Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on February 13, 2009, 11:18:33 PM
-
Hmmm ...
Sounds like a terrible accident, but an accident nonetheless. The family wants "justice," they say, but it sounds more like they want vengeance ... and money. However ...
Here's a full-page article, about a Hispanic "victim," and nowhere does it majke any mention of his immigration status. Since the liberal press bends over backwards to convince us that most immigrants are legal, the fact they do NOT mention his status tells me that he probably wasn't. So if he hadn't broken the law (my assumption) and sneaked into the U.S. to take a job someone else needs, and if he hadn't jaywalked, he'd still be alive. "Justice" would have to take that into account.
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=6387612&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=
Wife of Ecuadorean dragged by NY van wants justice
Published: 2/13/09, 10:05 PM EDT
By JEANNETH VALDIVIESO
QUITO, Ecuador (AP) - The wife of the Ecuadorean man hit by a car, trapped under a van and dragged for nearly 20 miles through New York City is demanding justice for her husband's death.
"It's not fair that my husband died there as if he were an animal," said Sonia Solorzano, wife of Guido Salvador Carabajo-Jara, an Ecuadorean immigrant killed in a gruesome car accident in New York on Wednesday.
"I don't want (his death) to go unpunished. I want justice," Solorzano told Ecuavisa TV on Friday from her home in the southern Ecuadorean province of Canar.
New York police have said the death was accidental and that they have no plans to charge the two drivers, who both have clean driving records.
Solorzano did not say if the family plans to file a lawsuit. Carabajo-Jara's sister said the family will need financial aid from the Ecuadorean government just to repatriate the body.
Ecuador provides money to the families of deceased citizens abroad for repatriation and legal fees through its national migrant secretary's office. The office says it is already in contact with Carabajo-Jara's family.
Carabajo-Jara was on his way to work laying tile in Brooklyn on Wednesday morning when he was hit by an SUV while apparently crossing against the light on a busy street. He was then impaled by a steel plate on the underside of a second vehicle, a van, and dragged nearly 20 miles to Brooklyn.
The first driver, Gustavo Acosta, called the police, who arrived to find the victim gone. The second driver, Manuel Lituma Sanchez, suspected something was wrong, even pulling over once to check under the hood, but did not find the body until he was alerted by a pedestrian nearly an hour later. Finding the body, he called the authorities.
Carabajo-Jara was living with his cousin and sister in an apartment in Queens, and relatives say he faithfully sent money back to his wife, mother and 4-year-old daughter in Ecuador.
Relative Ignacio Quintero described Carabajo-Jara as a hard worker whose mission was to provide for his child and save enough money to build a home in Ecuador. He turned 26 the day before the accident.
It was the third highly publicized death of an Ecuadorean immigrant in New York in a little more than three months.
Jose Oswaldo Sucuzhanay, a 31-year-old real estate agent, was walking arm in arm with his brother in Brooklyn in December when he was beaten to death in an apparent hate crime by assailants who shouted anti-Hispanic and anti-gay slurs.
That killing followed the death on Long Island of Marcelo Lucero, 37, an Ecuadorean immigrant who was fatally stabbed Nov. 8.
-
So wait...any mention of an immigrant and they have to establish his legality now?
When I read this my first thought was how terrible it would be to find out you possibly drug a man to his death. Your first thought was, "He probably aint legal!"
You sure are preoccupied with them fereners, aren't you?
-
You sure are preoccupied with them fereners, aren't you?
There are 20 million illegal aliens in our nation of roughly 300 million legitimate Amrican citizens. They've left us no choice but to pay attention to them.
-
So wait...any mention of an immigrant and they have to establish his legality now?
You sure are preoccupied with them fereners, aren't you?
I'm with him... And the odds are in my favor.
-
Right, wrong, who cares? A civil case is big bucks, especially when things like guilt, negligence, and the victim's own culpability have no impact.
-
So wait...any mention of an immigrant and they have to establish his legality now?
My point was simply that "the media" never miss an opportunity to stress that a Hispanic is a legal immigrant ... when he/she is a legal immigrant. Out of nothing more than fairness, they should be equally dedicated to printing when a Hispanic is illegal ... if he/she is illegal.
You sure are preoccupied with them fereners, aren't you?
I have no choice. I live in an area that's inundated with them.
-
My point was simply that "the media" never miss an opportunity to stress that a Hispanic is a legal immigrant ...
really? could you point out some examples of that? i missed em
-
Oh fer god's sake.
Tragic story. Understand the reaction from the family, even if they are probably wrong. Grief-stricken, especially when the circumstances of the death are so horrible.
Something similar happened in Durham when I was a student. Old lady got snagged by a passing bus, driver didn't notice anything and dragged her for about half a mile to her death. As far as I remember no charges were brought, but the driver must have had a hard time coping with it, felt sorry for him.
