si, usted es muy loco:)

"The legality of his residency has little to do with the accident."
.
Yes, it has little to do with the accident...besides the fact that Espinosa has no business here, and that if he weren't residing here as the law states, he would not have been able to ever even meet Schumacher, let alone kill him.
.
"I know this and have acknowledged it."
.
Then you realize your hypotheticals hold no relevance to the reality of this situation?
.
"No. Him being there period is a crucial part."
.
Precisely. Him being here is illegal, meaning he shouldn't be here, meaning that, because he's illegal and shouldn't be here, there's no excuse for Espinosa to have ever come into contact with Schumacher at all.
.
"Neither you nor I know if he used foresight though."
.
There's not a single aspect of this to suggest he did. I'm confident in my judgment.
.
"You make the informed judgment that he did not. I make the informed judgment that he's not 20/20 based on everything else we know about him."
.
Essentially the same judgment in different words.
.
"No, he may just think he's Superman."
.
He is not Superman, thus such a belief would show he's not using foresight.
.
As with when you reluctantly answered my question, "why is Espinosa responsible," by stating, "He drove a vehicle into someone else's, and killed a man," you’re now apparently reluctant to answer my follow-up question of, "Did Espinosa own the vehicle?" Well, did he?

"I guess I should have told you beforehand that I meant without a dictionary."
.
Does that negate that the best way is with a dictionary?
.
"If something is not a plasma, solid, or gas, what is it?"
.
A name is not a definition of what the title constitutes. "Liquid" is not the definition of a liquid, is it? Would you care to retract your pompously premature "Bravo"?
.
"There is no red herring here, just you refusing to admit that accident can be defined by intention."
.
I have no reason to admit to the veracity of something faulty.
.
"If there is intent, it was not an accident. With no intent, it is an accident."
.
Almost, but not quite.
If an action ends in an outcome matching the intent behind that action, then there is no accident.
If an action ends in an outcome different than the intent behind that action, then there is a mistake.
If an action ends in an outcome that occurs by chance instead of by cause of that action (intended or not), then it is an accident.
.
"'Even all of those strung together, it still does not necessarily follow that he would cause the accident. There are countless other factors involved,' is what I said."
.
Which was in response to my statement that, "It does, however, necessarily follow that because Espinosa was here illegally, illegally stole a car, illegally drove the car without a license, and illegally failed to yield to a stop sign, he caused the accident." There is no hypothetical 'would' in that factual statement, only the reality that because of those things, Espinosa DID cause the accident. Enter your hypothetical "would" argument, and my reply of "No, it necessarily follows that he DID."
.
"Please note the tense I used."
.
I noted the tense you used. You apparently failed to note I'm not interested in dealing in hypotheticals.
.
"The entire thing is a hypothetical."
.
The events of reality that have already occurred are "hypothetical"? Explain, please.

"If Espinosa were here legally, he probably would have acted in a similar fashion."
.
More hypothetical.

"Most licensed drivers are."
.
Which is what I stated. Review the meaning of generality.
.
"The exception applies to a group though, and I think Espinosa would fall into that group even with a driver's license."
.
Another hypothetical.
.
"You don't get a license for practicing."
.
And, yet, you can't get one without practicing. How disingenuous of you.
.
"The opposite of what you are saying is true."
.
Incorrect.
.
"No I don't. I said mistakes cause accidents."
.
So you concede that Espinosa committed mistakes, none of which were accidental, as you also concede in stating Espinosa is responsible for them. Therefore, what Espinosa did was not an accident, only what happened to Schumacher was. The accident that happened to Schumacher resulted from Espinosa's mistakes.
.
"This is true. Espinosa could have avoided the mistakes he made which would have prevented the accident, but he could not avoid the accident itself once the ball was rolling."
.
If by "once the ball was rolling" you mean "once Espinosa started recklessly driving a stolen car," then yes, it was virtually too late at that point for Espinosa to rectify his mistakes that lead to the death of Schumacher.
Who started the ball rolling? Espinosa. How did he start it rolling? Through committing the mistakes he made; mistakes that, if avoided, would have prevented the accident. There's no way to take back what's already done, but there's a way to stop it from happening further, or even at all.
.
"He was also involved in an accident, an accident he caused."
.
He was involved in causing it, but the accident only applies to Schumacher. The mistake applies to Espinosa.
.
"You're presenting Espinosa's mistakes as an 'accident.'"

No I'm not.
.
Are you certain?
"I'm not saying Espinosa is a good guy. I think evidence shows he has terrible character. Regardless of his character, this was an accident."

wow. love it.

Since everyone is in the word defining mood, the presence of malice could easily apply in this case.....It sounds like everyone is on the same page in thinking that this idiot should be locked up for a long time, but just want to argue about details and definitions--which is cool and interesting as well:)

In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:

(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).

"That's what's known as an exception. I'm speaking generally. As such, having a driver's license decreases the likelihood of ignorance and disregard for traffic laws and stop signs, which a licensed driver is reasonably vigilant of."

Most licensed drivers are. The exception applies to a group though, and I think Espinosa would fall into that group even with a driver's license.

"How does one gain experience? By practicing. What does one do to obtain a license? ..."

Take a test. You don't get a license for practicing. Essentially, you can practice without a permit or license and gain experience, even though it may be illegal.

"Completely irrelevant tangent. The point still stands: If all we concerned ourselves with was intent, rather than actual occurrence, there would be no such thing as an accident."

The opposite of what you are saying is true.

"Mistakes that you want to term as an "accident,""

No I don't. I said mistakes cause accidents.

"Precisely. And yet they are too often mistaken as interchangeable. Mistakes can be avoided; accidents cannot."

This is true. Espinosa could have avoided the mistakes he made which would have prevented the accident, but he could not avoid the accident itself once the ball was rolling. He was also involved in an accident, an accident he caused.

"You're presenting Espinosa's mistakes as an "accident.""

No I'm not.

Define a word without referencing a dictionary. Someone had to do it at one point. Your argument of "the dictionary" is comical, though. I guess I should have told you beforehand that I meant without a dictionary.

There are four states of matter. Gas, liquid, solid, and plasma. Everything that we know of is in one of these states. If something is not a plasma, solid, or gas, what is it? Now you've defined the mystery state of matter using your own example. Bravo.

There is no red herring here, just you refusing to admit that accident can be defined by intention. If there is intent, it was not an accident. With no intent, it is an accident.

"If an antonym is not a full definition, an antonym is not a definition. Your answer, then, is "no.""

So, I'm curious, how many words can you define for me using just one word?

"Even all of those strung together, it still does not necessarily follow that he would cause the accident. There are countless other factors involved," is what I said.

Please note the tense I used. It still does not necessarily follow that he WOULD cause the accident. The entire thing is a hypothetical.

If Espinosa were here legally, he probably would have acted in a similar fashion. The legality of his residency has little to do with the accident.

"Validates what statement?"

The statement that Espinosa being here illegally contributed to the culmination of events that took place the morning Mr. Schumacher was killed.

"Yes, in such a hypothetical, they would. However, that is not the reality."

I know this and have acknowledged it.

"Regardless of the amount of value you personally place on it, it's a crucial part, isn't it?"

No. Him being there period is a crucial part.

"No, I make the informed judgment that he did not. There's a difference."

Neither you nor I know if he used foresight though. You make the informed judgment that he did not. I make the informed judgment that he's not 20/20 based on everything else we know about him.

"He didn't plan on getting caught, though he knew it could happen? Therefore, though he has the capability, he did not use foresight."

No, he may just think he's Superman.

""He probably understands what a stop sign is."
.
What evidence supports this assumption? "

Most Latin American countries use a red octagon for their stop signs. They are almost identical to ours.

