this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1456 readers
63 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
31
If someone doesn't wear a seatbelt and kills another person as a result who is wearing a seatbelt could that person face a manslaughter charge? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by turnerpike20@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I can't get a good answer for this as Google is thinking I'm talking just solely on the driver. I'm including passengers who don't. I've seen PSAs that tell you the dangers you pose for others as well when you don't wear a seatbelt. So if you don't wear a seatbelt and that results in someone being killed could you not wearing a seatbelt mean you get a manslaughter charge?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Same idea, but if a pedestrian is jaywalking across a street, technically illegal and it's not a safe move - but is struck by a car - the car is still at fault. As a driver you are still in charge of driving a 2-5 thousand pound hunk of steel and you accept that risk when you get behind the wheel. So I think logically, what the person was doing was not the smartest - but that doesn't mean they deserved death for it - you are responsible.

Think about it this way - if you hadn't been there driving would they have been fine? If so, you caused it, you're at fault.

Same applies to rape and dressing provocatively. It's an irrelevant argument because it puts blame on the victim, when no matter what they do they don't deserve that outcome. The blame is on the person who caused it in the first place.

[–] cone_zombie@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but this kind of logic just baffles me. Are you talking out of your ass on this one? If you're driving and I'll jump onto the road right in front of you, will you still be at fault? Where in the world would that be the case? If I come to a factory and stick my hand into a wood chipper that someone was operating and then say "whoever the hell was operating this 5 thousand pound hunk of steel should be at fault now!", would I be correct in my logic?

Think about it this way - if you hadn't been there driving would they have been fine? If so, you caused it, you're at fault

This is next level mental gymnastics. If someone robbed you, think about it this way - if you hadn't been there, none of it would have happened. So maybe you're at fault after all

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's easy. You decided to drive a vehicle, you're at fault, it's your job to watch out for pedestrians. If you can't stop in time, you're moving too fast. If your vehicle is so large that it kills them instead of simply hurting them (see - large trucks with huge grills instead of safer lower fronts), then you're at fault 100% because you chose an unsafe vehicle. If you can't see them because it was at night, still I don't care, that was on you, you should be able to see them. Feel free to argue it in court, that's what they're there for, but duty should on the driver to prove that, they were the one operating the heavy machinery. If that worries you or makes you feel emotions then good. You should feel nervous when you drive a vehicle, it's quite literally heavy machinery that you're hurtling forward at 60mph. You're responsible for it.

[–] cone_zombie@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You didn't adress any of my points though, can you please come out of your bubble?

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 1 month ago

Fine, you want me to be explicit?

If you’re driving and I’ll jump onto the road right in front of you, will you still be at fault?

Yes. I would be at fault. I'm the one driving a hunk of metal that is capable of easily killing people, you could be drunk, delirious, it doesn't matter. It's on me.

Where in the world would that be the case?

I say everywhere.

If I come to a factory and stick my hand into a wood chipper that someone was operating and then say “whoever the hell was operating this 5 thousand pound hunk of steel should be at fault now!”

Irrelevant. Streets are not supposed to be deathtraps. No one deserves to die simply by wandering into the street. Again, drunk, delirious, or a child - none of them deserve to die because they wandered into the street.

If someone robbed you, think about it this way - if you hadn’t been there, none of it would have happened.

Again, victim blaming. It is not the victims fault. It doesn't matter that they were there, if they had 100 sticking out of their pocket. Still robbery. It doesn't matter if a woman is revealing "too much". Still rape. It doesn't matter why a person was in the street. They're still dead.

If you don't appreciate what you're capable of when you're driving, then you shouldn't be driving.