WWTBAM Bored

This one is from one of the network "we'll spend an hour on this story" shows (which I usually avoid like the plague; must have been bored), & I don't know the final ending, but the situation was:

Big car accident. One driver is killed. Other driver is hurt but not severely; is tested & found to be intoxicated, by whatever test was used. Drunk-Driver does not deny this, but claims they did not cause accident. Drunk-Driver gets convicted. On appeal, all the forensic stuff brought to bear proves clearly (to me, to the network; at the time it remained to be seen how it would work on the judges at a retrial) that Drunk-Driver did not, in fact, cause the accident.

There was either something wrong with Killed-Driver's vehicle, or perhaps with Killed-Driver themself, but they went way across the road to hit Drunk-Driver. Now, it could be argued, & probably would be in a retrial, that had Drunk-Driver not been drunk (or Drunk) they could have avoided swerving vehicle. On the other hand, accidents happen every day wherein people who are not drunk fail to avoid swerving vehicles.

Now, drunk driving is an offense because it can cause accidents. Drunk-Driver is not arguing that they shouldn't be serving time for drunk driving. They just think they shouldn't be serving a whole lotta more time for killing someone who in fact swerved over the road & hit them.

ghostjmf wrote:There was either something wrong with Killed-Driver's vehicle, or perhaps with Killed-Driver themself, but they went way across the road to hit Drunk-Driver.

Maybe Killed-Driver was making one of those perfectly-understandable-only-by-you left turns in front of speeding oncoming traffic expecting them to brake.

Go take a drive; every left (or right) turn you take, think about how perhaps you will be toast. But it will be your fault, because you say it is always is the turner's fault. And you couldn't be wrong, could you?

I have been driving in the twin idylls of Orange County and Los Angeles County since the mid-70's, so I would have no inkling of the kind of congested roads you must face on occasion.

Yes, if I make a left turn if front of someone and get hit, it would, under normal circumstances, be my fault. If, while I'm making the turn, a spaceship lands on the sidewalk in front of me to let you off, then, perhaps it would not be my fault. If no similar aberration occurs, then it is always the turner's fault. Some judge might apportion a small percentage of the blame to a speeding oncoming driver, but, in my world, anyway, the fact that an oncoming driver is speeding towards me is not a very good justification/defense for turning in front of him.

Your original post about the incident said "Bad-person claims their brakes lines broke when they hit person1's car. Theoretically possible, I guess, but its a lot more likely that they were driving around with bad brakes, & knew it." So you admitted the possibility, yet you go on to refer to "bad person" and "bad brakes" several times throughout the thread. You often get thoughts like this in your head and claim them as fact, like the impossibly blue-eyed child of brown-eyed parents.

I am often wrong, and will admit it. In this case, as soon as you identify the state, or any state, for that matter, where the right-of-way law for a left turn states "statistically in left turns the driver turning is at fault," I will admit I'm wrong and even promise to never visit that state.

Sorry, drunk drivers get zero sympathy from me. Lock 'em up and throw away the key, injuries or no.

Estonut wrote:...like the impossibly blue-eyed child of brown-eyed parents.

Reverse that..

marriedmefliesfree wrote:

Estonut wrote:...like the impossibly blue-eyed child of brown-eyed parents.

Reverse that..

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

Estonut wrote:

marriedmefliesfree wrote:

Estonut wrote:...like the impossibly blue-eyed child of brown-eyed parents.

Reverse that..

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

I have blue eyes and my mom has brown eyes, and yes I'm sure I'm her daughter.

In 7th grade my science teacher totally made me think I was adopted because as many relatives as we could remember on my mom's side had brown eyes. There must be a recessive gene in there somewhere. Not impossible.

sunflower wrote:

Estonut wrote:

marriedmefliesfree wrote:
Reverse that..

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

I have blue eyes and my mom has brown eyes, and yes I'm sure I'm her daughter.

In 7th grade my science teacher totally made me think I was adopted because as many relatives as we could remember on my mom's side had brown eyes. There must be a recessive gene in there somewhere. Not impossible.

I think you misunderstood. And that teacher shouldn't have been teaching science.

MMFF said: A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

In the Big B, little b thing, 2 brown eyed parents (Bb) have about a 25% chance of having a blue eyed child (bb).

My parents both have blue eyes so luckily all my siblings have blue eyes.

My half brother, whose dad had brown eyes, has brown eyes.

Husband1111 has brown eyes and Daughter1111 has blue, Son1111 has brown.

My blue eyed granddaughter has two brown eyed parents. My dad had blue eyes, my mom brown - five of us kids
were 3 blue and 2 brown.

