Yes. Intent is implied (look it up) It is not absurd just because it is not consistent with your opinion.
Wow what a hypocrite. You fail to see how this applies to you too? You are odd in that you have such conviction over this matter. But your conviction is proportional to what you interpret the law to be. Your convictions are conditional. By your rationale if this accident happened in 99 or 2000, before laws regarding cell phones went into effect, then Nagrani would be innocent of any wrongdoing. But since j walking was on the books at that point, granny would be deserving of death?
Hate to break it to you but driving and talking on cell phone or texting is merely an ordinance violation, a civil infraction. Its not a crime.
Well you have me wrong, if youknew anything about me (what I've spent the last 20 years of my life doing) you would know that likening me to a defense attorney is what's absurd here.
So you want to throw this bimbo in prison over an accident? You do realise that people already convicted of murders and robberies and rapes are being released from prison everyday due to over crowding and so called rehabilitation efforts?
You see the world very black and white, never even stop for a second to THINK about another point of view and argue till you're blue in the face........How is that working out for you?
One) Granny was crossing legally at an unmarked crosswalk
2) People get thrown in jail all the time for accidents, all the time. The majority of prisoners are in jail for drug related offences. I would say smoking weed is far less of a reason to throw someone in jail than accidentally killing someone during a careless and reckless act.
3) Talking on the phone may be a civil offense, but if you mow someone down and kill them while doing it, it then becomes a criminal act (reckless driving).
And what point of view should I be looking at it from, spolied rich daddy's girl. I have looked at it from her point of view, and she was reckless. PERIOD. I can't identify with spoiled rich girl because I value my own and other peoples lives and I take driving very seriously and don't use a mobile while driving EVER !!! So even hypothetically, lets say it was me in her position, I would absolutely accept responsibility, be deeply remorseful and apologize profusely to the family of the victim and expect to be punished. I certainly wouldn't be pretending like nothing happened, not showing in court and posting self indulgent, gratuitous selfies on social media. I would be using my story as a warning to others and publicly condemning my actions.
I keep coming back to the story I posted earlier of a man who killed two people while texting, when the prosecution said the following "The only person that could have prevented this from happening is the defendant," Drechsel said.
"He is 100 percent to blame for the death of Tommy Clark."Bascom, his head bowed, appeared to nod in agreement with the prosecutor's indictment. He also wiped away tears as Tommy's grandfather and parents, Tom and Evie Lesser, addressed Judge Douglas Thomas. The crash left Bascom with a broken jaw, which was still wired shut Monday, preventing him from making any statements in court.
Now there's a MAN, he made a mistake and he owned it, he didn't blame the victims, he showed genuine remorse and didn't balk at his punishment. He himself was seriously injured in the incident. Compare that to spoiled narcissistic bitch whose lawyer essentially blamed the victim, she didn't even have the common decency to show up in court and was back taking selfies as if nothing ever happened a few days later. ANyone who can defend such a shallow individual is probably pretty sick themselves.
