Asshole Murdering Street Racers

[WatchYourStep 0]

Fly-

Thanks for the reason in your statements.

I have a few things to write and then off to bed.

1st. lawrocket and I worked our stuff out via pm. I can understand where his anger comes from.

2nd. I don't encourage people to go out and do this. I'm not a cooler person for being able to ride fast or anything along those lines.

3rd. For those who don't know the situation where I rode at a higher speed you shouldn't judge. Since my conditions haven't been read by some I will give them here.

We have a stretch of 1.8 miles which is a straight away, no hills, no curves, no houses. We (about 8 of us) split up into 2 groups. We have radios at each end. When no cars are coming 1 person will hit it from point A to point B. Only 1 person at a time. WE AREN'T RACING EACH OTHER. The rider stays on their side of the road. We have a marker when 1/2 mile remains until we get to the other riders. At that point we start our breaking procedure. If we see a car come onto the straight at any point we slow down to normal speeds. We also have an off duty EMT on site. People stepping out onto the road isn't possible given the location. If anyone is going to get hurt it's the rider and we all know this. We are all experienced riders. In town we never do crazy stunts as it isn't the place. Nor do we ever ride fast 2 up.

I feel for lawrocket during this time.

"You start off your skydiving career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience up before your bag of luck runs out."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I've often thought that street racers should be imprisoned for a very long time. After last night, though, I'm beginning to think of far worse things to do to street racers.

Am I a vengeful man? Hell, yes. Is that wrong? Fuck you to everyone who says "You need to forgive" and "Retribution won't bring her back."

Diana, the paralegal next door, was killed last night by street racers. I had the sorry pleasure of meeting her 11 year old and 7 year old daughters at a baby shower on Saturday. Those two beautiful children are without their mother because a couple of punk-ass motherfucking reprobates feel the need to compensate for what little manhood or womanhood they feel. A nice start to summer for those girls, eh?

Apparently, one of them sideswiped Diana, spinning her around and directing her into the opposite lane where a box truck t-boned her at full speed. Police are now searching for the two racers. Both of them apparently escaped injury or significant damage to their cars. I think three others were injured in this horrible crash.

What should they be charged with, when found? I say capital murder. I think a fit punishment for them is lifelong quadriplegia. Let them move at the speed Christopher Reeve moved for the last few years of his life. All it takes is a brief surgery.

Life in prison withou parole is a good one, too. Execution is also appropriate.

Any of you who think this was an accident, fuck you, too. People are apparently killed by streetracers every day. Streetracers off themselves, too. Quite often. But they seem to have a peculiar ability to take others with them.

Why can't they go to a track to race? Not cool enough? Don't want to pay the money?

I'm white hot mad right now. I'm dreading the mood in the offices today. All because some punks felt the need to show off.

Rant over.

Sorry for the loss and I understand the anger/hate.

Maybe you can help the prosecutor if they are found. With punk-asses likethat type, they will certainly brag.

What should they be charged with, when found? I say capital murder. I think a fit punishment for them is lifelong quadriplegia. Let them move at the speed Christopher Reeve moved for the last few years of his life.

They'll be charged with 2nd for sure.... no elements for 1st.

There was an attorney named Mark Torre who was drunk and driving his mudsatin fast near ASU, killed a 19yo college girl; cut her in half they say. They actually charged him with 2nd and got it. He got 11 years. He was an Ivy League grad as I recall, worked for a prestigious law frim at soemthing like 26yo.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2001-095428

Not quite street racing, but same concept.

Best of wishes coping

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I found out today from one of her coworkers that her boss paid for a life insurance policy for her. This policy took effect on June 1. So, there is money to help the kids out.

Nice. No consolation, but life must go on for the little ones, who must be devastated.....

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Why can't they go to a track to race? Not cool enough? Don't want to pay the money?

Not to take anything away from the wrongness of what they did but I'd like to try to answer this question.

It's tough to race at a track. Mostly due to lawyers. The tracks are so scared that someone will get hurt there are significant hurdles to pass just to run a solo lap. Yeah, it costs $$ but that is relatively insignificant.

To actually RACE someone, you pretty much need to be running a spec car in an approved event, after spending a lot of time at the track running in solo events to prove you aren't going to kill anyone or yourself.

Dude, it's not very expensive to go to an SCCA event and get on a track. It's even cheaper to just join a local driving club that buys track time. Most street racers spend enough cash tweaking their cars that the cost of track time is pretty insignificant by comparison.

