What Would Be The Judgment Call Here?

[ABMorales787]

Over here there's been an increase in traffic accidents. So now we get a commercial to promote being more careful on the road. Its actually quite an impactful commercial. It features a very realistic crash with a woman being hit by a speeding car. However. While watch the video my grandpa make a rather unusual question to me. It had me thinking. I'll sound dumb but it put my mind to work:

In the commercial, the woman doesn't look before crossing even though the light is red. One car coming from the distance brakes suddenly and stops before hitting the woman. She walks but still doesn't look both ways. In comes the speeding car and hits her. The commercial ends there and the scenario in question starts here. She's hit, but not too bad. Several internal injuries and bruised bones. The driver doesn't show much of a reaction however the woman regains conscience and see's the uncaring person who hit her. She reacts with anger and batters the driver and has to be restrained. She keeps trying to break free claiming she will kill him (the driver). The driver is left battered and bruised. Not to the extent of the woman but close.

You as the judge. What would you rule. Obviously the driver will get his for speeding, crossing a red light and hitting a bystander. But what about the victim? Who decided to act in revenge and attempted to "kill" the irresponsible driver? Do let you her go and assume she was acting on impulse following the shock? Do you charge her with assault?

I wouldn't know what to do, really. Whatever decision I make, I believe will draw controversy.

 

[BladeRunner]

Well it's all about motive.

Most people driving on the street aren't specifically aiming on hitting people.

So, chances are, the guy driving was not wanting to hit anyone on purpose.

Should you blame someone for an accident that hurts you?

Well, if someone tripped and fell on you, thus breaking your leg, is it the person's fault that tripped? No, really, it's more like gravity's fault, or bodily incompetence if anything. Nobody's perfectly coordinated.

Now back to the topic at hand. Guy ends up hitting her because of both being reckless.

He is responsible for hitting her that much can be said. But it probably wasn't on purpose. Nevertheless he should be held responsible for hitting her.

Now she, on the other hand, purposefully attacked the guy going so far as to say she wanted to kill him. You can't just chalk all that up to her being hit. Just because she got in an accident does not give her a right to violently assault someone. You can't even call it self defense, because the guy wasn't trying to harm her. So, she too should be held responsible for the violence she has done.

So I'm saying, because one's motivation is clearly intent to harm, while the other's is wrecklessness, you should be more lenient on the one who wasn't clearly intending to harm anyone. So he gets reckless endangerment. And I would hold the other accountable for assault.

 

[Miko]

When you say the light is red that means that it should be safe to cross? Or do you mean the little walking man symbol? You've got me confused on that one.

Anyway, going on the assumption that it's not safe to cross and she doesnt look, then I'd charge her with all I could, I am not going to feel too sorry for someone who got hit because of their own stupidity and then decided to take it out on the driver, who I will also charge with anything I could, for speeding.

On the assumption that it's safe to cross, then I'd be very lenient on the woman hit, she's just been hit by a car and is quite emotional, and to the injured driver, well it's just a few cuts and bruises, he'll get over it, fucking pussy. I'd still charge him to the full extent though.

 

[Razor]

In the commercial, the woman doesn't look before crossing even though the light is red. One car coming from the distance brakes suddenly and stops before hitting the woman. She walks but still doesn't look both ways. In comes the speeding car and hits her. The commercial ends there and the scenario in question starts here. She's hit, but not too bad. Several internal injuries and bruised bones. The driver doesn't show much of a reaction however the woman regains conscience and see's the uncaring person who hit her. She reacts with anger and batters the driver and has to be restrained. She keeps trying to break free claiming she will kill him (the driver). The driver is left battered and bruised. Not to the extent of the woman but close.

You as the judge. What would you rule. Obviously the driver will get his for speeding, crossing a red light and hitting a bystander. But what about the victim? Who decided to act in revenge and attempted to "kill" the irresponsible driver? Do let you her go and assume she was acting on impulse following the shock? Do you charge her with assault?

It's simple. You follow the law.

Driver: Gets charged with speeding, passing through a red light, and aggravated assault, which I believe is a felony. (He wasn't purposefully attempting to murder the woman, so he can't be tried with attempted murder.)

Pedestrian: You can't charge her with getting hit when the light is red. She might not have looked both ways, but that doesn't matter when the the light is red. She would, however, be charged with assault for striking the driver. It's against the law to hit someone unless you are in egregious danger yourself. She was already hit. She wasn't in anymore danger.

Let there be controversy. I don't give a shit. The letter of the law was followed. There isn't any "spirit of the law" when dealing with assault or traffic laws.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think the woman should face far more serious time than the driver. What he did was an accident. He should get three tickets. One of running a red light, one for failing to control speed, and one for reckless endangerment. At that point, he should be allowed to go on about his way.

The woman however, should get charged with felony assault and battery. She should be hauled to jail, and after her arraignment, forced to sit and await trial. She should get two felony charges, one for felony aggravated assault and one for felony aggravated battery. She should serve five years. Furthermore, she should pay for all of the driver's injuries from the attack and not be allowed to make an insurance claim in that she was healthy enough to beat a fully grown man, so her injuries were not too serious.

 

[The Gribbler]

It's simple. You follow the law.

Driver: Gets charged with speeding, passing through a red light, and aggravated assault, which I believe is a felony. (He wasn't purposefully attempting to murder the woman, so he can't be tried with attempted murder.)

Pedestrian: You can't charge her with getting hit when the light is red. She might not have looked both ways, but that doesn't matter when the the light is red. She would, however, be charged with assault for striking the driver. It's against the law to hit someone unless you are in egregious danger yourself. She was already hit. She wasn't in anymore danger.

Let there be controversy. I don't give a shit. The letter of the law was followed. There isn't any "spirit of the law" when dealing with assault or traffic laws.

The law has loopholes for people who have undergone traumatic experiences and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. I somehow think being hit by the car falls under that category.

How she is walking, let alone attacking someone after being hit by the car is beyond me.

But I think I would try to kill someone who almost killed me if I was capable of doing it so im siding with the poor lady who just got hit.

Just My Opinion

P.S. On a side note does anyone else hate these commercials? Im sitting down to eat my dinner and I have to put up with the grusome image of lung cancer, or a woman who forgot to wear her seatbelt smashing through a car window.

I get the point but they make me freaking sick :S -

 

[Baller]

It's simple. You follow the law.

Driver: Gets charged with speeding, passing through a red light, and aggravated assault, which I believe is a felony. (He wasn't purposefully attempting to murder the woman, so he can't be tried with attempted murder.)

Pedestrian: You can't charge her with getting hit when the light is red. She might not have looked both ways, but that doesn't matter when the the light is red. She would, however, be charged with assault for striking the driver. It's against the law to hit someone unless you are in egregious danger yourself. She was already hit. She wasn't in anymore danger.

Let there be controversy. I don't give a shit. The letter of the law was followed. There isn't any "spirit of the law" when dealing with assault or traffic laws.

Couldn't have agreed more with Razor on this one. Both are at fault, but clearly the driver is going to have more problems then the pedestrian. The driver not only ran a red light, but was speeding and hit a pedestrian. That is 3 traffic violations, two of them won't be serious offenses, but when you hit someone and you combine the other 2 offenses then it adds up to some serious consequences, including time behind bars possibly.

The pedestrian could also be in some trouble because of the line "I am going to kill you", technically that is planning to murder, and can also lead to jail time as I believe that is a felony, but that is debatable by judge and jury, and can be seen in many different ways.

Overall, both are at fault, both can face jail time, but the driver is definitely in more trouble, as he is guaranteed jail time, while the pedestrian may be able to get away with it.