"Mistakes cause accidents. They're probably one of the biggest reasons accidents happen."
.
Precisely. And yet they are too often mistaken as interchangeable. Mistakes can be avoided; accidents cannot. Espinosa committed mistakes, and therefore Schumacher was involved in an accident.
.
"Even with that aside, what do mistakes and accidents have to do with the thinking I present here?"
.
You're presenting Espinosa's mistakes as an "accident." It's an irresponsible argument that supposes Espinosa's ignorance lessens his responsibility; that, because he didn't "intend" for his controllable illegal actions to result in death and punishment, he committed an "accident." Again, we don't accept the excuse of "I didn't know;" ignorance is not a defense in the court of law, and ignorance is not an "accident."
.
"To me it seems more irresponsible to tell someone who is trying to have a debate with you that you don't give a rat's what that person thinks of you."
.
Your personal opinions about me are irrelevant (it again shows your predilection towards emotions). I'm merely interested in your use of logic. There's nothing irresponsible about it.
.
"How do you go about defining a word? A really good way is to compare it to other similar words, or to compare it to something the opposite."
.
The best way remains the dictionary.
Or would you consider a credible definition of 'gas' to be: "it's not a liquid, and it's not a solid"? How would we then define a liquid? A solid? The three go round and round, never truly defining anything, only discounting what the other is not.
.
"To deny the value of helping to define a word with similar and opposite words is just insane."
.
To point it out as a red herring, as I did, is not insane, however.
.
"Not a full definition..."
.
If an antonym is not a full definition, an antonym is not a definition. Your answer, then, is "no."
.
"He drove a vehicle into someone else's, and killed a man."
.
Did Espinosa own the vehicle?

"I know from personal experience though that this is not necessarily true."
.
That's what's known as an exception. I'm speaking generally. As such, having a driver's license decreases the likelihood of ignorance and disregard for traffic laws and stop signs, which a licensed driver is reasonably vigilant of.
.
"I would say inexperience increases the likelihood of ignorance/disregard for the traffic laws and signs that one who is experienced would be reasonably vigilant of."
.
How does one gain experience? By practicing. What does one do to obtain a license? ...
.
"Actually, if you concern yourself with intent, you will find that there are a lot of accidents which have happened throughout history."
.
Completely irrelevant tangent. The point still stands: If all we concerned ourselves with was intent, rather than actual occurrence, there would be no such thing as an accident.
.
"This is called risk management."
.
No, it's not. A chance occurrence, regardless of intent and removed from causality, is not "risk management," but is what constitutes an accident. Risk management is deciding how much of a risk one is willing to take for a given action, and, if the risk is deemed too high, altering that action to suit the accepted amount of risk.
.
"Any reasonable person knows that running a stop sign, especially at high speeds, carries a lot of risk. Then again, any reasonable person also understands why it is bad to steal a vehicle."
.
And so, in acting unreasonably, Espinosa did not commit "accidents," but mistakes. Mistakes that you want to term as an "accident," for what purpose I’m uncertain, other than to better serve your argument of emotion that "No one intended for someone to die that night. :-("

"You want an example of countless other factors?"
.
Yes, I did...and still do, as you've not provided any. "If" represents a hypothetical, and therefore NOT factors.
.
"You missed the point when I said some things you mentioned, like Espinosa being here illegally, have very little to do with what actually happened."
.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that his illegal residence had "almost nothing" to do with what happened...besides the fact that Espinosa has no business here, and that if he weren't residing here as the law states, he would not have been able to ever even meet Schumacher, let alone kill him.
.
"You claim that because the fact that he had no business being here and would not be here otherwise, thus making it impossible for this to happen, validates your statement."
.
Validates what statement?
.
"If Espinosa had somehow been here legally..."
.
He isn't. Another hypothetical, and another red herring.
.
"...and that is the only thing different, then his chances of getting into a fatal accident similar to this one would probably still have been the same."
.
Yes, in such a hypothetical, they would. However, that is not the reality. Also, please look up the words "contribute" and "culmination." I've used both previously.
.
"Him being there legally or illegally truly had nothing or very little to do with what happened."
.
Regardless of the amount of value you personally place on it, it's a crucial part, isn't it? Yes.
.
"One, you assume that he did not use foresight."
.
No, I make the informed judgment that he did not. There's a difference.
.
"Do you think it is unreasonable to say that he simply has bad judgment?"
.
That's not unreasonable, since people who do not use foresight often make bad judgments.
.
"I believe he knew full and well that stealing a car could get him into trouble. He probably did not plan to get caught though."
.
He didn't plan on getting caught, though he knew it could happen? Therefore, though he has the capability, he did not use foresight. Foresight would have given Espinosa the reasonable expectation that he might be caught. He obviously disregarded that.
.
"He probably understands what a stop sign is."
.
What evidence supports this assumption?
.
"He most likely didn't think he would actually hit someone at that time of day."
.
Supposing he did run the stop sign intentionally, he did not use foresight by obeying it. Supposing he didn't see the stop sign, he did not use foresight by recklessly joy-riding in a stolen vehicle. Supposing he didn’t understand the stop sign, he did not use foresight by not being licensed to drive.
.
"After all, why would he want to risk his own life, let alone someone else's?"
.
Good question, considering that's EXACTLY what he did. Maybe because he wasn't using foresight?
.
"No, I would argue that he most likely did use foresight, he just has very, VERY poor judgment."
.
Yes, people who do not use foresight often make bad judgments.

billnewbie. im not as polite as kai. i think yer a fool. you take what this idiot did and circle it back to us buying from the same dealer and preaching as tho we should feel guilty?? please. i will say you have a great grasp of the bible but a poor grasp of common sense. i have never disagreed with you that some people buy from dealers who are what you assume they all are. we just differ on the guilt thing. we feel none. we want a safe alternative and there just isnt one. you and all your anti-knowledge cronies all say 'oh i dont care what you do in your own home'...but thats bs and you know it. if you dont care then why dont you agree that we should be offered a safe alternative?? we differ in the fact that you think we CHOOSE to support that network and we know we are FORCED to support that netowrk. NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY, and i didnt read all the posts on here, but what i did read i sure didnt see anyone DEFENDING marijuana here. would this story be any different if he was served 4 beers 6 hours earlier and he fell asleep an missed a stop sign, killing someone?? you and your fool headed cronies blast me for soapboxing yet you take every negative story about marijuana as a chance to rant your 'see i told you its bad and im better than you and know whats better FOR you'. no one has ever said lets get high and drive around. the fact that you and your alter ego JAF are just fools for associating those of us who do smoke the proper way with idiots like this guy. you WILL NOT see any of us saying that you should not be able to drink alcohol because someone else cant handle it.

Bill,
Despite the few areas where we differ, I really think you and I are quite alike. To me, it wouldn't matter if he legally consumed alcohol before this crash or legally consumed marijuana (assuming he could). The actions he has taken show that he is a person of poor character. I'm not so sure I'm ready to condemn our legal system just yet; I don't know for sure if 10 years in prison is justice or not. It does seem like far too often we let offenders of serious crimes get off easy, though.

Kid,
Thanks :-).

Espinosa, an illegal alien, stole a car which he also had no license to operate, ignored a stop sign and killed a man as a result. Espinosa was in possession of a concealed weapon. He was also in possession of an illegal substance (marijuana) which he no doubt bought from a socially conscientious marijuana dealer that wouldn't hurt a fly no matter how much money he was owed because marijuana dealers are different from hard drug dealing gangsters, as we all have been assured by our resident marijuana users who desperately need to believe that. But he hadn’t enjoyed any of his intoxicant within 6 hours of the incident that took Mr. Schumacher life, according to Espinosa, so he wasn't intoxicated at the time of that incident.

Since Espinosa claims he smoked his marijuana about 6 hours before the incident, some are willing to accept that statement at face value, as if Espinosa’s claim can be trusted, that it's not the self-serving statement that it appears to be. Furthermore, some are willing to cut Espinosa some slack concerning his illegal status since he is only 18, contending that Espinosa was probably brought here as a minor, even though the story above doesn't say any such thing, and as such was unable to consent to his immigration, illegal or not while ignoring the fact that he is now of the age of majority and was able to chose to continue to remain here illegally, a choice he is accountable for.