I'd guess that the reasons people race on streets have to do with risk preferring behavior, rather than expense or difficulty getting on the track.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[UntamedDOG 0]

Quote

Am I a vengeful man? Hell, yes. Is that wrong? Fuck you to everyone who says "You need to forgive" and "Retribution won't bring her back."

People fuck up sometimes. Haven't you ever fucked up before? Life is harsh. Sometimes people take their aggressions out by racing their cars. Other people jump out of planes from 12K feet. Have you ever wondered how dangerous a human body is in freefall to the people and property on the ground?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Have you ever wondered how dangerous a human body is in freefall to the people and property on the ground?

Infinitely less dangerous than a car racing down a highway at dangerous speeds.

Compare how many people are killed in racing related incidents vs getting hit by falling skydivers for any given year.

[billvon 2,991]

>Sometimes people take their aggressions out by racing their cars.
> Other people jump out of planes from 12K feet. Have you ever
> wondered how dangerous a human body is in freefall to the people
> and property on the ground?

Number of people killed in 2001 due to street racing: 135
Number of people killed in 2001 by a skydiver falling on their heads: 0

Street racing: illegal
Skydiving: legal

Street racers - run from cops and hide their activities
Skydivers - call ATC before jumping and coordinate with the FAA

You're right! They're exactly the same. As you have shown, anyone who thinks skydiving is any different than street racing is a total hypocrite.

[UntamedDOG 0]

Quote

Street racing: illegal
Skydiving: legal

Ever since watching “The Fast and the Furious” I've had a soft spot in my heart for street racers. I’m totally sad that your friend died. The question I have for the O.P. is what do you plan to do with all of your anger? What if they never find the racers involved in the accident? Don’t dwell on these lost dreams and broken hearts. It just isn’t worth it.

It isn't your problem to "deal" with.

[billvon 2,991]

>Ever since watching “The Fast and the Furious” I've had a soft spot
>in my heart for street racers.

Take my advice and DON'T see Reservoir Dogs!

[Astro 0]

Quote

Take my advice and DON'T see Reservoir Dogs!

Reservoir Dogs has nothing whatsoever to do with street racing.

Nor with dogs for that matter.

Why mention this title?

Woof.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I presume his point was that untamedDOG might then gain a soft spot in his heart for homicidal bank robbers who run from the law just has he gained a soft spot for homicidal car drivers who run from the law when he watched another Hollywood concoction.

A soft spot for killers is odd. Gaining it from watching a fictional movie is even odder.

Here it's a life sentence for motor manslaughter where racing was involved – the law treats them just like the murdering bank robbers depicted in Reservoir Dogs. Hell at least the bank robbers are doing it for money; racers just want to get a hard on over themselves.

[NoseFallDown 0]

Quote

A soft spot for killers is odd. Gaining it from watching a fictional movie is even odder.

Ooooh! But HBO has made a mint from its hit series Band of Brothers, which is a story about real-life killers. The masses sure seem to harbor a soft spot for those fictional heroes. Shimon-A! Whoo-hooooo! We should all be brotherzzzzzzz! Wuuuh!!

[mr2mk1g 10]

You forget that the characters in Band of Brothers were not fictional but quite real.

And I doubt there's much to be gained in arguing the difference between Honored soldiers defending our nations and a couple of pricks out to discover who 'riced up' their car the best.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

is what do you plan to do with all of your anger?

Me? I plan on letting it out. Fortunately, as opposed to doing it in a way that recklessly endangers others, I'll vent on here.

Speaking of venting, I hope you never watch Roots. I wouldn't want you developing a soft spot for those slave owners.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Great answer

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[EBSB52 0]

The actual numbers are pretty small as compared to the 115 people per day or so that get killed on the roads each day. I don't know the breakdown of how many are caused by drunk drivers, but I would guess the numbers are pretty significant, far more than the .4 per day caused by street racers. But if it happens to yoiu or a loved one then the numbers are real significant.

I think the stigma surrounding street racing draws more ire and appears more wastefull when something like this happens. I would imagine about the same number of people are killed by seniors that shouldn't be driving, but it seems so much more meaningless since there is no evil intent apparent.

On another note, I don't see skydiving as a way to take out aggression. It may be nuts at times, but if it's aggressive it would be stupid. What is aggressive skydiving? Weird...

[EricTheRed 0]

Tom,

In reference to

Quote

Dude, it's not very expensive to go to an SCCA event and get on a track. It's even cheaper to just join a local driving club that buys track time. Most street racers spend enough cash tweaking their cars that the cost of track time is pretty insignificant by comparison.

