I have to agree the thread title could have been better. But this Alydar person is off the rails here. Needs to back away from the keyboard and let the thread just drop down the board.
Read the first sentence of the story (or just what is part of the link) and the thread title is correctly stated. Your fault for what you think she was implying. IMO she was not implying anything, she posted a link to the story without any judgment.
Thousands of people are charged "with a crime" and are not guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no idea of the circumstances here, but it can be an accident with or without guilt or blame. I think we still have that quaint innocent until proven guilty notion. And
@HuskyNan herself did not characterize the death as anything but tragic. Rein yourself in my equine adjudicator!
You must be a criminal attorney or prosecutor. "How do you know it was accidental?" You say.
She was charged with misdemeanor death. You make it sound like she should have gotten manslaughter or murder. The title of a thread on a sports forum now has to be subject to proper law terminology?
It is clearly a thread of compassion for all parties involved. Your high horse has you on the wrong path with this one.
Accidental means it wasn't intentional; Sylvia didn't intentionally hit the poor woman.
WOW. Maybe someone can quote where I made any reference to guilt or innocence. I posted what I took the title to imply and inferred that Nan's title was trying to excuse the death. The title could have also read "Former UNC coach kills pedestrian with car" and be a truthful title that implies a different meaning. The title seemed to infer that she was found blameless, which isn't true, at least not yet. And I doubt an 89 year old person can "dart out" from between cars, although it could happen.
Further, it's likely that in the event of a lawsuit, the driver would be found to be liable for the death, whether or not it was intentional.
I didn't intend to speculate but since so many are reading my posts let me explain what I read into the short article. It clearly and intentionally stated that speed and impairment (alcohol/drugs) were not an issue. I am not a lawyer but I spent many years listening to testimony and reading letters from attorneys and learned that what is not said can be as revealing as what is said.
I imagined that Sylvia had been working out. I doubt that she had answered phone calls or read texts while doing so and it would be natural for someone to check their calls and texts as soon as they had a chance. Now don't hammer me for saying she did that. It merely crossed my mind along with many other things that could distract someone from their driving at a slow speed. The article could have said that Sylvia was not found to be on her cell phone, but it didn't say that. My immediate inclination was "HMMM".
Again, I am not making any accusations nor do I have any resentment towards Sylvia.
And a special response to
Dove; It's bad form to tell any poster what they should or shouldn't do. I don't mind posters disagreeing with me but I do resent a stranger telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
www.espn.com
