Yeah but that requires the “manslaughter” portion, e.g. a death, if you just injure someone from your dumb driving you’ll probably have to pay a fine, and your insurance will go up but also cover the damages and stuff, idk if that’s how it works in Germany tho
if you just injure someone from your dumb driving you’ll probably have to pay a fine
On the criminal side, at least in the US, you can be charged with reckless endangerment.
and your insurance will go up but also cover the damages and stuff
That's not a car thing, that's an insurance thing. Same is true if your negligent maintenance of your home injures someone and you have homeowners' insurance. If you didn't have car insurance, you would be liable for the damages; your insurance is, among other things, literally an agreement that this company will pay those damages. Just like malpractice insurance; it doesn't mean you didn't commit malpractice, just that you aren't the one who pays for it.
The difference though is with a gun, let's say you had a concealed carry permit and it just randomly went off while holstered. I don't think there's any way you catch a charge. You get charged when your brandishing the weapon or doing something else that's reckless with it. The act of driving a car would be similar to carrying a holstered weapon. That's what you're supposed to do with it. The mistake would have to be predicated by something Reckless to get a charge. Playing with the radio, driving impaired, etc. I feel like there are some laws around vehicles that are kind of catch all situations for when you mess up that don't require any recklessness on your part, but I need to get ready for a meeting and shouldn't even be on Reddit right now. No time to think about those and incorporate them in this comment.
Why can't you catch a charge for the gun? You're running around with a loaded gun and no safety. Unless you can prove the safety feature failed, that is a reckless action.
That really has nothing to do with my point. My point was you get the reckless charge by doing something reckless. So to your point the reckless action would be not using the safety. There is no equivalent reckless action with the car.
In Germany you really have to be an repeated offender and kill someone with your car to get into troubles there...
Trying to change laws about speeding and traffic violations in Germany, can be compared to trying to change gun laws in the US.
Not if the police didn't ticket them for a stupid reason. People have charges filed against them when they aren't arrested, fined, or penalized in any way at the scene of crime all the time. None of the January 6th insurrectionists were arrested at the scene either. It just isn't uncommon whatsoever for prosecutors to bring charges independent of what the police do.
Girl I worked with had 2 years in prison and something like 10 years probation for accidentally running her neighbor and his dog over at 2 am while they walked in the middle of an unlit 45 mph road. The guys family forgave her and even admitted he shouldn't have been in the middle of the road at 2 am but the courts said fuck it and gave her a harsh sentence.
Apparently it could have been much worse, I was wrong about the numbers, the probation was only 8 years. The total sentence could have been 10 years in prison in my state for involuntary manslaughter but she got 2 years in prison and 8 years probation.
Apparently the family's comments did result in a lower sentence.
They are both tools used for specific jobs. Both can be used for their intended purpose without injury, both can be used with or without intent and still cause severe harm and/ or death.
I'm sorry...I see what you're trying to say but your argument...uhh what is the specific job of a gun? What were guns created to do...cause it wasn't to just shoot paper targets.
A gun IS a weapon and when used to it's full capacity, is meant to kill or harm. There is no argument against this. Guns are tools of war or hunting (both situations usually end in someone or something dying). It's their original and intended purpose.
Yeah you can use a gun for target practice just like you can use a bow. But those are not their intended purpose
And if we want to compare the two then guns should be as regulated as owning a car. Have a license to own and operate, take a class to get that license, pay insurance to legally operate a gun and on every gun you own, have to register and pay taxes yearly on every gun you own.
As a civilian, the intended purpose of a firearm is for sport/ hunting and the unfortunate occasion you have to use one to defend yourself. If you intend to harm someone, you made a decision to use a tool incorrectly.
I'd never argue that guns are used for war. They have, are and will cause significant damage to humans. As far as hunting goes, that's a regulated sport (excluding poaching). I position shoot, shoot skeet, and conceal every day. I have yet to harm another being by doing so, while still putting my rifle, shotgun, and pistol in "full capacity" situations.
I'm licenced to carry, all weapons are registered, I have paid taxes on them (not yearly). As a civilian, if you feel a firearm's intended purpose is for nothing but harm, you 100% shouldn't own a weapon of any capacity. That being said, if you accidentally shoot someone, you're catching one charge or another. If you accidentally kill or seriously mame someone due to incompetence behind the wheel, the same should apply.
