He said "penal"

Here are a few cites for California and another state re: street racing and M2.

Citrus Heights Man Charged with Murder in Street Racing Deathhttp://www.news10.net/storyful...15779

Murder trial finish for fatal drag racehttp://www.courttv.com/trials/....html

Street racing murder case goes to juryhttp://news.public.findlaw.com....html

California Traffic Law: DUI Results in Murder Chargehttp://duidirectory.com/News/DuiDwiNews.html

"M2 requires Malice, but does not require premeditation. Malice can be inferred from the circumstances of the crime, even if the actor lacked intent to kill - abandoned and malignant heart. Malice is inferred where the acts involved are basically anti-social in nature, and such that a normal person would see the activity as involving a high risk of danger."

While not distinctively anti-social in nature, rally driving involves a high risk of danger. So if a driver wrecks and takes out a spectator, that could stipulate M2 under the provided definition of malice? Perhaps words have different definitions when cast into the legal arena, but I've always understood malice to imply a desire to harm, or to see harm befall someone else.

I get what you're saying, but as I mentioned before, I would imagine that these definitions vary according to state (as mentioned previously). Yes, yes, yes, it is true in California. That does not automatically imply that it is true for every state in the union, nor does it invalidate my original statement. The age of consent in Idaho is 14, but try to get 'amorous' with a 14-year-old in California (18), and you're toast. Still, you've done your homework, and that should be commended.

Regardless, agree or disagree, I have still succeeded and derailing your debate with Brian. On top of that, I learned something about California law with regard to murder. Can't top that for gains from something which resulted from an exercise in boredom.

Sil40_Mayhem wrote:
While not distinctively anti-social in nature, rally driving involves a high risk of danger. So if a driver wrecks and takes out a spectator, that could stipulate M2 under the provided definition of malice? Perhaps words have different definitions when cast into the legal arena, but I've always understood malice to imply a desire to harm, or to see harm befall someone else.

I think you've missed the point if you believe this. Malice does not need to involve a desire to harm, hence the "inferred" malice rules.

I'd get serious and help you understand even more, however your comments regarding your pursuing this line as you were bored and wanted to derail another posters line of questions, tells me you really aren't interested in discussing the matter. You didn't "derail" the topic by questioning a potential penalty related to the OP.

Additionally, what I posted were the Common Law definitions of the crimes. The CL is the foundation for most (except Louisiana which uses the French Civil Law) jurisdictions in the US.

rn79870 wrote:
I think you've missed the point if you believe this. Malice does not need to involve a desire to harm, hence the "inferred" malice rules.

I'd get serious and help you understand even more, however your comments regarding your pursuing this line as you were bored and wanted to derail another posters line of questions, tells me you really aren't interested in discussing the matter. You didn't "derail" the topic by questioning a potential penalty related to the OP.

Additionally, what I posted were the Common Law definitions of the crimes. The CL is the foundation for most (except Louisiana which uses the French Civil Law) jurisdictions in the US.

Yes, this discussion is mostly for kicks. Yes, since we've been bantering back and forth, there hasn't been much interaction between you and Brian. Did I miss something?

If you are still willing to educate me on this, or whatever else, I am more than willing to hear you out. Being bored and aimless does not necessarily mean that I (or someone else lurking in the background reading this) wouldn't benefit from your knowledge. Understood? Actually, links to the Common Law definitions and information on where Common Law is invoked with regard to homicide would be great. I may be fooling around, but someone else could probably get something useful out of it (but could be too shy to pipe up).

I've cleaned the thread some. Please post on topic, or on a topic related to the OP. Thanks.

Im with WD on this one. We travel to secluded sections of state highways to race. Usually some time between 2am and 4am. They are always roads that everyone knows very well. We also shut down the race immediately if any headlights or taillights are spotted. Im very aware of the fact that not all street racers take this much care to try and limit the dangers of the act. They try to jump in on our racing all the time and we either ask them to leave or just call off all of our races at that spot and either go somewhere else or call it a night and go to bull**** over some coffee and pancakes.

That being said, most of the local police in this area definitely take into account the environment in which the race was taking place. Most of the time at our hangouts, they just pull up and ask us to leave. We also have a few off-duty officers that have been known to participate from time to time.