Espinosa has no respect for the law regarding private property (the car he stole), no respect for the traffic laws (licensing requirements, sobriety while driving and traffic control signs), no respect for laws about concealed weapons, no respect for immigration laws and lastly, no respect for possession of controlled substances laws (a character flaw he shares with more than a few posters on GazetteXtra). Considering all that, is it any wonder why Espinosa showed no sense of responsibility for what he had done in the pre-trial evaluations? But even though Espinosa seems to care little about the consequences of his actions, still they plea bargained with this reprobate, agreeing to drop charges to get him to plead guilty for expediency’s sake. 10 years in prison is a miscarriage of justice for a crime at this level of depravity.

good post ladulce. other than the 'horrible' choice to use drugs comment;) using drugs is not horrible at all when used as intended...

WAIT a minute. Yes, he was here illegally, but, he is 18 years old and was brought here (presumably) by no choice of his own as a minor. He made the horrible decision to use drugs, and, even worse, to drive while under the influence. However, HE DID NOT CHOOSE to come here illegally. Presumably, he was a child when he arrived here. And, for the "deport" crowd, until there is a way to keep him there, deporting him will only assure he come back - and serve no sentence at all.

your ability to relay your logical thought thru words is impressive and further proves to justafool that you and i are not one in the same;)

kai for president. or mayor. or whatever. you got my vote man;)

"The words "accident" and "mistake" have become far too interchangeable in current use, and is a result of the kind of irresponsible thinking you present here."

Mistakes cause accidents. They're probably one of the biggest reasons accidents happen.
Even with that aside, what do mistakes and accidents have to do with the thinking I present here? To me it seems more irresponsible to tell someone who is trying to have a debate with you that you don't give a rat's what that person thinks of you. Perhaps you should care what I think of you, because if I think you are ignorant than someone else does too. Even if I'm some crazy person (which I'm not), it does not hurt you at all to consider what I've said and at the very least perform a self evaluation. Considering I am trying to have intelligent debate with you and neither of us are really doing a lot of mud-slinging here, I would think that you would at least take my thoughts into consideration.

"Really? You're going to rely on similar words?"

Yes, and also opposite words. How do you go about defining a word? A really good way is to compare it to other similar words, or to compare it to something the opposite. Why do you think thesaurus's exist? To deny the value of helping to define a word with similar and opposite words is just insane.

"Is an antonym a definition? Your "peculiar" problem is solved in the answer to that question. "

Not a full definition, but it's a piece to the puzzle. Sometimes, it's a corner piece. So, yes, an antonym can be a definition. (The opposite of higher is lower. You can tell someone that you were expecting higher temperatures but instead got the opposite. Since the opposite of higher is lower, you've told the person that temperatures are lower than what they were.)

Why is Espinosa responsible?

Because we're holding him responsible. We are forcing punishment onto him, whether he likes or agrees with it or not. Hopefully, he also accepts the responsibility himself. Whether he accepts it or not, though, he's clearly responsible for what happened. He drove a vehicle into someone else's, and killed a man.

"If all we concerned ourselves with was intent, rather than actual occurrence, there would be no such thing as an accident."

Actually, if you concern yourself with intent, you will find that there are a lot of accidents which have happened throughout history. Things rarely go exactly as planned.

"Instead, it is the chance occurrence, regardless of intent and removed from causality, which constitutes an accident."

This is called risk management. Some people are good at it, some people are not. If you can account for every possible outcome, you will be able to make the best decision available, and minimize chance occurrence of bad things happening. Even with good risk management, accidents can happen though. You will never be able to predict the future, and if you can't predict the future, you can't possibly know what is going to happen. I agree, Espinosa didn't have good risk management skills at all. Any reasonable person knows that running a stop sign, especially at high speeds, carries a lot of risk. Then again, any reasonable person also understands why it is bad to steal a vehicle.

"Had Espinosa actually bothered to use foresight (he did not), he would have had the expectation that driving without a license is reckless and increases the likelihood of ignorance/disregard for the traffic laws and signs that one who is licensed would be reasonably vigilant of."

There are several problems with this argument. To quote you, because I -do- care about your input, "You're jumping to conclusions. Truly a logically unsound practice."

One, you assume that he did not use foresight. Do you think it is unreasonable to say that he simply has bad judgment? I believe he knew full and well that stealing a car could get him into trouble. He probably did not plan to get caught though. Why would he want to go to jail? He probably understands what a stop sign is. He most likely didn't think he would actually hit someone at that time of day. After all, why would he want to risk his own life, let alone someone else's? No, I would argue that he most likely did use foresight, he just has very, VERY poor judgment.

Secondly, you assume that having a driver's license decreases the likelihood of ignorance and disregard for traffic laws and stop signs, and a licensed driver is reasonably vigilant of these things. I know from personal experience though that this is not necessarily true. I know people who have been able to attain a driver's license but then lose it in less than a year. I know some others who have never driven with a valid driver's license and have never been caught or done anything to attract any extra attention. I would say inexperience increases the likelihood of ignorance/disregard for the traffic laws and signs that one who is experienced would be reasonably vigilant of.

inconvenienttruth,
You want an example of countless other factors? In all of the following examples, "...Espinosa was here illegally, illegally stole a car, illegally drove the car without a license, and illegally failed to yield to a stop sign, he caused the accident," unless otherwise noted.

If Espinosa ran over a nail 30 minutes before he failed to stop at the stop sign and acquired a flat tire, this accident would not have happened.

If Mr. Schumacher would have been 30 minutes late going to work that day, this accident would not have happened.

If a Deer ran out in front of Espinosa, and Espinosa hit that deer with his stolen vehicle, this accident would not have happened.

If Espinosa stole a vehicle that did not have enough gas to get to this intersection, this would not have happened.

It is possible, if Espinosa stole a faster vehicle, this would not have happened.

You missed the point when I said some things you mentioned, like Espinosa being here illegally, have very little to do with what actually happened. You claim that because the fact that he had no business being here and would not be here otherwise, thus making it impossible for this to happen, validates your statement. If Espinosa had somehow been here legally, and that is the only thing different, then his chances of getting into a fatal accident similar to this one would probably still have been the same. The only point that you have to make is that he was physically there. That is not an amazing point though, as it stands to reason that if he stole a vehicle, was driving in it, and crashed into someone else's vehicle, that yes, he was there. Him being there legally or illegally truly had nothing or very little to do with what happened.

I too found it very interesting that you and I both looked up the English word "accident" and yielded very similar results. I expected the definitions to be as different as night and day.

You also stated, thekai, that "What we already know, though, is that Espinosa is responsible for this terrible accident."
I asked, why is Espinosa responsible?
As of yet, you've still not explained why.

"Now we have the issue of how you're choosing to define accident."
.
It's really not an issue, and I've explained why.
.
"1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by an accident. [1913 Webster]"
.
This definition supports the one I provided. Interesting.
.
"For this not to be an accident for Espinosa, he had to have foresight or expectation."
.
Had Espinosa actually bothered to use foresight (he did not), he would have had the expectation that driving without a license is reckless and increases the likelihood of ignorance/disregard for the traffic laws and signs that one who is licensed would be reasonably vigilant of.
.
"Neither Espinosa nor Schumacher saw this coming."
.
Espinosa should have.
We don't accept the excuse of "I didn't know;" ignorance is not a defense in the court of law, and ignorance is not an "accident."
.
"Again, we can see that the word 'intention' is involved in the definition. Lack of intention = accident."
.
Again, the intentions behind actions (as there are intentions behind ALL actions) are irrelevantly misleading. If all we concerned ourselves with was intent, rather than actual occurrence, there would be no such thing as an accident. Instead, it is the chance occurrence, regardless of intent and removed from causality, which constitutes an accident. The words "accident" and "mistake" have become far too interchangeable in current use, and is a result of the kind of irresponsible thinking you present here.
.
"And now for some synonyms."
.
Really? You're going to rely on similar words?
Red herring.

