[brandenw]

Kill a guy by being dumb and then you can sue whatevere's left? Meh. This is pathetic.



If he was upset about being hit, isn't the fact the rider died enough?

 

[mscuddy]

This is why I predict and buhleeve soon all cars will be made from a soft foam-like material that deforms like an old bean bag chair when it hits something.



In fact people will look for excuses to run into each other 'cause it'll be so comfy.



Say this Jeep that whipped the u-turn in front of the bike was manufactured out of recycled barcalounger parts. No problem. The bike hits the upholstered Jeep and gets wedged between the cushions, like an errant TV remote.



Problem solved.

 

[Buzglyd]

With any luck you'll find some loose change and a few stale potato chips.

 

[acecycleins]

Substantially high rate of speed-- So, this guy's a cop with radar? What's subtanial here? Death- that's pretty substantial. We need a looser pays system for court. This lawyer (the a** that he is) should not even consider this a case. His client killed a person. No matter how it happened the guy is DRT. Now, this looser who plead out (knowing that if he went to jury trial on this would get a minimum of 10yrs) is going after the family. If the family doesn't counter-sue for incredible sums of money for loss of primary income and pain and suffering to show a real jury what kind of jacka** the killer is then you will definitely know that the justice system looks out for the wrong people.

 

[1747]

i love how u guys can know all the facts from a 3 paragraf story on the ama website. judicial system would move a lot faster if u were just appointed Judge/Jury/Executioner.

Hey where is MO? new buell is up at competitor site...

 

[BrowningBAR]

Oh boy...Mini-JB should be piping in at any moment with some praise for his idol...



On a side note, which site has the write up on the Buells?

 

[wayback]

First of all, we grab that slimy SOB that calls himself a lawyer -- sorry -- for a minute there I was in the world where we do "justice" instead of "legal".

Same ol' same ol' -- it's about the money and evading responsibility for your own actions, and ethics, morality and common sense have nothing to do with it. Come on folks, get involved in a little politics and push your representatives to pass tort reform so we can minimize this kind of offensive crap. Sorry I had to mention politics, but how do you think things get done in the real world?

 

[wayback]

What additional facts would make it OK to do something stupid (and illegal) that kills somebody and then sue their estate because you were inconvienced by the guy getting killed?

 

[49605]

It has always been the case in this country that ANY crankpot with a few $$$ and some legal skills can FILE a suit against anyone for any reason... but FILING doesn't mean it won't get summarily dismissed by the judge and it sure as hell doesn't mean they'll win.



and TALKING about filing a lawsuit is even less meaningful.



Move along folks, nothing to see here!



P.S. Over at SacBORG there's a nice write-up on the Ulysses from Reg Kittrelle

 

[1747]

all i'm saying is: How do you know the guy wasn't making a perfectly legal, perfectly safe U-turn, and the guy on the bike was doing 120 around a curve? That's probably not what happened, but it's completely possible.

 

[sportbikebandit]

Well said JB! We should be talking about motorcycles. Make love not war...

Buell first ride

 

[BrowningBAR]

Holy crap! A legit link to motorcycle info?!



I'm...shocked!

 

[smoove]

Based on my experience, there are very few people who know what "DRT" means. I use it whenever context warrants, and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.

Ill story, though.....egad.

 

[bod]

you guys are brilliant you should do guiness comercials "BRILLIANT"

 

[desertbilly]

As in most of these cases, one really can't make a sound conclusion without knowing all of the facts. If the motorcyclist was going 55 in a 55 zone and the u-turner pulled in front of him, then the u-turner is at fault.



If the motorcyclist was going 130 in a 55 and the u-turner pulled out when the motorcyclist was still a block away, then the motorcyclist may well be at fault.



In the media, these stories are virtually always incomplete. When repeated by an advocacy group, they tend to be even more misleading.



The moral of the story: take your time, wait for the facts.



The legal system actually does work pretty well in most situations, which is why we still have the best country and best society in the world (in my humble opinion).

 

[svo68]

man, you had it right the whole way through, then blew it with the last paragraph.



while our legal system may be better than most, if not all in the world, it still sucks! it's all about $$$$$$$$.



society and country, i agree with.

 

[svo68]

let him sue....everybody else does. it is a clear indication of how many s***** sucking lawyers there are out there. the family of the guy should turn around and counter-sue the idiot that killed him and the lawyer for bringing the suit. add a little pain and suffering to it, take both of them for every penny they got.

 

[svo68]

s c u m is a bad word?

 

[acecycleins]

Until the at-fault party can conclusively state actual speed he's at-fault no matter what the speed. He entered a NOLO plea because the facts of the case were against him, period. I spent my life surrounded by lawyers (dad and uncles), cops (brother-in-laws) bondsmen (me) and insurance agents (me, again). The rate of speed has an end-effect. It does not allow the at-fault party absolve himself from being guilty of the crime. That's why he NOLO'd. If the guilty party profits from his actions then all hope for the jury trial system in this country are useless.

 

[BrowningBAR]

S*****!