Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie
If you're careful, you can stop on the road (or juggle chainsaws, smoke, shoot an apple off of your kid's head...
The punishment for stopping on the road is pretty low because generally people can be counted on to be somwhat careful and generally nothing bad happens. When something bad happens, other laws kick in. Because killing people isn't about "but all I did was stop my car, what's wrong with that?"
|
The second part of what you said exposes the error in logic of the first.
An action poses a certain level of risk and challenge to others. The risk introduced by that action is independent of the risks others introduce to the situation. Whether or not someone dies due to the risk that was introduced is irrelevant.
If almost everybody can avoid a stopped vehicle, then the person that does not avoid has added their own risk to the situation, and is responsible for that portion of additional risk.
What if I dressed up in a clown outfit and went for a walk. While on the walk, someone sees me, is startled by the unusual circumstance, and jumps off a cliff to their death? Have I committed manslaughter due to the outcome?
The woman stopped for ducks clearly made a poor choice and should receive a punishment. I assure you that the fact that knowing her actions contributed to the death of 2 people is the most severe punishment one could receive. She should also receive a citation for whatever is the maximum amount allowed for such an infraction.
If her car had run out of gas and stopped in the same spot, with the same outcome, she would have not been given such harsh treatment, even though both situations are within her control.