All discussion over the type of crime that was committed yesterday in here please.

[JoeSchmoe]

3 minutes ago, #freejame said:

It’s literally a copy and paste definition, I didn’t forget anything.

It seems to me posters are either being willfully obtuse or deliberately pot-stirring. 

Two young fathers are dead because of the extreme and willful negligence of an individual showing zero regard for the consequences of his actions. Call it whatever you want, but shut the ***** up over the wording and move on to what matters. 

 

I think we can be terribly saddened by this (as I am), but still want accuracy in the thread title. Seeing the headline below implies something completely different than what happened (unless it is later determined this was premeditated).

[Noacls]

2 minutes ago, #freejame said:

This is what I mean by willfully obtuse. Open ***** google, type in “murder definition” click the first link. Or just click here. I don’t give a ***** who you are or what you do, you can’t seem to comprehend that I quoted a definition from a dictionary that I sourced. “Nuh-uh that’s not what it says!” You sound like a toddler. 
 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

 

I’m finished with this conversation. 

You mean like this genius

[JoeSchmoe]

1 minute ago, kas23 said:

It’s obviously distracting to what really happened here and what we should be focusing on: 2 bicyclists are dead due to a drunk driver.

This is a very good point.

To suggest it's murder undermines the fact that someone who gets behind the wheel drunk is very capable of mistakenly killing people. All too many times people think they're ok to drive when they're clearly not.

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, LTS said:

https://www.findlaw.com/dui/charges/dui-manslaughter-and-dui-murder.html

I'll leave it at that.

Still no more words. These kinds of events (which sadly happen far too often and we never hear about) just tear me up inside.

Didn’t even want to chime in here. Feels wrong to even wade into what’s become an embarrassing discussion. But the willful ignorance on display is just infuriating and eventually dangerous. Anyone who thinks murder needs to be “premeditated” or even done with specific intent necessarily, doesn’t understand the law, didn’t read your link, and beyond engaging in a semantic discussion when it’s so obviously not the time displays an inability to grasp the truth when presented with clear facts. To argue against the wording in the thread title, right now, is absurd

- - - 

It’s an unjust world. I hope the family can somehow find peace through this sickening tragedy  

Edited August 30 by Thorny

[JoeSchmoe]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Didn’t even want to chime in here. Feels wrong to even wade into what’s become an embarrassing discussion. But the willful ignorance on display is just infuriating. Anyone who thinks murder necessarily needs to be “premeditated” or done “on purpose” didn’t read your link 

Again, he deserves to be locked up for a very long time... Hopefully for the maximum that the law allows since in addition to the drunk driving he was also driving aggressively. However, there are no murder charges being laid here. 

In times of crisis, it is instinctual to act emotionally and hyperbolically. Hence the fractures in society we saw during COVID that still linger to this day. 

[nfreeman]

The other thread is for grief, sympathy, etc.

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

This is a very good point.

To suggest it's murder undermines the fact that someone who gets behind the wheel drunk is very capable of mistakenly killing people. All too many times people think they're ok to drive when they're clearly not.

And is sometimes charged with murder for doing so. It’s not undermining anything. To suggest otherwise is dangerous and willfully ignorant, even on a message board. The charge does not require premeditation as you wrongfully stipulated, nor does it necessarily even require specific intent in all cases.

Edited August 30 by Thorny

[bob_sauve28]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

And is sometimes charged with murder for doing so. It’s not undermining anything. To suggest otherwise is dangerous and willfully ignorant, even on a message board. The charge does not require premeditation as you wrongfully stipulated, nor does it necessarily even require intent. 

What's dangerous? 😯

[GASabresIUFAN]

The crime definition depends on the jurisdiction the event happened in.  I don’t know how NJ law defines specifically defines vehicular homicide while adding in the drunk driving.

The stories I read say the driver is being charged with two counts of vehicular homicide and that the punishment up to 20 years with higher terms for people under the influence.  

