This is incredibly reductive and makes us look like idiots who don’t understand “intent”.
I get it, fuck cars, but this is ridiculous and only serves to make us look like a joke
“Oops, my foot slipped on the wrong pedal.”
Intent without confessions and manifestos may not be that easy to prove.
They’re not comparable.
If I’m at a firing range, where it is expected that people are carrying guns and ammunition, I can pull the same “oops, my finger slipped” excuse.
Similarly, if I drive my car around the side of your house and into your back yard to run you over, I can’t claim “my foot slipped”.
Seriously, stop with the mental gymnastics. We don’t need to reach for more reasons to say “fuck cars.” There are plenty within arms reach
Well, we shouldn’t build our cities around hundreds miles of firing ranges then, right?
See, THAT is a reasonable, thoughtful argument. Yes, the density of cars in our cities is dangerous.
But there is not some epidemic of vehicular murders going unpunished.
Rather, we have normalized living in a high risk environment. And THAT is the crux of the problem. Not law enforcement
You are the one doing mental gymnastics bro. What is that back yard comparison? Obviously you just swerve off the road, run him over and say you fell asleep - long day, had to work long hours to pay off my medical debt. Or have an old person run over CEOs, 80yo in cars kill people all the time because they should not be driving anymore. They always get off easy.
Similarly, if I drive my car around the side of your house and into your back yard to run you over, I can’t claim “my foot slipped”.
I see one of those posts with cars crashed into houses every week somewhere. No murder charge.
Perhaps that’s because… There usually aren’t fatalities inside the home???
Like, not only is it a giant, loud object that can be seen coming in many cases, but the impact with the house exterior dissipates a huge portion of the energy.
When people get killed my a car, they don’t die from the car hitting them. It’s almost always the impact with the ground that causes severe head trauma. Otherwise it’s a neck or spinal injury.
Those types of injuries are just way, way less likely to happen when a car drives into a building.
I’m getting really sick of people around here not showing even a modicum of logical thought and just screeching “CaRs BaD!!” every other sentence.
Fuck cars, for a lot of reasons. We don’t need to make up new ones that are silly and illogical. We have plenty of really good reasons to say fuck cars that don’t involve bullshit claims re: murder charges or a lack thereof
Hey, remember that story a while back about the rich kid that “accidentally” ran his truck through a pack of cyclists trying to roll coal on them? What ended up happening to him? (To be fair, nobody died, but still, 6 people seriously injured, at least a couple of those were life changing injuries, you’d think that would be comparable severity…)
We’re actually talking about this in another reply to my comment haha. Outcome is unknown because he was charged as a minor so literally everything is sealed but he did graduate highschool so not in prison
deleted by creator
Recklessness generally also works in place of intentionally. Negligence is even lower, but is often reserved for civil suits.
I get it, fuck cars, but this is ridiculous and only serves to make us look like a joke
This sub has looked like a joke since day one. Nothing new going on here.
You’re not helping. Stop being an inflammatory troll
every negative comment is not trolling. People should be able to express their dissatisfaction, constructive or not, without instantly getting labelled a “troll”.
Not every negative comment is trolling, but if every comment is negative then it is trolling. Or just an all around unlikable person, but most likely a troll.
Replying to trolls (instead of reporting and moving on with your day) is also not helping, FYI.
I’m sure that kid in Texas totally didn’t have intent when he ran over 12 people then backed up over them again
And did that kid get off with a “oopsies!”? No? Then how is that related to this thread?
If we are talking about the rolling coal kid, he did get off with an oopsie.
Would love to see a citation on this. Not familiar with the specifics and would love to know more but I had trouble finding this specific story
https://archive.ph/3tLtL#selection-1499.0-1499.550
More than a year passed with no news about the crash or charges against the driver. Then, in the winter of 2022, the Waller County District Attorney quietly closed the case without a public announcement. Because the defendant had been handled as a juvenile, the court proceedings and final verdict were sealed. Had the case been dropped? Was there a settlement?
The boy would soon graduate from Waller High School, walking across a stage in front of a large crowd. The victims wondered what level of remorse he felt in the wake of the crash, and whether he might go on to impart some measure of good on the world?
“I don’t think they ever could prove it was intentional,” DeToto said, getting into the legal semantics of recklessness versus the desire to do harm. “I’m not defending rolling coal on anybody. But that’s probably not going to be a Class A assault where you could go to jail. It’s going to be a Class C. It’s just like a ticket. Is it offensive? Yes. But it’s a different level than intentionally hitting a group of bikers.”
Yuck. That’s pretty distressing :( It sounds like the civil case is still ongoing? Maybe the parents will feel some burden (as guardians should in this case).
