PDA

View Full Version : Joe Senser's vehicle involved in hit and run death



61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 04:52 AM
This is trouble.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/128910938.html

i_bleed_purple
09-02-2011, 04:57 AM
Uh-Oh

61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 04:59 AM
Yeah, Senser is a really good guy but the kid who was killed was a really good kid by all accounts. He worked in a restaurant as a cook and this was his day off. Apparently he stopped in to make sure everything was going good at work and ran out of gas on his way home. Very sad all around.

i_bleed_purple
09-02-2011, 05:01 AM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 05:09 AM
It's going to turn a lot of people off the fact that they are wealthy, they hid the car in the garage and called their lawyer and are not saying a word.

Right now, they look guilty to me and worse, they are using their wealth to escape justice. Someone has to pay for this kids death.

i_bleed_purple
09-02-2011, 05:12 AM
For sure. I just wanna hold judgement until the facts are known. Not letting the guy off on murder or anything, just wanna know. I really hope there wer esome odd circumstances leading to this. Joe should know better.

gregair13
09-02-2011, 05:12 AM
Innocent until proven guilty.

61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 05:30 AM
Innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, very true.

singersp
09-02-2011, 05:30 AM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

Purple Floyd
09-02-2011, 12:59 PM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

singersp
09-02-2011, 01:59 PM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

They're not my facts either & since neither of us are attorneys, I actually used the information supplied by the attorney in the article;


Schwebel said that under state law, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of anyone who operates the vehicle with his consent. Since Senser didn't report the SUV was stolen, he said, he must have given consent to the driver.

Negligence, IMO, could be as simple as un-intentive driving.

BloodyHorns82
09-02-2011, 03:08 PM
So did the Sensor family turn themselves in via their attorney? Or did they get "caught" some other way?

61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 04:00 PM
So did the Sensor family turn themselves in via their attorney? Or did they get "caught" some other way?

From what I understand Senser's attorney contacted the police appox 24 hours after the incident, gave them the keys to the vehicle and led them to the vehicle which was parked in Senser's garage.

61Vikefan
09-02-2011, 11:00 PM
Looks like Amy Senser was driving the car-

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/129145683.html

gregair13
09-03-2011, 05:20 AM
Innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, very true.

USA USA USA

Purple Floyd
09-03-2011, 02:17 PM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

They're not my facts either & since neither of us are attorneys, I actually used the information supplied by the attorney in the article;


Schwebel said that under state law, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of anyone who operates the vehicle with his consent. Since Senser didn't report the SUV was stolen, he said, he must have given consent to the driver.

Negligence, IMO, could be as simple as un-intentive driving.

Do you give your wife consent every time she wants to drive the car?

Purple Floyd
09-03-2011, 02:24 PM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

They're not my facts either & since neither of us are attorneys, I actually used the information supplied by the attorney in the article;


Schwebel said that under state law, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of anyone who operates the vehicle with his consent. Since Senser didn't report the SUV was stolen, he said, he must have given consent to the driver.

Negligence, IMO, could be as simple as un-intentive driving.

Schwebel is representing the victims. You can bet he is going to throw as much against the wall as possible hoping something sticks. You have to learn to take your sources in the proper context.

How many people in history have been convicted of negligence for letting someone borrow their vehicle unless they knew that person had either no license, was drunk, or had a long string of driving convictions?

If she was drunk and Joe knew it then possibly. Otherwise he won't be convicted of negligence.

61Vikefan
09-03-2011, 05:11 PM
Excerpt from Star Tribune article today-

"Nelson said that Phanthavong's death has weighed heavily on Amy Senser and her entire family, and that they extended their deepest sympathies to all those affected.

"Ms. Senser is not faring very well," he said. "She is a wreck."

Wow, Ms Senser is a wreck. Well, Mr Phanthavong is pretty much a "wreck" as well. He's dead. This lawyer is a real moron.

singersp
09-03-2011, 05:54 PM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

They're not my facts either & since neither of us are attorneys, I actually used the information supplied by the attorney in the article;


Schwebel said that under state law, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of anyone who operates the vehicle with his consent. Since Senser didn't report the SUV was stolen, he said, he must have given consent to the driver.

Negligence, IMO, could be as simple as un-intentive driving.

Schwebel is representing the victims. You can bet he is going to throw as much against the wall as possible hoping something sticks. You have to learn to take your sources in the proper context.

How many people in history have been convicted of negligence for letting someone borrow their vehicle unless they knew that person had either no license, was drunk, or had a long string of driving convictions?

If she was drunk and Joe knew it then possibly. Otherwise he won't be convicted of negligence.

But we didn't know it & still don't know it, ergo his point was & is still valid until otherwise proven differently.

He is more "In the know" & aware of the legalities, than both you & I combined.

61Vikefan
09-04-2011, 02:56 AM
Don't wanna come to any conclusions before ay info is released, but doesn't sound good. I hope he had nothign to do with it. The whole no-speaking thing raises flags. yeah, you gotta prove it, but by not speaking since you know there's no proof, that means you're trying to win by a technicality, not because you didn't do it.

There are no winner here. Regardless of who was driving, Joe would be guilty of negligence, since he is the owner of the vehicle.

The sad part is no matter who was driving, the man is still dead.

I am not an attorney but I did just watch a Holiday Inn Express commercial but I think you were a bit vague on the facts that you posted.

What he could potentially be held accountable for would have to fall under the term "Vicarious Liability" And that would only kick in if he either knew the person using his vehicle was unsafe, such as having no license, being under age, having certain driving convictions, or that the car was defective in some way like faulty brakes, steering etc and he loaned it any way. Some or all of that may have happened but unless you have another statute that differs in the state of Minnesota that I am not aware of the only think they can possibly get him for is obstruction and to be honest if he is covering something up then as much as I like the guy he should be pinched.

They're not my facts either & since neither of us are attorneys, I actually used the information supplied by the attorney in the article;


Schwebel said that under state law, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of anyone who operates the vehicle with his consent. Since Senser didn't report the SUV was stolen, he said, he must have given consent to the driver.

Negligence, IMO, could be as simple as un-intentive driving.

Schwebel is representing the victims. You can bet he is going to throw as much against the wall as possible hoping something sticks. You have to learn to take your sources in the proper context.

How many people in history have been convicted of negligence for letting someone borrow their vehicle unless they knew that person had either no license, was drunk, or had a long string of driving convictions?

If she was drunk and Joe knew it then possibly. Otherwise he won't be convicted of negligence.

But we didn't know it & still don't know it, ergo his point was & is still valid until otherwise proven differently.

He is more "In the know" & aware of the legalities, than both you & I combined.

And a man is dead. Don't you at least feel that someone should be sitting in jail over this? Leaving the scene of an accident? Vehicular homicide?

Tad7
09-04-2011, 06:49 PM
Fleeing after killing a man and taking 10 days to come forward takes a real piece of shit person. If it's true, I hope she sits in prison for a looong time.