Child support enforcement issue

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other cars
is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut me
off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain control
of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused alot
of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the control
of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain control of
his vehicle.

There's nothing the
other people could have done wrong when a vehicle is forced into oncoming
traffick. The total blame lies with this idiot woman, yet again she will
not face charges because she can put on a good crying show for the
police!!!!!

Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others were
also at fault.


My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who did
not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.

How are they supposed to maintain control with an oncoming vehicle pushed
right in front of them?

I believe it's called driving defensively, and using the brake pedal.

Look, I was rear ended by a car going about 65 miles per hour. There was
nothing I could do to prevent him from slamming into the back of my car.
There was a whole hell of a lot that I could do, and did, to make sure that
I didn't also slam into the car in front of me.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused alot
of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused the
entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

"Dale" wrote

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?
==
Heh--You're new here aren't you, Dale? Moon is *never* wrong and she will
spin anything
any way she can to prove it. She gets very creative. She's not the sharpest
tool in the
shed, and not even a worthy opponent, really.
==
What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.
==
By Moon's standard, everyone involved in an accident is at fault. That's
funny.
The driver causing a legally operated vehicle to take evasive action or
whose action inhibits
evasive action is at fault. That's why insurance companies categorize
accidents as
"at fault" or "no/non fault." Most accidents occur because the nonfaulting
party has no
reaction time to an at fault driver's/animal's action.

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already stated
that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused the
entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you hit
another car, you're at least partially at fault.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they
cut me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to
maintain control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence
caused alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for
it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to
maintain control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already
stated that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that
others were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused
the entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If
you hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.


So if a person is driving down the highway and is shot through the door
and they then lose control and crash, it is partly their fault?
Undoubtedly if the driver is male, it's ALL his fault including the part
about being shot. If female, it's all some man's fault?
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Just today, a woman pulled out of a mall parking lot to make a left
turn onto a busy main street, she failed to yield to oncoming traffic
and was hit broadside injuring 3 passengers in her car and wrecking 4
other cars in both lanes.

If her car wasthe one that was hit, I"m pretty sure she didn't wreck
any other cars.

The mini van she ran in front of was force into oncoming traffic from
the other lane.
Point is, this brianless idiot should have waited for traffic to clear
before attempting to cross the road.

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other cars
is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.
My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who did
not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.
At least to some extent.

Her pulling into traffic and not yielding the right-of-way was the
proximal cause of the accident, and all damage and injuries stem from her
action.

Well, you could certainly try that argument. However, if one car hits
another, they're generally at least partly at fault for "failure to
maintain control of the vehicle".

So if you are in line at a stop light and a car behind you rear ends you and
shoves you into the car ahead of you, you are partly to blame? chuckle


There are cars that cut off other cars quite often on the expressway.
Each driver has a responsibility to be alert, drive defensively, and not
slam into other cars, even when the other car does something wrong.

I would love to see you in court expressing that opinion. "But, Judge, so
what if I cut him off. He shouldn't have crashed into me or the other car."
Good luck!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other cars
is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused alot
of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

There's nothing the
other people could have done wrong when a vehicle is forced into oncoming
traffick. The total blame lies with this idiot woman, yet again she will
not face charges because she can put on a good crying show for the
police!!!!!

Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.


My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who did
not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.

How are they supposed to maintain control with an oncoming vehicle pushed
right in front of them?

I believe it's called driving defensively, and using the brake pedal.

Look, I was rear ended by a car going about 65 miles per hour. There was
nothing I could do to prevent him from slamming into the back of my car.
There was a whole hell of a lot that I could do, and did, to make sure
that I didn't also slam into the car in front of me.

Well it's good that you could do that, but it is not always possible. You
are wrong on this one, Moon. Like it or not.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already
stated that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused the
entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you
hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.

Actually, Moon, you are wrong. When the drunk driver ran a stop sign and
slammed into my car then kept going, the insourance company considered me to
be 100% NOT AT FAULT! I could not evade the bum in any way, and both the
insurance company and the police stated that.

"teachrmama" wrote

"Moon Shyne" wrote
..........................

There are cars that cut off other cars quite often on the expressway.
Each driver has a responsibility to be alert, drive defensively, and not
slam into other cars, even when the other car does something wrong.

I would love to see you in court expressing that opinion. "But, Judge, so
what if I cut him off. He shouldn't have crashed into me or the other
car." Good luck!
==
Yeah, this isn't one of her brighter arguments, is it?

"teachrmama" wrote

"Moon Shyne" wrote
.........................
Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you
hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.

Actually, Moon, you are wrong. When the drunk driver ran a stop sign and
slammed into my car then kept going, the insourance company considered me
to be 100% NOT AT FAULT! I could not evade the bum in any way, and both
the insurance company and the police stated that.
==
You'd think that with all those lawyers in her family she'd know more about
"the law and/or
the insurance companies," eh?