-
When I read that the widow wants "justice" I couldn't help thinking, "OK. Issue a citation for jaywalking to the dead guy and she can pay the fine."
-
Guido Salvador Carabajo-Jara, an Ecuadorean immigrant killed in a gruesome car accident in New York on Wednesday.
The first driver, Gustavo Acosta
The second driver, Manuel Lituma Sanchez
Does anybody else find it ironic that a Hispanic/Latino was run over by two other Hispanic/Latino people?
-
Does anybody else find it ironic that a Hispanic/Latino was run over by two other Hispanic/Latino people?
Ironic how? =|
-
When I read that the widow wants "justice" I couldn't help thinking, "OK. Issue a citation for jaywalking to the dead guy and she can pay the fine."
Not good enough; hit her for the vehicle damage too.
-
The fact that someone is jaywalking doesn't give a driver the right to close his eyes and hit as if the jaywalker weren't there in the street. Rights of way, negligence, all that sort of thing come into play.
It makes sense that the story doesn't mention immigration status-it's not about immigration. It'd be bizarre and tasteless to have a lengthy discussion about someone's immigration status in an article about a fatal accident that had zero to do with his citizenship.
-
The fact that someone is jaywalking doesn't give a driver the right to close his eyes and hit as if the jaywalker weren't there in the street. Rights of way, negligence, all that sort of thing come into play.
So if driver A is minding their own business driving in accordance with the traffic laws, and pedestrian B decides to ignore those same traffic laws (AND the clear iconographic symbols that denote safe/not safe to cross the street) and walks into the path of driver A, drive is A is negligent? Even though driver A called authorities who did not find pedestrian B; as did driver C who also made reasonable checks that something was amiss with his vehicle and when alerted by others of the issue ALSO called authorities?
If one goes about poking sleeping tigers with sharp sticks, don't be surprised when the tiger makes it objections plainly known.
-
So if driver A is minding their own business driving in accordance with the traffic laws, and pedestrian B decides to ignore those same traffic laws (AND the clear iconographic symbols that denote safe/not safe to cross the street) and walks into the path of driver A, drive is A is negligent? Even though driver A called authorities who did not find pedestrian B; as did driver C who also made reasonable checks that something was amiss with his vehicle and when alerted by others of the issue ALSO called authorities?
If one goes about poking sleeping tigers with sharp sticks, don't be surprised when the tiger makes it objections plainly known.
Pedestrians always have right of way, even when jay walking. Why? Because "he shouldn't oughta been there" is a piss poor excuse for killing a man. Depending on the exact circumstances the driver may not have been negligent ie suicide by car or a kid darting out into the street. But are people seriously saying a horrible death is an appropriate result of jaywalking? :O ;/
-
Some inane comments have been thrown out, just to rile us up. Let's ignore them. After all, no one said you should run over jay-walkers. And no one said there should be a lengthy discussion of immigration status in the news article. So, let's let that be the end of that.
-
A right of way is a wonderful thing. The practical application can be another thing entirely.
And no, pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way no matter what, It depends largely on the laws of the jurisdiction. Saying that infers that a motorist will ALWAYS be charged for hitting a pedestrian; that the pedestrian is NEVER at fault. That's a stupid assertion.
For example, this pamphlet from the state of Georgia: http://www.peds.org/resources/kw_rightofway1.pdf
It outlines when the pedestrian has the right of way. Nowhere does it say that pedestrians have a blanket right of way.
It's also patently STUPID to think that a 3,000 pound car can stop within a foot or two to give said pedestrian the right of way when he chooses to cross where ever he may desire.
"But are people seriously saying a horrible death is an appropriate result of jaywalking?"
I don't see where anyone is asserting that at all.
What I am seeing is that actions can have effects, and not always positive ones, and that sometimes the individual who starts the cause-effect chain is responsible for his actions.
-
A right of way is a wonderful thing. The practical application can be another thing entirely.
And no, pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way no matter what, It depends largely on the laws of the jurisdiction. Saying that infers that a motorist will ALWAYS be charged for hitting a pedestrian; that the pedestrian is NEVER at fault. That's a stupid assertion.
For example, this pamphlet from the state of Georgia: http://www.peds.org/resources/kw_rightofway1.pdf
It outlines when the pedestrian has the right of way. Nowhere does it say that pedestrians have a blanket right of way.
It's also patently STUPID to think that a 3,000 pound car can stop within a foot or two to give said pedestrian the right of way when he chooses to cross where ever he may desire.
"But are people seriously saying a horrible death is an appropriate result of jaywalking?"
I don't see where anyone is asserting that at all.
What I am seeing is that actions can have effects, and not always positive ones, and that sometimes the individual who starts the cause-effect chain is responsible for his actions.
Well, when I was learning to drive the DMV stated explicitly that peds always have the right of way as a practical matter. In other words, one must always yield to a guy standing in the road, even if he isn't supposed to be there.
I agree actions have consequences. I don't think the drivers are at fault, and I do not wish to see them punished. I also think fining the widow and forcing her to pay to repair the car that killed her husband are incredibly crass suggestions. I seem to recall the mods issuing stern warnings about dancing on the graves of those we dislike. If that's not the case please let me know, but I personally hold that comments such as those above serve only to make the posters on this forum look bad.
-
What part of this sentence was difficult to understand?
"It depends largely on the laws of the jurisdiction."
"one must always yield to a guy standing in the road"
The article says NOTHING about the man standing in the road, sitting in the road, or lying in the road. It says that he was crossing. While we don't know for sure, that word infers actively moving laterally across the path of vehicle travel, meaning that he may not have been seen by the driver.
The article also indicates that the street was "busy," meaning that the driver's attention was necessarily focusing on more than just keeping an eye out for a pedestrian crossing, as the article states, "against the light."
-
But are people seriously saying a horrible death is an appropriate result of jaywalking?
3,000lbs at 30mph is between five and six million foot pounds of impact energy, so, yes, I'd say that a particularly gruesome death is precisely the appropriate result of stepping into the path of such an object.
I also think fining the widow and forcing her to pay to repair the car that killed her husband are incredibly crass suggestions.
Why is it a crass suggestion that his estate (which is almost certainly now the property of his wife) be forced to pay for the damage his actions caused?
I seem to recall the mods issuing stern warnings about dancing on the graves of those we dislike.
I don't even know the guy. He might have been a wonderful person, but he did something stupid. Nature attaches certain penalties to certain stupid acts, and is quite unbiased in the application of those penalties. Society attaches restitution to act which cause damage, and should be equally unbiased.
-
Mike: sorry, I'm tired so I'm not expressing my self well. I was acknowledging that you are right, and explaining where I am coming from. Again, "peds have the right of way" just means that even if the guy is jaywalking, you must make every safe effort not to hit him. That's all. I'm not accusing the driver or excusing the jaywalker; IANAL YMMV void where prohibited.
Ketcetc
/sigh
Tact, decency, politeness, empathy.... I enjoy being a heartless bastard as much as the next guy, but if you would really sue the widow of a man you killed for car repair money....
-
Wait a second here-I was highlighting the issues that might be relevant to the accident, not declaring that any person had the right of way or not. You can still be negligent even if you have the right of way-that goes for pedestrians and drivers. Hence the conclusion that, even if the guy was jaywalking, that doesn't mean there was obviously no fault on the part of the driver. It's impossible to say based on the article-but those are the sorts of issues you'd expect to see covered.
Whether his immigration status should be in the article, as opposed to say, a discussion about pedestrian vs. vehicle accident laws, was the issue I wanted to address. His immigration status had nothing to do with the accident.
So while I'm glad to see a discussion about factors that are at least relevant to the core event, I certainly did not intend to express a conclusion as to who was at fault.
-
Hence the conclusion that, even if the guy was jaywalking, that doesn't mean there was obviously no fault on the part of the driver.
Based on the information presented, it is possible that the driver was partially at fault. It is not, however, possible that the jaywalker would not bear the majority of the fault, since his action as described was both illegal and reckless.
-
I also think fining the widow and forcing her to pay to repair the car that killed her husband are incredibly crass suggestions.
Okay, so you can either:
a) Not have the car repaired
b) Repair it, and pay for it out-of-pocket
c) File a claim with your insurance for the repairs
For me, "a" is not acceptable, and "b" is not practical.
You can bet that when I take option "3" :rolleyes: , my insurance company will not eat the cost. They'll go after the estate for damages.
-
Whether his immigration status should be in the article, as opposed to say, a discussion about pedestrian vs. vehicle accident laws, was the issue I wanted to address. His immigration status had nothing to do with the accident.
I'm not really so concerned about his immigration status, either. But no one said that should be the sole focus of the newspaper article. Indeed, it's hard to believe you could honestly mistake a request for immigration status information, as a demand that the article provide a "lengthy discussion" of that issue, and that alone. So, we must rule out honest disagreement on your part.
-
Well, when I was learning to drive the DMV stated explicitly that peds always have the right of way as a practical matter. In other words, one must always yield to a guy standing in the road, even if he isn't supposed to be there.
That is civil law. The laws of physics are completely different. I'm always shocked by the number of people who think they are one and the same.
-
I'm not really so concerned about his immigration status, either. But no one said that should be the sole focus of the newspaper article. Indeed, it's hard to believe you could honestly mistake a request for immigration status information, as a demand that the article provide a "lengthy discussion" of that issue, and that alone. So, we must rule out honest disagreement on your part.
