excuse will not work in court at all. Yeah it is: 6.21371 MPH
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on May 10, 2014 1:12:12 GMT -5
Surely the families of those teens can counter sue that awful bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 11, 2014 10:12:46 GMT -5
she can sue, sure. it's not like she'll win, though. people give way too much attention to these things. it's silly to get outraged at a legal system that's going to laugh her out of court before they even have a chance to do so.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on May 11, 2014 12:57:31 GMT -5
She might as well have tattooed "feel free to lynch me" on her face. What a despicable, unforgivable, worthless shitstain of a human being. When does she go on trial for causing a death by driving above the speed limit? Driving 10KM over the speed limit isn't that big of a difference in feel. In fact photo radar tickets don't snap unless someone is going over 12KM the speed limit. Unless it was in a school zone during school zone hours. Plus cops will rarely ever stop you for speeding over 0-12 km/h the speed limit. In fact speeding is considered excessive after going 15km/h the limit. But yes that excuse will not work in court at all. Especially when she was also on the phone, possibly inebriated AND is claiming that THEY were being negligent. She killed someone, injured two other people by her own damn fault and is now claiming she's the victim and indirectly claiming they intentionally got themselves killed or injured just to be dicks. They are setting up a special place in Hell just for her because they have never had to deal with something like that before. she can sue, sure. it's not like she'll win, though. people give way too much attention to these things. it's silly to get outraged at a legal system that's going to laugh her out of court before they even have a chance to do so. People aren't outraged at the justice system, they're outraged at an irresponsible child killer trying to paint herself as the victim and publicly insulting victims and their family by claiming they are the ones at fault.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2014 13:00:41 GMT -5
Her attitude reminds me of Mr Burns' version of events in court when he hit Bart with his car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 13:01:17 GMT -5
She might as well have tattooed "feel free to lynch me" on her face. What a despicable, unforgivable, worthless shitstain of a human being. Driving 10KM over the speed limit isn't that big of a difference in feel. In fact photo radar tickets don't snap unless someone is going over 12KM the speed limit. Unless it was in a school zone during school zone hours. Plus cops will rarely ever stop you for speeding over 0-12 km/h the speed limit. In fact speeding is considered excessive after going 15km/h the limit. But yes that excuse will not work in court at all. Especially when she was also on the phone, possibly inebriated AND is claiming that THEY were being negligent. She killed someone, injured two other people by her own damn fault and is now claiming she's the victim and indirectly claiming they intentionally got themselves killed or injured just to be dicks. They are setting up a special place in Hell just for her because they have never had to deal with something like that before. she can sue, sure. it's not like she'll win, though. people give way too much attention to these things. it's silly to get outraged at a legal system that's going to laugh her out of court before they even have a chance to do so. People aren't outraged at the justice system, they're outraged at an irresponsible child killer trying to paint herself as the victim and publicly insulting victims and their family by claiming they are the ones at fault. I was just talking about the speed limit thing because it was a weird thing to cherry pick out of all the things she has done wrong.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 11, 2014 15:51:34 GMT -5
1. Someone got killed in a traffic accident in 2012. Shouldn't there have already been an official investigation to make it clear who was at fault by now? 2. How can you sue a dead person? If someone were to break my property and then die soon after, I guess I could sue and try to get compensation from the estate, but I don't think that your average 17 year old leaves particularly much money. I almost started a thread on this a few weeks ago, but as I looked into rumors that supposedly were circulating online regarding this I elected to wait until the rumors were either verified or denied. I have not seen anything to confirm or deny the rumors, but I will present them so you can determine on your own what to believe or not: 1) First, there was an investigation but the rumors were that since her husband was a police officer and on the scene at the time of the accident the suggestion that the rushed investigation, allegedly concluded the night of the incident, was designed to protect the wife of a fellow officer. Supposedly, the woman in question had spent several hours drinking at a bar until her husband came to get her, at which point he followed her home in his own car (the fact that he was following her was never in debate). 2) Yes, when you sue a dead person you are essentially suing his/her estate. Even if they have nothing of value, you still can sue them. My guess is that in order to get anything from the city in her lawsuit against them she also has to sue the victims for being in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on May 11, 2014 19:13:16 GMT -5
Surely the families of those teens can counter sue that awful bitch. She's already being sued for almost 2.5 million by the families for the accident. It sounds like that's why she's countersuing... she was found to not be at fault and doesn't want to be bankrupted. From the HuffPo article: "According to the National Post, investigators concluded that the 'lack of visibility' of the cyclists 'was the largest contributing factor,' and that on a dark overcast night, Simon 'did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.'" Having read that article, I'm less outraged by this than I was reading the article in the first post. It's still a tasteless move on her part, but I don't know enough about law to know if this is what she needs to do to protect herself. It's tragic what happened, but cycling on the road does require precautions on the part of the cyclist as well as from the motorists. When you don't wear helmets, dress in dark clothing, and ride in the middle of the road at midnight, I'm not sure I'd require $2 million from the motorist who accidentally struck you. The cyclists suffered the most, but I'm not sure that equates to the motorist carrying the most blame. This'll probably get me some flaming, I don't know. Some of this does sound shady, like her and her husband leaving the scene, but I'm just not sure.
|
|