"Some antonyms."
.
Again, red herring.
.
"I think it is rather peculiar that you claim intent does not define accident, yet an antonym of accident is intent."
.
Is an antonym a definition? Your "peculiar" problem is solved in the answer to that question.
.
"Does your argument even make sense to you"
.
Yes. It's fairly simple.

"My apologies if it came out any other way."
.
Your apology for resorting to emotion as an argument is accepted.
.
"I call it editing to fit your argument."
.
You can call it whatever you want; the full quote doesn't negate your reliance on emotion.
.
"you'd see that you're actually changing the meaning of the things I've said"
.
Incorrect. The emotion expressed in "I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do... I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear.... :-(" is no different than in "I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do, and I pray for those who know it better than me. Tell that to a grieving mother? Sure, I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear. The simple fact is, it is truth. No one intended for someone to die that night. :-("
.
"You saying that I was trying to argue that fact is truth is displaying my argument in a way such that it looks as if I got off topic."
.
No, I concurred with your statement, "The simple fact is, it is truth." Yes, I agree, the fact is truth. Do you disagree? If not, you have yet again raised an irrelevant point.
.
"You are the one who changed the meaning of what I said."
.
False.
.
"Using the fact that he was here illegally as a contributing factor to the crash is silly."
.
It's serious, and true.
.
"If he was here illegally but in Illinois, then just him being here illegally would not have contributed to the accident."
.
Espinosa wasn’t in Illinois, was he?
Red herring.
.
"You keep trying to validate unsound arguments."
.
An unsound argument is claiming his illegal residence here was not a contributing factor because "If he was here illegally but in Illinois, then just him being here illegally would not have contributed to the accident."
.
"Personally, I think it makes you look ignorant."
.
I don't really value your opinion.
.
"Blanket statements."
.
Incorrect. Familiarize yourself with what that term means.
.
"Even all of those strung together, it still does not necessarily follow that he would cause the accident."
.
No, it necessarily follows that he DID.
.
"There are countless other factors involved"
.
Such as?
.
"some that you listed (he was here illegally) actually have almost nothing at all to do with this."
.
You mean besides the fact that Espinosa has no business here, and that if he weren't residing here as the law states, he would not have been able to ever even meet Schumacher, let alone kill him? Almost nothing.

Duly noted, SuperDave. I'd forgotten that you did provide some solutions.

I'm not an area expert here, but I think it's already illegal to hire undocumented workers. I am fairly certain there are already laws in place that are intended to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. I think it is probably very tough to enforce, and very easy for the business owners to not care. For a lot of people, it's about getting the job done as monetarily efficiently as possible. Lower labor cost means more profit.

Another problem I've noted is in places like Southern California, a tomato farmer for instance might tell someone that he will hire that person to pick tomatos. Payment is per bushel, so the more tomatos picked, the bigger the paycheck. The original worker hired may be a documented worker, but then he/she goes back to their family and says something to the effect of, "Hey everyone, I need help tomorrow morning picking tomatos." The whole family, documented and not, then get in on the picking. At the end of the day they all just split the check.

How do we regulate this kind of behavior while avoiding becoming big brother? I'm asking hypothetically, only to point out that it's not a simple problem which requires a simple solution.

justafool: havent you said in the past you have no problem with adults who smoke, only those who drive and risk others safety?? then why do you think im a joke?? thats the only thing i do and the ONLY thing i advocate for. you dont even know what sarcasm is. or humor for that matter. you realize that if your first post was sarcasm, you are on our team?? yer justanidiot. seriously.

thekai: said "SuperDave, The problem started with past presidents. To let them off the hook completely and push all of the blame onto our current president (whomever he/she may be, at ANY time) is juvenile".
I am not about BLAME, I am about SOLUTIONS. If you feel the need to blame past politicians, you do so at the risk of ignoring the present, and thus ignoring the problem.
"Can we stop the problem right now, before 2010 ends? I honestly don't think so, not with everything else we are dealing with. I'm not completely ignorant to the suggestion that it could possibly happen, though. What do you offer as a solution? What should Obama and his team do to secure our borders by the end of 2010? How can we keep something like this from happening?"
I already stated the solution. Come down hard on employers that hire illegals. They come here for jobs (primarily). Require proper documentation (birth certificate, passport, voter registration card, DD-214, etc.). Of course we need to make sure those documents in turn are not issued to illegal aliens. Any question as to the veracity of the documentation, contact INS or local law enforcement. Employers that ignore the rules should be punished and/or fined severely. It won't happen btw, for pretty obvious reasons.
"How many other factors do you think he should consider; is it as simple as preventing illegal immigrants from ending up in reckless and fatal accidents like this one, or as complicated as preventing the entire movement of illegal immigration?"
Sorry, I can't do Obama's job for him. But on this web page alone I've given him enough information to get started. He of course already knows all this, and that's what is frustrating to those of us that simply want the laws enforced.

thekid: Yes you are a joke, and your point is? and if anyone should feel sorry for someone it should be for your kid .... you on the other hand are just a sad sorry case ... get a life without pot, if you can.

SwissChick
Jan 25, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal

Stealing a vehicle and doing what he did with it doesn't equal malice?? Hm.

What did Espinosa do with the vehicle that indicates there was malice? Espinosa was reckless, careless, inconsiderate, irresponsible, wild, selfish... malicious? That's one that he was not. If he drove around town looking for cars or people to hit, trying to smash up his own vehicle as much as he could... now that would seem to indicate malice. I'm with ebai here, I'm not defending what Espinosa did. I'm simply saying that it seems it is being taken the wrong way.

SuperDave,
The problem started with past presidents. To let them off the hook completely and push all of the blame onto our current president (whomever he/she may be, at ANY time) is juvenile. Can we stop the problem right now, before 2010 ends? I honestly don't think so, not with everything else we are dealing with. I'm not completely ignorant to the suggestion that it could possibly happen, though. What do you offer as a solution? What should Obama and his team do to secure our borders by the end of 2010? How can we keep something like this from happening? How many other factors do you think he should consider; is it as simple as preventing illegal immigrants from ending up in reckless and fatal accidents like this one, or as complicated as preventing the entire movement of illegal immigration?

Our ignorance caused thousands of freedom loving Americans to die in Pearl Harbor. It sucks and I'm not denying that. We are not flawless, though. Some things we do great in this country, other things not so much.

Now we have the issue of how you're choosing to define accident. I will post several definitions from different sources.

1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by an accident. [1913 Webster]

Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

- Note that this happens without one's foresight or expectation. For this not to be an accident for Espinosa, he had to have foresight or expectation. Neither Espinosa nor Schumacher saw this coming.

1.
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Again, we can see that the word "intention" is involved in the definition. Lack of intention = accident.

1. an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause
2. anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance; chance; fortune I met him by accident
3. a misfortune or mishap, esp one causing injury or death
4. (Philosophy / Logic) Also called adjunct Logic Philosophy a nonessential attribute or characteristic of something (as opposed to substance)
5. (Philosophy) Metaphysics a property as contrasted with the substance in which it inheres
6. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) Geology a surface irregularity in a natural formation, esp in a rock formation or a river system

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Unintentional.

And now for some synonyms.

blow, calamity, casualty, collision, crack-up, disaster, fender-bender, fluke, hazard, misadventure, misfortune, mishap, pileup, rear ender, setback, smash*, smashup, stack-up, total*, wrack-up

Espinosa was having fun at other's expense (stealing a car, for example). When Espinosa hit and killed a man, it became a misadventure. A terrible mishap.

Some antonyms.

intent, intention, necessity, plan, provision calculation, decision, decree, plan.

