[vivekgk]

Originally Posted by pixantz

Pardon my innocence but I'm finding it hard to understand here that how could it be possible, logically, to not know that if one drinks profusely for hours and later drives at speeds north of 100kmph, one won't be almost certainly killing possibly many others if not at least one? I mean keeping the law, ego, overconfidence, superman capabilities, etc aside, plain logic would make anyone know that it's a perfect recipe for murder. And the drinker is totally responsible. If the law states otherwise, I'm very sorry, for everyone who even puts out a foot henceforth on the road. For the killer is not aware that he is a killer. But you may die just as good. In vain. I'm amazed at the logic of it all.

There is a real difference between murder and homicide. Murder needs intent. No matter how bad her decision was, all she wanted to do was reach home. She did not deliberately drive on the wrong side and even if she did, she did not mean to crash into the cab and kill two people. It was an accident caused by her bad decisions and irresponsible behaviour. Killing someone is not murder unless it is premeditated.

The definitions are:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Manslaughter or Culpable Homicide: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

[ramzsys]

Originally Posted by sunsetorange

http://www.maalaimalar.com/2015/06/1...ccident-3.html

What car is this? The previous generation Honda city?

6 doctors in a 5 seater sedan

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by 500ContyCruiser

This may not work in India for few well known reasons or it may take few decades for this technology to get implemented here.

There is nothing great about this technology. It can be retrofitted to any bus or truck here. It will be useful on busy undivided 2 lane roads, not much else where. Reason, in this thread there very few cases where overtaking has gone bad. In most cases people lose control or bang stationary objects.

Originally Posted by ramzsys

What car is this? The previous generation Honda city?

Looks like Vento to me.

[sunsetorange]

Originally Posted by ramzsys

What car is this? The previous generation Honda city?

6 doctors in a 5 seater sedan

Looks like a vento. One of the doctors was the daughter of an RTO.

[pixantz]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

There is a real difference between murder and homicide. Murder needs intent.

The definitions are:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Manslaughter or Culpable Homicide: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Thanks for the accurate definations vivek. Can't comment much on the law. But the 'intent' word seems to be put deliberately to create a loophole maybe by some smartass, much like most of the laws we have. Personally drinking and driving seems quite a justified intent to kill to me.... Works out logically at least

[hserus]

Those definitions date back hundreds of years and are tried and tested across literally countless murder trials across multiple countries. The legal principle is "mens rea" - criminal intent.

Otherwise - for example - you're playing cricket with someone, and a bouncer that you bowl fractures the fellow's head and he dies. What crime do you get prosecuted for? Did you intend to kill him?

For prosecutions of DUI that causes death, see this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide .. correct enough for laymen.

[Sunsh!nes]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

There is a real difference between murder and homicide. Murder needs intent. No matter how bad her decision was, all she wanted to do was reach home. She did not deliberately drive on the wrong side and even if she did, she did not mean to crash into the cab and kill two people. It was an accident caused by her bad decisions and irresponsible behaviour. Killing someone is not murder unless it is premeditated.

The definitions are:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Manslaughter or Culpable Homicide: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

whatever the definitions are... End result is someone suffered because of ones drinking and driving. Simple logic is when you are drunk your judgement and reaction times are slower or not normal. In such state its better not to be behind the wheel which is even more dangerous. It may not be murder and it may be Homicide, but just imagine the plight of the victim and his/her family. The victim suffered because of ones wrong judgement and over confidence. It cripples an entire family. I have personally seen their plight for paying the price for someone's overconfident driving after being drunk. We can say a thousand things when it happens to others but when the same happens to someone known to us its different. No matter how confident you are after drinking better not to be behind the wheel and invite much bigger trouble or cause harm to others. Prevention is better than Cure. No intentions to get into a debate here

[Kumar R]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

There is a real difference between murder and homicide. Murder needs intent.

Killing someone is not murder unless it is premeditated.

Originally Posted by hserus

Those definitions date back hundreds of years and are tried and tested across literally countless murder trials across multiple countries. The legal principle is "mens rea" - criminal intent.

Otherwise - for example - you're playing cricket with someone, and a bouncer that you bowl fractures the fellow's head and he dies. What crime do you get prosecuted for? Did you intend to kill him?

