Witness says driver who hit church bus and killed 13 ADMITTED HE WAS TEXTING

[The Professor]

You're the same guy who claimed on another thread that in your home state of Louisiana you could kill a man to prevent him from breaking into your unoccupied vehicle. Even after I quoted the law in your state to prove you wrong you refused to accept it and went on a binge of childish insults. Fortunately no one believed the crap you wee spouting.

Once again you are wrong. According to you, the laws of your state say, “"No dog shall run free on any public land nor any unenclosed land of another." So far, you are right. The Maryland Statutes do use those word; however you erroneously took these words to mean, “That means not only can your dog not be off-leash when you walk it, it can't be off leash in your own yard if you don't have a fence to keep it in.” You have a very serous problem with reading comprehension. The law you quoted addresses dogs on public land (not the land owned by the dog owner) and the unenclosed land of another (not the land of the dog owner). The law you quoted is completely silent regarding the rights of the dog's owneer to keep his dog on his own private preoprty.

Sorry, but you're wrong, but not your fault. I was right, but not because of what I posted. The Louisiana leash law states:

2771. Dogs not to run at large. Summary: This Louisiana law states that no person shall permit any dog in his or her possession to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.

So that means any unenclosed land, even that of the dog owners. That would be because you can't stop a dog on unenclosed land from trespassing on other property or running out in the street. Fences make good neighbors, and even better dogs.

So the rest of your personal insult rant can be ignored. I won't personally attack you because I quoted the law incorrectly. But I was right, however, for the wrong reason.

LA - Leash - Chapter 18. Animals Running at Large | Animal Legal & Historical Center

And in the other thread, you were proven wrong on numerous occasions, even other posters asked you to just leave because you were proven wrong. The poster even told you Louisiana plays by a totally different set of rules, based on Napoleonic code. You were shown the the stand your ground laws combined with the castle doctrine makes shooting to defend your car legal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If text driving was punished by automatic loss of license for 5 years, this problem would end overnight.

I don't know about that because you know that there are people out there who don't let losing their license stop them from driving. Now if their cars were to be confiscated, then it would be a different and more effective story.

I realize lots of criminals will continue to drive even after loss of license. But i bet they don't drive as much and when they do drive, they are very careful. So taking their license did a lot of good even though in unintended ways.

 

[Vastator]

I know you'll open a can of hate on me for saying this, but texting or no texting, your dog shouldn't be loose to get in the road. That IS on you. If my dog was run down in the road because I didn't keep her on leash and off the roadway, I'd blame myself and feel sorry for the driver.

That said, I believe smartphones should be made smart enough to auto-disable while in a moving vehicle. If they can't make technology good enough to discern whether the operator is a driver or passenger, then passengers will have to suffer without their phones. Bring back the old GPS gizmos, that's one function of smartphones that is necessary and useful in a vehicle.

Texting and even talking on the cell phone creates impairment equal to or greater than intoxication - numerous NHTSA studies have borne that out. We need to do something about the idiots who use their phones while driving or the carnage will continue.

Sure thing. Right after the cops computers are rendered inop while the vehicle is in motion... cant have cops driving while impaired either...

 

[BoSoxGal]

I know you'll open a can of hate on me for saying this, but texting or no texting, your dog shouldn't be loose to get in the road. That IS on you. If my dog was run down in the road because I didn't keep her on leash and off the roadway, I'd blame myself and feel sorry for the driver.

That said, I believe smartphones should be made smart enough to auto-disable while in a moving vehicle. If they can't make technology good enough to discern whether the operator is a driver or passenger, then passengers will have to suffer without their phones. Bring back the old GPS gizmos, that's one function of smartphones that is necessary and useful in a vehicle.

Texting and even talking on the cell phone creates impairment equal to or greater than intoxication - numerous NHTSA studies have borne that out. We need to do something about the idiots who use their phones while driving or the carnage will continue.

Sure thing. Right after the cops computers are rendered inop while the vehicle is in motion... cant have cops driving while impaired either...

That's dumb. Obviously a 911 call would be the exception in the lockdown technology - just like making emergency calls is the one exception in jurisdictions that have cell phone use bans while operating a motor vehicle. Sadly, people can't be trusted to follow the law and are willing to murder other folks on the road for the sake of a text message or phone call. We need the technology to protect us from stupid careless fuckwads. LEOs need their technology for pretty much the same reason.

 

[Vastator]

Suddenly "emergency", and "necessary" are subjective... Interesting...

