"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> One can never be sure of course but from the accident reconstruction
> diagram published in the Big "O", it appears that bike lanes could
> well have made a difference.
What I fear is that the taxpayers will spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars on defense council who will use this same general argument that, if
there had been bike lanes, even though his client was shitface drunk and
driving illegally after having a previous conviction the same year for drunk
driving, it could have been provided.
You see, it's our fault for not having arbitrary white lines to protect our
citizens from alcoholic outlaw drivers who fail to obey the law anyhow. It's
a shame it happened, yaddayadda, but really we as a community are partly to
blame and all that.
-c
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:24:14 GMT, "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>
>> But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
>> the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
>
>What do you think about requiring registration fees for commuter-quality
>bikes? (Ie, not the little pink one with the white tires that the little
>girl is riding out in front of my house, or the BMX bike that the little
>dude down the street rides out in the field?)
I think it's ridiculous that Portland doesn't do so. Eugene did when
I lived there--required licensing and registration, at least on campus
(and it was a good idea, more or less, considering the amount of
campus bike theft).
jrw
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307101438470.25088-100000@no-spam
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
>
> -snips-
>
> > Anyway, the police officer should be suspended
> > (or fired and prosecuted) if it's found he
> > erred in his action with Ms. William,
>
> A bit severe for merely erring, whouldn't you think?
>
> You know -anyone- who never errs in their job?
>
> Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
> A bit more would seem required.
When someone's mere error causes death, and that someone has the
legally-sanctioned power of life and death over their charges, the code of
responsibility is higher than someone who spilled gasoline on your trunk
lid, don't you think?
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307111315410.25411-100000@no-spam
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Da Parrot-chick wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > > -snips-
>
> > > > Anyway, the police officer should be suspended
> > > > (or fired and prosecuted) if it's found he
> > > > erred in his action with Ms. William,
>
> > > A bit severe for merely erring, whouldn't you think?
>
> > > You know -anyone- who never errs in their job?
>
> > > Prosecution for mere errors seems a bit much.
> > > A bit more would seem required.
>
> > When someone's mere error causes death, and that someone has the
> > legally-sanctioned power of life and death over their charges, the code
of
> > responsibility is higher than someone who spilled gasoline on your trunk
> > lid, don't you think?
>
> But -prosecution_? For errors?
>
> Usually we require at least gross negligence to prosecute folks, not
> mere errors in judgment or technique.
>
> Peace and justice
IMO when a death occurs at the hands of police, a terrible error has
occurred. It may have been the cop fired when he didn't need to, or it may
be that the cop was returning fire. It doesn't matter; someone is dead. If
the error was a matter of inadequate training or the wrong person issued a
badge, then IMO that is prosecutable. The grand jury cleared Officer
McCollister in the death of Kendra James, but that doesn't mean that it was
a simple error. She didn't deserve to be killed; she wasn't attacking him.