For what it’s worth, just to clarify for anyone reading along with the context of this conversation:
- nobody died in this incident, though multiple people suffered long term debilitating physical and psychological trauma
- the perpetrator was a minor, and in an assault case where there was no clear intent to cause physical harm - the trend of “rolling coal” being one of intimidation and clout-chasing - the virtue of pursuing criminal convictions that would be expunged before any sentencing of substance could occur is questionable
- as a minor, any plea agreement or settlement would be sealed. Not even the victims would be allowed to discuss it. So it’s very possible it wasn’t just an “oopsie” but a settlement where the kid lost his license, was placed under house arrest, was required to do community service, with the parents helping cover medical expenses… We’d never know. Which is itself a problem, for sure, because it undermines the deterrent factor for others!
- there is still an opportunity for civil remedies for the victims, and I’m confident their insurance providers will be trying to recoup their costs
What a shitty situation. Frankly, the law is just really poorly equipped to handle minors who engage in reckless endangerment with a vehicle. We badly need to get some better laws on the books for handling kids who show wonton disregard for others’ safety, especially when it’s just for clout
It seems like the prosecutor really did want to go hard on this case too. The article mentions a previous conviction against someone who actually did kill cyclists with their vehicle: life in prison
In 2017, an army veteran named Victor Tome had veered head-on into a group of people riding bikes in Waller County. The crash killed two riders. Tome, who’d been intoxicated on a mixture of drugs, received a life sentence without parole.
But to bring it back around to the OP: I think this kinda proves the point I was trying to make…nobody is getting away with murder. And I have a strong suspicion that if anyone had been killed, they’d have tried to prosecute the driver as an adult.
I need to go watch something happy after reading that article. What a horrible incident. Maybe the victims got justice and we won’t ever know, and it certainly seems like the city/county made some significant changes in the aftermath. But it still doesn’t feel right. :(
Then there’s the Sacklers pushing everyone on opioids until the US public is addicted and getting fentanyl off the street. 82,000 deaths in 2022. The trend is that number is rising.
Was it intentional that Purdue started the epidemic? Their lobbyists pushed doctors to over prescribe them including for instances that didn’t warrant them, including material bonuses. So not really, but their shareholders really like dividends even if people have to die for them.
Was it legal? Well, it hasn’t been made illegal yet
See, were not looking at the true evil.
In the case of cars, its not really the driver, but in the US, the stanglehold on transit held by big automotive and big fossil fuel. We have lots of highways (the Interstate Highway System is the biggest single project in the world) and they keep killing high speed trains and begrudge municipal transit, and parking requirements assure that every city is a sprawl of delineated asphalt.
There’s the evil. And since its propelling the climate crisis (and we’re running out of water) it is going to kill us all.
Too bad they threw billions at the far-right propaganda machine to push the fascist autocrat over the non-white non-male that wanted to transition to renewables.
Guns are pushed in the US, and kept fairly unregulated by the munitions companies. Their ads imply you can’t be a real man without a loaded firearm. I never got it, but everyone male on the far-right is super sensitive about their masculinity. And they really like guns.
🙌PREACH🙌
These are the types of arguments we ought to be making memes about. Well reasoned, well spoken, and based in facts that are irrefutable
Kudos. Thank you for doing “fuck cars” the right way 💪❤️
That’s exactly what it’s doing.
Yeah, and I’m bored by it. Gonna block now
deleted by creator
My friend’s mom got run over recently. The guy had the alcohol percentage that indicated he’d don’t at least ten shots of hard liquor in an hour and he was going well over the speed limit. He got her so hard it crumpled the front of his truck.
But in Cali, since it’s a first time offence, he’s getting like, a thousand dollar fine. The cremation is going to cost more.
I know this is stupid, but I’d argue any accident while drunk is premeditated murder. You knowingly got drunk. You knowingly got behind the wheel of a ton of metal and aimed it at someone. Maybe the person wasn’t chosen specifically, but your other actions are those of someone aiming to kill and preparing to do so in advance. You should be put away for the rest of your life.
And driving under the influence is attempted murder. Who gives a shit if you didn’t manage to hit anyone? You still tried to kill them, you cunt.
What the fuck?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Luigi didn’t kill that CEO as far as we know, and titles like this don’t help an innocent man.
Murder is with the intention to kill. This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
But they are too lenient on deathly accidents with gross negligence.
This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
Unless the driver admitted to wanting to kill someone on purpose with their car, the grey area between “I didn’t see them” to “I don’t know what happened.” makes it so that drivers are often only given a citation for a traffic violation (i.e. not stopping at a stop sign), if the victim is lucky enough for that level of “justice”.
It’s very rare to see a driver be convicted of anything beyond vehicular manslaughter, including when you have a history of driving offences, and run off like a coward after running over a cyclist.
edit: grammar
With a random killing you might get indeed away, but murders are usually targeted. In case a deadly accident happens, and it can be proven the driver had a conflict with that person, it does turn the case around.
