krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

krw wrote:
Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

You're still wrong. It was still an accident, based on the definition
of the word accident. I suggest you look it up.

It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.

Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.
You are absolutely *wrong*.
I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You can't even help yourself.

Well, even though I thought I was correct, I still took the time to look
up the definition of the word accident, then after more silly ass
rebuttal's, looked up the legal definition of the word accident.
Apparently, you would rather attack me than spend a few minutes
investigating your wrong ass statements.

Perhaps you should go get loaded and
kill someone on the way home tonight. See how far "I didn't mean to"
gets you.

Not sure how far it will get me, but I'm absolutely certain it will not
change the meaning of the word accident one tiny bit.

Do you have any idea what "manslaughter"
or "murder" mean? It is *NOT* "accidental" when someone dies during
the commission of a felony. It is at *least* manslaughter.
Unless you can prove he did did it on purpose, it was an accident,
according me, and the dictionary.

Wrong, as usual. He *did* get drunk voluntarily. He was therefore
responsible for anything that happened after.

Yet it was still an accident. Besides, you don't have any legal proof
he was drunk. Doesn't really matter, it was still an accident, no
matter how much you huff and puff.

I know a guy
that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so what, it was also
an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.
Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".
No, he was old.
Old? You're on drugs. He was 37, hardly old.
How the **** do you know how old the guy was, I didn't even give you his
name. He was OLD, he was not drunk. Are YOU on drugs or what? I might
add, the old guy could have prevented the ACCIDENT by selling me his
tools before he cut his hand, instead, he waited until AFTER he cut his
hand before deciding he was probably too old to be negligently putting
his self at risk like this.

Dumb ****! Read the thread!

Dumb ****, you read the thread. Here, let me help you.

ME: I know a guy that cut his hand on a saw,
You: Was he drunk,
ME: No, he was old,
You Are on drugs, he was only 37, hardly old,
ME: How the **** do you know how old the guy was?
You: Dumb ****! Read the thread!

Did I miss anything?

Keep reading it over and over and eventually it will sink in.

Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.
Simply amazing!
Why you didn't know this stuff? You live in a shell or what?

Why are you so damned stupid?

Not sure, but my guess is because you ran out of pertinent things to say.

An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.
You are a nut case!
You are on drugs?

No, but apparently you think it's a great idea. Indeed it's an excuse
to kill people.

The only good idea I supported in this thread was Old Lady Kennedy
having a pre, or post natal abortion. Some people think that would have
been murder, some think it wouldn't have been. I don't care, I think it
would have been a good idea, but hindsight is easy to get right.

Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.
The facts are it was an accident.
Wrong. The facts are exactly the *opposite*.
Wrong, facts are exactly it was an **accident**. Note my double stars
trump your single stars.... Sheesh!

The only stars are circling your head. What a maroon!

Still out of pertinent things to say, cool beans!

No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident.
That has nothing to do with guilt.
Yes, guilty of being in an accident.

He killed someone while drunk, you stupid ****.

It was an accident, you stupid dick!

He covered up the accident.
The WHAT?

It wasn't first degree murder, or at least there is no proof of that.

It wasn't anything, never went to court. It was however, as you just
said, an accident.

There *was* proof of homicide. If he weren't the last male Kennedy
he'd have died in prison.

There was no proof it wasn't an accident, regardless of how much you
huff and puff, or make non-relevant, personal attacks.

What happened to your "exactly opposite" to an accident crap?

He was guilty of at least a handful of felonies.

What if he was to drunk to drive, and she was driving? What if he was
driving just fine, and she decided to give him road head, and that
caused the wreck. What if they were arguing about something, and she
grabbed the wheel and they wrecked. What if she was giving him a lap
dance, and he lost control. What if he was sober, but very tired from a
long day and she was boring him to tears and he fell asleep at the
wheel, and he drifted into the pond. Lots of things could have happened,
but regardless, it was still an accident unless one of them intended to
drive into the water, on purpose.

Well, if you want to get all legal about it, he was guilty of nothing,
unless proven in a court of law. Regardless, it was just as YOU said,
an accident.

You are as retarded as they come.

You waste my time arguing this was not an accident, then you blatantly
call it an accident, and then call ME retarded... You are simple as they
come!

Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.

You need to check yourself in.

And you need to get yourself a dictionary. I guess I can help a you
little:

http://dictionary.reference.com.

Give it a shot. You used the term correctly at least ONCE, but I'm not
certain it wasn't an ACCIDENT!

I was being kind above.

Kind? I suggest you look that word up as well. "Simple" would be more
like it, as in "lacking mental acuteness or sense."

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com