Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by creekster

1. You define backlash then. This post is backlash? Tell me how.

2. Did you read the thread? Tex has continued to say one way or the other. That is certainly his right, but it is also my right to find that to be the sort of indecision about cyclists that deserves approbation. Or is this backlash too?

3. It would be remarkable. It would also be wrong, IMO, which is what this is about. I thought I had made that rather clear as well.

4. See number one.

I don't think I confused anything. Tex certainly didn't, and we fully analyzed the difference between the families' input and the state's decision to prosecute. Read the entire thread. You'll see it.

No offense taken or intended, but I think your opinion is based on an incomplete reading of the issues and shows a fialure to grasp what is at stake.

1. Backlash: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backlash. Pay specific attention to definition #2. Post 9 easily qualifies.

2. I've actually read the entire thread (other than the more recent, uber-long posts rehashing the same BS as before). Granted, post #8 runs contrary to his other posts, which I believe was a typo. Check post #5, and you'll see why I think that. Arguing that SOME leniency at SOME point in the process COULD justifiably be applied is CERTAINLY no worse than Mike's suggestion that the action MIGHT have been deliberate. I see no difference between your ascribing to Tex things he never said and his ascribing to Mike things he never said.
In truth, I think you're both off on this. Tex started accusing Mike of something Mike didn't say, but you're doing the same to Tex. No difference, IMO. You're both being jackasses.

3. Quite clear. And you're free to feel that way. Tex is free to feel mercy applied to this situation wouldn't be out of place. And yet you continue to demonize him for it.
14 pages of this nonsense, and you're both still at the exact same place. Good work.

4. Ditto.



At any rate, I'll be stepping out of this conversation. I really had no place in it to begin with, and probably should have just kept my fingers to myself. I'm very much empathetic towards cyclists - when you've got to share the road with idiots piloting vehicles outweighing you by thousands of pounds, it's natural to feel the way you do. Especially considering the idiocy I see happening from behind the wheel of my own car. Hopefully, more than a few drivers will read this story, and therefore decide to be more considerate towards cyclists. I'll certainly try to be more careful myself.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Spaz

1. Backlash: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backlash. Pay specific attention to definition #2. Post 9 easily qualifies.

2. I've actually read the entire thread (other than the more recent, uber-long posts rehashing the same BS as before). Granted, post #8 runs contrary to his other posts, which I believe was a typo. Check post #5, and you'll see why I think that. Arguing that SOME leniency at SOME point in the process COULD justifiably be applied is CERTAINLY no worse than Mike's suggestion that the action MIGHT have been deliberate. I see no difference between your ascribing to Tex things he never said and his ascribing to Mike things he never said.
In truth, I think you're both off on this. Tex started accusing Mike of something Mike didn't say, but you're doing the same to Tex. No difference, IMO. You're both being jackasses.

3. Quite clear. And you're free to feel that way. Tex is free to feel mercy applied to this situation wouldn't be out of place. And yet you continue to demonize him for it.
14 pages of this nonsense, and you're both still at the exact same place. Good work.

4. Ditto.



At any rate, I'll be stepping out of this conversation. I really had no place in it to begin with, and probably should have just kept my fingers to myself. I'm very much empathetic towards cyclists - when you've got to share the road with idiots piloting vehicles outweighing you by thousands of pounds, it's natural to feel the way you do. Especially considering the idiocy I see happening from behind the wheel of my own car. Hopefully, more than a few drivers will read this story, and therefore decide to be more considerate towards cyclists. I'll certainly try to be more careful myself.

I admitted in the thread that I went too far in post #9.

You, like tex, choose to see my position as denying all possibility of compassion or mitigation. It does not. I see it present in sentencing, but not in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

You may be correct that we are both being jackasses, but I don't think I am.

I appreciate your conclusions, and really that is my hope for all drivers.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I admitted in the thread that I went too far in post #9.

You, like tex, choose to see my position as denying all possibility of compassion or mitigation. It does not. I see it present in sentencing, but not in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

You may be correct that we are both being jackasses, but I don't think I am.

I appreciate your conclusions, and really that is my hope for all drivers.

According to Tex and apparently Spaz, the only noticeable form of compassion is the lack of prosecution. Neither has commented on the intermediary response of mitigating the sentence.

Why does somebody wish to let the cop off completely? The victims didn't get any reprieve.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by creekster

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...H7DF.DTL&tsp=1

THe guy apparently said he fell asleep. A few hours into his shift, patrolling in his car, he falls asleep. SO, Tex, is this criminal? Should it be prosecuted? Or do we just say "Hey, stuff happens, don't let the SOB's get you down"?

This whole thing makes me sick.

Does he have a teething 6-month-old? My kid was up most of the night last night. I doubt I got more than 1 hour consecutive sleep all night, and doubt I topped off with over 4 hours total sleep.

Knowing this, if, on driving into work this morning, I were to fall asleep and thereby kill someone, should I be prosecuted? I'd have to say yes, I would deserve to be. I doubt many people would feel it unfair if the charges were dropped, considering the circumstances. I also doubt I would be offended if, were it cyclists I killed, cyclists were publicly calling for prosecution.


