Thanks dude. I'm reading that story.

Duh, no sht!

No offense but you and that kddani person just don't get it. Obviously when I say hit, I mean kill..dead.

If the dude was drunk, then I'm all for seeing him go under, but if he wasn't and it was an accident, why should he go to prison. I'm talking prison here folks. Not jail. Jail and prison are totally different.

Did you read any of the posts? Negligence is mentioned several times. If someone jumped out in front of you in bad weather, you're not being negligent.

Hit and kill are not the same thing.

Um, can you read?

Btw, I'm a practicing lawyer admitted to practice in three states. I think I have a decent handle on this very basic tenant of law.

knight_shadow, I think that the word "negligence" is too big of a word for the OP.

^^^ LOL

The thing is, I'm not sure if Zephyrus really wants answers on these topics, as much as he wants to vent about the legal system. He posted about other legal issues in another thread, and Kevin and I (both upper-class law students) tried to discuss some of the reasons behind the laws in question. It seems like he's just displeased by the legal system as a whole.

I do feel sorry for his law school friend though, haha.

When I was 13, one of my friends was hit by a car. It was a clear day, sunny, with no rain, fog, or haze. She was killed instantly, and her friend was critically injured and in physical therapy for a long time.

The driver wasn't charged because the girls ran out in the road and didn't use the crosswalks. Ironically, a few weeks after that accident, she hit another teenage girl who ran out in front of her car. I think she left town soon after that.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Exactly...I don't want to get into the past history of the guy who hit my wife and I when he was drunk driving.

No kidding dipsht. I know hit and kill aren't the same thing. I said if I "hit and kill". Did you read my post? In my OP, I was referring to what my friend told me. She said that it doesn't matter, and I was trying to see if those were facts she was telling me.


I wouldn't give a sht if you were a practicing lawyer in 50 states and two third world countries, my question was would I go to prison (not jail) if it was an accident, as in a kid jumping right out in front of me. No, I'm not drinking and yes I'm driving responsibly, but without witnesses though.

It's obvious I can read, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to your fking post.
I was just trying to see where she was coming from with that. When she told me that it doesn't matter if I'm driving responsibly, if there are no witnesses, I'm screwed, I called bullsht on that whole thing. No I don't agree with everything about our legal system. Like I mentioned before, it's all based on money, not what's right and wrong. So she was wrong right? I just want her to see this that's all.

btw: if you never told me that you were a law student I would have thought you were already out practicing law. Based on your previous posts from you and Kevin, you guys seem to know what your talking about.

Did YOU read your post?

Dumb ass.

Here what I can offer.

There is no definitive way to really answer your OP.

Why? Because there are so many factors that has to be accounted for when this occurs.

Some would be:

- time of day

- road conditions

- laws of that jurisdiction

- where the pedestrian was in relation to the driver hitting them.

- condition (and age) of the driver

- driving history

- condition of the pedestrian

- actions of the driver AFTER the accident (driving off vs staying at the scene)

and I know that there are a few others that i haven't mentioned suffice to say that no 2 situations are alike and no 2 people may get the same treatment when this happens.

The best you could probably do is find out what the laws are in your local area.


























































...so tell us the truth...what's Randy Moss really like??


And tell me something...how is jail and prison different?

You lost me on that one. Prior experience?

Even I know the difference (from a laywoman's perspective), and I'm bougie as hell. I expect the GC legal eagles to swoop in and correct me if I'm wrong:

Jail is like, oh hai I got arrested for a minor offense, and this is where they're keeping me. If I'm not mistaken, Rikers Island is a "jail" in that it's only a short-term holding facility--people with less than a year go to Rikers, as well as people who can't make bail and who haven't been convicted.

Prison is where you're actually convicted, sentenced, and that's where you go.

depends on your lawyer. but you could. it's happened to people before.

Whether its' a crime depends on the defendant's mental state when he did what he did. (I say that word meaning perpetrator, 'alleged perpetrator,' suspect, person who did the bad thing, or as my crim law prof would have said it "Clem" [because it was always Clem in our class hypos].)

When I say mental state, I also say that for lack of a better word, but here, mental state means one of 4 things, all of which have real legal meanings: [cut paste from wiki because I couldn't do a better job]

• Purposefully - the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes and hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

• Knowingly - the actor is certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

• Recklessly - the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

• Negligently - the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware

• Strict liability - the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant

All of those mental states will, with the right [or wrong] acts and set of facts get you put in the pokey.

As for negligent homicide, which is the crime you might be talking about if the actor is negligent, meaning the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware, then if that conduct results in the death of another person, yes, that's going to be a crime.

Now, will it result in jail time? Prison? A suspended sentence? That depends on the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and in rare cases, the jury. Most likely, those folks are going to be looking at how negligent you were, what the state laws say about negligent homicide, or whether you were even negligent in killing someone. Probably, a case where you killed someone while going 55 in a 45 will not be as bad as killing someone by driving an 18-wheeler while on PCP.

ETA: The conclusion should be painfully obvious as to what happens in the areas above negligence, i.e., knowingly, intentionally, recklessly; so I didn't discuss 'em.

Here are two hypos so you can see the difference:

1) Clem is driving, a person runs out into the street right in front of him. Clem had no way to see them coming, they shot out from between two parked cars. Though Clem is obeying all of the traffic laws and being otherwise reasonably prudent, he still runs the person over and they die. Result? Probably no crime.

2) Clem, again, is driving. He's merging into traffic on the interstate. He fails to obey a yield sign. By doing so, he causes a wreck which results in the death of another person. Result? Negligent homicide -- because failure to obey the yield sign amounts to negligence.

This all depends on state law of course. Also, it should be noted that I'm defining terms, not giving legal advice.