Isn't that what he wants anyway? He should spend the rest of his life to think it over, and I am usually for the death penalty.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_re_us/train_derail_4

: :PGood point ,but what kind of death does he deserve?it's too hard to have a train run up his a$$!

Besides the fact that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases, I have a problem with this "special circumstances" business.

This joker Alvarez did not intend to cause the death of anybody else, therefore he can legally only be charged with manslaughter and gross negligence.  The consequences of Alvarez's decision to stop his truck on the train tracks are indeed atrocious.  However, if the state allows the prosecutor to call for "special circumstances" in order to try the accused for the death penalty where it would not otherwise be warranted, the state may start a slippery slope.  Prosecutors may use the allowance here for "special circumstances" as a precedent for getting the death penalty in all kinds of other cases of unintended death.
If they can put this dweeb away forever on 11 accounts of manslaughter and whatever other criminal charges apply here, I hope they do.  Just not the death penalty. Alvarez does not qualify.

I agree with you Max. Do you think you could answer a question for me?

If a person wants to commit suicide and they walk out onto the interstate, which causes them to get hit and killed by a car, why is the driver charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Tam


Besides the fact that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases, I have a problem with this "special circumstances" business.

This joker Alvarez did not intend to cause the death of anybody else, therefore he can legally only be charged with manslaughter and gross negligence.  The consequences of Alvarez's decision to stop his truck on the train tracks are indeed atrocious.  However, if the state allows the prosecutor to call for "special circumstances" in order to try the accused for the death penalty where it would not otherwise be warranted, the state may start a slippery slope.  Prosecutors may use the allowance here for "special circumstances" as a precedent for getting the death penalty in all kinds of other cases of unintended death.
If they can put this dweeb away forever on 11 accounts of manslaughter and whatever other criminal charges apply here, I hope they do.  Just not the death penalty. Alvarez does not qualify.

I agree with you Max. Do you think you could answer a question for me?

If a person wants to commit suicide and they walk out onto the interstate, which causes them to get hit and killed by a car, why is the driver charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Tam



There is no answer to your question, that I can see.

I agree with you Max. Do you think you could answer a question for me?

If a person wants to commit suicide and they walk out onto the interstate, which causes them to get hit and killed by a car, why is the driver charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Tam


Like Cheer says, if a person walks onto an interstate and gets killed by a car, it is quite unlikely the driver would get charged.  Generally, a pedestrian walking on a limited access superhighway is breaking the law to start with.  At highway speeds of 50 to 80 mph, the driver is in almost as much danger trying to lurch away from a person who runs in front of his/her car.  The driver could collide with another car and cause all kinds of injuries and fatalities.
The story may be different on municipal roads where lower speed limits prevail and cross traffic and pedestrians are and expected part of the scene.  Again, this would also depend on the circumstances.

I would also point out that if a motorist hit a pedestrian on a motorway at 50mph they would most likely end up dead or seriously injured themselves. This Alvarez guy had so little regard for life that he chose a method of suicide that would have not only ended his own life but put hundreds of others in danger as well. It was a premeditated action; as soon as he got out of his car and stood by to watch what would happen, it no longer became a suicide bid but the action of a sociopath.

Yeah, what Powerslave said - what kind of self-obsessed idiot tries to kill himself by parking across a railway line... simply sitting there would be much more likely to be successful, anyway.

What kind of loser chickens out of his own suicide attempt?

What kind of loser chickens out of his own suicide attempt?


The majority of those who attempt suicide chicken out.

Yeah, what Powerslave said - what kind of self-obsessed idiot tries to kill himself by parking across a railway line... simply sitting there would be much more likely to be successful, anyway.
I think a lot of people who accidentally park a car there don't die because the car gets twisted to onee side--unless it's simply too large,as with the SUV.

Besides the fact that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases, I have a problem with this "special circumstances" business.

This joker Alvarez did not intend to cause the death of anybody else, therefore he can legally only be charged with manslaughter and gross negligence.  The consequences of Alvarez's decision to stop his truck on the train tracks are indeed atrocious.  However, if the state allows the prosecutor to call for "special circumstances" in order to try the accused for the death penalty where it would not otherwise be warranted, the state may start a slippery slope.  Prosecutors may use the allowance here for "special circumstances" as a precedent for getting the death penalty in all kinds of other cases of unintended death.
If they can put this dweeb away forever on 11 accounts of manslaughter and whatever other criminal charges apply here, I hope they do.  Just not the death penalty. Alvarez does not qualify.


I agree with you Max that it is highly doubtful that this could be turned into a capital case.