I think it is rather peculiar that you claim intent does not define accident, yet an antonym of accident is intent. Does your argument even make sense to you, or do you already know at this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing?

inconvenienttruth,
I added an emoticon because I was reminded of how sad it was to lose a good friend. I'm sorry that I have emotions. I did not use them to make a point, though. It was more of a side note. My apologies if it came out any other way.

You call it editing to emphasize your points. I call it editing to fit your argument. If you take certain things out of context then meaning can be lost. If you were not trying to be so semantic, then you'd see that you're actually changing the meaning of the things I've said, and thereby misleading anyone who reads your post.

You saying that I was trying to argue that fact is truth is displaying my argument in a way such that it looks as if I got off topic. You are the one who changed the meaning of what I said. In reality, you went off topic and I had to correct your mistake.

Using the fact that he was here illegally as a contributing factor to the crash is silly. If he was here illegally but in Illinois, then just him being here illegally would not have contributed to the accident. You keep trying to validate unsound arguments. Personally, I think it makes you look ignorant. The inconvenient truth is only inconvenient for everyone else when it's convenient for you, is that how it is?

"It does, however, necessarily follow that because Espinosa was here illegally, illegally stole a car, illegally drove the car without a license, and illegally failed to yield to a stop sign, he caused the accident."

Blanket statements. Even all of those strung together, it still does not necessarily follow that he would cause the accident. There are countless other factors involved, and some that you listed (he was here illegally) actually have almost nothing at all to do with this. There's your quote of some blanket statements.

Stealing a vehicle and doing what he did with it doesn't equal malice?? Hm.

justafool: did you REALLY call me a 'joke' before i even commented on this thread?? no offense to the rest of you posters, but i think you have misread justafools apparent fascination with keeping marijuana illegal. i think its actually a fascination with me. it sorta scares me. he thinks i am everyone who posts on pot, calls me names for my beliefs and seems to use any juvenile tactic available as he waits for me to join the convo.

the fact that you cant differentiate between adult possession of marijuana being a victimless crime and the tragedy that happened here, shows just what level of intelligence you are dealing with...and as ive said before...youre posts would make me chuckle...if i didnt feel so bad for you.

thekai: You said "So we didn't have this illegal immigration problem before Obama? This country hasn't been trying for a long time to secure our boarders? This is all the democrats' fault or something? I realize you included all senators and representatives, but you excluded Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc etc....".
Previous presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan(?!?) are HISTORY. The problem of illegal immigration could be solved by the end of 2010 by those currently in power - I couldn't care less their political persuasion, this has nothing to do with that. The victim had his life snuffed out by an illegal punk, how long are we going to put up with this?
"The real problem is our introverted ignorance".
REALLY??? The real problem is US??? Tell it to the victim's family. Explain to them how THEIR IGNORANCE caused the loss of their loved one.

"why do they call it an accident?"
.
Because it was a mishap that occurred by chance to (rather than caused by) Schumacher, which resulted in damage and injury. It was not an accident by Espinosa, it was an accident to Schumacher.
.
So, apparently, your only point is that "two families lives were destroyed by this tragedy"?
If by "tragedy" you mean "the culmination of Espinosa's disregard for anyone other than himself," then yes, the lives of two families were destroyed by that.

I will say IMO---(maybe I wont be attacked)If it was not an "accident", why do they call it an accident? I am not defending dude by any means and any one of you that think I am you are idoits. Being illegal in this situation is not the point here. Two families lives were destroyed by this tragedy. Im sure theyre are plenty of "legals" that have had no previous training and dont have a dl. and I am not defending him or them either. My prayers go out to both families

"For instance, you claim that him being here illegally was not on accident and caused this crash."
.
In reality, I pointed out the contribution. You may want to reference the difference between it and "cause."
.
"However, it does not necessarily follow that because Espinosa was here illegally, he caused the accident."
.
It does, however, necessarily follow that because Espinosa was here illegally, illegally stole a car, illegally drove the car without a license, and illegally failed to yield to a stop sign, he caused the accident.
.
"Saying him being here illegally caused this is to use a red herring."
.
It would be, had I said such a thing.
.
"Another example, you said he didn't accidentally steal a vehicle, so this was not an accident."
.
True, it wasn't an accident that he stole a vehicle.
.
"However, not everyone who steals a vehicle also ends up in a fatal crash."
.
Again, I've made no such claim. You're jumping to conclusions. Truly a logically unsound practice.
.
"the argument that Espinosa not having a license caused the crash."
.
Who made this argument?
.
"It would be wonderful if simply having a driver's license prevented you from ever causing an accident, but we know that's not how it really works."
.
Yes, we do know. So, again, who argued otherwise?
.
"Yes, he possessed marijuana illegally. That didn't cause the crash, though."
.
I've never claimed it did.
.
"Espinosa had a knife on him. How did that make him blow a stop sign and kill a man?"
.
Who said it made him do anything?

"You claim that those actions he took, linked together, are directly responsible for this accident, and since all of the actions were done knowingly and willingly, this is not an accident."
.
Correct; Espinosa was not involved in an accident.
.
"If you were right about those actions being directly responsible for this crash, then you would be right that it's not an accident."
.
If? It is irrefutable fact that those actions directly lead to the crash. Without those actions, the crash does not happen.
.
"However, do you really think that he was the only illegal immigrant in the United States who stole a vehicle, smoked marijuana, had a knife in his pocket, and blew a stop sign?"
.
Nope, just the only illegal immigrant in the United States who stole a vehicle, smoked marijuana, had a knife in his pocket, blew a stop sign, and struck Schumacher’s truck, killing him.
.
"You blanket everyone who is an illegal immigrant"
.
"you blanket everyone who steals a vehicle"
.
"you blanket everyone who does not have a driver's license"
.
"you blanket everyone who smokes marijuana"
.
"you blanket everyone who carries a knife in their pocket."
.
Quotes?
.
"You've stated that all of these factors are the reason for this car crash."
.
Collectively, yes. This fact is irrefutable.
.
"What we already know, though, is that Espinosa is responsible for this terrible accident."
.
Why is Espinosa responsible?

"I'm not using emotions to further my initiative."
.
Pain is feeling; feeling is emotion. You even resorted to placing an emoticon (emotion icon) to wrap up your post. You have resorted to emotion as your argument.
.
"There's the full message I sent. You left out a few key points."
.
It's called editing to emphasize your reliance on emotion to drive your argument. The full quote doesn't negate it.
.
"For instance, I was arguing that the fact is it was truly an accident."
.
It truly was. For Schumacher.
That Espinosa did not "intend" to kill Schumacher does not make his actions or their end result accidental.
To better illustrate, it is not an "accident" if a falling bullet that was fired directly into the air hits someone. The person who fired the bullet obviously didn't "intended" to hit anyone but, had their actions been different, they could have prevented it, and thus the harm they did cause is not "accidental."
.
"You misquoted me by making it sound like I was arguing that fact is truth."
.
Do you deny that fact is truth? If not, this point was irrelevant for you to raise.
.
"Accident is not defined by intent?"
.
No, it is not.
1. An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury.
2. Anything that happens suddenly or by chance without an apparent cause.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...
The intentions behind actions (as there are intentions behind ALL actions) are irrelevantly misleading. If all we concerned ourselves with was intent, rather than actual occurrence, there would be no such thing as an accident. Instead, it is the chance occurrence, regardless of intent and removed from causality, which constitutes an accident. Therefore, Schumacher was involved in an accident. Espinosa was not.
.
"Espinosa had no malice."
.
Irrelevant. Espinosa had responsibility.
.
"He did not see the truck coming a half mile away and decide he was going to hit it and try to kill whoever was inside."
.
He did, however, see that he was an illegal resident, illegally stealing a car, which he illegally drove without a license through a stop sign. Again, his intent is irrelevant.
.
"Regardless of his character, this was an accident."
.
For Schumacher. Espinosa was not involved in an accident; he was responsible for the outcome, which his actions and decisions could have altered were he to have changed them.

inconvenient truth,

I can see where you're coming from, but your arguments are fundamentally unsound. For instance, you claim that him being here illegally was not on accident and caused this crash. It is true that if Espinosa were not here, he clearly would not have caused the accident. However, it does not necessarily follow that because Espinosa was here illegally, he caused the accident. For instance, there are several other illegal immigrants in this country who do not cause fatal accidents. There are even some, believe it or not, who are more reckless than Espinosa. Saying him being here illegally caused this is to use a red herring.

