We didn't forget Caitlyn

1) Your original comment: "Get your facts straight, it was an accident." Here you're trying to lessen the severity of someone being killed. (downvoted to hell) 2) "I didn't say that him texting and driving was an accident, I was saying that someone died was an accident. Fact Dumbass!" Here you backtrack. While you're trying to somehow call me out for a technicality, this statement shows your hypocrisy. Again, the fact you are trying to lessen the impact of a dead person is disgusting. Then, adding the "Fact Dumbass!", which is grammatically incorrect, and made you look foolish, while also making you look immature and juvenile. (downvoted to hell) 3) "It was still an accident." Lessening a death again. And, this wasn't "an accident". Picking up your phone while driving is an intentional act. Once you do that, it is no longer an accident, it is willful purpose. "If he had purposely killed her than than it could be considered murder." This isn't true, within certain states and certain jurisdictions you can be charged with murder (which I've stated 3 times at this point): "Driving under the influence murder prosecutions in California are based on a 1981 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed fatal drunken driving crashes to be charged as second-degree murders. The state's high court ruled that DUI meets the malice standard required for murder because it shows a conscious disregard for human life.". If you have the precedence for this, then in a similar case, where it is determined texting and driving is 35% worse, then you can be charged with an equal crime (or more). This part I'm not sure if you're feigning ignorance or if you genuinely don't understand how the two are exactly equivalent. 4) "Just because it's more dangerous doesn't change the laws. The law says he didn't commit murder, we can argue all day long if he technically did or not but the law says he didn't." The case I stated was decided by the California Supreme Court. The law DOES state he committed murder. 5) "Once again I'm not arguing with you about that. You simply are continuing this for no reason. Myself and the others in this post have simply pointed out that your choice of the word "murder" is inaccurate according to the law." Again, no. 6) "haha are you only reading random parts of this discussion? Because as I've already pointed out the DUI accusations were dropped when they were proved false. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the DUI law. The DUI law is nothing to do with this." Repeating yourself again. Or, again, incapable of understanding this. 7) "Lmao are you kidding me? OMG this is great. Myself and the others here proved you wrong and you're still trying to pretend like you were right. Not once have you gave proof on how this was murder and not involuntary manslaughter, but in your mind you won. You make me laugh." Broken record. Clearly showing you are out of arguments, so you resort to childish statements like your second comment, here saying, "Lmao are you kidding me?", "OMG", "You make me laugh".

To recap: You literally said it wasn't murder 3 times in a row. All incorrect. Then, I explain texting while driving is worse than driving drunk. If you kill someone while drunk you can be charged with murder. Therefore, you can be charged with murder for texting while driving. Then you go to your circular reasoning, restating (incorrectly) that is isn't murder. It is. Then, more circular reasoning. You go back to not understanding the equivalency of the DUI and texting while driving cases. Then you repeat yourself about it not being murder one last time, incorrectly. So, you entire argument was to repeat 5 times that it's not murder when the Supreme Court of California, where the accident happened, says it is, and the other 2 times either feigning ignorance because you knew you were wrong or genuinely not being capable of understanding it.

I am done

/r/AdviceAnimals Thread Parent Link - i.imgur.com