The reason states have vehicular homicide laws because these accidents, where an operator drives recklessly and/or under the influence, don’t fit easily into typical murder or manslaughter statutes.  Murder statutes typically require intent by the perp to kill or significantly harm a victim.  Unless the driver intended to run over the brothers, there is a lack of intent. 

[Big Guava]

20 hours ago, Getpucksdeep said:

Can we get a title change on this thread? 

As a cyclist who deals with this danger every day, and having lost a couple friends to similar incidents, it's frustrating the media and world goes with "car accident" when actually in this case it's murder.

Cyclists should realizw that using American streets to ride on is akin to playing Russian Roulette with your life.

If you want to safely cycle on streets then move to the Netherlands where half the population's primary transportation mode is bike and roads are designed for them more than cars.

Plenty of places to ride where cars aren't allowed, suggest you ride there.

It sucks, but American roads aren't designed for bikes and American drivers are terrible at avoiding hitting them, both bikes and motorcycles.

You can be mad, upset or whatever but at the end of the day your life is more important than riding a bike on the street. Figure out a different transportation mode if you value your life in the US.

[Stoner]

Judge jury and executioner. Cool.

Our justice system will determine if a crime occurred.

[PerreaultForever]

If you get drunk and get into a bar fight and you "accidentally" kill the other guy when his head hits the ground or something you don't get charged with "murder" either. It's manslaughter, and the intoxication will be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing/guilt. That's the law too. 

I would not argue against the fact that drunk driving laws are too lax, they are, but as they stand it would only be murder if you could prove he saw two cyclists and went, "I hate cyclists, I'm going to run those guys over". 

[Wyldnwoody44]

Also, I hate lawyers (most) ... Sorry Eleven. 

And even though this guy appears as guilty as day, there's no guarantee what will happen. There's a reason lawyers are paid so much.

Still *****  

[Getpucksdeep]

Initial headlines were "dies in car accident" or something like that (lazy reporting) which led me down the path of probably 25 year old millionaire driving his sports car 100mph.  Come to find out he was out for a bike ride, so personally very close to home and triggered.

Murder, manslaughter. Killed works.  Sucks for the family any time something like this happens.  Hopefully the killer gets locked up for a long time and people drive less like ***** especially when bikes and pedestrian/runners etc are sharing the road.  

[PerreaultForever]

@Thorny you gonna red x it cause you don't like it or you want to explain why you think it's wrong?

[SABRES 0311]

I don’t recall when so many people, across so many platforms, and so many sports felt a loss. 

[Kristian]

22 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

If you get drunk and get into a bar fight and you "accidentally" kill the other guy when his head hits the ground or something you don't get charged with "murder" either. It's manslaughter, and the intoxication will be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing/guilt. That's the law too. 

I would not argue against the fact that drunk driving laws are too lax, they are, but as they stand it would only be murder if you could prove he saw two cyclists and went, "I hate cyclists, I'm going to run those guys over". 

Someone falling weird, may be considered an accident.

Someone getting behind the wheel hammered, is by choice.

The law may see those two identically. But they really shouldn’t.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Kristian said:

Someone falling weird, may be considered an accident.

Someone getting behind the wheel hammered, is by choice.

The law may see those two identically. But they really shouldn’t.

I'm not going to argue that. I was just pointing out what the law is, not what I think it should be. 

[JoeSchmoe]

7 hours ago, Kristian said:

Someone falling weird, may be considered an accident.

Someone getting behind the wheel hammered, is by choice.

The law may see those two identically. But they really shouldn’t.

EDIT- deletedy post. Reread the context of the quote and figured my post was not necessary.

Edited September 2 by JoeSchmoe

[gilbert11]

On 8/30/2024 at 9:08 AM, bob_sauve28 said:

Well, "murder" has motive to kill. This guy was a d-bag and is totally guilty of killing, but he probably did not set out to kill anyone on purpose 

Surprised the driver didn’t run.