He could get charged with Second Degree Murder, though, which is basically "causing a death during the commision of a crime".  Second degee murder does not require that "intent" be proved.  Or he could be charged with "felony murder" which is basically the same thing.  But neither of these charges are capital offenses.

LB

I agree with you Max that it is highly doubtful that this could be turned into a capital case.

He could get charged with Second Degree Murder, though, which is basically "causing a death during the commision of a crime".  Second degee murder does not require that "intent" be proved.  Or he could be charged with "felony murder" which is basically the same thing.  But neither of these charges are capital offenses.

LB

Hmmm...a suicide attempt is technically against the law, but the sentence is usually little more than psychiatric treatment. But can he really be said to have "attempted" suicide if he bailed out?  Now, there may be some crime involved with deliberately blocking railroad tracks.  If the D.A. can ratchet the charges up to 2nd degree murder, go for it!

GWB wrote
What kind of loser chickens out of his own suicide attempt?
That old self-preservation instinct is awful hard to overcome, no matter what kind of miserable SOB you are!

Now, there may be some crime involved with deliberately blocking railroad tracks.  If the D.A. can ratchet the charges up to 2nd degree murder, go for it!



I imagine that California has a felony law against "Risking a catastrophe" or some such law.  Likewise I imagine that there is also a Federal statute against placing obstacles on railroad tracks, since railroads are interstate conveyances.

LB

I agree with you Max. Do you think you could answer a question for me?

If a person wants to commit suicide and they walk out onto the interstate, which causes them to get hit and killed by a car, why is the driver charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Tam

I already posted this in another thread, but I'll post it again because it's relevant here:

A few years ago, I was working at another truck driving job in Omaha, and the very thing you are describing happened. One of our drivers was driving his semi down a two-lane highway north of Omaha, when a car in front of him suddenly pulled over, and a woman jumped out and ran in front of his truck. He swerved all over the road to try and avoid hitting her, but she dove underneath the wheels and was killed. After the investigation, he was cleared of any wrongdoing, and the company's insurance even paid for him to go to counseling for a few days. He was back on the job a week later.

I already posted this in another thread, but I'll post it again because it's relevant here:

A few years ago, I was working at another truck driving job in Omaha, and the very thing you are describing happened. One of our drivers was driving his semi down a two-lane highway north of Omaha, when a car in front of him suddenly pulled over, and a woman jumped out and ran in front of his truck. He swerved all over the road to try and avoid hitting her, but she dove underneath the wheels and was killed. After the investigation, he was cleared of any wrongdoing, and the company's insurance even paid for him to go to counseling for a few days. He was back on the job a week later.

That's horrible!
:o

I agree with you Max. Do you think you could answer a question for me?

If a person wants to commit suicide and they walk out onto the interstate, which causes them to get hit and killed by a car, why is the driver charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Tam


I asked this question because this past summer this exact thing happened. The driver is still awaiting trial. How ludacris is this????

I asked this question because this past summer this exact thing happened. The driver is still awaiting trial. How ludacris is this????


Well...you may not know everything that happened.  Who knows.

I asked this question because this past summer this exact thing happened. The driver is still awaiting trial. How ludacris is this????

That's "ludacrous," Ludacris is the rapper.

^ Sometimes being too smart isnt a good thing

^^ Good point  :)

Tam, your husband is in Iraq?  God bless him.

That's horrible!
:o
It was interesting...within a few months of that incident he could talk about it and it didn't seem to bother him too much, although there's no way to be sure. He wasn't callous or anything like that...I think it had more to do with the fact that he was also a volunteer firefighter/EMT, so perhaps he was a little more used to seeing things like that (from what he told me, it was a particularly gruesome scene, I won't go into details). Now if something like that ever happened to me, I honestly don't know if I could ever get behind the wheel of a truck again.

Tam, your husband is in Iraq?  God bless him.


Thanks GWB! My avatar was updated today cause I just got the new pics in an email from him.
He is doing real good and will be home in less than 2 months. This has been the longest year of my life!!!

Tam

Thanks GWB! My avatar was updated today cause I just got the new pics in an email from him.
He is doing real good and will be home in less than 2 months. This has been the longest year of my life!!!

Tam


Keep us updated, we can all celebrate with you when he comes marching home ;)

I imagine that California has a felony law against "Risking a catastrophe" or some such law.  Likewise I imagine that there is also a Federal statute against placing obstacles on railroad tracks, since railroads are interstate conveyances.

LB
That's probably true.Anyway,if a person does something to likely cause death or injury to people,and he's the only one who can stiop it,then he must,even if he risks getting killed himself.

