• humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    2·
    4 hours ago

    There was a new regulation a couple of months ago that make that RAM truck illegal (to make in future) because that design will murder people good. As a pedestrian/cyclist you want to roll over hood instead of being pulverized to the ground to be run over afterwards.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    31·
    11 hours ago

    Many years ago I saw a report on an elderly woman that killed a bunch of people sitting on one of those concrete benches at a bus stop in Florida (of course). Apparently, she never hit the brakes. Only the resistance of the bodies, concrete bench and building beyond, stopped the car. She was essentially charged with a traffic violation. And it turns out this wasn’t the first time she had done something like this. This was literally decades ago so I don’t know if or how the laws have changed but I remember thinking at the time, if you want to get rid of someone and get away with it, that’s the way to do it.

  • pedz@lemmy.ca
    441·
    14 hours ago

    Yep. He could have been driving an F-150, bump over the sidewalk, drive over the CEO, then said “ooh, sorry, I didn’t see him, he must have been wearing headphones or something”, and it would probably have been a valid defensible position for the system.

    • Wrufieotnak
      5·
      13 hours ago

      Then we would need to know how many CEOs you need to “not see” before somebody connects some dots…

  • lorty@lemmy.ml
    12·
    13 hours ago

    He’s not richer than the other guy so he’d be in jail either way

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    89·
    19 hours ago

    Idk what funnier, ads about truck in fuckcars, ads about truck in a post about hitting others with car, or ads about the truck brand Ram in a post about ramming others and walk free.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      2·
      5 hours ago

      if you do it deliberately it’s no different to any other weapon.

      Of course but at least there’s the possibility of it being an accident. Absent other proof, such as that possession of a manifesto, you can quite possibly get away with it

      On the other hand there’s no way to spin as an accident that you walked up behind someone and shot them

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        1·
        4 hours ago

        It would be a difficult argument to make if you ran them over on the sidewalk though.

        It’s not the weapon, it’s the plausible deniability.

    • optissima@lemmy.ml
      183·
      15 hours ago

      Your example is weak because they did a hate crime, which this would not have been. Do you have a better one?

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        2·
        6 hours ago

        My point is, you don’t get away with killing someone just because you used a car to do so, and I think that proves my point.

        Feel free to come up with some evidence of your own.

      • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
        55·
        11 hours ago

        Well, technically this seems to have been a hate crime as well - just not of a “protected class” (which I’m sure is a “shortcoming” of the law that they’ll get “addressed”).

        • optissima@lemmy.ml
          31·
          10 hours ago

          Technically, hate crimes consist of crime because of innate properties of an individual (+religion), which again this isn’t. No doubt they’ll codify something special for the rich soon, but still not a hate crime.

          • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
            1·
            5 hours ago

            It’s that religion exception that belies the idea that it’s solely about qualities of a person that they have no control over. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless if they’re related to religion or capitalism.

            • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              5 hours ago

              “Capitalist” isn’t a protected class, and I don’t think that hate crime legislation is very strong in the US in any case.

              • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
                1·
                4 hours ago

                I’m aware it’s not a protected class - that was the point of my initial comment. But your rebuttal implied “hate crimes” were defined as those based upon properties of a person they had no control over - with a major caveat for religion as well. My point was if you can include something a person chooses to believe as an additional exception, then that opens up an extremely wide swath of possible exceptions.

                Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing against the inclusion of religion, just saying that the inclusion can be used to crowbar in any number of other “classes” to be protected as well simply because they’re based upon beliefs.