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That's dumb. Obviously a 911 call would be the exception in the lockdown technology - just like making emergency calls is the one exception in jurisdictions that have cell phone use bans while operating a motor vehicle. Sadly, people can't be trusted to follow the law and are willing to murder other folks on the road for the sake of a text message or phone call. We need the technology to protect us from stupid careless fuckwads. LEOs need their technology for pretty much the same reason.

They're not fuckwads. They're psychopaths with no sense of right and wrong. And technology is not the answer. We need stiff penalties.

 

[The Professor]

You're the same guy who claimed on another thread that in your home state of Louisiana you could kill a man to prevent him from breaking into your unoccupied vehicle. Even after I quoted the law in your state to prove you wrong you refused to accept it and went on a binge of childish insults. Fortunately no one believed the crap you wee spouting.

Once again you are wrong. According to you, the laws of your state say, “"No dog shall run free on any public land nor any unenclosed land of another." So far, you are right. The Maryland Statutes do use those word; however you erroneously took these words to mean, “That means not only can your dog not be off-leash when you walk it, it can't be off leash in your own yard if you don't have a fence to keep it in.” You have a very serous problem with reading comprehension. The law you quoted addresses dogs on public land (not the land owned by the dog owner) and the unenclosed land of another (not the land of the dog owner). The law you quoted is completely silent regarding the rights of the dog's owneer to keep his dog on his own private preoprty.

Sorry, but you're wrong, but not your fault. I was right, but not because of what I posted. The Louisiana leash law states:

2771. Dogs not to run at large. Summary: This Louisiana law states that no person shall permit any dog in his or her possession to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.

So that means any unenclosed land, even that of the dog owners. That would be because you can't stop a dog on unenclosed land from trespassing on other property or running out in the street. Fences make good neighbors, and even better dogs.

So the rest of your personal insult rant can be ignored. I won't personally attack you because I quoted the law incorrectly. But I was right, however, for the wrong reason.

LA - Leash - Chapter 18. Animals Running at Large | Animal Legal & Historical Center

And in the other thread, you were proven wrong on numerous occasions, even other posters asked you to just leave because you were proven wrong. The poster even told you Louisiana plays by a totally different set of rules, based on Napoleonic code. You were shown the the stand your ground laws combined with the castle doctrine makes shooting to defend your car legal.

I WAS RIGHT ON ONE ISSUE AND WRONG ON ANOTHER.

WHERE I WAS RIGHT:

You initially quoted the laws of your state as follows: “"No dog shall run free on any public land nor any unenclosed land of another." From this you concluded: “That means not only can your dog not be off-leash when you walk it, it can't be off leash in your own yard if you don't have a fence to keep it in.”

I was right when I said the the law as you quoted (the actual law is much different) did not support your conclusion because it dealt only with dogs on public land and the enclosed land of another person. It was in fact silent regarding a dog on the owner's property. There are other jurisdictions which have a law exactly as you quoted but do not require the dog to be in an enclosed area or otherwise restrained when on its owner's property.

WHERE I WAS WRONG:

I told you that the laws of your stated did not require that a dog be restrained when on its owner's property and I was wrong. For reasons I cannot understand and will not defend, I quoted the laws of the State of Maryland and I should have know that your home state is Louisiana.. Maryland laws are much different than those in your home state. Animal control in Maryland can seize a dog only if the animal is at large, defined by state law as one who is both off the owners premises and not properly restrained. Some counties allow a dog to roam free on the owner's premises but require a dog who is in heat to be in an enclosure. In some counties in Maryland owners can walk their dogs in public without a leash provided the dog is “well behaved” and meets certain other conditions. In Maryland, the only dogs that must absolutely be restrained when on the owner's property are those who the State considers to be dangerous. All counties must comply with this mandate.

Contrary to the varying laws in the State of Maryland, the law in your home state is as clear as any law I've ever read. The relevant statute (TITLE 3 - RS 3:2771) reads as follows:

No person shall suffer or permit any dog in his possession, or kept by him about his premises, to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.

There is no doubt that if you have a dog in the State of Louisiana and you allow him to be in your yard, the law demands the animal be in an enclosed area or otherwise properly restrained.

I apologize for disagreeing with you regarding the laws of your state concerning animal control. The next time I'll make sure I am quoting the laws of the right state. I still can't believe I did that. Oh well, I need a little challenge to my ego every now and then.