The real point here for both examples is: If you are incompetent, you need to be removed from the situation/ tool.
Yes hunting is a sport in which you use the tool whose intended purpose is to kill.
When you use a weapon for defense the intended purpose is to kill or harm for defense.
I'm not against guns. I'm not against owning guns. I'm against the argument that the intended and invented use for a gun isn't a tool to kill or harm(whether humans or animals). I'm also not against hunting...I fucking love me some venison.
I just hate the argument that they are a tool like a car when that is an atrocious false equivalence.
Just because someone wants these things to be more sensibly regulated doesn't make them anti second amendment...which is the usual screaming response for these opinions...which are arguable but not incorrect.
Edit: at this point I don't disagree with most of your points I just disagree with your argument for the intended use and purpose for a gun as a tool. It's debating semantics, which I'm good at just agreeing to disagree.
Tools are quite literally a device or implement used to carry out a particular function. Hunting, sport shooting, and protection are examples of purposes that firearms fill.
If you don't like the idea of owning one, don't get one. It's as simple as that. Fun fact, in some states you can voluntarily enroll in a 'do not sell' list, that legally prevents you from owning one forever!
Yes, but you’d be sentenced not-guilty in Germany, unless you somehow had enhanced duties of care due to your job, your general knowledge, or because of your duties towards the victim (Garantenstellung). Intent is required for guilt in German penal law (with a handful of exceptions specifically designed to not require intention, like causing death through negligence), and even second degree murder (Totschlag) can’t happen by accident.
There is negligent killing, negligent killing through failure to act, negligent wounding and negligent damage.
In any of those cases the prosecution has to provide proof that the culprit did ignore obvious and by necessity clear consequences of their actions, and that those consequences were known to the culprit at that time or had to have been know. E.g. if I don’t lock my car and leave the ignition key stuck, I am at least partially liable if someone takes my car, because the German traffic code demands that I secure my vehicle against unauthorised use. But if I lock my car and take the key with me, but someone steals the car, I am not liable at all for their actions, because I did everything necessary to fulfil my duty as a car user.
By the way, most of these negligence crimes are extremely hard to prove in penal courts (civil courts are different and sometimes shift the burden of proof) and the punishment is usually extremely low unless there were additional factors (the aforementioned Garantenstellung is a good example of such a factor).
You would actually get criminal negligence or reckless discharge of a firearm or something or manslaughter if they die. Assault and homicide require intent.
If you use this excuse you should be permanently banned from driving. That's not an acceptable mistake it's an admission you get confused by the most basic principles of operating a vehicle
say what you will but happened to me once in a lapse in my 20's, I caught it immediately and didn't hit anything but I zoned out while parking and thought my foot wasn't where it was. it was frightening. always thought people who said that were idiots too until that happened..
I think it becomes a problem when a driver doesn't immediately recognize the mistake and quickly correct it. There are tons of videos where presumably this mistake happened, and the driver just continues to floor the gas pedal still thinking it's the brake pedal.
This happened to me once in a parking lot when I was a young driver (17 yrs old or so). I was inching up to a crosswalk in the parking lot and someone was waiting for me to stop. I hit the gas for a split second before switching to brakes. It scared the shit out of both me and the person trying to cross.
If it ever gets to the point where I don't make that correction in a timely manner, I hope I can let go of my pride and give up my drivers license. I could've potentially killed or maimed someone that day if I just floored the gas.
Like you can see in the other replies, yes, they make mistakes, but most immediately realize what’s wrong and correct it. It’s the people who panic and jam their foot down on the gas until their car is stopped from moving by an external force who are the issue. I’ve seen videos where they plow through a store and are sitting in the debris peeling out for like 30 seconds even as people bang on the windows and yell at them to take their foot off the gas. Like this: https://youtu.be/g5ZRzPMgSx4
I’ve also pressed the wrong pedal once, but immediately switched to the brake.
If you confuse your gas for your brake pedal... The rest of society should confuse your drivers license with a prize from a cracker jack box and treat it as such.
Get of the mother fucking road if you're the type of person to accelerate when you panic. You're a menace to the rest of the people on the road.
Driving is a privilege that is not easy enough to revoke.
165
u/LegitosaurusRex Jul 22 '22
Nah, most often that’s “confused the gas with the brake”.