I have no idea what color eyes my parents or the rest of the Beast sisters have because I honestly don't notice eye color in other people..... but my eyes used to be bright blue, but now they're just kinda murky colored.

The Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't recognize murky as a color though, so my DL still says blue. Of course it also says I still weigh 225 lbs., which is no longer true....

lb13

Estonut says:

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

Yeah, & the moment I left the computer (for an engagement more important than posting here; imagine that!) I thought "eeek; wrong on that", which I duly posted a notice of in the relevant thread the next morning (it was a thread about a "Life on Mars" episode).

Estonut conveniently forgets I posted that "wrong on that".

ghostjmf wrote:Estonut says:

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

Yeah, & the moment I left the computer (for an engagement more important than posting here; imagine that!) I thought "eeek; wrong on that", which I duly posted a notice of in the relevant thread the next morning (it was a thread about a "Life on Mars" episode).

Estonut conveniently forgets I posted that "wrong on that".

He is just mad that he was jilted by Nicole Brown, and is taking it out on you. I'll fix his wagon for you, ghost!

Thousandaire says:

Sorry, drunk drivers get zero sympathy from me. Lock 'em up and throw away the key, injuries or no.

yeah, but the sentence "just" for drunk driving usually isn't "throw away the key", its usually "take away their license" (lot of good that usually does); only on repeat offenses do they get jail time.

Whereas the person in the network-show story was admittedly drunk, but was convicted of causing an accident that the forensic examiners had determined they in fact did not cause.

So: Jail time for drunk driving; yes, where & when its the law. Jail time for killing someone you didn't kill? Why?

ghostjmf wrote:Thousandaire says:

Sorry, drunk drivers get zero sympathy from me. Lock 'em up and throw away the key, injuries or no.

yeah, but the sentence "just" for drunk driving usually isn't "throw away the key", its usually "take away their license" (lot of good that usually does); only on repeat offenses do they get jail time.

Whereas the person in the network-show story was admittedly drunk, but was convicted of causing an accident that the forensic examiners had determined they in fact did not cause.

So: Jail time for drunk driving; yes, where & when its the law. Jail time for killing someone you didn't kill? Why?

To cause consternation and provide conversation fodder for this bored.

ghostjmf wrote:Estonut says:

A few weeks ago, ghostjmf said "Now, we know brown eye-pigment genes are dominant; one brown-eyed parent will dictate you have brown eyes."

Yeah, & the moment I left the computer (for an engagement more important than posting here; imagine that!) I thought "eeek; wrong on that", which I duly posted a notice of in the relevant thread the next morning (it was a thread about a "Life on Mars" episode).

Estonut conveniently forgets I posted that "wrong on that".

I did not forget that you corrected yourself. The quote you snipped here was my response to MMFF who snipped the last 10 words of this paragraph.

Estonut wrote:Your original post about the incident said "Bad-person claims their brakes lines broke when they hit person1's car. Theoretically possible, I guess, but its a lot more likely that they were driving around with bad brakes, & knew it." So you admitted the possibility, yet you go on to refer to "bad person" and "bad brakes" several times throughout the thread. You often get thoughts like this in your head and claim them as fact, like the impossibly blue-eyed child of brown-eyed parents.

I was stating that you get these ideas/suppositions/conclusions in your head and toss them out as facts, just like you did in the Mendel thread. I didn't feel the need to point out that you later retracted that statement, because everyone who was interested read that thread for themselves and knows you retracted it. From their continued additions to this thread, it is apparent that MMFF, Sunflower and Christie1111 may not have read that one.

Now, why don't you retract that nonsense about the "not-at-fault" friend of yours not being at fault, and the nonsense about the right-of-way laws in that friend's jurisdiction being based on statistics?

Estonut says:

re brown eye/blue genetics:

I didn't feel the need to point out that you later retracted that statement, because everyone who was interested read that thread for themselves and knows you retracted it.

So you're bringing it up, but not bothering to bring up that I corrected it at the 1st opportunity, in a completely unrelated thread for no particular reason. To do so makes sense only to you.

Now, why don't you retract that nonsense about the "not-at-fault" friend of yours not being at fault, and the nonsense about the right-of-way laws in that friend's jurisdiction being based on statistics?

Because its not nonsense. Because my friend was not at fault, & the law eventually agreed.
The cop said that they were writing the ticket based on statistics that showed that people making right turns were more likely to be at fault. If you think that what the cop did was nonsense (a higher authority eventually did think it was nonsense), take it up with the cop.

