Deadly collision

The fact that he is getting charged for the accident is ridiculous. Him being convicted or negligible homicide won't help anyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but sending Greg to jail won't bring Mrs. Donahue back. <br>

<br><br>No, of course you're not wrong, but you are missing the point. You don't prosecute to undo a crime -- a medical malpractice trial doesn't reverse the medical mistake any more than a rape trial undoes the rape. The point of this kind of legal action is to punish the wrongdoer and/or define policy or precedent. And, as Silaswild argues, a general societal good can result. <br><br>Skip offers another perspective, but he seems to open the door to a "blaming the victim" mentality. With regards to rear-ender traffic accident, it is my understanding that the following driver is always, always to blame. Isn't it always your responsibility to drive in such a manner that you avoid colliding with the car in front of you? If so, should this extend to skiing?<br>

<br><br>Skip offers another perspective, but he seems to open the door to a "blaming the victim" mentality. With regards to rear-ender traffic accident, it is my understanding that the following driver is always, always to blame. Isn't it always your responsibility to drive in such a manner that you avoid colliding with the car in front of you? If so, should this extend to skiing?<br>

<br><br>I figured this was going to get me into this kind of trouble. What I tried to portray is not to blame the victim; perhaps it's all in the definition of victim. To extend your metaphor: If you are following someone in your car and you rearend them, then sure - your fault. However, if a car in the left lane makes an illegal turn in front of you in the right lane and you collide, or if you're driving along an arterial and a car on a cross street cuts in front of you--who has the right of way--and you collide, then fault is theirs - or at least shared in some percentage where theirs is the majority of blame. In any case, the same question could be asked: should this extend to skiing?<br><br>I dunno - it just seems a bit complex to have a single-fault perspective, at least in my view.

In the state of Washington, the Skier Responsibility Code is part of State Law. <br><br>It is solely the responsibility of the uphill skier to avoid those below, and etc.

So what happens when you accidentally shoot your hunting partner? Shouldn't a responsible, careful, and alert hunter avoid doing so? Isn't it almost universally the fault of the shooter in this case? Should you be prosecuted and sent to jail? Negligent homicide if the victim dies? Horrible accident? Of course, as is true with the deadly ski collision at Jackson Hole. Will prosecution undo the accident? No, but it sure would raise awareness about hunter safety and the need to play responsibly with guns. I see a parallel situation here. Do you?

So what happens when you accidentally shoot your hunting partner?  Shouldn't a responsible, careful, and alert hunter avoid doing so?

Of course. But here is where the analogy breaks down. From the facts presented, Doda was far from a "careful, responsible, and alert" boarder, with eyewitnesses claiming he was straightlining a bowl, traveling as fast as 60 mph, in an area where even he admits that he didn't have a clear view of the slope in front of him. <br><br>What would the hunting analogy be? A hunter firing blindly at a vague movement behind a copse of trees, without clear identification of what was there? If that hunter killed someone with the shot, I would argue that he committed negligent homicide too.<br><br>

I think ericd is referring to the whole Dick Cheney incident. He did fire at birds causing pellets to become lodged into his 78 year old partner's heart. If this man dies, Cheney should receive the same treatment Doda's getting. <br><br>That was negligible homicide if this ski accident was.