I take great care not to injure bystanders. Day to day, I drive within 5 of the limit unless the general flow of traffic is moving faster. We dont stand next to the roads or ahead of the start line. Ive never seen an accident locally, even though my time participating isnt as much as WD, I still find it material given the number of people that show up on a weekly basis.

I understand what both of you are saying and I am 100% against people that decide to race when other cars are on the street. Their community service should involve sitting in on counseling sessions for the families that have lost loved ones to people driving recklessly.

Also, to address the track thing. We have 2 tracks within a 1.5 hour drive. A lot of us start the night off there for the real races and just hang out later. I have never run my car at the track, nor do I intend to. The closest track is horrible when it comes to maintenance and I dont feel like sending my car into a wall or getting hit by the other driver bc they fail to see the importance of resurfacing on a regular basis. Also, most of those that decide to race on the street have some pretty quick cars and dont want to be forced to put a cage in the car that they drive to work the rest of the week.

^well on that logic your saying that getting a much bigger, faster engine without upgrading ur stock brakes is a reasonable risk? Im not sayin everyone needs a cage, but i think if your gonna make ur car stupid fast you might want to consider proper safety precautions. People really dont need to be rolling around in 500whp street cars imo. Save that kind of thing for a track. i think around 300 is plunty for a purely street car.

^ are you saying my car is going ot be to fast for the street.

yes i do think that actually.

brizanden wrote:People really dont need to be rolling around in 500whp street cars imo. Save that kind of thing for a track. i think around 300 is plunty for a purely street car.

This coming from someone with a sports bike? Looks like a Honda CBR600, I believe. Lets say an average street car weighs 3200 lbs. 300 horsepower would give it a power to weight ratio of 10.6 lbs. per horsepower. Lets take the bike... I found specs stating the 05 CBR600RR made 101.6 hp and had a weight of around 420 lbs. for a power to weight ratio of 4.17 pounds per horsepower. What kind of power would it take for a street car to equal that? 767 hp at 3,200 lbs. I guaranty that the majority of those CBR's will never see a track so that statement is a bit ridiculous.

Besides... the power isn't going to hurt or kill anyone anymore than a gun will kill someone or a spoon make someone fat... its the person behind the wheel of the car that is the deciding factor. I could easily hurt or kill someone with a Geo Metro running on 1 cylinder by simply running a red light. I could also be driving a 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron and never hurt or kill anything more than bugs flying around the road by driving responsibly. Limiting the power produced by cars will only anger enthusiasts and reduce a few deaths per year from the kids that got high power vehicles from their parents or some rich person that simply does not know how to drive responsibly/handle the amount of power. The idiots that don't know how to drive will still exist and will still hurt and kill with hamster powered grocery getters.

^cept na cause its not my bike its my friend and im afraid of it cause guess what... I THINK ITS UNSAFE... woah thats a crazy post. oh and its a 600rr .As far as your gun comparision it simple aids my case. If you notice there are guns that are not legal to own at all. like fully automatic assult rifles and machine guns. Kinda like how i said you dont need a 600whp monster cruising the streets as a dd. Now i get that people wanna build monsters for racing and i totally understand that i just think there is a place for cars like that and they should be purpose built. Now i know no laws will ever limit power or anything but jsut my .02. (sidenote: driving a 600whp car on the street would seem uncomfortable to me as well lol)also my post was less about power of cars and more about if ur gonna have such a crazy car the amount of saftey percautions that should go into it. Cause the guy before me stated how people with "pretty fast cars" dont want a roll cage cuase they got to work in it.

brizanden wrote:^cept na cause its not my bike its my friend and im afraid of it cause guess what... I THINK ITS UNSAFE... woah thats a crazy post. oh and its a 600rr .

Fair enough. I used to ride actually but got kind of scared doing it after a while as other poor drivers out there scared the hell out of me. I figured, I'd rather have a car that I could make quick like a bike but have metal all around me for extra safety.