Guys, this understanding is incorrect.

While mens rea or intent is commonly associated with the definition of murder, it is not a pre-requisite.

I am quoting from our laws (Indian Penal Code) which states (S.300) that culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

There is even a helpful illustration provided

A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

The bouncer example is not the best because a bouncer is ordinarily unlikely to kill a batsman (barely 3-4 deaths in decades proves this), though a freak ball can and has killed.

A better example would be a driver who, having a ferrari (or any other car than can accelerate quickly), revs upto 150 kmph in a crowded road of an urban area like Mumbai and ends up ploughing into a dozen people and killing a few. The act here is so inherently dangerous and liable to kill that the driver may well be prosecuted for murder even though he had no intent to kill anyone in particular.

Sorry to be

[binand]

Originally Posted by Kumar R

culpable homicide is murder, [...] if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

That ought to be enough to prosecute DUI villains for murder. Wonder then, why this section is not imposed in those cases. I suppose the argument is that the "person committing the act" is so sloshed that he cannot be expected to "know that it is so imminently dangerous".

Even then, I think with minor modifications (if at all) this section can be applied to bar operators and party hosts who allow their patrons and guests to drive under influence.

Originally Posted by Kumar R

Sorry to be

You needn't be. :-) As one of the BHPians with legal education, your opinion in these matters are highly valuable.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by hserus

The first newspaper articles I read say she worked as VP (legal) at a rather large corporation.

Subsequent stories omit that and have a clarification from the corporation saying she was simply in an advisory capacity with them.

What difference does the fact that she is employed with X or Y company make? Why should the employer's name be tarnished when the mistake was commited in personal capacity during off duty hours? I don't see why people are picking on the employer.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

What difference does the fact that she is employed with X or Y company make? Why should the employer's name be tarnished when the mistake was commited in personal capacity during off duty hours? I don't see why people are picking on the employer.

Don't know about others, but it is my belief that any association of people need an alignment of values to sustain it for a long period. As a corollary, the existence of a (long) relationship implies the existence of common or shared values to me.

[rr_zen]

Read about a tragic accident on GST Road that killed a biker instantaneously for no fault of his. An iron beam used in the metro rail work came down crashing on him.

He was wearing a full mask helmet but died of severe head injuries due to the impact. The man was a software engineer in his thirties and his wife is 9 months pregnant with their first baby. The mishap occurred on his way to work.

Human life seems to have scant regards and value in our country.

Source: TOI

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by rr_zen

Read about a tragic accident on GST Road that killed a biker instantaneously for no fault of his. An iron beam used in the metro rail work came down crashing on him.

He was wearing a full mask helmet but died of severe head injuries due to the impact. The man was a software engineer in his thirties and his wife is 9 months pregnant with their first baby. The mishap occurred on his way to work.

Human life seems to have scant regards and value in our country.

Source: TOI

Truly tragic. Who will console his wife and what must be going through her?. Chennai metro rail must be held accountable for this.
The fact is a precious life has been robbed off a family.

[Horizon81]

Originally Posted by rr_zen

Human life seems to have scant regards and value in our country.

Source: TOI

From the article:

Police arrested three engineers of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd, a CMRL-contracted firm, and charged them under IPC Sections 337 (act endangering life) and 304 (a) (negligence leading to death).

Investigators identified them as the engineer in charge of the site, S Aravind, 36, a resident of Adambakkam, and safety engineers M Dinesh, 23, of Vadaseri in Nagarcoil, and R Sudarsan, 21, of Salaiputhur in Kovilpatti near Thoothukudi. A magistrate's court in Alandur remanded them in judicial custody on Wednesday evening.

With all due respect, how competent would be a 21 and 23 year old "Safety Engineer"? I don't know about legal side of things, but the case seems to be on the engineers themselves, while the company doesn't seem to have any impact due to this incident. Unless the behemoth companies themselves doesn't feel the pinch, I believe human life will still remain to have scant regards in our country.

[Gansan]

^^ They might be the immediate ones to be arrested, but the responsibility will lie with CMRL. They will be the ones accountable and liable to pay compensation.