Yeah, every case the cops and the DA put forth are always right. :rolleyes:

And did I ever said that? :rolleyes:

And it's the people like you two guys who choose to ignore evidence presented (OJ rings a bell) that we have law breaking motherfuckers walking free and thinking there are no consequences for their actions :eek:

All the Z driver had to do is stay in her lane or go to the right and this would not have happened. It' s the old - if you want to miss something don't stare at it.

Ignore evidence??? The evidence is clear as day!!! The cops aren't saints and a lot of laws ALLOW people to walk not us TWO GUYS!!!

WTF you talking about. OJ - without doubt - should of been been found guilty.

This case is totally different. Sure, the Z driver was driving over the speed limit, but she should not of been charged due to the van driver not yielding to oncoming traffic.

In hindsight, yes. However, the Z driver reacted like a majority of people would have by swerving away to avoid an accident. Not much time to think, but it's instinct to veer away from a potential collision.

Maybe she didn't have the online gaming, Xbox and/or PlayStation skills like some here have. :icon14:

Very well said, did you noticed that she did not attempt to brake at all?

What's clear as day is the Z recklessly speeding through the lanes, putting her in the position to crash into the van. But you choose not to accept this fact because the evidence doesn't support your views in this case.

I am talking about you two ignoring evidence that the Z driver's reckless action caused the accident. The Z shouldn't have been in that spot if it hadn't been driving like a maniac. What's funny is you two keep insisting that the van did not yield without any facts to prove whether she did or did not :rolleyes:


And why did she not have enough time to react? Oh yea, she driving way too fast and wasn't paying attention to the road. The bitch was too busy talking on her phone! She should have been home playing her Xbox instead of out on the road killing people :shakes head:

Unfortunately this thread looks like it may become a shouting match at each other. I'd like to attempt to diffuse that and add in some logical thought here. Please review below.

Car Accidents Caused by Negligence | Nolo.com

Key provisions to read for the defendant, in this case, the Z driver. "Duty of reasonable care" and "breaching". Also take special note of "reasonable person" definition.

One of the questions we need to ask ourselves is, would a "reasonable person" drive 65+ mph on a 35 mph road, with many side streets, weave through traffic and talk on their cell phone at the same time. I know I would not and I'm guessing 90% plus on this forum would not as well.

Now lets address the claim that the van did not stop properly, please remember that the van and the car to the right of it entered that intersection at the same time. Both of them were not expecting a car to be weaving and speeding at 65 mph+ on that street. IMO that's evidence that would lean heavily in the favor of the van driver and the car turning right acted in a reasonable manner. Much more so than an individual speeding, weaving, cell phone talking driver.

I've been in situations where I've accelerated and braked to avoid accidents. Each time I had no accident. Who's to know if either would of turned out different if I done the opposite.

Bad news

Cool story brah! How is it anyway related to this situation? :confused: can we get back to why you think the Z is not responsible for the wreck?:tiphat:

Hey brah brah....lol.

I answered the man's question. You know where I stand so what's your point questioning my reasoning where I stand. Each of us have opinions, so God Bless America!!! If this offends you, so sorry. :p

Not offense taken at all! It's slow Saturday here, just trying to carry on the topic lol:hello: