Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
I had to vote "other," because I'm a pain in the ass like that.
I'm glad the guy isn't going to jail. As a matter of fact, I don't think he should have a criminal record at all.
I don't think the woman's weight should've had anything to do with that, however. My feeling is that this should have been a civil suit, brought either by the government or by the woman's surviving family.
Criminal charges should be reserved exclusively for those with evil intent or who exhibit depraved indifference. I don't this guy falls into either category.
If the victim had been slim and old, would we have held him less responsible because the victim was frail? The victim's physical condition should not, in my mind, play any part in deciding the level of responsibility for injury to the victim.
If he'd hit her way out in the boonies, the result would've been the same, and his level of responsibility would've been the same.
Please note that I am making my remarks with no consideration whatsoever for how the legal system works in Scotland or anywhere else in Europe. This post is based entirely on my personal opinion on how the presence of either mens rea or depraved indifference should be the absolute bedrock basis for any criminal charge.
I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
I canot rationalize it... but I agree.