I've found this logic will apply to all of your most recent arguments. Another example, you said he didn't accidentally steal a vehicle, so this was not an accident. However, not everyone who steals a vehicle also ends up in a fatal crash. Again, you're using an unsound argument.

You even chose to pick on the one where I already showed why it's a poor argument: the argument that Espinosa not having a license caused the crash. This argument is easy to defeat because licensed drivers die in car accidents every day. It would be wonderful if simply having a driver's license prevented you from ever causing an accident, but we know that's not how it really works.

Yes, he possessed marijuana illegally. That didn't cause the crash, though. I've possessed marijuana illegally several times in the past, but I've never caused a fatal car crash.

Espinosa had a knife on him. How did that make him blow a stop sign and kill a man?

Your closing argument is the icing on the cake. You claim that those actions he took, linked together, are directly responsible for this accident, and since all of the actions were done knowingly and willingly, this is not an accident. If you were right about those actions being directly responsible for this crash, then you would be right that it's not an accident. However, do you really think that he was the only illegal immigrant in the United States who stole a vehicle, smoked marijuana, had a knife in his pocket, and blew a stop sign? Those actions do not always lead to an inevitable fatal car crash.

Where does your blanket statement exist? It's in your arguments of course. You blanket everyone who is an illegal immigrant, you blanket everyone who steals a vehicle, you blanket everyone who does not have a driver's license, you blanket everyone who smokes marijuana, and you blanket everyone who carries a knife in their pocket. You've stated that all of these factors are the reason for this (apparently intentional) car crash. What we already know, though, is that Espinosa is responsible for this terrible accident.

"inconvenienttruth
Jan 24, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal

"I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do... I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear.... :-("
.
^^^"Stop using emotions to further your own initiative."^^^
.
"The simple fact is, it is truth."
.
Yes, fact IS truth. Let's review the facts, which you're apparently ignorant of in favor of your use of emotion as an argument (which you simultaneously claim to oppose):
An accident is not defined by intent. An accident is when something happens to someone by chance or without cause, despite them having taken minimal standard action(s) to have avoided it. Schumacher was involved in an accident. Espinosa was NOT involved in an "accident," as he was in control of his actions that lead to this result."

I'm not using emotions to further my initiative. I'm stating that I can at least to some degree understand the pain Espinosa has caused.

I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do, and I pray for those who know it better than me. Tell that to a grieving mother? Sure, I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear. The simple fact is, it is truth. No one intended for someone to die that night. :-(.

There's the full message I sent. You left out a few key points. For instance, I was arguing that the fact is it was truly an accident. You misquoted me by making it sound like I was arguing that fact is truth. It makes it seem like you're missing the point.

Accident is not defined by intent?
ac⋅ci⋅dent
  /ˈæksɪdənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ak-si-duhnt] Show IPA
Use accident in a Sentence
See images of accident
Search accident on the Web
–noun
1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a...

I think you should check your dictionary again ;-).

Espinosa had no malice. He did not see the truck coming a half mile away and decide he was going to hit it and try to kill whoever was inside. I'm not saying Espinosa is a good guy. I think evidence shows he has terrible character. Regardless of his character, this was an accident.

"Espinosa's residence here did not cause that crash"
.
It was Espinosa's decisions and actions that lead him to reside here illegally. Were Espinosa not living here, he wouldn't have been able to steal a car here. His residence is illegal, and was not on “accident.”
.
"Espinoza's stealing a vehicle did not cause that crash either."
.
It was Espinosa's decisions and actions that lead him to steal the car. Had Espinosa not stolen the car, he would have never driven it, without a license, into Mr. Schumacher's truck. The theft is illegal, and was not on “accident.”
.
"Having no license to drive legally didn't cause the crash"
.
It was Espinosa's decisions and actions that lead him to not be licensed to drive a car. Had Espinosa been licensed, he would have been consciously vigilant of traffic laws and signs. Driving without a license is illegal, and was not on “accident.”
.
"The marijuana the police found on him also probably did not cause the crash"
.
It was Espinosa's actions and decisions that caused him to be in illegal possession of marijuana; it was not on "accident."
.
"The weapon? That didn't cause the crash either."
.
It was Espinosa's actions and decisions that caused him to have an illegal concealed weapon; it was not on "accident."
.
"What we have here is a list of evidence that can tell us a lot about Mr. Espinosa's character. Espinosa is the one who is most at fault for this fatal accident."
.
Yes. It is Espinosa's character to disregard law and safety, and he is at fault for the illegal actions he took that directly led to an avoidable homicide of a man who was doing nothing more than legally driving to work to better his legally residing, tax paying family.
.
"Please avoid blanket statements which blame the masses"
.
Where does such a statement exist?

"I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do... I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear.... :-("
.
^^^"Stop using emotions to further your own initiative."^^^
.
"The simple fact is, it is truth."
.
Yes, fact IS truth. Let's review the facts, which you're apparently ignorant of in favor of your use of emotion as an argument (which you simultaneously claim to oppose):
An accident is not defined by intent. An accident is when something happens to someone by chance or without cause, despite them having taken minimal standard action(s) to have avoided it. Schumacher was involved in an accident. Espinosa was NOT involved in an "accident," as he was in control of his actions that lead to this result.

justaguy,

"For all you pro pot heads I love your spin on drunk driving deaths .. this death was due to an illeagal pot head but then you all always try to defend illeagal pot by bringing in the old stale drunk drivers rant."

Oh really? This death had nothing to do with Espinosa's blatant lack of respect for the law? The accident didn't have anything to do with the fact that it was 3:45 AM and dark outside? The accident has nothing at all to do with the fact that Espinosa didn't have a driver's license? If Espinosa's drug of choice had been cocaine instead of marijuana, this would not have happened?

You might as well say this death was due to an illegal man. This death was due to a black-haired man. This death was due to a Hispanic man. The truth is, that accident happened because of an irresponsible person.

I think you're always reading it the wrong way, JAG. I've even said that it would be lunacy for someone to suggest that if marijuana were legal we should let people drive stoned out of their minds. The only reason marijuana is even being focused on is because of your apparent obsession with wanting it to stay illegal.

If you are searching for real reasons marijuana should be legal, though, I can give you a ton; I don't use false premises.

"thekai or thekid .... whatever your name is if you have really ever read any of my posts you will also see I hate drunk divers just as much, get your head out of that pot cloud and maybe you won't be so one sided, all you are worried about is pot."

Thanks for continuing the inside joke ;-). Quite clearly, since I'm quoting you and have in the past, I do read your posts. I try to read everyone's posts.
I never said you didn't hate drunk drivers. I said you wouldn't argue that alcohol should just be made completely illegal because of a horrific accident.

I'm not solely worried about marijuana. You are clearly overly worried about it, though.

"If you aren't thekid you are just as big of a joke that he is"

I'm honored :-).

"I don't need to smoke pot to get the laughs all I have to do is read the pot head's comments."

That's sad. You should check out youtube, you'll get a real gas there.

