• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man freed after fatal Toyota crash 'tried everything' to stop car

Juries are just using common sense. How were they supposed to actually believe that a vehicle magically started accelerating on its own?
This kind of comment just makes my blood boil. People seem way too trigger happy to become outraged at people, after the fact, for using common sense to make a seemingly sound judgement call.

First of all, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that it doesn't take "magic" for a car to have a malfunction that can cause acceleration. Secondly, it only takes a shadow of a doubt to let a guy go.
 
First of all, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that it doesn't take "magic" for a car to have a malfunction that can cause acceleration. Secondly, it only takes a shadow of a doubt to let a guy go.

WRONG....

It takes a REASONABLE doubt, if your going to get all matter of fact on my ass get the facts right first.

If the defense didn't lay out compelling evidence to make a reasonable belief that the vehicle just started going off on its own, then common sense would dictate that these individuals would find him guilty.
 
Excellent Debating tactics..... :roll:

There isn't much to debate here. It's just more of you being your typical difficult self around here. I'm not going to indulge it like others do. :shrug:
 
There isn't much to debate here. It's just more of you being your typical difficult self around here. I'm not going to indulge it like others do. :shrug:

Okay Jallman, you are right becuse you say so.

On the other hand, people are getting out of crimes because they are making claims that aliens came down and did it and ran off, and since nobody can prove it didn't happen, there is that shadow of a doubt.

Regardless of whether its reasonable.
 
Okay Jallman, you are right becuse you say so.

On the other hand, people are getting out of crimes because they are making claims that aliens came down and did it and ran off, and since nobody can prove it didn't happen, there is that shadow of a doubt.

Regardless of whether its reasonable.

Caine, did you read my post? If I were on a jury and a guy told a story like mine, I'd believe him. I'd probably even find him not guilty if he was still convinced his foot was on the brake.

A number of years ago, I had the engine running in front of my mom's house waiting for my husband to hop in the car. As he got in, I put the car in D and stepped on the brake. The car started forward, I stomped on the brake. He held on for dear life while I continued to stomp on the brake as he was only half inside the car. The car was burning rubber trying to peel off as he reached inside and turned off the engine.

My foot had been on the accelerator. I was soooo convinced my foot was on the brake, that I never would have ever let it go. I thought the car was haunted.

If I was ever on a jury and someone testified similarly that this is what happened to him, I'd buy it -- 'cause it happened to me. Once you think you're stepping on the brake, nothing will change your mind. (I was cold sober, BTW.)
 
Caine, did you read my post? If I were on a jury and a guy told a story like mine, I'd believe him. I'd probably even find him not guilty if he was still convinced his foot was on the brake.

Good to know you are so easy to convince.......
 
Good to know you're here to learn as well as teach.

What is there to learn?

Because someone claims to believe that their foot was on the brake when they mashed the accelerator and smashed into another vehicle causing deaths during his trial for manslaughter I am supposed to believe that there was a mechanical error?

Its one thing to believe such a story, its another thing to condemn a jury who didn't believe it as if they are over zealous about sentencing people.
 
What is there to learn?

Because someone claims to believe that their foot was on the brake when they mashed the accelerator and smashed into another vehicle causing deaths during his trial for manslaughter I am supposed to believe that there was a mechanical error?

Its one thing to believe such a story, its another thing to condemn a jury who didn't believe it as if they are over zealous about sentencing people.

The question to me is whether or not the guy deserved eight years in jail. His own 10-year-old daughter was one of those killed, for God's sake. His car was travelling at 80-90 mph. He swore he was trying to brake the car. In my own life I have had this same series of events happen twice. Fortunately, in neither case did I have an accident. If you can't see a correlation and understand how a jury might have gotten it wrong? Well, I can. And so could prosecutors, as he won't be retried. Nobody today wants to believe that accidents can happen. It's always got to be someone's intentional fault. Witness our litigeous society. Sometimes an accident is just simply an accident.
 
Okay Jallman, you are right becuse you say so.

On the other hand, people are getting out of crimes because they are making claims that aliens came down and did it and ran off, and since nobody can prove it didn't happen, there is that shadow of a doubt.

Regardless of whether its reasonable.

