Jumping Jehoshaphat! Wut in tarnation is this world coming to? (Nice Title Edit Mods)

[SouthernSVT]

It's not that she was jaywalking, it's where she was jaywalking with a pack of little kids. It's a busy street at night, and you have a herd of little kids with you. Go to the damn cross walk, we learned this in elementary school.

[ThreeFingerPete]

It said the guy "had been drinking earlier". I didn't read that the dude was brought up on DUI/DWI charges, so he apparently wasn't drunk enough to be proven. Otherwise I'm quite certain that the police would have been more than happy to add that charge on top of a hit and run.

This is a horrible situation. Ultimately, we can't see the road, the traffic situation on that day,how the driver was driving, etc so I can't really say where the judgement should fall.

[onemeangixxer7502]

my mind is full of fuck right now.

no shit, this just proves the whole point of the thread about the ass backwards thinking of some people. I jay walk and shit all the time, i mean motherfucker If i was charged for all the stupid bullshit crimes i break I'd be a lifter. "oh no you spit on the sidewalk and jose over here tripped and fell and broke his neck, well I'm charging you with spitting and manslaughter"

[SS Junk]

The mom's actions did contribute to the kid's death and she should be punished IMO, however Threefingers is right...

[Ratt]

I choose to answer all the "If she crossed at a crosswalk she would have been safe because the drunk driver would have already passed" arguments with a hypothetical of my own, since we are dealing with completely unpredictable situations here. What if he hadn't been drinking? If he hadn't been drinking he may have had the reaction times to stop. What if he slowed for some reason to allow enough time for them to get to the crosswalk and ran them over anyway?

My point here is that you can't deal in hypothetical la-la-land, and it was the woman's attorney's job to establish that. There are so many factors in play here that you have an idea of what COULD have happened differently, but no idea that it WOULD have happened differently. The guy was drinking and driving, hit the kid, and fled the scene, not to mention this was his 3rd offense with the same charges (minus the manslaughter). The driver is guilty. Period. The woman should not escape without punishment, obviously, but manslaughter is quite a bit more than what should have been handed down, in my opinion.

[TENGRAM]

Pedestrians have the right of way.

[SS Junk]

Pedestrians have the right of way.

http://peds.org/resources/pedestrian_right_of_way/

[TENGRAM]

http://peds.org/resources/pedestrian_right_of_way/

Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway.

In other words, as long as this woman didn't jump out from behind a car directly into the path of the drunk driver, she had the right of way.

You do not have the right to run over a pedestrian just because they didn't use the crosswalk. Crazy, huh?

[CexMashean]

Lets say it was a sober driver, and accident occurred. Driver stayed on the scene for police and paramedics. Is it SUDDENLY the womans fault now because the driver wasn't drunk?

I fail to see how the manslaughter charge should go against the driver. The whole purpose of the jaywalking law is to restrict street crossings at a safe and acknowledged location.

How many people have hit a deer or some other animal suddenly crossing the street? Well, that was your fault, not the animal's!

In other words, as long as this woman didn't jump out from behind a car directly into the path of the drunk driver, she had the right of way.

You do not have the right to run over a pedestrian just because they didn't use the crosswalk. Crazy, huh?

And her lawyer failed to prove that, even with the other party being a drunk driver. Crazy, huh?

[SS Junk]

In other words, as long as this woman didn't jump out from behind a car directly into the path of the drunk driver, she had the right of way.

... or suddenly start walking into the street into traffic. It also gives scenarios when it is legal to walk across an unmarked street. We have no idea if the street she was on fell under the legal means to cross.

[TENGRAM]

... or suddenly start walking into the street into traffic. It also gives scenarios when it is legal to walk across an unmarked street. We have no idea if the street she was on fell under the legal means to cross.

It doesn't matter if she crossed legally or not, if the driver could have avoided her and didn't then he is at fault since she had the right of way.

[TENGRAM]

And her lawyer failed to prove that, even with the other party being a drunk driver. Crazy, huh?

No, she was found guilty of jaywalking. That has nothing to do with having the right-of-way.

[SS Junk]

It doesn't matter if she crossed legally or not, if the driver could have avoided her and didn't then he is at fault since she had the right of way.

It does matter:

(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impractical for the driver to yield.

If she did that, she does not have the right of way. Again, we don't know, however it would appear this is what happened.

[CexMashean]

No, she was found guilty of jaywalking. That has nothing to do with having the right-of-way.

i'm sure that saying that relieves her of the thought that if she hadn't of jaywalked, her bumper ornament would still be alive.

[Rick Modena]

Im here all day...