[carpandean]

Geez, a lot of anger over what seems to be a difference between legal definitions and simple use of language, especially when the legal definition, itself, can differ by jurisdiction.  From the accounts given - drunk driver who aggressively passed someone and stuck two bicyclists who died as a result - the driver "killed" them (as the thread title now reads.)  That person, whether charged with "murder" or "manslaughter" or "vehicular homicide" should get a very long sentence.  No matter what it is, it will do nothing for the family of the victims, who will never get their brothers/sons/etc back.  

[JohnC]

On 8/30/2024 at 7:00 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

The crime definition depends on the jurisdiction the event happened in.  I don’t know how NJ law defines specifically defines vehicular homicide while adding in the drunk driving.

The stories I read say the driver is being charged with two counts of vehicular homicide and that the punishment up to 20 years with higher terms for people under the influence.  

The reason states have vehicular homicide laws because these accidents, where an operator drives recklessly and/or under the influence, don’t fit easily into typical murder or manslaughter statutes.  Murder statutes typically require intent by the perp to kill or significantly harm a victim.  Unless the driver intended to run over the brothers, there is a lack of intent. 

Terrific explanation. Succinct, clear and understandable. Lawyers have a tendency to be verbose and lean on legal jargon. You didn't do that beyond what was required to explain the issue. 

I think what is confusing some people are the distinctions between the definition of murder and manslaughter. As you point out states have a separate category for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. 

A thumbs up 👍for the in-house lawyer.

[Demoted]

On 8/30/2024 at 12:55 PM, JoeSchmoe said:

I think we can be terribly saddened by this (as I am), but still want accuracy in the thread title. Seeing the headline below implies something completely different than what happened (unless it is later determined this was premeditated).

This just seems like par for the course in today's world.

 

People instead of caring about the actual incident they care about the title of a random thread in a Sabres forum. 

 

The discussion about the title of the thread has garnered almost more interest than the thread of the tragedy itself.

Edited September 2 by Demoted

[#freejame]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

I think what is confusing some people are the distinctions between the definition of murder and manslaughter. As you point out states have a separate category for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. 

The overwhelming majority of people were not confused by anything. Several posters wanted to be pedants about verbiage, even after being explained that the differences were understood. I can assure you the masses here understand there are various legal definitions related to killing someone. 

[JoeSchmoe]

4 hours ago, Demoted said:

This just seems like par for the course in today's world.

 

People instead of caring about the actual incident they care about the title of a random thread in a Sabres forum. 

 

The discussion about the title of the thread has garnered almost more interest than the thread of the tragedy itself.

A lot of us use Sabrespace as our primary source for Sabres/NHL news and links. Just be accurate.

Thread titles are like news headlines and when they're misleading it's annoying. As I said in a previous post, in time of crisis, people will get hyperbolic and overreact. That's natural, but as an engineer I live in a world where facts need to trump emotion. 

Now for the thread drift pet peeve rant-

All this is not unlike during the COVID crisis, when more facts about the disease became known, we as a society (especially here in Canada) were unable to rationally discuss the merits of completely shutting down society to protect what was mostly senior citizens who were at or near their end of life anyways. Maybe it was worth it... But there was never even a discussion- emotions were just too high.

Meanwhile, our world is angrier, more divided and more distrustful than ever. Children across the world lost out on their education. People lost their homes, their businesses and their livelihoods. The economy has never been the same since. And in the end, it was the virus mutating, and not a vaccine that ended the pandemic. Had we not shut in for so long, perhaps the mutation would have come sooner. Sadly, emotions ran too high to even discuss mutation as a way out... Meanwhile we had a large segment of the population (healthy people under 50) who were largely unaffected by the disease who could have served as vectors to speed mutation. 

Maybe you disagree with all of this, but my pet peeve is that people get too emotional, and put their backs up to even consider the facts before making a rational decision. 

Back to Gaudreau... I talked about what happened to him off this board. I discussed the dangers of bike riding with my kids and reemphasized the importance of defensiveness on the road. My wife and I talked about how awful it was for his sister, wife, and kids. I just don't feel I have a lot to add by posting about it here. It seems a lot of other posters felt the same. That said, there were others that felt like posting was the right thing. There are no wrongs or rights here.