(As it's better to read from the original source that the writer of the above piece used to write their piece, he said, not being sure if he were being snarky or honest)
If driving were as dangerous as that we'd have no commerce! Imagine being fully liable for injuries you cause while mindlessly travelling at high speeds across populated areas. Nobody could afford to do it!
Words mean things. Murder requires the intent to kill. Occasionally people are murdered by someone with a car, but an accident - even an entirely avoidable accident caused by gross recklessness - is not murder.
Some jurisdictions have the felony murder rule (abolished in the UK in 1957). That means it could be murder if you kill somebody while committing a felony, which includes drunk driving and fleeing in a police chase (and things like forgery and cybercrime, less relevantly).
In the US, depending on the state, murder need not require intent to kill or cause death. For example, 3rd degree murder in Minnesota explicitly states that the perpetrator acted without intent to cause death [1].
The theory behind murder requiring intent is very reasonable but, at least by statute, isn't actual legal practice.
Not defending the driver, but there's no pavement/sidewalk on the piece of most of that road, although the visibility is good and it was 10am on a Saturday
He would most likely have been trying to cross the road to continue his run on the path on the other side. I've run this route along the river myself.
This area is part of the Fenland, so the land is very flat. As a result the road bridge over the river is raised up above the level of the surrounding area.
This means that as he was crossing the road he would have been invisible to any car approaching from the other side of the bridge until it crested the bridge. It's entirely possible that a car travelling fast - the speed limit on that road is 60mph but plenty of people exceed it - could have come over the bridge and the driver would have seen him too late to stop in time.
The placement of the footpath crossing, unsighted from one direction, is - as you can tell - far from ideal.
When I'm driving on that road I ease off approaching the bridge: in part this is because I know there's that footpath crossing the road on the other side. But it's also - and whilst I don't want to be too harsh to the driver involved here there's really no excuse for this having happened - because I'm not a complete moron and know that, regardless of how well I think I know the road, it's unwise to go over a blind crest at speed, and especially in a heavily agricultural area where large, slow moving farm machinery is a commonplace site on local roads.
Is it clear it happened out of town? I googled, and articles, including the one you linked, say "Newmarket Road" in Stretham. And within that town, there seem to be pavements.
Just curious, as you say doesn't make it any less bad for the driver. Though it would be that little bit more mysterious if the Autonomy codefendant was struck on the pavement.
I can't recall ever witnessing a pedestrian being hit by a car, nor a near miss, except two days ago when someone darted into traffic, and indeed it was a kid. Luckily it was fairly pedestrianised area (which may have given the kid the impression it was safe to dart) so the traffic was quite slow and able to stop in time, so no major harm was done but the poor parents must have had a minor heart attack.
Maybe a bit less snark and a bit more kindness is called for here?
One person is fatally injured, another confirmed dead, and severel others are missing, perhaps dead too. Many people who know them will be hurting right now.
There are few things as chilling as the realization that corporations and other interests may not be above trying to kill you. It is not as bad as the realization that political killings in US happen as well, but it is up there.
If I am not mistaken the "fraud trial" referenced in the title is not the trial in the case brought by HP. HP won, though they may have appealed the amount of the settlement. The title likely refers to the criminal trial in the case brought by the US government where the defendants were acquitted on all charges.
It's a fun conspiracy that both co-defendants died within a day or two of eachother, but how the hell would the conspirators have sank a yacht this way? "It sank quickly after being hit by a waterspout at 4:30 a.m. during a storm that broke the mainmast, possibly unbalancing and capsizing the yacht."
Don't underestimate the capabilities of Sicilian organized crime especially on their own territory. I guess a spacious penthouse in New York could easily stir a tiny local tornado nearby Sicily.
If you already "prepared" the yacht - say bought the cooperation of some member of the crew or planted some device or, that being a modern yacht, hacked something on it - that would have been a great time to trigger it. The yacht was a sitting duck on that anchorage. I really was surprised that such a yacht went down that way, especially given that ships nearby were just fine. Now, with that guy in England dying the way Russian oppositioners die there, my surprise got resolved.
And remembering how those EBay execs went after those people only for bad reviews, one can imagine what the people like this can do when it comes to real money. And the scale of the money involved here can buy impressively "accidental" accidents.
The yacht had the 2nd tallest mast (tallest aluminium mast). The tornado/waterspout snapped the mast, which made the ship unbalanced and capsize. It sank quickly after that.
Not that out of the ordinary. There was another waterspout photographed in Italy that same day; they’re not that uncommon.
Readit News
(As it's better to read from the original source that the writer of the above piece used to write their piece, he said, not being sure if he were being snarky or honest)
Always those softening words when a driver murders an innocent.
The spice must flow!
The theory behind murder requiring intent is very reasonable but, at least by statute, isn't actual legal practice.
[1]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195
There are no "accidents", only collisions.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3423362,0.2274592,3a,75y,335...
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/family-step...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/son-of-mike-lynchs-trag...
He would most likely have been trying to cross the road to continue his run on the path on the other side. I've run this route along the river myself.
This area is part of the Fenland, so the land is very flat. As a result the road bridge over the river is raised up above the level of the surrounding area.
This means that as he was crossing the road he would have been invisible to any car approaching from the other side of the bridge until it crested the bridge. It's entirely possible that a car travelling fast - the speed limit on that road is 60mph but plenty of people exceed it - could have come over the bridge and the driver would have seen him too late to stop in time.
The placement of the footpath crossing, unsighted from one direction, is - as you can tell - far from ideal.
When I'm driving on that road I ease off approaching the bridge: in part this is because I know there's that footpath crossing the road on the other side. But it's also - and whilst I don't want to be too harsh to the driver involved here there's really no excuse for this having happened - because I'm not a complete moron and know that, regardless of how well I think I know the road, it's unwise to go over a blind crest at speed, and especially in a heavily agricultural area where large, slow moving farm machinery is a commonplace site on local roads.
Just curious, as you say doesn't make it any less bad for the driver. Though it would be that little bit more mysterious if the Autonomy codefendant was struck on the pavement.
One person is fatally injured, another confirmed dead, and severel others are missing, perhaps dead too. Many people who know them will be hurting right now.
We don’t say people were fatally injured in bullet-related collisions…
We’ve let capitalism destroy everything good.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240717060827if_/https://www.ju...
The fraud charges in the US:
https://ia903108.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
And remembering how those EBay execs went after those people only for bad reviews, one can imagine what the people like this can do when it comes to real money. And the scale of the money involved here can buy impressively "accidental" accidents.
Not that out of the ordinary. There was another waterspout photographed in Italy that same day; they’re not that uncommon.