detectivewannabe
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 4
At the very least, she should be issued a ticket.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My husband thinks that all major highways should have a device that jams cell phones, rendering them useless. I know there are pros and cons for an idea such as this. What do you guys think?KrisNine said:Something tells me she was doing what 90% of the drivers on the 405 freeway in LA do...talking on their cells phones and not paying attention to the road.
It would be nice to not have people on the phone and driving but if you broke down on the highway or needed to call 911 because something happened while you were driving what would you do? One of the good things about cell phones is being able to use them in an emergency.samhoney said:My husband thinks that all major highways should have a device that jams cell phones, rendering them useless. I know there are pros and cons for an idea such as this. What do you guys think?
samhoney said:My husband thinks that all major highways should have a device that jams cell phones, rendering them useless. I know there are pros and cons for an idea such as this. What do you guys think?
I agree. As a general rule people are idiots and will always find a way to be preoccupied with something stupid while driving. If it's not the cell phone, it's the knobs/buttons on the radio, or fishing out the perfect cd, or looking for a piece of gum in the bottom of your purse, or the kid in the backseat, etc, etc, etc......Jack said:Absolutely not! Cell phones are the reason many drunk or otherwise reckless drivers are caught driving on highways, etc.. I know I've called in a few reports of reckless drivers. Just like those who are irresponsible enough to drive under the influence, there are people who will drive while holding a cell phone to their ear and they should be punished when their recklesness is caught. But jamming phone lines so that those who are not driving, or people who have the proper equipment in their cars, or people who are in an emergency situation cannot make calls when needed is not the remedy for those people. In other words, don't punish everyone because of a few bad apples.
What about the professional athlete (sorry, name escapes me) that was watching *advertiser censored* while driving? :bang:curious1 said:I agree. As a general rule people are idiots and will always find a way to be preoccupied with something stupid while driving. If it's not the cell phone, it's the knobs/buttons on the radio, or fishing out the perfect cd, or looking for a piece of gum in the bottom of your purse, or the kid in the backseat, etc, etc, etc......
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that special idiot. :doh:IdahoMom said:What about the professional athlete (sorry, name escapes me) that was watching *advertiser censored* while driving? :bang:
I hate to say it but what took so long? Had it been a normal everyday person, charges would have been filed within a couple of days. Heck she is famous and I never heard of her but that doesn't change the facts that she is the reason this person is dead and given the chain reaction, could have caused other deaths as well. Sorry she commited a crime and deserves to do the same time any of us would have done in the same position, less her money.2luvmy said:Police want to charge Brandy for accident
CHP recommends vehicular manslaughter charge for starting fatal crash
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16873126/from/RS.4/
LOS ANGELES - A city attorneys spokesman says the California Highway Patrol is recommending that actress-singer Brandy be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter for a fatal freeway crash
Tang said Brandy has been fantastically cooperative with police.
Alcohol and drugs have been ruled out as factors in the crash, and there is no evidence that Brandy was using a cell phone or was otherwise distracted at the time of the crash. She was in her car alone, Tang said.
California must not be a no-fault state then?JBean said:I don;t know if this has been posted, but the family of the killed woman are suing Brandy for 50 million.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=182642
Brandy faces $50 mln lawsuit over car smash
Wednesday Jan 31 15:10 AEDT
By Steve Gorman
Singer-actress Brandy was sued for $50 million on Tuesday by the family of a woman killed in a four-car freeway crash which police have blamed on the 27-year-old performer.
The wrongful death lawsuit by the parents of Awatef Aboudihaj, 38, was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court a day after police recommended that prosecutors charge Brandy with a misdemeanor count of vehicular manslaughter.
I think even in no-fault states you may still have the option to sue in cases of death and severe injury.ljwf22 said:California must not be a no-fault state then?
MagicRose99 said:Did anyone read this?!?!
Brandy Unfairly Targeted, Civil Rights Group Claims
http://www.tmz.com/2007/01/30/brandy-unfairly-targeted-civil-rights-group-claims/
<snip>
Black civil rights leaders in Los Angeles claim the California Highway Patrol has made singer/actress Brandy "a political trophy."
<snip>
Najee Ali, leader of Project Islamic HOPE, said the CHP's recommendation to file charges against the singer "is unfairly targeting her for prosecution because of her celebrity."
Excuse me?!?! Because she's a celebrity she SHOULDN'T be charged like a "normal" citizen? Because she's a celebrity she should get away with this?!?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!?!?!?!
southcitymom said:This is so sad - for the family of Awatef Aboudihaj and for Brandy.
Do y'all remember many years ago when Matthew Broderick got into a head-on collision in Ireland (I think) and killed a boy? I believe her got a number of years of probation. Don't know if the family of the boy killed sued him or not, but they probably did.
I think something like this would weigh on a person forever.