I totally agree. The cost is pretty insignificant. SCCA wont let you race the highly modded cars preferred by these guys though. They like to keep the playing field level and only allow very specific mods. It's not the $$ as I stated this is relatively insignificant. Thinking about it it's mostly about the control and ridgidity of these events. The SCCA is a great organization, very safety conscious and I'd highly recommend that anyone really interested in racing attend an event. I was just stating that it's NOT easy to race legally. It requires work and dedication and the ability to prove that you and your car are safe before you are turned loose on a track.

Unfortunately there are too few individuals that are capable of this level of responsibility.

I also agree with your assessment the prime motivation has more to do with the thrill of the risk.

illegible usually

[justinb138 0]

Quote

The cost is pretty insignificant. SCCA wont let you race the highly modded cars preferred by these guys though.

Highly modded?

99% of the cars I've come across have done nothing more than add a loud exhaust pipe, a cheap body kit and a bunch of stickers.

The few I know who actually have done more to their cars care enough to take it to the local track to race.

I'm going to agree with Tom on this one - it's about the risk-preferring behavior, not the cost.

[favaks 0]

The SCCA allows highly modded cars to be raced. The cars are bumped up to higher classes where they are no longer competitive.

-favaks

[flyingferret 0]

Minobu, in reference to these numbers, billvons comments, etc, I disagree with you.

135 people in a year killed from street racing, when almost the same number get killed daily on the road.

Your argument about intent is flawed in my opinion. You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible. The numbers about cell phones are everywhere, literally.
As I stated before studies show that driving with a handheld cell phone is equivalent to a Blood Alcohol Content of .08. Think about that for a minute.....it produces the same slow reactions and bad judgement as driving drunk! It is hard to avoid this perception...it is all over the news.
If anyone chooses to still practice it, they are knowingly ignoring the advice. SO, in my opinion they are no less irresponsible that someone who wants to go fast. There are no numbers that will show that going fast is like being a drunk driver...they just arent there. There are too many other variables.
I know a lot of people that drive fast, and I am not referring to street racing speeds (although by virtue of this thread, that has not even been defined) and are very alert and competent drivers. I know other people that never drive fast, but practically bumble and mosey down the highway. As a driver and a biker, I can predict the actions of a fast moving car in many cases. I cannot however predict the actions of slow moving cell phone using SUV driver....because the entire prediction is that they will be erratic.

So, AGAIN, am I adocating either? No.
What I am saying is that there are many more common driving habit that are just as irresponsible and kill per people simply because of the sheer numerb of driver's will to engage in them. The perception of this thread extends to real life and dictates that people who would not top 100mph because it is 'unsafe' would be willing to pay more attention to their cell phone that the road, becuase is 'mostly safe' The very perception that it is safe is what makes it more dangerous.

Take a look at the numbers....because your argument is the same as people looking at high performance landing accidents and alleging that skydiving kills people. The high visibility sensationalism is grabbing attention. I am not arguing that swooping (street racing) is safe, I am simply saying that there are a lot of other dangerous habit which get accepted by nature of being less blatant that are just as dangerous in skydiving (driving)

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Minobu, in reference to these numbers, billvons comments, etc, I disagree with you.

135 people in a year killed from street racing, when almost the same number get killed daily on the road.

Your argument about intent is flawed in my opinion. You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible. The numbers about cell phones are everywhere, literally.
As I stated before studies show that driving with a handheld cell phone is equivalent to a Blood Alcohol Content of .08. Think about that for a minute.....it produces the same slow reactions and bad judgement as driving drunk! It is hard to avoid this perception...it is all over the news.
If anyone chooses to still practice it, they are knowingly ignoring the advice. SO, in my opinion they are no less irresponsible that someone who wants to go fast. There are no numbers that will show that going fast is like being a drunk driver...they just arent there. There are too many other variables.
I know a lot of people that drive fast, and I am not referring to street racing speeds (although by virtue of this thread, that has not even been defined) and are very alert and competent drivers. I know other people that never drive fast, but practically bumble and mosey down the highway. As a driver and a biker, I can predict the actions of a fast moving car in many cases. I cannot however predict the actions of slow moving cell phone using SUV driver....because the entire prediction is that they will be erratic.

So, AGAIN, am I adocating either? No.
What I am saying is that there are many more common driving habit that are just as irresponsible and kill per people simply because of the sheer numerb of driver's will to engage in them. The perception of this thread extends to real life and dictates that people who would not top 100mph because it is 'unsafe' would be willing to pay more attention to their cell phone that the road, becuase is 'mostly safe' The very perception that it is safe is what makes it more dangerous.