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska's a big dog state, most cities consider dogs off leash as the norm (including Eagle River until we were annexed) Though even Anchorage's muni laws are pretty open ended:

The municipal ordinance (Title 17) requires that a person who owns an animal, such as a dog or cat, shall control it at all times. In a public place, with some exceptions, the municipal ordinance requires that an owner shall have his/her animal under control and shall not allow it to roam neighborhoods or have access to other people's property.

Controlling an animal means to simultaneously monitor, direct, and restrict an animal's movement and activities in a humane manner.

Control by leash means to control an animal by securely attaching a leash, chain, or an item which is physically capable of restraining the animal, including electronic collar, to the animal which is in the secure possession of a person physically and mentally capable of monitoring, directing, and restricting the animal's movements and activities.

Control by command means to control an animal by visual or audible commands, or a combination thereof, to which the animal responds promptly and accurately. Control by command is only allowed if the following criteria are met:

The animal is engaged in an activity that precludes it from accomplishing that activity if restrained, AND
The animal is in an area normally associated with that activity, AND
The activity is conducted in a manner that minimizes impact with the general public.

All three of the above criteria must be met in order for a pet to legitimately be off-leash in public. Examples of allowed activities may include dog agility trials, retriever training, and throwing/catching a Frisbee. The code doesn't allow for off-leash dog walking unless the pet is in a designated off-leash dog park space.

--

That said, if your dog gets hit off leash in the road, it's the owners fault - though that doesn't mean that the driver isn't fined, especially on neighborhood roads as you're expected to be ready for children to run into the road there.) When one gets a ticket in a neighborhood for speeding, they'll typically also get a ticket for reckless driving and/or inattentive driving. The general idea is that we're giving driver's the benefit of the doubt that they are paying attention by allowing them to go 25mph, instead of the more typical 10mph you'd see in areas of high pedestrian traffic (ie parking lots) A bit of a compromise...

 

[airplanemechanic]

I apologize for disagreeing with you regarding the laws of your state concerning animal control. The next time I'll make sure I am quoting the laws of the right state. I still can't believe I did that. Oh well, I need a little challenge to my ego every now and then.

I can't believe I quoted my own states dog leash law wrong. I've had to directly deal with it regarding an attack on my own dog in my yard. Shame on me.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I can't believe I quoted my own states dog leash law wrong. I've had to directly deal with it regarding an attack on my own dog in my yard. Shame on me.

Stop talking about leash laws. This thread is about text-drivers. This is your last warning.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The leash law in all 50 states:

Table of State Dog Leash Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Now, whatcha gonna do?

 

[The Professor]

The leash law in all 50 states:

Table of State Dog Leash Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Now, whatcha gonna do?

Ignore you and get on with my life.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If text driving was punished by automatic loss of license for 5 years, this problem would end overnight.

In this case, the person should do a life sentence.

You get to chose your actions......your actions result in 13 deaths (or the death of a dog), you don't get to chose your consequences.

I'd sit on the firing squad.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The leash law in all 50 states:

Table of State Dog Leash Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Now, whatcha gonna do?

Ignore you and get on with my life.

Good, 3 other people talked about it besides me but only I was targeted and told to stop talking about it.

Me no thinks that's too fair, no?

 

[The Professor]

The leash law in all 50 states:

Table of State Dog Leash Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Now, whatcha gonna do?

Ignore you and get on with my life.

Good, 3 other people talked about it besides me but only I was targeted and told to stop talking about it.

Me no thinks that's too fair, no?

I have more important things to think about, like ... well, almost anything.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Well then why did you argue with me for 3 pages about it? And if you said you would ignore me, why not ignore me? Quoting me and replying to me is the opposite of ignoring me. There are many threads on here I ignore, and you can tell I ignore them. You don't see me in them at all. But to tell someone in a quoted reply you are ignoring them is, well, kinda funny! lol

 

[The Professor]

Well then why did you argue with me for 3 pages about it? And if you said you would ignore me, why not ignore me? Quoting me and replying to me is the opposite of ignoring me. There are many threads on here I ignore, and you can tell I ignore them. You don't see me in them at all. But to tell someone in a quoted reply you are ignoring them is, well, kinda funny! lol

OK, it's funny. Does that make you feel better? I hope so.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yea it does. It makes me feel all tingly inside. Like the same thrill I'd get running over a liberal with my truck.

 

[The Professor]

Yea it does. It makes me feel all tingly inside. Like the same thrill I'd get running over a liberal with my truck.

You da man!

 

[airplanemechanic]