Drunk driver appeals 7 1/2-year sentence for killing 3 kids

I am still finding it incomprehensible that anyone would want to find blame in the actions of the parents in this. I understand, maybe, and this is reaching, the state for the guardrail, but even that should be a response FOR THE GRIEVING PARENTS to sue for, not this idiot. There is no defense for this action.

He deserves general population at San Quentin. Let the inmates serve him justice. Killing children in this way would be a death sentence at that prison.

ciao

 

Should accept his appeal and give him a death sentence instead.

 

Soooo, which is it folks? Either the car was stopped in traffic, or it traveled 40 meters after being hit. We cant have both. Obviously there would be witnesses and other people involved in the accident if the car were stopped in traffic, yes? And if the car traveled 40 meters, well, how did they do that through the cars in front of them?

And if there was no traffic, why, why, in God's name were they stopped on a bridge at night?

I find some of the opinions here to be as mixed up as the "facts".

 

*sigh* (shakes head)

You're not the only one, Zorro, you're not the only one.

 

Well GoochIII ? Which is it? Stopped in traffic or not?

Why do you bother to quote and respond to me and avoid my question?

 

Because the question is so lame as to really not warrant an answer.

The family was stopped on a bridge. Imabayashi plowed into them from behind at between 80 and 100 km an hour. The car the family was in was suddenly forced forward 40 meters and off the bridge. "How did they do that through the cars in front of them?" THEY DIDN'T!

If they had traveled straight forward 40 meters, they wouldn't have gone off the bridge, now would they? Not unless the bridge suddenly ended in a sheer drop-off in mid-lane.

I take it you have never played pool? You can hit a ball from behind and make it go straight sideways, not forward. It's all basic geometry/physics. Same thing here. They were hit from behind, but no-one said they were hit STRAIGHT from behind, and pictures of his car show that he hit them at an angle. So think. Then engage mouth.

 

So, if they were stopped on a bridge that is part of a highway, WHY were they stopped on the bridge? Did they have their hazard lights on? Do you have any idea at what speeds people usually travel across that bridge? Do you not think it possible, likely in fact, that even a sober person driving at speeds people always travel across that bridge, that the same thing would not occur? Would you, with a car full of your family, stop on a highway bridge with no shoulder at night like that? Can you find no negligence in that simple fact?

Can you not imagine, that had they been moving, as they should have been, this accident would not have occurred? Is any risk, no matter how pointless, acceptable so long as a speeding drunk guy hits you?

 

Traffic stopped. No cars were moving. It was a traffic jam. Is this getting through to you yet?


No. A sober person would have been far better able to identify the problem (stopped cars on the bridge) and stop in time, or at least make an attempt. From the news I have read and seen, Imabayashi never even hit his brakes. He went right into them at speed.


And where in blazes were they supposed to go, Zorro? WHERE??? Traffic freaking stopped!


No, and I am absolutlely amazed you can, and continue to argue this point.

 

Most likely, I agree. But a breathalyzer conducted one hour (48 minutes according to one report) after the accident found him only mildly inebriated. Not that I have any faith in the breathalyzer whatsoever.

But all this nonsense aside, the family car was NOT stopped.



And I can find no evidence for the traffic jam anywhere, and its most unlikely given the circumstances that there was a traffic jam. Consider the accident happened at 10:50 pm and this is a long long multi-lane bridge with no traffic lights on it. And if there were such a jam, no doubt they would have hit another car. Cars hit from behind do not behave like pool balls. When hit from behind they may veer, but the angles are so acute they will hit cars in front. The only way to get a car going at obtuse angles is to broadside them as the tires resist lateral motion and the car is square, not round. Physics and geometry apply here, not pool.

Best evidence of all: they were not stopped. If there was a jam, they must have been too far away from it to matter.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8REIL0G0&show_article=1&cat=0

http://www.gaijinpot.com/read_news.php?id=14331&time=1

http://uunet.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200801100052.html

 

Then we are both corrected. I thought Imabayashi hit a stopped car, which was apparently not the case. Still, he rearended a moving vehicle at about 100 km/hour, twice the speed of the car he hit. Even if sober, he is 100% at fault. I trust you accept that fact.

But he wasn't sober. He had been drinking beer, shochu and brandy all day. And still chose to drive. And speed. And then try to run. And call a friend to bring him water to cover up the fact he was drunk.

Imabayashi should be hung off that bridge while the family sits in a boat below and uses him as a pinata. Then hang his body in chains beside the bridge as a warning, like they did to Capt. Kidd.

 

Actually no. I never agreed the car was stopped or that there was a jam. I presented IFs and asked questions to show it was not what happened. I did not believe either option from the start. I just found it interesting that two mutually exclusive details were presented unquestioned.



For the accident, yes, it appears so, given the facts I have.

For the deaths tho, I find him mostly but not 100 percent at fault.

 

That was a fun agrument to read. Got any more? :)

 

I find Zorro's posts strangely entertaining, like a black and white minstrel show...you know its wrong and abhorent but cant turn away

 

I dont know whether to feel complimented or insulted. All I can say is that I had no intention of being entertaining in the slightest.



What was wrong? How and why? Surely such a strong statement warrants being backed up with a a little clarity?

 

If he's appealing for doubling it, no problem. In fact give him life, three.