[countymounty]

Originally Posted by STONECOLD

there are those of us who believe that individuals should be held responsible for their actions and those of you who (for lack of a better term at the moment) believe that you are guilty by association.

No I believe that there is one group who believe we should be responsible for our own actions, its just some want to pass the buck and say the have no responsibility in the matter.

For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. You speed up and the car racing you speeds up, you pass a car the car racing you passes a car, you take a turn at 40 over, the car racing you does the same, you swerve and miss the mom and her kid in a stroller the car racing you plows into them killing them. Nope I didn’t hit them I’m not responsible, I didn’t cause him to swerve or physically touch his car to cause him to crash, I don't see how I could be held responsible for vehicular homicide go get the kid who ran into them he didn't know his limits. He crashed. He knew what he was getting into. :thumbsup

He chose to RACE. Had he not been there knowingly participating in a criminal act then the other driver would not of been RACING.

The other Driver might still be knowingly committing the act of speeding and might still cause an accident due to his reckless behavior but in this case HE WOULD BE ACTING ALONE and therefore would be solely responsible for the accident he caused.

[countymounty]

Voluntary act.
562.011. 1. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act.
2. A "voluntary act" is
(1) A bodily movement performed while conscious as a result of effort or determination; or
(2) An omission to perform an act of which the actor is physically capable.

Culpable mental state.
562.016. 1. Except as provided in section 562.026, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acts with a culpable mental state, that is, unless he acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly or with criminal negligence, as the statute defining the offense may require with respect to the conduct, the result thereof or the attendant circumstances which constitute the material elements of the crime.

Accountability for conduct.
562.036. A person with the required culpable mental state is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is criminally responsible, or both.

Responsibility for the conduct of another.
562.041. 1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when
(1) The statute defining the offense makes him so responsible; or
(2) Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.


It take two to tango!

[sxrpGT]

I and only I am responsible for myself, my actions( wrong or right), my decisions and the consequences that they may bring.
Tom you stated that if someone hit a loved one would i want them charged? Yes if they hit someone with a car and killed them that is vhicular homicide they should be charged. If no physical connection was made between two cars racing and one car crashes killing those inside how can you rightfully charge the surving racer with homicide. Homicide is the ACT of one person taking another person's life. If the two cars never touch then the surviving racer is in fact cleared of homicide because he took no action in taking a life. Yes him racing is wrong and he should be rightfully punished.

The way being stated by those who believe that the surviving racer should be charged with homicide makes it sound as if anyone who takes a life should be charged with homicide. Now would that not mean that a doctor who performs an abortion should be charged with homicide? Even tough it was the womans choice, she made it on her own no one forced her too. An abortion doctor TAKES a babies life. But we are quick to charge a doctor who kills a suffering patient, for homicide. Again it was the patients choice or the choice of his family if the patient is brain dead but he will be charged. However if a family is given a choice to pull the plug on a family member who is comotose and shows no signs of ever waking, no one is charged with homicide but the doctor still took someones life did he not. Should the family be charged with homicide since they in fact decided to pull the plug? So should a kid who never made the physical act of taking a life, endangering a life or lives yes, be cahrged as if did take a life physically?

County you have brought up some good points I mean you busted out the laws and all the sub sections that tie into them. You are right it does take two to tango. But is there not physicall contact when two tango?
Tom you stated it takes 2 to race. yes it does at keast two. But in saying that you are also telling me that if I am driving fast and pass a ricer who tries to catch me and in his pursuit he loses control and kills himself and an innocent by stander. Should I be charged with homicide for going fast? I did not force him to go fast he made that decision on his own he knew there was a chance he could get caught or in a bad accident but he still took pursuit, and for doing so he pays the ultimate price , unfortunately he killed someone in the process. But you really cant blame a dead guy for homicide can you? Cant take him to court he has already paid for his actions. So why am I to blame for his stupidity as well as his lack of knowledge on how to drive a car at a high rate of speed?

Also County, according to article 562.041 A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another ...
Section 2:Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.
Wouldnt that mean iessentially that the two made a verbal agreement to race? And attempts to aid wouldnt that be kind of like" if you do it, Ill do it". If that was never a prevelant factor it can not come into play. A glance at a guy as he drives by you does not mean " hey buddy lets race first one to pass that mile marker wins" A glance is a glance it isnt an agreement bewtween two parties. That takes physical action whether it is talking or shaking hands or any physical exchange.

[sxrpGT]

Only through physical contact can an agreement be made that one can be held accountable for.

