TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:There is a difference between a person who through an accident and no major negligence hits a kid and a person who is being unbelievably negligent and kills a child through his own stupidity and lack of care for he child.

I think the point is that the difference may not be as obvious as it seems at the time of the incident. The guy I mentioned above...the stroke caused him to floor the accelerator and it looked to an observer like it was deliberate. Some people thought he was drunk.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:anygun, would you not want to do the same if someone hit your child or wife or insert family member here....????

Ultra, read my post again or go back and read CPD's post in the Detroit thread. There is a difference between thinking/feeling and actually doing. CPD's post stated someone WOULD BE BEATEN as if it was a fact if they ran over a child in his area. That is why he said he was "attacked" in the other thread.

Anygunanywhere

I keep my dogs in my yard and don't allow them out into the street. Seems like responsible parents would keep their children more secure than I keep my dogs. And neither my wife nor I stand in the street where cars might hit us. As far as beating people after an accident goes....in our old neighborhood we had a car crash into a neighbor's house.....through a drainage ditch and across the yard. Fortunately, the driver didn't run over anyone.....but he wasn't trying to and he wasn't drunk either....he'd had a stroke. Personally, I think it would have been bad form to have administered a beating to this man even if he had injured a child.

Pawpaw wrote:

Jaguar wrote:Um, speed bumps?

I like what they call "speed humps". When they're designed and built right, you can drive over them up to the speed limit without issue. At 5 over, they will loosen your teeth.

I don't know about that...I've found if you go fast enough you sort of just "fly" over them.