Now you're just being ridiculous because no one will play with you when you're being sour.
 
Now you're just being ridiculous because no one will play with you when you're being sour.

Ahh... personal attacks.

Ones you know you can do and get away with here. Gotcha.
 
Ahh... personal attacks.

Ones you know you can do and get away with here. Gotcha.

You were making an appeal to the absurd. If you think having that pointed out to you is a personal attack, you've got thinner skin than I thought.
 
The question to me is whether or not the guy deserved eight years in jail. His own 10-year-old daughter was one of those killed, for God's sake. His car was travelling at 80-90 mph. He swore he was trying to brake the car. In my own life I have had this same series of events happen twice. Fortunately, in neither case did I have an accident. If you can't see a correlation and understand how a jury might have gotten it wrong? Well, I can. And so could prosecutors, as he won't be retried. Nobody today wants to believe that accidents can happen. It's always got to be someone's intentional fault. Witness our litigeous society. Sometimes an accident is just simply an accident.

Contrary to unpopular belief. Its not a requirement to tell a jury how long someone will be sentenced for, or how long someone MAY be sentenced for when they are deciding a case. Nor is it the decision of a jury to decide how long someone is sentenced to in a non-capital case. Thus, your comments about sentencing someone to 8 years as a member of a jury mean jack diddly squat because the jury members do not have this information to go off of.

Do I think 8 years is excessive? Yeah sure.
Am I going to condemn the jury for making a decision based upon the information that they were given in trial (of which, btw, none of us knows the full details of, we only know the defense's argument.)? No
Do I understand why the prosecutor has decided to not retry the case? Yes.
Does it have anything to do with the prosecutor believing that the man is "innocent"? Probably not. The prosecutor knows that even though this Toyota vehicle driving off on its own crap is a bunch of hype, too many jurors are going to be tainted by this because of media reports to have a fair trial. On top of that, three years is plenty for an accidental yet negligent manslaughter case.
 
You were making an appeal to the absurd. If you think having that pointed out to you is a personal attack, you've got thinner skin than I thought.

So I am the one making an appeal to the absurd because I corrected you on the standard used by the courts when instructing a jury how to make a decision on a case?

It is REASONABLE doubt. I then had to demonstrate WHY it is REASONABLE doubt. Claiming Aliens did it is not reasonable. Yet if we had an ANY doubt standard, such a defense could actually work if another person in the jury was gullible to actually believe that bull****.
 
Juries are just using common sense. How were they supposed to actually believe that a vehicle magically started accelerating on its own?

Because it's possible for a car to get stuck with the throttle open either due to mechanical or electronic failure. It's a situation which has occurred so we know that it is something which can occur. We're not talking unicorns and leprechauns here, there's no magic involved. An internal combustion engine is very good at what it does and if it continues to have levels of appropriate fuel being fed into the engine, it will continue to produce power.

My only question would be "did he try to throw it into neutral", because that's the best way to stop the engine power from reaching the wheels.
 
Contrary to unpopular belief. Its not a requirement to tell a jury how long someone will be sentenced for, or how long someone MAY be sentenced for when they are deciding a case. Nor is it the decision of a jury to decide how long someone is sentenced to in a non-capital case. Thus, your comments about sentencing someone to 8 years as a member of a jury mean jack diddly squat because the jury members do not have this information to go off of.

Do I think 8 years is excessive? Yeah sure.
Am I going to condemn the jury for making a decision based upon the information that they were given in trial (of which, btw, none of us knows the full details of, we only know the defense's argument.)? No
Do I understand why the prosecutor has decided to not retry the case? Yes.
Does it have anything to do with the prosecutor believing that the man is "innocent"? Probably not. The prosecutor knows that even though this Toyota vehicle driving off on its own crap is a bunch of hype, too many jurors are going to be tainted by this because of media reports to have a fair trial. On top of that, three years is plenty for an accidental yet negligent manslaughter case.

Yeah, my bad. The jury doesn't get involved in sentencing -- I don't think...? Who condemned the jury? You're right, they made a decision based on the facts they had at the time. A Toyota vehicle driving off on its own is not a bunch of hype. Been there. It's what's called an accident.
 
Back
Top Bottom