He's Out

aps45819 · May 20, 2004

Kill a biker, get your wrist slapped
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2004/05/17/news/update/upd5.txt

Ken King · May 20, 2004

Saw this info the other day, what a shame that someone with connections can get a way with manslaughter. I bet if the roles had been reversed they would have put the biker under the jail and thrown away the key.

Pete · May 20, 2004

I thought this thread was about JH's new relationship. :frown:

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ken King
I bet if the roles had been reversed they would have put the biker under the jail and thrown away the key.

I've haven't followed the story, but what if he's telling the truth about the diabetic thing?

dustin · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by sleuth
I've haven't followed the story, but what if he's telling the truth about the diabetic thing?

So what if he is? He still killed a person.

Ken King · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by sleuth
I've haven't followed the story, but what if he's telling the truth about the diabetic thing?

Telling the truth that he was operating a vehicle while suffering from a known medical condition that could and did impact his ability to safely control the automobile resulting in the death of an innocent motorist.

I see this as simply a person of notoriety receiving preferential treatment.

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by dustin
So what if he is? He still killed a person.

What was his charge?

At the very least, if he is telling the truth, I would presume that his charge be reduced to 'involuntary' manslaughter at most.

The speeding and reckless driving charges, IMO, should be dropped, and I don't know what 'second-degree' manslaughter means.

Of course... this is all dependent upon whether he's telling the truth.

You wouldn't convict someone who had a stroke behind the wheel and caused an accident with a crime, would you?

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ken King
Telling the truth that he was operating a vehicle while suffering from a known medical condition that could and did impact his ability to safely control the automobile resulting in the death of an innocent motorist.

I see this as simply a person of notoriety receiving preferential treatment.

Didn't the state see him as fit to have a license? I'm not saying the guy didn't have a responsibility to keep his blood-sugar levels under control before getting into a car, but someone granted him the license.

Lots of people have known medical conditions that could impact ability to drive, but they're given licenses every day.

Ken King · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by sleuth
Didn't the state see him as fit to have a license? I'm not saying the guy didn't have a responsibility to keep his blood-sugar levels under control before getting into a car, but someone granted him the license.

Lots of people have known medical conditions that could impact ability to drive, but they're given licenses every day.

And people with licenses drink and drive too. You can get a license with a disability but should that disability be used to mitigate the circumstances surrounding a fatality, if so, then maybe those with disabilities shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Bottom line is that Janklow is just trying to shift blame away from his own responsibility. 100 days for killing another is a crime in itself when they give others close to a year for a DUI.

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ken King
And people with licenses drink and drive too. You can get a license with a disability but should that disability be used to mitigate the circumstances surrounding a fatality, if so, then maybe those with disabilities shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Bottom line is that Janklow is just trying to shift blame away from his own responsibility. 100 days for killing another is a crime in itself when they give others close to a year for a DUI.

My cousin is epileptic and she can't be insured (bump for cari - does that sound feasible?).

I think the question of whether people with certain disabilities should be allowed to drive is definitely up for debate.

However, regardless of whether Janklow is shifting blame, I don't think that, again assuming he was being truthful, that the punishment is fair.

And yes... I would think the same thing if it were one of my loved ones that died. I might start a campaign to ban certain disabled people from obtaining licenses, but I wouldn't have the guy's reputation, livelihood, and freedom jeopardized if I honestly thought he went into diabetic shock.

dustin · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by sleuth

but I wouldn't have the guy's reputation, livelihood, and freedom jeopardized if I honestly thought he went into diabetic shock.

He made the choice not to eat when he should have. He knows that it could have affected his health. He made a choice. He made the wrong choice...and should be punished accordingly.

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by kwillia
Yep... I have to agree with dustin on this... he is an adult fully aware of his medical condition and the reprecussions of not eating. He was negligent and responsible for that man's death.

How many diabetics have you know that, at least one time or another, had low blood-sugar because they weren't able to follow their regular eating schedule? And... I might add, many of them get behind the wheel of a car. They were lucky.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, can't emotions play into blood-sugar levels? If he had just had an argument before...

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by kwillia
It is his responsiblity to eat or suffer the consequences...

I concur with that statement.
I just don't concur with the punishment. I think the accidental nature of the event should warrant a reduction in the severity of the charges. Should he serve his time? Perhaps. But should his whole life be ruined? I disagree with that.

mainman · May 20, 2004

I agree with Kwill, if he did not eat, then he knew the risk and he rolled the dice.

How is this different from drinking a few and getting behind the wheel? You drink and get behind the wheel, you know you are taking a chance...

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by mainman
How is this different from drinking a few and getting behind the wheel? You drink and get behind the wheel, you know you are taking a chance...

Drinking and driving is illegal. Driving with low blood sugar is not. If you want to make driving with low blood sugar a crime (and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that), then I say go after him with the same zeal that you would go after a drunk driver. :cheers:

mainman · May 20, 2004

I understand the legality, I was leaning more towards the risk factor and the fact that by not eating he was posing a risk...

sleuth · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by kwillia
You do know you can face charges if you take antihistimines and get behind the wheel, right...:shrug:

Sleuth, he did do something illegal. He was negligent and that resulted in death. It resulted in charges followed by conviction. They couldn't of convicted if he didn't break any laws...

The charges were speeding, reckless driving, and manslaughter... not driving with low blood sugar.

Using my stroke or heart attack (overweight people who suffer heart attacks know they're at risk of one, too) example above, would you convict a guy who has a heart attack behind the wheel and crashes and kills another victim of any of those crimes above?

You could say he was negligent too, by not losing a few pounds and reducing the risk of a heart attack.

Hello6 · May 20, 2004

He may or may not have had diabetic issues, the fact of the matter is that he was driving WAY over the speed limit and he blew through a stop sign. That isn't the first time that he'd done it either. He got special treatment for being a politician.

JabbaJawz · May 20, 2004

Originally posted by sleuth
Using my stroke or heart attack (overweight people who suffer heart attacks know they're at risk of one, too) example above, would you convict a guy who has a heart attack behind the wheel and crashes and kills another victim of any of those crimes above?

You could say he was negligent too, by not losing a few pounds and reducing the risk of a heart attack.

I was rear-ended by a 74 year old woman who was having a stroke and unable to stop at the traffic light - she ran into me full speed. I surely don't think she could have prevented it.

The diabetic thing is very different from a stroke or heart attack, and I don't see how you can compare them in this scenario.

dustin · May 20, 2004

I just hope the mothertrucker got his bunghole raped 3 times a day while he was in there....I'm sure some pissed off "segregated prisoners" found a way to get to him....

He's Out

24/7 Single Dad

A little rusty but not crusty

Repete

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

UAIOE

A little rusty but not crusty

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

A little rusty but not crusty

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

UAIOE

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

Set Trippin

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

Set Trippin

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'

Princess of Mean

Be about it

UAIOE