Did you read the first post? I read this, and I couldn't rule out the possibility that you hadn't.
-
Oh, right you are. Here's the text I overlooked.
Here's a full-page article, about a Hispanic "victim," and nowhere does it majke any mention of his immigration status. I don't see a lengthy discussion of the deceased's immigration status. All I see is some blather about pedestrians, and vehicle accident laws. I DEMAND A LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS!! :mad: :mad:
-
Whether his immigration status should be in the article, as opposed to say, a discussion about pedestrian vs. vehicle accident laws, was the issue I wanted to address. His immigration status had nothing to do with the accident.
However, my point in posting the article was not the accident, but what I considered to be an intentioanl omission of any reference to the deceased's immigration status. I will reiterate: My perusals of the daily news indicate (to my own, personal satisfaction) that when something bad happens to an immigrant, IF the immigrant is legally in the U.S. the reporter makes it very plain in the article that this was a legal immigrant.
Therefore, if "the media" are going to force-feed us with immigration status whenever they report on something involving a legal immigrant, by rights they should also inform us of the immigration status when something involves an illegal immigrant. But they don't do that. I consider it a lie of omission.
Pay attention as you read the news. I predict that if you're paying attention, you'll see the same thing that I consider to be a pattern. Legal immigrant ==> clearly stated, usually in first paragraph. Illegal alien => [chirp]
-
Oh, right you are. Here's the text I overlooked.
Yeah, you think you might be adding a tad bit to what I actually said there?
The followup shows I was exactly on point-I see what you are saying Hawkmoon. I'm simply saying I don't see how that issue is relevant to something like a pedestrian accident.
-
Isn't New York a "Sanctuary city"? I doubt any questions were even asked about immigration status. I don't think the cops are even allowed to ask.
As for who was at fault, the article said neither driver was being charged after the "accident" was investigated. That indicates to me that they determined the pedestrian was at fault.
-
Hmmm ...
Sounds like a terrible accident, but an accident nonetheless. The family wants "justice," they say, but it sounds more like they want vengeance ... and money. However ...
Excellent point. Bolding added by me.
Here's a full-page article, about a Hispanic "victim," and nowhere does it majke any mention of his immigration status. Since the liberal press bends over backwards to convince us that most immigrants are legal, the fact they do NOT mention his status tells me that he probably wasn't. So if he hadn't broken the law (my assumption) and sneaked into the U.S. to take a job someone else needs, and if he hadn't jaywalked, he'd still be alive. "Justice" would have to take that into account.
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=6387612&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=
[/quote]
Now you're just reading way too much into the article. And inventing a story about how if he hadn't been there he'd still be alive. Jaywalkers get hit by cars, regardless of age, sex, race, creed or immigration status. You're creating a story where there isn't one....looking for boogey men in news articles.
-
I've seen a lot of articles about Hispanic/Latino/Whatever in the news, and the media often DOES make a point of stressing the person is a natualized citizen, legal immigrant or is US-born . . . whereas they usually leave out the person's immigration status when they ARE illegals.
Often, when giving the description of a suspect in a crime, they omit the race. "Not relevant" they say. (What they really mean is "not politically correct.")
You see much the same thing in politics - when a Republican is caught behaving badly, you'd think his first name is "Republican" or "Prominent Republican" or "Long time Republican" from reading the paper or listening to the news. On the other hand when a Democrat is caught, more often than not, the party affiliation is simply omitted.
As for the "justice" of getting run over - the laws of physics trump the traffic code. When a pedestrian's (or as often happens around Austin, TX, a bicyclist's) own reckless foolishness leads him to attempt to occupy the same place at the same time as a 2-ton motor vehicle . . . he WILL lose.
And all the self-rightous indignation in the world won't change a thing about it.
-
Cites? Articles? Or just random generalizations?
-
Cites? Articles? Or just random generalizations?
The "Colin Ferguson Effect."
The way the media made no mention of his race in the first reports was the first clue that CF was black.
If you have read any of the big town papers for any length of time, you would have noticed it.
-
Yeah, you think you might be adding a tad bit to what I actually said there?
Not one bit. Not surprisingly, you are trying to accuse me of what you are being called out on - adding to what Hawkmoon said. Which you very clearly did right here:
It makes sense that the story doesn't mention immigration status-it's not about immigration. It'd be bizarre and tasteless to have a lengthy discussion about someone's immigration status in an article about a fatal accident that had zero to do with his citizenship.
-
This'n has lost all possibility of going anywhere civil. So here's a picture of Ron Paul with two pancakes on his head.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi168.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu177%2Fauburnny%2FRonPaulPancakeHead.jpg&hash=ab76250aebb0617740d17b3042611f18711236d2)