[STONECOLD]

nice break down of some laws and definitions county.

but laws for the most part are not written in stone, as you know laws are open to interpretations. as lawyers will argue to bend them in their favor and then judges will try and sort that mess out. lol

to an extent the amount of justice someone recieves can very realistically be measured by how deep their pockets are. the more money you have, the better the lawyers you can afford, the better chance of having a desicion go your way.

laws arent always simple and to the point, theres always some AND, OR added to them. just look at countys example of 562.011. 1 and 562.041. 1.

[countymounty]

Now something I didn’t mention but I kind of assumed (because I have stated it so many other times) what I posted is Missouri law and your individual state (or country) might be different. I have found that normally in the US it is very close wording but not always.

Drew, good points you are trying to push, shows me your thinking.
“he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.”

There would not have to be any verbal or physical “agreement” the act alone constitutes the intent. Think of it this way you see someone who puffs his chest out, stares you down and raises his fist at you. His full intent is know and you two could start swinging at each other with out any word or agreement being made. And it would still be a fight/assault/peace disturbance or what ever the local law calls it.

Someone earlier stated the passenger could not be charged, well that depends, if the passenger got out and turned the knob on a bottle of Nitrious, well know he has physically taken steps to aid in the commission of the crime and could be charged.

It all depends on the little facts as to weather it fit’s the definition of the law.

As for the argument no contact no fault I fall on my earlier post, if there are two its called racing if just one its speeding/C&I.

Now if you are speeding 20 over and someone is also speeding 20 over is it a race? No
If you are speeding 20 over and someone is speeding 20 over in an attempt to catch up with you and in an attempt to keep them from catching up you speed up and they also speed up, is that a race, yes. Can you prove it is a race, that depends on the evidence you can present.

If we had a link to the story it would solve so many of the what ifs.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by STONECOLD

to an extent the amount of justice someone recieves can very realistically be measured by how deep their pockets are. the more money you have, the better the lawyers you can afford, the better chance of having a desicion go your way.

Oh boy don’t get me started, this is so true, look at OJ

[countymounty]

One more attempt to explain the bank robber theme

When people street race they know (or should know) the activity is dangerous and there is a risk of serious physical injury or death that could happen to the drivers, passengers, and innocent bystanders.

If two people rob a bank they know (or should know) the activity is dangerous and there is a risk of serious physical injury or death that could happen to the robbers or innocent bystanders.

If in the commission of the robbery ONE robber pulls the trigger and kills someone them both will be charged with murder. Now one of them held the gun and physically pulled the trigger.
The other one did not physically do anything to cause the death, but he knowingly participated in the act which led to someone’s death, when he knew that it was a probably outcome but recklessly perused the course of action without regard to the inherent dangers.
Because of this the second robber is responsible for the actions of the first robber because they acted in cohort together.

Now just replace robber with racer,

I cant explain it any clearer, I think my head is beginning to hurt.

[STONECOLD]

county i understand what your saying, i comprehend it, i see you point! lol

but i just dont agree with your "now just replace robber with racer" statement.

to me, they are just completely different crimes and situations that bring different dynamics to the table. i just cant put the crime in the same template and apply the law.

that being said, let me just say its been great respectfuly disagreeing with you! :thumbsup

[sxrpGT]

County I am still trying to find the link. I saw it on the news once and now I am trying to sort through 2000 other related stories but none match anything about the story I originally posted. Hopefully I can find it in the next day or two. I dont doubt there is some info I didnt get and iI know it will clear up the issue once found.

The only flaw I see with the robbery point is that the robbers are in it together for one goal. They are working with each other so yes the guy who didnt pull the trigger is guilty as well. I mean why else do you rob a bank armed? You plan to shoot anyone who gets out of line or who makes you nervous.
The racers are not in coherts with each other so they cant be blamed for each others actions they are acting as seperate entities and should be blamed as such. One racer should not be held responsible for homicide because another one crashed and died. However if the two are racing and one loses control and hits a bystander both should be charged accordingly.

i agree my head hurts as well feels like someone hit me with a pole

[sxrpGT]

I do want to thank those who have replied so far for keeping it clean and not hitting below the belt or bashing any one person for their views. Lets just keep this a good clean debate as it has been so far.

To all officers of the law who have read/posted , I want to thank you for the job you do. i respect the fact that you are willing to put your life on the line each and every day for people you have never met or know. I believe that you are underpaid for the people you deal with and the things you have to see. yet you still do it. I know some days are tougher than others but you face them head on to make the world a safer, less chaotic place than it would be without police enforcing the law. My hat goes off to you. :thumbsup

I just didnt want anyone to think I disrespect the law.

Drew

[found50]

There is no equal comparison between an INNOCENT BYSTANDER being MURDERED & and a WILLING PARTICIPANT DYING.

Let's talk about the bank robbery thing, from a different angle, one a bit more similar to the racing scenario...
Four scum bags just robbed a bank. On the way out the door a husband and wife are coming in, and the wife, unknowingly blocks the path of the fleeing scum bags. Scum bag #1 pistol whips her so his crew can rush out. Well, the woman's husband carries a concealed weapon, and as the 4 scums rush by, the husband caps scum bag #3 in the back, he dies on the spot.
Now are scum bags "1,2 &4" guilty of manslaughter? I mean, they weren't all there. If they hadn't been robbing the bank, scum bag #3 would not have been there to get killed. So their group action led to his death. BUT -- we all know that the robbers are only going to be charge with the robbery and assault, not the manslaughter, because scum bag #3 knew the risk, and "wrote the check" and the check happened to get cashed, to bad for him.

When you act in a way that endangers innocent bystanders, if a bystander is harmed, you are responsible. But, when your own actions lead to personal injury, it's only you who should be blamed. When we play a game, we except the risks. I know this kid broke the law, so Il say it again -- let the punishment fit the crime.

PS. I think most of us realize that it is VERY unlikly that this case will ever make it to trial, this is a situation where the prosecutor is using this young man as an example, a scare card, to hopefully shake up others. And while I understand this, it's still not fair or just, to put this guy through such a hell, to use his life in this way, but then again, "The Greater Good" and all...But didn't Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding father say "Better that a 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be imprisoned"? Course, he never spent time in an american ghetto.
Gosh, now you guys got me arguing with myself lol

[kulak]

Now are scum bags "1,2 &4" guilty of manslaughter? I mean, they weren't all there. If they hadn't been robbing the bank, scum bag #3 would not have been there to get killed. So their group action led to his death. BUT -- we all know that the robbers are only going to be charge with the robbery and assault, not the manslaughter, because scum bag #3 knew the risk, and "wrote the check" and the check happened to get cashed, to bad for him.

You might want to do some case research on this exact topic, you would be surprised what you find.


I know for certain that there are cases when one bank robber has been charged with manslaughter when his partner was shot to death by the police.


You might not like it, but it is the law. As county said, it does not take any physical or verbal interaction. If the intent is clearly known by each party, to partcipate in an illegal street race, then they are equally responsible for the results of BOTH their actions.


It is not a sanctioned race, where contact and forcing someone off the course is needed to determine "fault".


In the public it simply takes willing and knowing participation in a criminal activity that results in the death of a person for you to be held responsible for that death. It makes no difference if that person is participating in the criminal activity or not, in fact it makes you MORE responsible if it is an criminal activity that requires more than one person to complete, ie a race. Without your participation in activity requiring 2 people, there would be no crime.


It is all about intent, if your intent is to race, then you need someone to race. If both parties intend to race, then they both willingly and knowingly accept all responsibility for any and all harm as a result of that race.


As a teenager and young adult I thought this was a completely bogus way to look at things. How could I ever be responsible for something that happened through no direct action of my own. This is not a civilized way to look at things. Its not about whether I made it happen, its about what did, or did not do, that lead to another's death. If my garage door is broken, and my buddy comes over tries to use the garage door and is hurt or killed, I am responsible for not fixing the door, even if my buddy already knew it was broken. If racer A speeds away and racer B chases to catch him, then racer B crashes and dies, Racer A is responsible even if racer B knew he could die if he raced.


Want to know something else, in the bank robber scenario, lets say I walk around the corner just as 4 guys run into a bank in ski masks. If I ignore what I saw, turn around and go home, then inside someone is killed by one of the bank robbers, I could be charged with manslaughter, for failure to act. No you should not run in and try to stop them, but you should call the police, failing to call the police would make just as responsible as the bank robbers. Your lack of action is an advocation of the crime. Granted that is a difficult case to prove, but technically that is how the law is written. Technically anyone that saw these two racing, and failed to inform the police could also be held responsible, since their lack of action advocated the crime.


You can't just watch crimes happen around you and fail to do anything "reasonable" to stop that crime and still consider yourself a civilized member of society.


Rarely do prosecutors go after innocent bystanders that fail to act unless it is an extreme lack of action that led almost directly to someone death, but it can and does happen.


EDIT: spelling