Plot twist, the person killed is a protester.
do that next year, and you’ll get a medal and a cabinet post.
If he used a car purposefully to kill the CEO, no- he would most certainly NOT be free right now.
Murder is murder, regardless of the chosen method.
He would obviously just lie and say it was an accident. I would match his story.
That’s not how vehicular manslaughter trials work. It’s like any other murder prosecution. He’d need to prove it was an accident. And mowing down someone with a car in front of witnesses in broad daylight?
Yeah…
Guilty.
no he doesn’t need to prove it, in a criminal trial in most countries, the prosecution has the burden of proof; in the US “beyond a reasonable doubt”
According to legal advice:
To prove a car accident was not intentional in court, you would need to present evidence demonstrating that your actions at the time of the crash were not deliberate, including factors like: witness testimonies, police reports, vehicle damage analysis, your driving record, medical records, and expert testimony to explain the circumstances leading to the accident, highlighting any distractions, mechanical failures, or unexpected road conditions that could have contributed to the crash.
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?
In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill. He had a manifesto, there are witnesses… He murdered a man.
If it were a gun or a car. It’s irrelevant.
I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill.
Intent must be proved, and depending on the circumstances, can be hard or easy. Using a gun carries with it an assumption of intent - unless you’re hunting or target shooting, your intent can be assumed to not be good. With a car, there are a lot more things you could reasonably be doing, ill intent can’t be assumed.
I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.
that is literally what the law comes down to.
And I wasn’t talking about this or any other specific case, just attempting to make sure that people understood the general legal concepts.
Dude that’s now how any trial works. You cannot prove an accident is an accident. It’s the prosecutors job to prove that it wasn’t.
So…. No trial allows one to defend themselves against accusation?
Proving it was not intentional, and proving it was an accident, are two very different things.
In this context, we’re talking an about Luigi murdering a CEO. You can’t change reality in order to make your analogy work.
He murdered a CEO. If it were with a gun, or a car- the outcome would be the same. Which is my point, and has been this entire time.
I’m staying within the wheelhouse of the topic. OP stated that it would be different if he used a car and I’m here to explain how it would not be different. A car in this car would be co suffered a weapon in a murder.
It was night, no?
It was 6:44am, and the sun rose at 7:08 am, so yes.
6AM isn’t night
Sun rose on 7:08 am on Dec 9
No. It was approximately 6:44 AM
EDIT: Based on the ratio here, it’s easy to see that the people of FuckCars do not like the idea that 6:44 AM is not considered night time by factual standards.
Tell me what are the factual standards for nighttime and broad daylight, again?
Do you not know the difference between when someone says six in the morning and six in the evening?
But do you know anyone who calls the time before sunrise broad daylight? I would call that dusk, wouldn’t you? And is 2 am nighttime or morning?
The max penalty for 2nd degree vehicular manslaughter is only 7 years. In theory he could be prosecuted for 1st degree or even aggravated, but those require DUI or multiple fatalities.
Now look up what the maximum sentence would be for when someone purposefully murders someone with a car. Because Vehicular Homicide in the second degree- is where a death is caused “without an intention to do so” and where there is neither reckless driving, nor a DWI offense.
You’re manufacturing an argument while leaving out key facts.
Your boy WANTED the CEO dead. So, don’t use accidental death cases to compare it in bad faith
Vehicular homicide with intent carries the same penalties as with a gun.
Nope. In New York, the law for vehicular manslaugher/homicide only applies where DUI is involved. Perhaps you are thinking of regular homicide/manslaughter, but those require proving intent – which as previously stated is hard to do where an automobile is involved.
From a NY attorney’s site:
A vehicle is considered a “deadly weapon” according to New York law, especially if you use it to intentionally strike a pedestrian. As a result, you might face much more serious charges than assault if you try to hit someone with your car. Theoretically, you could be charged with attempted murder. You might also face charges of assault with a deadly weapon – especially if you strike and injure the intended target.
So again, if he had used a car, the charges would remain the same. It would be murder.
Stop moving the goalposts. Cars have nothing to do with this.
especially if you use it to intentionally strike a pedestrian
There’s that word again… One might think it’s important…
This, plus gun-related accidents happen all the time, and they’re called accidents. Nobody calls those murder. I sympathize with the intent here, but this meme doesn’t make any sense
And if you setup a system were people die preventable, unnecessary deaths the cops will work for you.
And if you kill a CEO is terrorism
And if you kill a protester or a homeless black man then you are a hero
It could be hard to explain why he had to drive it up on the sidewalk and squeeze between the curb-parked cars and the building on accident. And also why it was covered in silencers.
You don’t need silencers, just a prius or similar.
