Nebraska Judge Says 128 mph Not 'Reckless'

He did- the cop car :lol:

 

No, it absolutely applies here.

How does it not apply here? From the standpoint of anyone other than himself, it's precisely the same thing. Assume, for a moment, he smashed into another car and killed the only occupant, the driver. Who's to say if the driver left his house 2 seconds later that day would have initiated a sequence of events that put him on that road after, or before, any potential harm? Or who's to say he would have avoided a collision if he drifted 6 inches to the right?

Recently, up here in MA, a real tragedy occurred. On a road I drive twice a day, a pregnant woman and her unborn child were killed when one person on the other side of the highway, engaged in a speed contest, lost control, and went tumbling across the median, went airborne, and landed right on top of her car, that just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

100% chance, freak occurrance from her standpoint, the victim's standpoint, which is the most appropriate as, obviously, it's their life.

However, I do need to add, from their standpoint, and from their relationship against the public, they were absolutely reckless, and should have their license pulled forever.

 

I'm a bit confused by this article.

Depending on how "reckless driving" is defined (legally, in Nebraska), I could see how this guy could be ruled innocent of "reckless driving".

However, how could he not be fined for speeding?

 

Regardless of whether I agree with the interpretation, the judge in that case was following precedent set by the Nebraska Supreme Court in the following cases:

State v. Brown, 258 Neb. 330, 603 N.W.2d 419 (1999)

State v. Howard, 253 Neb. 523, 527, 571 N.W.2d 308, 313 (1997)

State v. DiLorenzo, 181 Neb. 59, 146 N.W.2d 791 (1966)

 

It seems that you've turned it on it's head and you're looking at it from the victims point of view, not the defendant's. The victim isn't on trial. The question is whether the defendant was acting recklessly, not the victim. The fact is that the defendant put himself in a position that he could not reasonably guarantee his own or anyone else's safety as the result of his actions. The MA tragedy that you mentioned highlights the same thing. The people racing their cars were not acting in a way that they could reasonably insure the saftey of those around them based on their actions. The victim, in a way, couldn't either because she failed to avoid the accident. But she did everything she reasonably could to minimize the risk to herself and those around her.

 

In defense of those saying the Judge was wrong...it is the Judge who determines whether the speeders actions fit the definition. I didn;t read the Nebraska case, but if it JUST said speed alone cannot be used, the Judge could have stated other facts such as another car on the road (the cop) the average reaction time multiplied by the speed..etc and found him guilty. That takes a lot of work and he might get overturned on appeal (Judges hate that).

In defense of those saying the Judge was right, well, others have spoken up and explained it quite well.

In Ohio, state law says double the speed limit is "prima facie" reckless, so 110 in a 55 zone will do it, but 128 in a 65 zone will not.

This goes back to points about the law I have made before...what many of us think...just ain't so.

 

I agree. He should have been slapped with whatever penalty is appropriate for someone exceeding the speed limit to the extent that he was. It makes no sense talking about "what if" victims in this case.
I've been to traffic court (granted in Hawaii, not Nebraska but I'm assumingly relative similarity) for a speeding ticket. I got to see a whole panel of people go before the judge and have justice meted out. Most of these people were there for the same reason, speeding. Depending on how much they were exceeding the posted limit and whether there were other recent violations the judge would be more or less harsh. All the people that were going 30mph plus over the speed limit, he suspended their licenses and ordered them to traffic school and possibly community service.
In other words, the guy speeding in this case probably could have been hit with penalties like this if the police officer/DA or whoever else was involved in determining the how to bring the guy up on charges had been honest about what the guy was doing...speeding. Instead, the prosecutors probably felt like they could nail this guy with even stiffer penalties if they went for a reckless driving charge instead of just speeding. Seems like they gambled and lost.

 

...mmm, do you think he was getting the EPA posted mileage for the bike at that speed?..

 

If he didn't he should turn to Heraldo for justice!

 

If that were true we wouldn't need lawyers! :lol: :lol:

Good points. I was wondering when you'd chime in.

 

There's a lesson to be learned here:

don't speed.













Or,


don't get caught...

h34r:

 

You really don't like me do you doc?

The only one being narrow minded here is you.

And this comment, is precisly indicative of it:

"But 128mph on a public roadway is not, ever, responsible or safe."

If you refuse to think or believe there are no exceptions to this, please, I hope I never end up in your ER with some sort of injury that requires you to think outside the box.

There's a right time and place for everything. There are roads out there, PUBLIC roads, for which you CAN hit those speeds, if only momentarily, or even sustained, all depends upon the situation. I can think of two stretches, right now, in my local area, and one in Florida where such is possible. Pavement quality is great (you use a "spotter" to check out pavement first, before making any runs), excellent visibility all the way around, and no traffic. But, of course, this shouldn't be done because the sign says so, and of course, who am I to judge. Of course, I need not go further with this argument. Unlike you, I don't restrict my thinking to what others say...

Thanks for the soliloquy-style dramatics, it was very heartfelt... Maybe when you can remove your personal bias of me (from day one when I posted the snail penis chewing thread), we can have a non-condescending discussion.

 

Then stay off the Howard-Franklin bridge that connects Tampa to Clearwater, should you ever be down there for a medical conference... Anyone with a performance vehicle usually can't resist a good run on it when it's clear. I've been witness to a few that came close to the 200mph mark...

 

well then, I guess that makes it okay.

If anyone else is out there by chance, and happens to get in the way, it is their own fault.....right?

 

If you can't accept the possibilty such circumstances exist, there is not point in agruing.