I'm Betting She Will Not Miss Wimbleton

[clydepepper]

Yet another example of pending justice that will be paid for.


http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/i...ida-police-say

[frankbmd]

Her eighth grand slam so to speak.

[KCRfan1]

I don't understand why she was not cited.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I don't understand why she was not cited.

same thing happened with bruce jenner a couple of years ago...it got off too.



.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Im sure she has millions of insurance...thats why you have insurance..it was an accident...

[Michael B]

It was a crash, not an accident. She caused the crash by what she did, therefore she is liable.

[packs]

I guess I don't really understand the tone of the post. Are you saying she deserves some kind of punishment? Accidents happen and the man who died was elderly. She is reported to have been going only 5 MPH.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess I don't really understand the tone of the post. Are you saying she deserves some kind of punishment? Accidents happen and the man who died was elderly. She is reported to have been going only 5 MPH.

The police say she was at fault. Her speed wasn't the issue, she didn't yield the right of way and the other vehicle smashed into hers.

[packs]

Someone is always going to be at fault in an accident, but an accident by definition isn't intentional.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Someone is always going to be at fault in an accident, but an accident by definition isn't intentional.

Correct, but negligent or reckless operation of a motor vehicle is also unlawful.

[packs]

I don't think anyone disputes that. What I'm confused about is the tone of the posts. Do people feel as though she should be at the mercy of some criminal court? She will most definitely be sued in civil court, which in my opinion is where this issue belongs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think anyone disputes that. What I'm confused about is the tone of the posts. Do people feel as though she should be at the mercy of some criminal court? She will most definitely be sued in civil court, which in my opinion is where this issue belongs.

She has been sued for wrongful death. Certainly people get charged by the state with negligent operation, but I agree it's inappropriate to vilify her.

[Michael B]

I don't like the use of the word accident. The inference of that word is that no one did anything wrong which is almost always not correct. They will not even say it on the traffic reports here in D.C. From the way it was presented she caused a crash and someone died. She was cited, albeit after the fact, for her actions. She will probably be fined for that. It also fortifies the merit of any civil suit brought by the family of the deceased man. I have no problem with her personally nor do I have any problem with her playing at Wimbledon.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Michael B

It was a crash, not an accident. She caused the crash by what she did, therefore she is liable.

Right, and im sure she has plenty of insurance to defend an pay out for her. Won't cost her a dollar..except increased premiums.....really a non issue..

[irv]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I don't like the use of the word accident. The inference of that word is that no one did anything wrong which is almost always not correct. They will not even say it on the traffic reports here in D.C. From the way it was presented she caused a crash and someone died. She was cited, albeit after the fact, for her actions. She will probably be fined for that. It also fortifies the merit of any civil suit brought by the family of the deceased man. I have no problem with her personally nor do I have any problem with her playing at Wimbledon.

I agree. All Accidents are Avoidable but some think it was fate or there is nothing that could have been done to prevent it or them.

With that mind set, accidents will continue to happen and people will continue to be hurt or killed.

[clydepepper]

Congratulations, guys! You just spent several posts legitimizing her 'right' to not be responsible for her actions. When you are at fault, you bear the responsibility.

How anyone can repute that is beyond me.

Please check my 'signature' statement below.

...of course, if it makes everyone else feel better about themselves, I'll say...

IMO

[Exhibitman]

Well, no. Negligence does not equal criminality. Williams may be held civilly liable for damages for negligence without being criminally liable. The case is partially defensible, though, given the facts as stated by the drivers. According to Williams, she was nearly stopped in the intersection due to traffic in front of her. Whether she actually violated the right of way is an open question. I am not going to blindly accept the hearsay opinion of the police, who were not there and rely on less than comprehensive analysis in these cases. Also, the nature of the collision, with the smaller car going pretty fast and t-boning a nearly stopped vehicle, opens up the possibility that the driver of the car was also negligent. The driver of the other car stated that she slowed when approaching the intersection then sped up when the light changed. Had she been in the intersection when the SUV entered it her car would have been hit on its side. Instead, she ran into the side of the SUV, indicating that Williams got there first. She might have missed the SUV entering the intersection or she might have wrongly assumed it would stop. Her deposition should answer that question.

And what is Williams supposed to do, not go to work? That's ridiculous. Tennis is her career and a grand slam event is a major work event for her. She isn't under arrest, she isn't out on bail, she hasn't even been charged with a crime. She has the right to pursue her trade, same as any of us would if we had been in the same situation.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, no. Negligence does not equal criminality. Williams may be held civilly liable for damages for negligence without being criminally liable. The case is partially defensible, though, given the facts as stated by the drivers. According to Williams, she was nearly stopped in the intersection due to traffic in front of her. Whether she actually violated the right of way is an open question. I am not going to blindly accept the hearsay opinion of the police, who were not there and rely on less than comprehensive analysis in these cases. Also, the nature of the collision, with the smaller car going pretty fast and t-boning a nearly stopped vehicle, opens up the possibility that the driver of the car was also negligent. The driver of the other car stated that she slowed when approaching the intersection then sped up when the light changed. Had she been in the intersection when the SUV entered it her car would have been hit on its side. Instead, she ran into the side of the SUV, indicating that Williams got there first. She might have missed the SUV entering the intersection or she might have wrongly assumed it would stop. Her deposition should answer that question.

And what is Williams supposed to do, not go to work? That's ridiculous. Tennis is her career and a grand slam event is a major work event for her. She isn't under arrest, she isn't out on bail, she hasn't even been charged with a crime. She has the right to pursue her trade, same as any of us would if we had been in the same situation.

If it was a left turn, here in Mass the turning traffic must yield to traffic heading straight through. Not that we do that all the time, but that's how its supposed to work.

Steve B

[pokerplyr80]

Hasn't video evidence confirmed that she entered the intersection legally? You guys seem very quick to judge and condemn someone with no evidence at all around here. This is a good example of why I tend to wait until the facts are clear before passing judgement.

[clydepepper]

Just to clarify- it was never my intent to pre-judge Venus Williams, rather I was hoping that the facts of the case, whatever they may be, should not be glossed over due to her celebrity...as it has been is so many other cases.

Truth is I'm just as troubled by the possibilities a 78-year-old driver might create.


But Hey, perhaps 78 is the new 50.

.