[s-cars] RE: diffs, donuts, and Johnny Law

[Kirby Smith]

Thanks Ray.  Your description likely provides as much clarification as
the situation can support.

kirby


ray at s-cars.org wrote:
> 
> This particular offense adopts its definition from the NH criminal code, and is considered a "Serious Offense" under NH's traffic code.  The legislative history indicates that the statute was written to curb drag racing on public highways, excessive or unreasonable speed (25mph over the posted limit) and for activities that disregard the general safety of the operating public.  I particularly love the last "catch-all" provision.
> 
> I want to steer clear of discussing any level of recklessness, and instead focus more on the lesser-included offense of negligent operation.  Much less flexibility for the court - in either instance, however, there exists little caselaw that defines either degree of culpability.
> 
> If I focus on negligent operation, I'm stuck with the reasonable person standard.  If I focus on recklessness, the court is required to look at my mens rea, meaning, whether I consciously disregarded the fact that my actions could have caused serious harm to the public.
> 
> By turning the focus away from my culpability or mens rea, and by focusing instead on the outcome (my unreasonable speed given the conditions), I force the court to look at my actions in the context of the result - a near perfect pivot turn in an unused area of the parking lot where no patrons were standing.  No harm, no foul.  One can only hope.
> 
> >
> > From: Kirby Smith <kirby.a.smith at verizon.net>
> > Date: 2004/01/20 Tue PM 05:54:51 EST
> > To: ray at s-cars.org
> > CC: "Krasusky Paul (WQQ2PXK)" <WQQ2PXK at ups.com>,  s-car-list at audifans.com
> > Subject: Re: [s-cars] RE:  diffs, donuts, and Johnny Law
> >
> > Given that people lose control and kill people during normal driving,
> > and that this is a known fact to most aware persons, and that normal
> > driving is not considered reckless, there should be another fact
> > required to prove recklessness.  (At least I hope there is.)  I would be
> > interested in what this fact is.  Or is it some undefined difference in
> > perceived probability of hazard?  Even if NH doesn't have a standard,
> > other than the judge's opinion, there may be consensus on the
> > distinction in other districts.  Ray?
> >
> > kirby
> >
> > (and I like your proposed state motto)