"now let't hear your spin,"

Espinosa obviously had deliberate disregard for many different things...illegal residency, no license, stolen car, carrying a weapon, doing illegal drugs, etc. How can anyone say that he didn't intend to run that stop sign that night? Who knows how many he ran before that one? He very well MAY have INTENDED to run it and was in complete disregard for the consequences of his actions. With all he is already doing illegally, why would he care about a silly little stop sign?

missmyhubby: whatever your other AKA is I've never seen your name before and if your comments were removed your name would still show, so nice try. For all you pro pot heads I love your spin on drunk driving deaths .. this death was due to an illeagal pot head but then you all always try to defend illeagal pot by bringing in the old stale drunk drivers rant.For you people who seem to have a problem or a fixation on my sarcasm and went over your heads also I think maybe you should lay off the weed, as always your heads are in a fog. thekai or thekid .... whatever your name is if you have really ever read any of my posts you will also see I hate drunk divers just as much, get your head out of that pot cloud and maybe you won't be so one sided, all you are worried about is pot. This illegal punk had pot in his system, I saw nothing in this story about a drunk driver, POT was involved. If you aren't thekid you are just as big of a joke that he is ... now let't hear your spin, I don't need to smoke pot to get the laughs all I have to do is read the pot head's comments.

votoloco and inconvenienttruth,
I lost a really great friend from drunk driving. I pray that no ones knows this pain as well as I do, and I pray for those who know it better than me. Tell that to a grieving mother? Sure, I will do what I can to comfort that family who has lost someone dear. The simple fact is, it is truth. No one intended for someone to die that night. :-(.

Stop using emotions to further your own initiative. This isn't some political game.

Did you have my posts removed justaguy or someone else? i said virtually the same thing as LTM and mine are gone. Why would that be?

madman: I'm glad you could see the sarcasm, after it went over midwest's head I gave up on him ;)
______
Nice try justaguy. trying to push that off as sarcasm. If what you say in the post I have quoted aboce is true, then why did you respond to my posts? You say you gave up yet you responded. Can you keep your story straight just once?

"Espinosa, even through all of his carelessness and ignorance, did not intend to blow a stop sign and kill a man."
.
An accident is not defined by intent. An accident is when something happens to someone by chance or without cause, despite them having taken minimal standard action(s) to have avoided it. Schumacher was involved in an accident. Espinosa was NOT involved in an "accident," as he was in control of his actions that lead to this result.

"get over it."
.
Again, good advice, if you can take it. Obviously you can't.
.
"Incon: i'm not even going to waste my time with the rants that fall out of your mouth"
.
In other words, you have no credible refutation to my logical points, so you'll be rightly scurrying away now with your tail between your legs.
Bye.
.
"you have no idea what you talk about."
.
You've proven that your honesty is absent and your opinions are worthless.

gopack: You have no idea what I was talking about and I can see you have no more of an idea what you are talking about, get a clue ... also pot WAS involved in this sad story so get over it. Incon: i'm not even going to waste my time with the rants that fall out of your mouth .... you have no idea what you talk about.

ebaijunky06,
"Two families are suffering here.Some of these posts are just outright ridiculous. It was just that.. an "accident" NOT intentional."

Way to stay on point. Espinosa, even through all of his carelessness and ignorance, did not intend to blow a stop sign and kill a man. This is a terrible tragedy...

SuperDave,
"Mr. Schumacher paid with his life for the failure of the national government (that would be Obama, and our senators and representatives) to tackle the illegal immigrant problem."

So we didn't have this illegal immigration problem before Obama? This country hasn't been trying for a long time to secure our boarders? This is all the democrats' fault or something? I realize you included all senators and representatives, but you excluded Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc etc...... The real problem is our introverted ignorance.

Shopierehuh,
And how many people in Wisconsin died in 2009 from drunk Wisconsin residents? Legal, licensed, sometimes multiple offenders, citizens of our country. Please try to avoid promoting ignorance and racism.

justaguy,
You need to get off the fixation you have with marijuana. If the story was that this guy was drinking six hours before the crash, would you barge in here saying alcohol needs to be illegal? I don't think you would. At the same time, no one arguing for the legalization of marijuana would also argue that people should be allowed to drive stoned out of their minds. It seems like you want to blame the marijuana for this, not all of the other obvious contributing factors.

Why are you sticking up for SarahB1? Oh, I think I know why. That's one of your many other accounts you have on this site, isn't it? (For those on the outside, it's an inside joke. JAG thinks most people arguing for the legalization of marijuana are actually just one guy (thekid) with multiple accounts.)

inconvenienttruth,
I couldn't agree with you more about the judge's focus. This judge seems like a bad egg. His head isn't in the right place. Being a judge is not a job anyone can do. This one needs to accept that and resign. He obviously let his emotions gain way into the court room.

""It was just that.. an 'accident' NOT intentional." - ebaijunky06
.
"Espinosa "accidently" resided here illegally? He "accidently" stole a car? He "accidently" drove that car, which he was "accidently" never licensed to drive? He "accidently" failed to stop at a stop sign, a sign which he would be vigilantly conscious of had he been licensed? Police found a weapon and pot which had "accidently" wound up on Espinosa's person?"

You bring up a lot of really good points. Espinosa's residence here did not cause that crash, though. As crazy as it might sound, Espinoza's stealing a vehicle did not cause that crash either. Having no license to drive legally didn't cause the crash, despite how misleading that sounds. (People with driver's licenses blow stop signs and, unfortunately, sometimes kill people.) The marijuana the police found on him also probably did not cause the crash (if we assume he is telling the truth about when he smoked last.) The weapon? That didn't cause the crash either.
What we have here is a list of evidence that can tell us a lot about Mr. Espinosa's character. Espinosa is the one who is most at fault for this fatal accident. Please avoid blanket statements which blame the masses for the mistakes or wrong doings of the few.

This one is a criminal illegal alien invader, too. The one in Janesville who murdered a citizen of the U.S. with his vehicle was too. Where are the apologists for these criminal invaders? What method will they use to defend this slaughter of innocent Americans?

Judge Gibbs was absolutely correct when he said “It wasn't an accident. It was a homicide.” Espinosa had no regard for others as he recklessly sped around the countryside in a stolen vehicle, playing tough-guy gangbanger. And the icing on the cake is the fact that he was an illegal "guest" in our country and apparently couldn't have cared less about it by all his actions of choice.
So how does an 18 year old with other family here end up illegal? Are they illegal also? Was he raised here? Did he just show up? Has he been in the school system? Ever held a job? What exactly is the rest of the story...Gazette?

"It was just that.. an 'accident' NOT intentional." - ebaijunky06
.
Espinosa "accidently" resided here illegally? He "accidently" stole a car? He "accidently" drove that car, which he was "accidently" never licensed to drive? He "accidently" failed to stop at a stop sign, a sign which he would be vigilantly conscious of had he been licensed? Police found a weapon and pot which had "accidently" wound up on Espinosa's person?
.
"Would it really make a difference if he was a legal driver, insured,and a legal citizen?"
.
Are you joking?

"If you read my FIRST post you'll see pot wasn't my main concern"
.
It certainly was A concern:
"but like a few will say, this is a victimless crime, pot only has a good side"
.
"incontruth who said pot wasn't even a factor"
.
I said that? Again, quote where I've done so, you liar.
.
"has no idea if it was or not"
.
Nor do you.
.
"and i also see you jumped on sarahb1 even tho she hasn't posted anything... sounds like you just like cutting on people just for the heck of it?"
.
Would that be comparable to writing, "like a few will say, this is a victimless crime, pot only has a good side," even though you were the only one to have mentioned such arguments?
Yes, it would.
.
"maye it's you two who are fixated on wanting legal pot"
.
You're the only one talking about the legality of pot.
.
"get over it"..."wise up or shut up."
.
Good advice, if you can take it...

Madman, I don't believe Justaguy's comment was sacastic. He was referencing a quote from a different blog about legal medicinal marijuana. When he was going back in forth with the kid. I believe all of you are missing the biggest cause of this tragedy. He had no education about driving in the US or the language. So that would be the biggest contributing factor in this accident. The guy didn't know the driving laws and regulations, nor the language of this great country. That is what caused this fatal accident, not the pot. Try to remember a loved one was lost.

madman: I'm glad you could see the sarcasm, after it went over midwest's head I gave up on him ;)

Mr. Schumacher paid with his life for the failure of the national government (that would be Obama, and our senators and representatives) to tackle the illegal immigrant problem.
And the solution is so simple - they come here for jobs. Force employers to verify citizenship, problem solved. And that includes small-time employers, like the senators and representatives that hire illegals for child care, cleaning, landscaping etc. Oh yeah - that's another reason they won't do their job.

lovethemidwest...