NOTHING excuses drowsy driving, and related accidents. There are reasonable circumstances that could have contributed to the situation. If this cop's circumstances. If that's the case, I think there's room for leniency. The appropriate leniency, obviously, will rightly vary depending on each of our personal, emotional involvement with the issues at hand.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Spaz

NOTHING excuses drowsy driving, and related accidents. There are reasonable circumstances that could have contributed to the situation. If this cop's circumstances. If that's the case, I think there's room for leniency. The appropriate leniency, obviously, will rightly vary depending on each of our personal, emotional involvement with the issues at hand.

We also advocate based on mitigating circumstances, leniency, but not in the form of prosecution, in sentencing.

My question is, why is only one form of leniency legitimate? The leniency in sentencing seems to balance both concerns best. In reality, if it were drowsiness that caused the accident, I don't wish to seem him actually serve time in jail, but rather I'd prefer to see him convicted to show the public this is a warning, and perhaps given a suspended sentence on probation.

The leniency of letting the perpetrator completely off the hook seems to rob the public need.

I mean it's a nice rhetorical device Tex is employing, paraphrasing, "you guys are real hard asses wanting to throw the book at him, but I'm taking the higher road, hoping everybody will kiss and make up lovy dovey." In reality, his route only helps one side of the equation. Going on a speaking tour should be the requirement of his probation or suspended sentence.

[bluegoose]

There was an example in our paper this morning of what I think creekster was alluding to.

Last summer, a guy (happens to be a member of the church) was driving his boat at the lake in the direction of the setting sun. Not being able to see well, he crashes into another boat, killing a young 12 year old girl.

He was prosecuted by the DA and just yesterday pleaded no contest and was sentenced. Considering the circumstances of the accident and his obvious remorse in the moments and months following the accident, his sentence was community service, probation and several hundred dollars in fines (I'm not sure what that was for).

Was it enough to bring peace to a heart-broken family? I'm not sure. Was his mistake enough to warrent jail or prison time? Probably not. It was a case of horrible indiscretion and carelessness on his part. But I'm glad they prosecuted and sentenced him according to the law, no unlike what we're talking about with the cyclists.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by creekster

I admitted in the thread that I went too far in post #9.

You, like tex, choose to see my position as denying all possibility of compassion or mitigation. It does not. I see it present in sentencing, but not in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

You may be correct that we are both being jackasses, but I don't think I am.

I appreciate your conclusions, and really that is my hope for all drivers.

Just to clarify - I'm NOT, in any way, trying to tell anyone what your position is. My arguments have been intended solely to point out that Tex hasn't been the jackass he's being made out to be. In my opinion, of course.

I fully recognize your RIGHTFUL belief that this officer should be fully prosecuted, and any leniency should come as part of the sentence. That stance is reasonable to me. That is not to say someone who says leniency in this case can come earlier in the process is unreasonable.


The nature of most people is to think they're not a jackass. I'm a little different than most - I fully embrace my ass-itude.

BTW - nothing pisses me off more than stupidity when driving in any shape or form. Even when I'm the one being the idiot. That may actually be more infuriating, since I pride myself on my conscientious driving habits.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We also advocate based on mitigating circumstances, leniency, but not in the form of prosecution, in sentencing.

My question is, why is only one form of leniency legitimate? The leniency in sentencing seems to balance both concerns best. In reality, if it were drowsiness that caused the accident, I don't wish to seem him actually serve time in jail, but rather I'd prefer to see him convicted to show the public this is a warning, and perhaps given a suspended sentence on probation.

The leniency of letting the perpetrator completely off the hook seems to rob the public need.

I mean it's a nice rhetorical device Tex is employing, paraphrasing, "you guys are real hard asses wanting to throw the book at him, but I'm taking the higher road, hoping everybody will kiss and make up lovy dovey." In reality, his route only helps one side of the equation. Going on a speaking tour should be the requirement of his probation or suspended sentence.

It's not the only acceptable form of leniency. IMO, it's not unacceptable to show the leniency earlier. I understand and accept as legitimate your desire to see the leniency shown in sentencing.


I just don't think Tex has been saying exactly what he's being accused of saying. That's the ONLY contribution (and a pretty poor contribution it is) I've tried to add to this thread.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

There was an example in our paper this morning of what I think creekster was alluding to.

Last summer, a guy (happens to be a member of the church) was driving his boat at the lake in the direction of the setting sun. Not being able to see well, he crashes into another boat, killing a young 12 year old girl.

He was prosecuted by the DA and just yesterday pleaded no contest and was sentenced. Considering the circumstances of the accident and his obvious remorse in the moments and months following the accident, his sentence was community service, probation and several hundred dollars in fines (I'm not sure what that was for).

Was it enough to bring peace to a heart-broken family? I'm not sure. Was his mistake enough to warrent jail or prison time? Probably not. It was a case of horrible indiscretion and carelessness on his part. But I'm glad they prosecuted and sentenced him according to the law, no unlike what we're talking about with the cyclists.

To me, that is the perfect solution. It is difficult to see how any other solution could be promoted.

Of course, Tex being Tex, would not want to be like the rest of sinners on CG.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Spaz

It's not the only acceptable form of leniency. IMO, it's not unacceptable to show the leniency earlier. I understand and accept as legitimate your desire to see the leniency shown in sentencing.


I just don't think Tex has been saying exactly what he's being accused of saying. That's the ONLY contribution (and a pretty poor contribution it is) I've tried to add to this thread.

If you show leniency earlier, then the only party to be benefited is the officer. What good is that?

In public offenses, a just result addresses all sides of the equation, if possible. Here it's possible. Under Tex's scenario, it's not possible.