Take a look at the numbers....because your argument is the same as people looking at high performance landing accidents and alleging that skydiving kills people. The high visibility sensationalism is grabbing attention. I am not arguing that swooping (street racing) is safe, I am simply saying that there are a lot of other dangerous habit which get accepted by nature of being less blatant that are just as dangerous in skydiving (driving)

Actually those were my numbers/arguments I thionk you were answering, not Minobo's.

Your argument about intent is flawed in my opinion. You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible.

I was speaking more from a legal perspective rather than a layman one. Responsible/irrepsonsible refers to civil liability/strict liability. It only requires Actus Reus, generally no Mens Rea.

Intent/evil intent generally defines Mens Rea, which is what I was saying that elderly drivers wouldn't have, but street racers do have, so this is another tired issue of ends justifying the means - if someone dies it was an evil act, otherwise it's a nuisance. Furthermore, if an elderly person slams into a crowd of people, as in Santa Monica a few years ago and wasn't even arrested, the outcome is that there was no evil intent. If it was an out of control kid in a ricer, homicide x # of fatalities, maybe 2nd degree.

Point is, this is not a measure of harm done, it's a measure of intent, even though statistically elderly drivers might kill more people than street racers. Kind of a semantic argument, but, IT'S THE WAY IT IS.

You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible.

Again, this is the definition of strict liability, no requirement for Mens Rea (evil intent). Most criminal findings of guilt require the prosecutor prove a culmination of Mens Rea and Actus Reas - there are exceptions.

As I stated before studies show that driving with a handheld cell phone is equivalent to a Blood Alcohol Content of .08.

I'd like to see those studies. Again, very subjective.

...it is all over the news.

And on the internet - must be true.

SO, in my opinion they are no less irresponsible that someone who wants to go fast.

And soccer momc are as "irresponsible" too, right? Those who eat while driving as worse, since their hands and mouth are preoccupied. The problems with American vehicle laws are that they paint with a broad brush. I realize that is somewhet neccessary in order to be fair, but I think driving instruction/competency should be increased. What's to say that even if some very inept drivers follow all laws and avoid all distractions get into a situation can handle it correctly? The system assumes all people are at some level of competency that is equal because they can pass an idiot written test, read 3 foot letters on the wall, and parallel park a car with 10 attempts. I like Germany's and other European country's program that actually requires drivers demonstrate some skill.

....because the entire prediction is that they will be erratic.

Which is still a prediction. I have owned 4 Gixxers and driven them thousands of miles, so I know what it is to predict all kinds of erratic behavior.

[lawrocket 3]

I think you are confusing the issue somewhat. There is a big difference between negligence and recklessness. People mess up all the time. Sometimes these mistakes kill.

However, recklessness is different. Recklessness is when you do something while aware of the elevated risks of injuries to others. Unlike talking on a cell phone, the act of racing has dangers that are self-apparent. Deliberately doing, despite the likelihood of harm, is recklessness.

I call it a depraved heart. No, they didn't intend to kill anybody. So what? Negligence is failing to ensure that a round was not chambered in the rifle and accidentally discharging it. Recklessness is spraying bullets into the air. Sure, you don't mean to hit anybody, but there's a good chance someone will get killed.

Quote

You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Irresponsibility is negligence. Intent to be irresponsible, regardless of the foreseeable consequences, is recklessness. Thank you for making a great point.

Quote

there are a lot of other dangerous habit which get accepted by nature of being less blatant that are just as dangerous in skydiving (driving)

Indeed. It's the deliberate and knowing increase of risk to everyone else that is dispositive. Drivign is dangerous, and people accept that due to the utility of driving. But doing somethig simply for the sake of increasing danger and hazards is a different story. Cell phones cause more danger? Yep, but there are good arguments for the utility of cell phones while driving. On the other hand, there is no social utility to driving drunk or street racing.

It's a pretty big difference.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>SO, in my opinion they are no less irresponsible that someone
>who wants to go fast.

IF they talked on the phone because they wanted to be a hazard on the road and 'get noticed' for their irresponsible behavior, then I agree with you. In general, that's not the case. People go fast because they like going fast and they want to show off. People talk on phones because they (for example) need directions or need to coordinate meeting places.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

People go fast because they like going fast and they want to show off. People talk on phones because they (for example) need directions or need to coordinate meeting places.

People make needed calls on their cellphones while driving because they're too lazy to pull over. Unecessary calls are just entertainment. There's no moral difference between being a menace because you feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There's no moral difference between being a menace because you feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped.

Other than the whole 'legal vs illegal' thing, right?

i know, i know - many here didn't get the upbringing to relate morality to legality, at least in this case.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants