NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching an old episode of Law & Order yesterday, sometimes I get nostalgic for Lennie and have to go back to the early '90's to get my fix, and it raised an interesting question that defies easy answering: A man struck and killed a child with his car, but examination proves he didn't actually do anything wrong or illegal, he was obeying all traffic laws when the kid ran out into the street chasing a basketball. It's not the drivers fault, he couldn't have done anything to avoid the kid, but there's still a dead kid lying on the ground and blood on his car. Now this episode soon spun completely out of control and onto wild tangent topics (Most L&O episodes that solve their initial crime early in the episode have a second, more severe crime come about as a result that occupies the remainder of the time), but let's stick on that first point for a while. What do you think should be done to the driver?

Like I said, the driver was doing nothing illegal or morally subject, so criminal charges aren't an option, but he did kill somebody, so community service and a suspended license (Which was the shows sentence) doesn't really make up for the fact that somebody is dead. However, punishing him just to make somebody pay, while it might be satisfying, isn't right either, but don't forget the fact that there's a distraught family that deserves some form of justice and closure after burying their child.

Like I said, it's a problem that can't be easily solved. What should happen?

As you say, he didn't do anything wrong. The child is dead because the child darted into traffic. The blame here lies with the child.

I don't see where there is either "justice" or "closure" in inflicting suffering on someone who didn't do anything wrong. How about imprisoning the president of GM for making the car?

Try banning the Man from Driving and Sterilising him.

nothing.

the driver should sue the dead kids parents for the damage to his car. if the child was young enough maybe they should face charges of child neglect.

i hate law and order.

So he broke no laws, but was punished anyway? That's fucking stupid.
Try banning the Man from Driving and Sterilising him.

I take that back. That is moderately stupid. This is fucking stupid.

The kid who made the ball roll into traffic unconsciously provoked the kid to run after the ball.

ie: the kid is a bastard.

capital punishment for everyone!

So he broke no laws, but was punished anyway? That's fucking stupid.


I take that back. That is moderately stupid. This is fucking stupid.

Why didn't the guy either try to brake or try to aid the child?

Why didn't the guy either try to brake or try to aid the child?


When you brake you dont stop automatically.

Why didn't the guy either try to brake or try to aid the child?

He did. Why didn't you either read or try to understand?

When you brake you dont stop automatically.

And He didn't aid the child because? Also, if he saw children playing shoudn't he have slowed down?

And He didn't aid the child because? Also, if he saw children playing shoudn't he have slowed down?

You assume he didnt try to help the child.

Also, slowing down would be doing 20. If the child darted out, you cannot go from 20 to 0 instantly.


You dont drive, do you?

Why didn't the guy either try to brake or try to aid the child?

And He didn't aid the child because? Also, if he saw children playing shoudn't he have slowed down?

Re-read the OP, specifically:
examination proves he didn't actually do anything wrong or illegal, he was obeying all traffic laws when the kid ran out into the street chasing a basketball. It's not the drivers fault, he couldn't have done anything to avoid the kid

If he didn't break, it wouldn't have mattered, because examination of whatever happened proved he wasn't at fault. So, are you suggesting that he be banned from driving and sterilised for not trying to aid the kid? Do you know that he didn't?

If he didn't break, it wouldn't have mattered, because examination of whatever happened proved he wasn't at fault. So, are you suggesting that he be banned from driving and sterilised for not trying to aid the kid? Do you know that he didn't?

If it ain't stated, it didn't happen.

Like I said, the driver was doing nothing illegal or morally subject, so criminal charges aren't an option, but he did kill somebody, so community service and a suspended license (Which was the shows sentence) doesn't really make up for the fact that somebody is dead. However, punishing him just to make somebody pay, while it might be satisfying, isn't right either, but don't forget the fact that there's a distraught family that deserves some form of justice and closure after burying their child.

Like I said, it's a problem that can't be easily solved. What should happen?

while the law can give the punishment given (it's still manslaughter), if the family want's financial closure, then they can sue the driver.

also, the driver can counter sue for emotional distress as well as child negligence.

however, the law does not guarentee that the distraught family gets closure or justice for something that no one had control over.

If it ain't stated, it didn't happen.

Baseless assumption. Lack of evidence against is not conclusive evidence for.

If it ain't stated, it didn't happen.

You believe in presuming guilt?

Baseless assumption. Lack of evidence against is not conclusive evidence for.
As I like to put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As I like to put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yeah, that's better than mine.

To clear up what seems to be confusion, here's the detailed version: Two children were not playing basketball, but walking on a sidewalk and just dribbling. A third friend runs past, steals the ball, and just to be a dick (Or because he's got no skill at passing, they don't make it clear) he throws it way over the heads of the first two. One of the two turns to go get the ball and runs out into the street, where a driver obeying the speed limit attempts to avoid the kid by slamming on the breaks. Despite breaking, he was too close to the kid to stop and did make contact, killing him. He then fled the scene, which is an illegal act and I believe is what rationalized the suspended license and community service, but he couldn't have helped anyway of he'd stopped (Although, he didn't know that at the time).

The testimony of the driver, who actually turned himself in later that day, and forensic examination of skid marks shows that his speed and breaking were perfectly normal, and the accident could not have been avoided.

Does that clear things up?

I remember this episode. You forgot one key fact, though.

The kid was Black. The driver was Jewish. The event took place in Harlem.

Yes, and it ended with a riot and the murder of an Italian man. As I said, the episode spiraled out of control shortly after the got the driver, and I said that I just wanted to look at that first part.

To be honest, that riot took me by surprise, normally on L&O when a peron gets off light within the first half hour the result is that they have since been attacked/murdered and the rest of the episode deals with that trial; a riot and murder of somebody else isn't what I expected.

Sounds like Darwinism at work. Stupid Child runs out into the street without looking, gets killed, and the gene pool gets alittle bit cleaner.

The only person worth punishing is the dead kid, and he's already dead, so what more can we do to him?

The kid who made the ball roll into traffic unconsciously provoked the kid to run after the ball.

ie: the kid is a bastard.

Agreed. No dessert for him for a year.

And He didn't aid the child because? Also, if he saw children playing shoudn't he have slowed down?

Have you ever had a kid run in front of your car? I nearly hit a kid in exactly this way leaving work one night. A pair of kids (I use "kids" loosely--they were probably 14) dashed out of a dark side-street and in front of my car. There were few street lights, so they didn't become visible until they were almost at the corner, and they'd already started running before that and built up momentum. I slammed on the breaks and managed to stop short, but only because I was going under the speed limit out of caution and I have great peripheral vision.

As I like to put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Have to write that one down. I'm considering just responding to faulty arguments with the name of the logical fallacy they've employed--saves time.