....is it possible that you just didn't notice the sarcasm in justaguy's post of Jan 22, 2010 at 4:44 p.m????

Sure seemed pretty sarcastic to me, anyway

Our government seriously needs to make an effort at getting the illegal immigrants out of this country. This is just one more example of them having absolutely no respect for our laws. I cannot believe this guy was actually laughing at the trial, with Mr. Schumacher's family there nonetheless:( INS should have been waiting at the conclusion of the trial, asked Espinoza's family to provide proof of their citizenship/legal status--if they didn't have it, they should have been put on a bus and sent home. Bus rides to get these people out of this country are one thing that I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on.....

ebayijunky, yes it may have made a difference if he was a legal driver , then he would of had to of taken a course an passed a test, like the rest of us legal american s have to. as for him being a legal citizen that to would of made a difference if they would of deported him he would nt of been here and we wouldnt be having to post on this blog.

He smoked it 6 hours prior? I'm thinking there is more to this story. If he smoked it 6 hours prior he shouldn't have still been "stoned" unless you added something to the mix. By hour 6 you would think that would have worn off quite a bit!!

Two families are suffering here.Some of these posts are just outright ridiculous. It was just that.. an "accident" NOT intentional. Would it really make a difference if he was a legal driver, insured,and a legal citizen? And whenever drugs and alcohol are involved YES the one using MUST take responsibility reguardless of status. Both drugs and alcohol affect impairment and abilities in different people to different degrees in different instances AND in in different dosages.it doesnt matter how much was consumed or when, just that it WAS consumed.

midwest: says - As far as SarahB1, is that any of your business? Looks who's talking, yeah your real smart aren't you ... nough said, you have a good night.

oops, same quote two posts in a row, my fault.

"but incontruth who said pot wasn't even a factor has no idea if it was or not... " Again, do YOU know that it was? Nope, but you sure seem to think that your assumption is more valid than anyone elses.
As far as SarahB1, is that any of your business? Seems Ive seen you calling out thekid when he hasnt posted on previous threads. Again, your hypocrisy shines through.

justaguy, do you recall this from your first post-"this is a victimless crime, pot only has a good side"...? Maybe youre the one who should "shut up". You also state "You have no idea if this guy still wasn't stoned" and " but incontruth who said pot wasn't even a factor has no idea if it was or not... ". Do YOU know that he WAS stoned? No, so how can you ridicule inconvienienttruth? Oh I know, because youre a hypocrite and you are just here to blab your anti marijuana agenda.

isn't*

midwest: If you read my FIRST post you'll see pot wasn't my main concern, but incontruth who said pot wasn't even a factor has no idea if it was or not... was he there and forgot to tell us? and i also see you jumped on sarahb1 even tho she hasn't posted anything .... sounds like you just like cutting on people just for the heck of it? maye it's you two who are fixated on wanting legal pot, well it it's so get over it ... wise up or shut up.

A urine test doesnt tell you what time a person did the drugs. Marijuana can show up in urine for 30 days.

The article said that he pled guilty in september. Because it was a fatality and drugs were envolved there would have been a urine test. I'm sure that gave an indication how long before the accident he had marijuana. I'm sure his attorney realized this and strongly suggested the guilty plea.

No kidding; while I've never once denied the involvement of pot (mentioning it in my posts), justaguy fixates on that point, rather than the other more pertinent facts.

justaguy, you try to insult others intelligence when in fact you are no better. You are so fixated on pot that you forget to take into account the other factors in this crash.

Pot WAS involved ... get over it

"to tell you the truth I don't have a bridge"
.
"you still want that bridge?"
.
You want to make up your mind?
.
"We all know your pro pot so you'll spin this anyway you can to side with you."
.
I will? Because, so far, I haven't made a single pro-pot statement here.
.
"You have no idea if this guy still wasn't stoned"
.
Neither do you, or Gibbs.
Why are you two so concerned with whether an illegal alien without a license who stole a car and killed another driver by running a stop sign had been smoking pot? That makes as much sense as talking about a murderer who ran across an intersection to reach their victim, and focusing on the jaywalking as being of contributive concern.
.
"but yet you stand up for him"
.
Quote where I've done so, you liar.
.
"defend his use of pot"
.
Quote where I've done so, you liar. ...
.
"that shows your intelligence"
.
Your blatant lies do help to point out my intelligence, indirectly. More so, they point out that you lack it.

I cant speak my mind It will be removed,wish I could ! Guess we just have to live with it.

The law does not really recognize as relevant when someone says they ingested an intoxicating substance. It simply turns on whether someone exhibited signs of intoxication at the time of the incident.

Deport them to Antartica....lol... I'll bet he wasn't as stoned as half these people driving around on pain medication constently.

This young man deserves punishment and as an illegal alien and considering the costs of incarceration in the US, it would seem fair that he serve his time at the cost of his nation, not someone elses.
But also couldn't help thinking about how the punishment meted out for this case compares to what someone gets for killing people while driving drunk, even after multiple DUIs.

to tell you the truth I don't have a bridge, you just sounded like someone that would buy one. We all know your pro pot so you'll spin this anyway you can to side with you. You have no idea if this guy still wasn't stoned but yet you stand up for him, defend his use of pot ... that shows your intelligence ... you still want that bridge?

"Good chance he took a hit just before he killed this man"
.
And it was that hit that killed Schumacher. The illegal alien was driving a stolen car without a license/training perfectly fine before that; no problems. It's the weed that's the REAL problem.
I have a feeling that the reason you have a bridge to sell is because you jumped at the chance to buy it yourself. Was it Gibbs who sold it to you?
.
"i'm sure he'd lie about anything to save his own skin."
.
Right, because someone who can't even be bothered to show remorse for committing homicide is going to lie about his drug use. And the authorities were totally going to forgive his illegal status, his auto theft, his possession of drugs and a weapon, and his failure to stop if Espinosa pushed back the time from when he actually smoked.
You sound almost as intelligent as this teenager.

Wheres SarahB1? She should be here anytime now saying how we should just give this illegal alien his citizenship like she wants done for all illegals.

Wow, I cant believe it, I actually agree with inconvienienttruth 100%!

This "punk" said it was 6 hours before he killed the guy, if your going to go by what he said "or his lawyer" I have a nice bridge i'll sell ya, cheap. Good chance he took a hit just before he killed this man, i'm sure he'd lie about anything to save his own skin.

"'The public certainly has the right to be safe from stoned punks driving around in early morning hours in a stolen car, high, carrying drugs, carrying a weapon, with no driving training, no insurance, no license, no nothing,' Walworth County Judge Michael Gibbs said."
.
Good eye, Judge! The priority here is that he smoked pot (6 HOURS before the crash, meaning he wasn't "stoned"). Much less important are the facts that he is an ILLEGAL ALIEN who STOLE A CAR, and drove it WITHOUT A LICENSE/TRAINING. But it was the joint he had hours earlier that is most to blame here.
And AGAIN, another illegal who should be deported, instead of costing money taking up a cell.

10 years is hardly enough, all those charges on top of being an illegal? what a joke. Life in prison would be too good for him ... but like a few will say, this is a victimless crime, pot only has a good side. Lock the scum up for life he earned it.

Instead of deporting them back to Mexico (only to have them come right back), they should deport them to Antarctica.

I don't understand why he doesn't automatically get deported after his prison sentence.
And what about the rest of the family? Are they all illegal also? And if so, shouldn't they all be fined heavily and then deported?
I don't get it - the article mentions that he is here illegally as if that's just incidental.

Also illegal. Nice. Ship him back with his friend Omar.