"Claim Guy" wrote in message
news:hYKdnbwYGNvZRcTfRVn-rw@rogers.com...
>
> "Blueskies" wrote in message
> news:x1a6e.29$bc2.10@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > I see a quote that says the car was going 53 in a 35 speed limit zone -
I
> suppose that timing had nothing to do with it.
> > How about this: The kid saw the car coming, assumed (bad thing!) that it
> was going at the 35 limit, and bolted. If the
> > car was going 35 then it would not have gotten there when the kid was
> there. Going at the illegal 53 mph caused the car
> > to arrive at the scene much sooner, thus killing the child.
>
> If he saw it coming, he made an incorrect assessment of it's speed - the
> other kids made the correct determination and tried to warn him.
>
> Your theory sounds like someone who makes a left turn in front of oncoming
> traffic, resulting in a collision, and then claims the other car was
> speeding as it approached the intersection. Well, if you knew it was
> speeding, why did you turn in front of it?
>
> Nothing in the articles says he won;t get charged with another, lesser
> offence. The prosecutor is not bound by the jury's finding, and could even
> lay the originally contemplated charge. it seems clear the guy should get
a
> speeding conviction, at least, on the evidence.
>
> Who here hasn't gone 10 miles over the limit in a school, or playground
> zone? And on those times when you did, if a kid popped out from behind a
> parked car and you had no chance to stop, even if travelling at the posted
> speed, would you expect to be charged and convicted of vehicular homicide,
> or whatever, based on the speed factor alone?
Suspect a civil suit will be filed and if he was doing 53 in a 35 it
certainly won't help his defense.
|