photo sledgehammers_banner_zpsd82b7322.jpg"

Monday, June 15, 2009

And Another One...

Girl Hit By Elderly Driver Dies Of Injuries
STOUGHTON (WBZ) ― A 4-year-old Stoughton girl struck by a car driven by an elderly woman died overnight, the Norfolk District Attorney's office said Sunday morning.

Diya Patel died at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, where she'd been flown after the accident Saturday morning.

Rest in Peace, Diya.

Now, I understand that a certain amount of coverage is simple sensationalism - "If it bleeds, it leads". The story of a young child mowed down by an oblivious elderly driver in front of her family tugs at the heart strings and provokes much commentary. The usual suspects are calling for laws, testing, etc. which may or may not help the issue. However, given the cravenness of the average MA politician, there's very little chance they'll do anything to anger the whiteheads, one of the most active voting blocks going...

What is interesting is this:
Police say charges may be filed against the driver, whose name is not being released at this time.

Excuse the hell out of me, but what the fucking fuck? This senile old biddie plowed into a kid in a crosswalk. How the hell can they not file charges? Failure to yield? Vehicular manslaughter? Negligent homicide? It would seem that there are a plethora of charges that could be levied at someone who blatantly disregards the traffic laws of the Commonwealth and causes the death of another person.

I can guarantee you this, though. If I were to pick up one of my guns, walk into a busy area, and start pulling the trigger, I would be up on first degree murder charges before the last casing hit the ground. Why do we treat people who misuse automobiles so lightly? If you are so out of control of your mental facilities that you can't brake or even slow down for people in your path, you're just as out of control as some lunatic randomly shooting at people. But yet the punishments are hardly comparable - I'd wager she is not charged with any crime, and at most might lose her license.

When we start treating the misuse of all tools equally I'll start believing that gun control is anything other than an attempt at authoritarian control...

That is all.

UPDATE: Thanks, Bruce, for the link. Also wanted to point out that the driver's license has been suspended - yes, suspended, not revoked - and she has been charged with vehicular homicide.
That's a good start.

7 comments:

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"When we start treating the misuse of all tools equally I'll start believing that gun control is anything other than an attempt at authoritarian control..."

Seconded. You've cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Bob said...

My GF and I had a Close Encounter of the Geezer Kind over the weekend when we were on the way back from her parents' place. We saw a car to our right ahead of us stopped at a stop sign, and damned if he didn't pull out directly in front of us, causing the GF to stand on the brakes and jerk the wheel left, sending us into the oncoming lane; no one coming from that direction, luckily. When the idiot turned off, of course it was a geezer driving.

Sabra said...

My former in-laws, who are still married for some ungodly reason, have been feuding for the past, oh, three or four years. Part of this included my ex-mother-in-law purposely ramming her PT Cruiser into my ex-father-in-law's vehicle, at a high enough rate of speed that both were totaled.

Had I done such a thing to my ex-husband, I'd have been in deep doo-doo. She was 69 at the time, and was able excuse it with the claim that she merely got the gas and the brake confused (she's a horrible driver, granted, but not a confused one). She still has a driver's license, a husband, and a new vehicle.

*sigh*

bogie said...

Well, that is my first reaction, but on second look there may be other circumstances. What if a medical emergency was going on (heart attack, stroke etc), so the driver was not in control of the car.

This can happen to even younger people; the 42 year old VP of our company had a blackout from an ubdiagnosed medical condition, crossed the median and struck another vehicle on the highway - he wouldn't have been charged even if he had survived the accident.

So, although my initial reaction was much as you describe, I am witholding judgement until a few more facts come out.

Rick C said...

Part of the problem is the RMV doesn't want to take people's licenses away. I've witnessed an old guy, nearly blind, show up for his renewal, with a note from the doctor saying he'd failed the exam, but that the doc didn't want to be the one to take the license away, so he was going to leave it to the RMV's discretion. The son didn't have the courage to refuse to help his dad out. The worker at the counter passed the buck to her boss, who also refused to do the right thing and pull the guy's license.

bogie said...

I heard that charges have been filed which means that they don't think there are extenuating circumstances. Only now, can I agree with you.

Anonymous said...

35 years ago, I was struck on I-93 in Wilmington, head-on, by a drunk going to NH in the SOUTHBOUND lane. (11 AM, weekday, other guy died with no estate or relatives we could locate.) I spent 4 months in the hospital, almost died. I am disabled still and will be for life. The Mass. RMV revoked MY license, the rationale being involvement in a fatal accident! It took legal representation and multiple hearings to prove that I was truly a victim and deserved a license. The level of RMV cluelessness has become truly insulting;emblematic of how the Bay State is run. Things have been out of control for quite a while.