It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by pyrale on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @02:42AM (#12120211)

> They use terminology like "accidents" because [...] murdering a child is difficult to prosecute.

> murder (n) : the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Apparently, you are also into redefining words in a way that suits you. What next, they're having a war on pedestrians ? We're letting drivers commit genocide ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by mturmon on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @11:25AM (#12122281)

Depending on the circumstances, second-degree murder (not manslaughter) might be the appropriate charge in the case the commenter raised.

For (much) more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Deg...

But we're just hopping on a particular word choice. The larger point is that a fine is not the right punishment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by CalRobert on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @06:57AM (#12120992)

When you consider the alignment of cultural, personal, and regulatory forces against pedestrian safety, the former would not be inaccurate.

[ Parent | on HN ]