I've thought about it, and why not give him death penalty?  Save money and put the guy out of misery. It doesn't cost us anything.

I've thought about it, and why not give him death penalty?  Save money and put the guy out of misery. It doesn't cost us anything.


Watch out!  Some on the left will argue that the death penalty costs more, and it might due to all the appeals.  But I'd rather spend more money killing a bas**** then spending money feeding him!

Watch out!  Some on the left will argue that the death penalty costs more, and it might due to all the appeals.  But I'd rather spend more money killing a bas**** then spending money feeding him!

If it cost a million dollars throw him is prison.  I just don't want him free or being tortured.  Prison for life in humane, but not luxurious, conditions.  or dp.

Speaking as a former Los Angelino, I can tell you that this is a MAJOR problem in LA.

Ever since the Metrolink (and Blue Line subway) lines started in LA, a lot of people have chosen "suicide by train".  And in doing so, have caused a lot of injuries and deaths by others.  And the Glendale coridor is notoriously deadly because it is high speed, and has frequent road crossings.

I myself spent 4 hours stuck in a train when somebody parked their car across the tracks in such an attempt.  Luckily, the train comming got word in time and was able to stop before a collision.  But it took hours to get him off the tracks, and continue train service.  Getting home at 11pm was not fun.  And because city bus service had ended for the night, I had to pay extra for a taxi.

Personally, I say execute him.  He had the ability to change his mind and run away from his car after all.  Why could he not just DRIVE it off the tracks?

Watch out!  Some on the left will argue that the death penalty costs more, and it might due to all the appeals.  But I'd rather spend more money killing a bas**** then spending money feeding him!


It does cost more because of all the appeals. I am not just saying that, studies have been done proving it.  It takes about $2 million more to execute someone than to imprison him for life.  It's not just some left wing idea it's the truth.

Speaking as a former Los Angelino, I can tell you that this is a MAJOR problem in LA.

Ever since the Metrolink (and Blue Line subway) lines started in LA, a lot of people have chosen "suicide by train".  And in doing so, have caused a lot of injuries and deaths by others.  And the Glendale coridor is notoriously deadly because it is high speed, and has frequent road crossings.

I myself spent 4 hours stuck in a train when somebody parked their car across the tracks in such an attempt.  Luckily, the train comming got word in time and was able to stop before a collision.  But it took hours to get him off the tracks, and continue train service.  Getting home at 11pm was not fun.  And because city bus service had ended for the night, I had to pay extra for a taxi.

Personally, I say execute him.  He had the ability to change his mind and run away from his car after all.  Why could he not just DRIVE it off the tracks?

I thought his truck got stuck for some reason.  Anyway, of course suicidals are jumping in front of the trains around L.A., they could jump in front of the cars around L.A., but it wouldn't be terribly effective as the cars rarely exceed 5 mph on those freeways!

It does cost more because of all the appeals. I am not just saying that, studies have been done proving it.  It takes about $2 million more to execute someone than to imprison him for life.  It's not just some left wing idea it's the truth.


Yes, I admitted in the other post that death penalty cases usually, in the end, cost more.  But not always.  The new 90-day executions with something like 0 or 1 appeal they are now doing in Texas in cutting the costs down to below the cost of a life in prison sentence.

But as I wrote earlier, I'd rather the state spend more killing the murderer, then spend less (but still spend) feeding the murderer and, in some states, allowing him cable television.

Try doing something horrific in Norway and you won't see the light of day...sorry we couldn't do that here...elsewhere they will have LOTS o f time ALONE to think about what they did!

Yes, I admitted in the other post that death penalty cases usually, in the end, cost more. But not always. The new 90-day executions with something like 0 or 1 appeal they are now doing in Texas in cutting the costs down to below the cost of a life in prison sentence.

But as I wrote earlier, I'd rather the state spend more killing the murderer, then spend less (but still spend) feeding the murderer and, in some states, allowing him cable television.


So do you believe revenge is good, GWB?  I've said before that I'm a strong believer in punishment, but that revenge is BAD and will only repeat the vicious cycle of crime.  Not to mention the only good it does is satisty human's primal taste for blood.

So do you believe revenge is good, GWB?  I've said before that I'm a strong believer in punishment, but that revenge is BAD and will only repeat the vicious cycle of crime.  Not to mention the only good it does is satisty human's primal taste for blood.

I tried to explain the difference between justice and vengeance, but subtlety is not the Right's strong suit.

I tried to explain the difference between justice and vengeance, but subtlety is not the Right's strong suit.

I agree Max.  :)