sscotty727 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 This should be a good case for the pro-lifers. http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4197109&nav=HMO6 MESA, Ariz. -- A pregnant Ahwatukee Foothills woman who claimed to a police officer that her unborn child was a passenger in the carpool lane pleaded not guilty to a traffic violation. Candace Dickerson, 23, was given a court date for next month to fight the $383 ticket she received Nov. 8 while driving to work in the carpool lane. A Phoenix police officer pulled Dickerson over on Interstate 17 and cited her for being alone in the vehicle. The near full-term woman argued there were two people. Arizona law does not define a passenger as someone actually occupying a seat, nor does it give an age limit. "What's the difference between a 1-year-old and in my womb?" Dickerson said. A judge on Friday set a Jan. 10 hearing for the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Would the same woman pay for two airline tickets or even two bus tickets? I don't think so. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 My wife had another take. 1) If a person killed a pregnant woman (assuming the baby didn't live either), is the person convicted of killing 1 or 2 people? 2) If the law is vague, then she would have to be found innocent. The law would need to be rewritten. BTW Dr Shoe, your arguement doesn't hold alot of weight because airlines and buses are typically free for children under a certain age anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoverfly Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 My wife had another take. 1) If a person killed a pregnant woman (assuming the baby didn't live either), is the person convicted of killing 1 or 2 people? 2) If the law is vague, then she would have to be found innocent. The law would need to be rewritten. BTW Dr Shoe, your arguement doesn't hold alot of weight because airlines and buses are typically free for children under a certain age anyway. Agreed Hello,  my name is Hoverfly. I’m a high heel addict…. Weeeeeeeeeee!  👠1998 to 2022! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 My wife had another take. 1) If a person killed a pregnant woman (assuming the baby didn't live either), is the person convicted of killing 1 or 2 people? 2) If the law is vague, then she would have to be found innocent. The law would need to be rewritten. BTW Dr Shoe, your arguement doesn't hold alot of weight because airlines and buses are typically free for children under a certain age anyway. That's a good point. They'll probably rule that "they" were only occupying one seat so were one passenger! I once witnessed an accident involving a 8.5 month pregnant woman and then she lost the baby. In the end the trucker who caused the accident was charged for causing death by dangerous driving and lost his licence. The Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 That's a good point. They'll probably rule that "they" were only occupying one seat so were one passenger! I once witnessed an accident involving a 8.5 month pregnant woman and then she lost the baby. In the end the trucker who caused the accident was charged for causing death by dangerous driving and lost his licence. The Dr Shoe, It will be interesting to see where this all leads, I am sure Right to Lifers will get involved if she is found guilty (when does life begin, etc). The main point I think she made was that the law never specified that the person had to be in a separate seat. I guess no one thought it through enough, but I guess she found a loop hole and exploited it. It will be interesting too to see if they rush to redefine the law and if you will see all of a sudden right to lifers go crazy. BTW, the same law was used to convict Scott Petterson of double murder (Lacy and the unborn baby). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 The thing is, a passenger MUST occupy a separate seat from the driver if she wants to admit that her and a passenger were occupying the same seat then she could get done for dangerous driving or not being in proper control. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 I suppose it depends on how well the law was written and how good of an attorney she has representing her case. If I hear any updates on the case, I will pass them on. I am interested to see if Pro-Life advocates get involved or how far she takes it if she loses the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeana Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 does my 'invisible friend' count as a second passenger????? -JUST KIDDING! Does anyone ever Email anymore? Send me one! I like to chat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockQueen Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 To me, it's pretty clear she was trying to get around the law, but if there is no *separate* occupant in the car, then there is only one body there, and thus would not be able to use the carpool lane. To me, the fine should stick, because it's a pretty sad circumvention. SQ.....still busting societal molds with a smile...and a 50-ton sledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmc Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Agreed, SQ. You got one butt in one seat -- you got one person. Some of this stuff is trying to carry things a bit too far. Have a happy time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 I think they ruled her as breaking the law and order her to pay the fine. I haven't heard if she will appeal or if she just paid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockQueen Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 If she's smart she'll pay it. Anything else would be a desperate grab for more media attention since this story made it onto FOX news and CNN. SQ.....still busting societal molds with a smile...and a 50-ton sledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yeah, but just didn't know if the right to lifers would try to pick this up and run with it (how can you claim that isn't a person). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockQueen Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The law would define the carpool lane to require two *separate* people, but the unborn child, no matter how adorable later on after birth they are, were not a separate person at the time since the unborn was just that.....unborn (attached with umbilical cord). If anything, it'll cause lawmakers to further define the law as "two physically separate people not existing in the same body" just to keep such things from happening again. I still say it's a sad circumvention of the law, and a desperate grab to try and get out of paying a fine if she didn't pay it yet. The decision came down in this CNN article here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/ I think it sums it up pretty nicely in my opinion. :-) SQ.....still busting societal molds with a smile...and a 50-ton sledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hooray! Common sense prevails at last. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn HH Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 At the time that Scott Peterson's wife and baby were found, there were 2 separate bodies even though the child originally was inside of Lacey's body when she was killed. That may have been part of his being tried for 2 murders. Who knows. The laws make a lot of twists and turns. Adeana:-) You have an invisible friend---hmmmmmmmmm! Does she also wear high heels daily? TEE! HEE!. Cheers--- Dawn HH High Heeled Boots Forever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shoe Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Actually, you can be done for murder for killing a foetus even if the mother survives- as long as intent can be proven. Ruth and I were witnesses to a motor accident in which a pregnant woman lost her baby. The other driver (who caused the accident) was done for manslaughter but it was downgarded to death by dangerous driving. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts