Quote:
Originally Posted by starang21
Me and a friend were having dinner the other night and a situation comes up in conversation:
a man steals a car. the car has onstar. onstar shuts the car off. the vehicle ends up striking and killing someone because the driver (car thief) didn't have control of the vehicle anymore.
is it a plausible defense that the man didn't have the intent on hitting someone and thus is not guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular manslaughter? any one of the three?
substitute man for woman for the GC feminist.
LMAO.
|
WOW!!
Damned good question and as of 2007, OnStar is supposedly working on a way to reduce the likelihood something like this would happen.
Onstar Link
OnStar's link
I still think though, should a stolen vehicle strike and kill someone, the criminal would still be responsible, simply because he stole it in the first place. But it would be an interesting conundrum based on the idea that OnStar and local law enforcement had to use the equipment to stop the stolen vehicle and as they were using it, someone was killed. How culpable would they be at that point?
But...I can't wait to see what the legals here have to say on this.
Threaded Mode