Actually a tesla could be good for this: just need to figure out a way to trick the self driving into thinking the sidewalk is a car lane, and the CEO is a small child. /s
Why did you add /s, that would work
Not sure but I think I remember hearing somewhere that allegedly the video where the tesla ran over the inflatable child might have been faked.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/controversy-erupts-over-video-of-fsd-tesla-striking-child-mannequin
But even then the various self driving car cos have killed several people in san Francisco.
So, luigi should have used a car instead?
Got it.
True for Germany, too. The killers sometimes even get to keep their drivers licenses.
… with judges explaining their non-judgements with some totally rediculous arguments like: he has already suffered the worst… having to live with the fact he klilled someone, so there’s no reason for further punshment.
But there was a case where someone was convicted for murder because he was involved in an illegal car race and should have known better. Yes, illegal car races are a thing in Germany
Edit: This isn’t the case I had in mind. I remember vague that the victim was an (elderly) man
Might be worth mentioning that “illegal car race” does not (necessarily) mean fast and the furious style street racing.
According to § 315d StGB (the German penal code), driving recklessly and violating traffic laws with the intention of reaching the highest speed does constitute an illegal race.
Does this work for car bombs? Asking for a friend
Works for the Walton family. You know, for those nights of heavy drinking, where you just wanna bounce some peasants off your grill.
I find this first-name-terms chumminess with a probable murderer very distasteful and sad.
To the drive-by downvoters: Consider whether you (yes, you) would be willing to come out from behind your keyboard and say the things you say here to this murdered man’s family, his wife, his children. Of course you wouldn’t. You’re complete hypocrites and you really need to examine your consciences.
“Your husband and dad was a POS and made the lives of thousands of people worse, and some certainly died because of the way he decided to operate his company. He deserved to die. And, quite frankly, he should have suffered some more in his death. I truly only hope that as he laid there bleeding to death, all the evil he had done weighed upon his conscience, and that he knew he had it coming.”
You’re lying to yourself. If you were prepared to say that to the innocent family of a murder victim, no matter who they were, you would be a psychopath. Much more likely you’re just a hypocrite, venting. Thankfully.
Honestly I don’t really even feel comfortable calling it murder. Brian Thompson killed more people than any serial killer in history. Like, I can sympathize with his family, or atleast his kids, I guess. But that doesn’t mean his death wasn’t 100% justified.
Hatred. Vengefulness. Open apology of first-degree murder by public figures and millions of ordinary people. America, you are in such deep sh*t. Please let this madness stay within your borders.
Can’t have a revolution without some bloodshed, and until we have a revolution ordinary people are going to continue dying by the thousands.
I mean, if you wanna look down your nose from up on your high horse, go ahead. But we’re dying down here. We’re being brutalized. I think we have a fucking right to cheer on the one person in recent memory to give us a tiny scrap of justice.
We get beaten and scapegoated anytime we have a peaceful protest. The ruling class has been asking for this for a long time.
The second American Revolution will be bloodless, if the left allows it to be.
Absolute braindead take
Innocent is stretching quite a bit the definition of that word, maybe the children, but only truly if they were very young. And no, you don’t need to be a psychopath, you just need to be tired of all the bullshit in this world. When the heads started to roll in France during the revolution, were all the people involved psychopaths? Most likely not. Anger is a powerful motivator. But I guess someone who is such an apologist for a billionaire CEO who ruined the lives of many couldn’t possibly understand how deep hatred can run.
Deep hatred is not an excuse for cold-blooded murder. And no, I do not support capital punishment either, it should go without saying.
Your worldview is so weird and seems deeeeeeeply insecure.
Agreed! It’s disgusting how people are defending the killer Brian Thompson. Who knows how many people are dead because of his greed.
If my dad were a psychopathic mass-murdering corporate goon, I’d testify at his killer’s sentencing to plead for the judge and jury to be as lenient as possible
No you wouldn’t and you know that very well.
nuh uh
To the drive-by downvoters: Consider whether you (yes, you) would be willing to come out from behind your keyboard and say the things you say here to this murdered man’s family, his wife, his children. Of course you wouldn’t. You’re complete hypocrites and you really need to examine your consciences.
I don’t know why you think that I wouldn’t be able to tell the Thompson Family that Brian was a murderer for profit. Because he was.
I think it because I choose to believe that most people are not bad, and that includes you.
Why is acknowledging that one of the worst humans alive today should be dead a bad thing in your eyes? Would you have trouble telling Melania that her misogynistic, raping, child molesting, racist sack of shit husband deserved to die too? What about matt gaetz? He’s a sex trafficker. What about Epstein? Should he have lived? Would you live with him?
Hi, grow up.
Drive by complete
I mean I’m pretty sure his family is pleased too, he’s a piece of garbage…and if they aren’t happy he’s dead because he “provided for them” or some bs, they are also garbage. So yeah I’m chill.
But only if he’s also a singer.
