That is just horrible. Street racing or not, I still believe the crown vic should be responsible for not reducing/stopping if in fact nothing was visible to the driver, however, it's too hard to judge without knowing the complete story.

 

 

Okay, maybe my theory was wrong... but based on the first report, which was the link posted and on others I had read before the update it didn't seem this way.


It said the race was finished, the car had no headlights on, and veered off road.

The new reports clear that up, but the original with direct quotes from those present presented those statements.

 

Before you (who is 23 according to your profile = same age as me) suggest I was arguing like a child as a battleground for my own opinion you should read my posts. I'm not the one name calling and I labeled my theory a theory, i no where stated it was fact. I'm entitled to an opinion. You shouldn't make broad statements before reading someones posts in its entirety.

I stated various times that I was not advocating street racing.

I simply stated, given the facts from the first articles, it did not look like a street racer hit them.

Again, my theory was wrong, but given those facts available at the time, I had a feeling the driver of the third car was intoxicated. I'm sure you can understand my theory given the reports said at 3:45 in the morning a car was driving wtihout headlights on and veered off road after a street race had finished.

I can only react to reports when they are available, I was not able to see into the future where the facts completely changed.

 

So sad...

 

Crown vic at fault all the way. You don't just keep driving when you see a cloud of white smoke on the road.

There was an incident where an old guy drove into a supermarket and killed 9. These people watching the racing were just an innocent as the people shopping.

 

Thats why you don't beleive the first thing you read from the media. A fact is something that is CONFIRMED and happened. What witnesses say are not facts.

Reserve judgment until all the information in available to make a INFORMED decision.

You should work for the media, you seem to be good at making up stories to ruin the reputation of others with no forethought for the consequences.

 

If only I was as intelligent as you.

What is or is not a fact is debatable. How can a cop confirm that headlights were on or off? If witnesses say they were off and driver says they were on, the cop is only in a position to take statements and decide if charges should be filled based on his after the fact feeling. It would be impossible for the cop to "confirm" unless the driver admitted. Additionally, when deaths are involved, the cops will not rush to file charges or make public statements.

I made an "informed" statement based on the information available at the time and I'm not too concerned. My theory or analysis of the event is not going to ruin anyones reputation. I didn't make up any story, its called speculation.

 

Damn, this is getting old. Again, this sucks to hear about the incident, if you guys want to fight about if the media was right and what was speculated and/or confirmed, start another thread.

 

There is no way that the driver of the Crown Vic should not be charged.

Who is driving around at 3:40am with no headlights on? Drunk drivers.

Even if he wasn't drunk that's involuntary manslaughter and wreckless driving charges at least.