Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh my ... I am not the one being self-righteous here, nor am I playing the victim card. If anyone has been playing the whiny victims here, it's been the "tribal" cyclists posting in this thread. You people are psychotic.

As to the substance of your post, the portion I have bolded is nothing but a fabrication. I used to think you were among the more balanced of the posters here, but for some reason you've chosen to go crazy on me. I suspected you'd lost it as soon as you suggested I might have thought killing one cyclist is ok, as long as it isn't multiple cyclists. You've only descended further into dementia since that point.

That's truly unfortunate.

Everyone's mean and/or crazy, except for you.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

You are correct, the only party benefited (other than some inconsequential monetary considerations regarding court expenses involved in the case) by not pursuing conviction is the officer. Well, there may be some other healing benefits for others involved, but I don't care to speculate on what those may be.


I don't want to get drawn into an argument regarding the good that comes from conviction in this type of case, and therefore will not respond to the rest of your post

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

What I'd like out of this conversation is an acknowledgement that it's not an unreasonable wish (in this case) for the family to extend some mercy and forgiveness, perhaps even going so far as to exercise their influence on the DA to make decision NOT to prosecute. Or, perhaps to have a lighter sentence. I'd like to hear an acknowledgement that such a wish is not dismissive of the lives of those who were tragically lost.

Here is what I think is the fundamental issue people are having a problem with. I don't know about anyone else, but here is my opinion.

I don't think it's anyone else's place to even wish that a family would extend mercy under the circumstances. I think it is completely usurping their right to mourn their deceased relatives.

I think it takes a lot of gall to be so presumptuous as to make any judgment about the families of the victims (which is exactly what you are doing by wishing they show mercy and not seek prosecution).

If the families were to decide that on their own, then I would applaud them for it.

But to intimate that they "should" do that is de facto passing judgment on them in the event they choose not do to do so. I.e., it is implying that they are acting less than charitable.

I hope you do not get your requested acknowledgement that your wish is not dismissive of the lives of those who were tragically lost, because that is exactly what it is.

It is arrogant, presumptuous, and wrong. How the victims' families react to the loss is completely their prerogative. For anyone to opine as to how they "should" react is the height of audacity.

I'm like Rocky here. Just calling it like I see it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Here is what I think is the fundamental issue people are having a problem with. I don't know about anyone else, but here is my opinion.

I don't think it's anyone else's place to even wish that a family would extend mercy under the circumstances. I think it is completely usurping their right to mourn their deceased relatives.

I think it takes a lot of gall to be so presumptuous as to make any judgment about the families of the victims (which is exactly what you are doing by wishing they show mercy and not seek prosecution).

If the families were to decide that on their own, then I would applaud them for it.

But to intimate that they "should" do that is de facto passing judgment on them in the event they choose not do to do so. I.e., it is implying that they are acting less than charitable.

I hope you do not get your requested acknowledgement that your wish is not dismissive of the lives of those who were tragically lost, because that is exactly what it is.

It is arrogant, presumptuous, and wrong. How the victims' families react to the loss is completely their prerogative. For anyone to opine as to how they "should" react is the height of audacity.

I'm like Rocky here. Just calling it like I see it.

I didn't say they "should." Try to keep up, SoCal.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...54&postcount=5

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't say they "should." Try to keep up, SoCal.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...54&postcount=5

That's why I put it in quotes. It's called a reasonable inference. It's what you're wishing for. What you want to happen. Not a large step to assume it's what you think "should" happen.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

That's why I put it in quotes. It's called a reasonable inference. It's what you're wishing for. What you want to happen. Not a large step to assume it's what you think "should" happen.

No, it isn't.

[Tex]

Has anyone heard anything further on this incident? I did a little searching and all I found was a brief newspaper note on June 20th that the man will be charged with two misdemeanor counts of vehicular manslaughter.

http://www.topix.com/city/cupertino-...h-misdemeanors