MPA-armed idiot of the day.

[Dave2]

...we weren't told whether or not he has a CHL...I hope not...but his MPA days may soon be over, too...as they need to be...

So...using that logic we should get rid of CHLs the next time a individual holder does something stupid?

Attempted murder is a felony, so yes, your CHL would be revoked.

[steve817]

...we weren't told whether or not he has a CHL...I hope not...but his MPA days may soon be over, too...as they need to be...

So...using that logic we should get rid of CHLs the next time a individual holder does something stupid?

Settle down and read speedsix's quote again. I'm not attacking you. As a matter of fact I read it the same way you did at first.

[Excaliber]

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

Careless is still reckless.

In common speech, yes. Under the law, no.

Careless isn't a mental state that makes an act prosecutable. Reckless, a higher standard, is.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.03(c) the culpable mental state of "reckless" is defined this way:

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

IANAL, but I see a significant difference here.

[MoJo]

Another example of why the use of cell phones while driving should be illegal. What you want to bet she was texting? Require a hands free device and NO texting!

[Dave2]

Another example of why the use of cell phones while driving should be illegal. What you want to bet she was texting? Require a hands free device and NO texting!

Texting is obviously a no-no, but I'm not aware of any statistical evidence that using a hands-free device affects your driving any more or less than holding the phone to your head.

[C-dub]

Another example of why the use of cell phones while driving should be illegal. What you want to bet she was texting? Require a hands free device and NO texting!

Texting is obviously a no-no, but I'm not aware of any statistical evidence that using a hands-free device affects your driving any more or less than holding the phone to your head.

The only evidence I can offer is that I can't concentrate on anything other than the conversation with that little thing in my ear or when talking through my car via bluetooth. I can, however, look around and focus on my driving if I'm just holding the phone to my ear for a call. What can I say, I'm weird.

[jmra]

Another example of why the use of cell phones while driving should be illegal. What you want to bet she was texting? Require a hands free device and NO texting!

We don't need another law. It is already illegal to change lanes without signaling which in effect is what she did. Want to nail her on something, nail her on that.If you must pass laws to eliminate distracted driving, cell phones is way down the list. Start with food, drinks, books, magazines, newspapers, makeup, shavers, loud music, the list goes on.
I have been conducting business on the phone while driving since the days of radio phones and I have never been at fault in an accident.

In this case she could have dropped any number of things. The problem wasn't that she dropped something, it was that she made the poor decision to pick it up while she was still driving.

Of course the real issue here has nothing to do with her or cell phones.

[ddurkof]

If I were to shoot at every idiot that drove poorly I would need to mount a minigun on the car for my daily commute around town.

[gringo pistolero]

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

That's true, but if she caused a fatal crash then he would have been as dead as if she did it intentionally.

I'm not defending the road rager, who should be punished, but I'm also not excusing her negligent or reckless driving.

[Excaliber]

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

That's true, but if she caused a fatal crash then he would have been as dead as if she did it intentionally.

I'm not defending the road rager, who should be punished, but I'm also not excusing her negligent or reckless driving.

There's no question that she messed up a little, and there was no crash.

He messed up a lot. There's definitely a bullet hole where there shouldn't be one.

A small unintentional error doesn't justify the use of deadly force, and there's a clear disparity in severity between the two mistakes.

[speedsix]

...we weren't told whether or not he has a CHL...I hope not...but his MPA days may soon be over, too...as they need to be...

So...using that logic we should get rid of CHLs the next time a individual holder does something stupid?

...not logic...LAW...once found guilty of a felony...especially a gun-related felony...you're no longer allowed to have a gun...by state and federal law...is that really news to you??? if you want to post something as your opinion, please do so...but please don't relate it to me as "that logic"...your post has nothing to do with the thread...or what I posted...notice the little words "he" and "his"...

[Dave2]

If I were to shoot at every idiot that drove poorly I would need to mount a minigun on the car for my daily commute around town.

I bet you'd get there faster if you drove around with it already spun-up.

[Lambda Force]

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

Careless is still reckless.

In common speech, yes. Under the law, no.

Careless isn't a mental state that makes an act prosecutable. Reckless, a higher standard, is.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.03(c) the culpable mental state of "reckless" is defined this way:

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

IANAL, but I see a significant difference here.

If she wasn't aware of the substantial risk created by driving without looking at the road, she shouldn't have a license.

[Excaliber]

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

Careless is still reckless.

In common speech, yes. Under the law, no.

Careless isn't a mental state that makes an act prosecutable. Reckless, a higher standard, is.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.03(c) the culpable mental state of "reckless" is defined this way:

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

IANAL, but I see a significant difference here.

If she wasn't aware of the substantial risk created by driving without looking at the road, she shouldn't have a license.

If everyone who has ever looked away from the road for a moment to take care of something happening inside the car had his or her license revoked, traffic would be light indeed.

Keep in mind she did not cause a wreck. We don't know how far she strayed out of her lane, or even if she strayed over the lane markings. The guy who shot at her may simply have taken offense at her drifting in his direction.

As you may have gathered by now, I'm not a big fan of focusing on trying to hang the victim of a life threatening felony for some perceived imperfection that in no way justifies what was done to him or her.

[goose]

If I were to shoot at every idiot that drove poorly I would need to mount a minigun on the car for my daily commute around town.

I bet you'd get there faster if you drove around with it already spun-up.

You guys do realize that a sawzall is still considered a deadly weapon right?