Quote »As far as your gun comparision it simple aids my case. If you notice there are guns that are not legal to own at all. like fully automatic assult rifles and machine guns.[/quote]Actually... they aren't technically illegal, at least not in all states. You have to have a special permit for automatic weapons and for others, like a "sawed off" shotgun, a 5 dollar stamp. But, that wasn't really my comparison. Basically I was saying that guns do not kill, its the person behind the gun that kills. Maybe you'll have the rare misfire from it being worn or from someone dropping it that causes it to fire and hit someone but 99.99999999% of the time... you could have a house full of loaded weapons and not a single one would hurt or kill a person until a person pulled the trigger. A very powerful car driven by a responsible person simply can not hurt or kill because of the power it produces. Even if that person were to speed or race... if they did so in remote areas like other street racers it would still be safer than a person with a low power vehicle driving irresponsibly.

Quote »Kinda like how i said you dont need a 600whp monster cruising the streets as a dd. Now i get that people wanna build monsters for racing and i totally understand that i just think there is a place for cars like that and they should be purpose built. Now i know no laws will ever limit power or anything but jsut my .02. (sidenote: driving a 600whp car on the street would seem uncomfortable to me as well lol)also my post was less about power of cars and more about if ur gonna have such a crazy car the amount of saftey percautions that should go into it. Cause the guy before me stated how people with "pretty fast cars" dont want a roll cage cuase they got to work in it.[/quote]I personally want a powerful Z for a daily but don't want a cage either... I will however have massive tires on it with huge brakes making my overly powerful car.... actually safer in many cases compared to most low powered vehicles. Of course I can out accelerate them but I can also out maneuver and out brake them meaning in emergency situations my car is much more likely to survive. I rarely go any more than 5 over the posted limit but like to do spirited driving on the back roads where people rarely drive and that's where the power and other mods shine.

Besides... most of these high powered cars are purpose built. They're purposely built to be high power, fast street cars. :uhuh

^yea i can understand good drivers being responsible, but MAJORITY of "street racers" are not resposnisble or that great of drivers. Its a bunch of kids that dont know what they are doing about 80% of the time. at least thats how it is around me. Like you said with the bike i dont trust other drivers abilities so i dont want to give them a 3000lb bullet the size of a small hipo.

^ werent u just talking about getting a bike though

shhh shut ur dam mouth.

thats what i thought

brizanden wrote:^yea i can understand good drivers being responsible, but MAJORITY of "street racers" are not resposnisble or that great of drivers.

I actually would bet that the majority of the street racers are responsible... you just never hear about them because they are responsible enough not to get into trouble. Its the irresponsible street racers that you hear about and there are enough of them that it makes street racing sound like a major problem. I don't know for sure... but I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually the case. Street racing has been around for quite a long time and I agree that its the younger crowd that is starting to cause the problems.

well i added in my area cause seriously all the ones i know that "race" are stupid *** jokes that can barely drive that well. One of said kids i was just talking to and he told me how another one stripped his fifth gear in his ford lightning. i just laughed the kid doesnt rev match when he downshifts he just puts it in and lets the clutch out. shreded a eclipse gt-s tranny the first day he had it lol.

5th gear in a Lightning? They only came with a 4-speed auto... swap maybe? If not... that's some major fail right there.

its a 5 spd i have no clue wht they have done to it

To respond to the post about keeping stock brakes. Thats really not a valid comparison to not wanting a cage. An adequate braking system helps avoid accidents. A cage just helps prevent injury in the case of an accident and that is normally only if youre wearing a helmet. I dont know about youre area, but here it is illegal and frowned upon to wear a helmet in a car while it is being operated on public highways.

IMO, the power thing is kind of ridiculous as well. Lots of new cars put out more power than that, the key is that their suspension and brakes are also built to make the car an overall safer means of transportation than a lot of the S chassis low power cars on the street.

Basically if everything is up to par on the brakes, suspension, and engine, the only thing that really makes a car dangerous is the person behind the wheel. I can guarantee you that most of my friends that occasionally race on the streets in their "over powered" street machines are safer to be around on the highway than a 17yo talking on a cell phone while yelling at the 4 other teenagers riding along in the car.

Yes there are dumbasses, however, until we come up with a viable way to test for the privilege of creating another life, its something that no law will ever be able to take out of the equation.