Estonut wrote:I didn't feel the need to point out that you later retracted that statement, because everyone who was interested read that thread for themselves and knows you retracted it.

ghostjmf wrote:So you're bringing it up, but not bothering to bring up that I corrected it at the 1st opportunity, in a completely unrelated thread for no particular reason. To do so makes sense only to you.

If you'd quit snipping things out of their context, you might see that I was throwing that out a the most recent example of the type of top-of-your-head idea that you throw out as fact.

Estonut wrote:Now, why don't you retract that nonsense about the "not-at-fault" friend of yours not being at fault, and the nonsense about the right-of-way laws in that friend's jurisdiction being based on statistics?

ghostjmf wrote:Because its not nonsense. Because my friend was not at fault, & the law eventually agreed.
The cop said that they were writing the ticket based on statistics that showed that people making right turns were more likely to be at fault. If you think that what the cop did was nonsense (a higher authority eventually did think it was nonsense), take it up with the cop.

You clearly either don't know or aren't presenting the whole story about what the cop did or didn't say and what the court ruling was and what the reason behind that was. I'd take it up with the cop, but you're too bat-shit paranoid to divulge the name of the city.

Estonut says:

You clearly either don't know or aren't presenting the whole story about what the cop did or didn't say and what the court ruling was and what the reason behind that was. I'd take it up with the cop, but you're too bat-shit paranoid to divulge the name of the city.

I am presenting the whole story. I don't have the exact language of the official ruling, but it was along the lines of "ticket rescinded because we chose to"; traffic courts do that, from time to time. They are usually careful in their language to say "we are giving the driver a pass because we don't think they're a threat to society", rather than "our policeperson was wrong".

You are too "bat-shit", to use your chosen language, creepy for me ever to "divulge" names of cities my friends live in on a board you frequent.

ulysses5019 wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Thousandaire says:

Sorry, drunk drivers get zero sympathy from me. Lock 'em up and throw away the key, injuries or no.

yeah, but the sentence "just" for drunk driving usually isn't "throw away the key", its usually "take away their license" (lot of good that usually does); only on repeat offenses do they get jail time.

Whereas the person in the network-show story was admittedly drunk, but was convicted of causing an accident that the forensic examiners had determined they in fact did not cause.

So: Jail time for drunk driving; yes, where & when its the law. Jail time for killing someone you didn't kill? Why?

To cause consternation and provide conversation fodder for this bored.

That won't help you catch up to me in post totals!

ghostjmf wrote:You are too "bat-shit", to use your chosen language, creepy for me ever to "divulge" names of cities my friends live in on a board you frequent.

Oh Lord, that's funny!

you only have 2 death and/or destruction posts on this page

you started Prozac??

Estonut wrote:You clearly either don't know or aren't presenting the whole story about what the cop did or didn't say and what the court ruling was and what the reason behind that was. I'd take it up with the cop, but you're too bat-shit paranoid to divulge the name of the city.

ghostjmf wrote:I am presenting the whole story. I don't have the exact language of the official ruling, but it was along the lines of "ticket rescinded because we chose to"; traffic courts do that, from time to time. They are usually careful in their language to say "we are giving the driver a pass because we don't think they're a threat to society", rather than "our policeperson was wrong".

The scenario you describe would also have happened if the cop didn't show up for the hearing. That doesn't make your friend "innocent" nor "not-at-fault."

ghostjmf wrote:You are too "bat-shit", to use your chosen language, creepy for me ever to "divulge" names of cities my friends live in on a board you frequent.

I used to try to be helpful to you and try to see things from your point of view. It is now clear that the reason I can't is because you are deranged.

Estonut wrote:I used to try to be helpful to you and try to see things from your point of view. It is now clear that the reason I can't is because you are deranged.

"When bad things happen to me, it's someone else's fault".

And "When good things happen, they're not good enough, and that's also someone else's fault".

How hard was that to figure out?

All right, ghost's huggy squirrel! Come out and berate me for being a meanie!

Estonut says:

The scenario you describe would also have happened if the cop didn't show up for the hearing.

Decision was not changed because of cop "no show".

In my experience, & those of my acquaintances, cops always show up for traffic hearings. In some circumstances, the courts are allowed to put forth an "equivalent officer", meaning someone who was not on the scene but will represent what the officer on the scene said. This wouldn't hold in a criminal case, but it seems to in traffic court in some places.

Also in my experience & the experience of my acquaintances, the court in a traffic case is never going to say "the cop was wrong & you were right". So no one should go to such a hearing hoping to hear that. What they should hope for was "ticket rescinded" or "ticket made into a lesser offense" (which is of course what's important for insurance purposes) based on the driving record & in-court very respectful behavior of the person looking to get the ticket to go away.