1nterceptor

"Drunk Police SGT’s Wife Will Not Be Charged In Cyclist’s Death – Police Blame Cyclist Instead"

SGT's Wife Will Not Be Charged In Cyclist's Death

genec

Oh yeah the single person "no witness" suicide swerve...

And of course this had nothing to do with the situation:

CliffordK

Everything sounds a little odd about the entire accident.

Cyclists do make U-turns, especially on out and back pleasure rides. And some cyclists do ride distracted.

However, there just aren't enough details about what happened, and where everyone was on the road. Was she in front of him? Behind him? Why did she swerve?

Quite appropriate here to have a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party review the evidence.

I-Like-To-Bike

The OP's referenced blog does not appear to be a very objective source of unbiased reports.

mconlonx

In the comments section is a link to a VT source: State stands by less serious DUI count in bike fatal

TheManShow

OJ Simpson it is said got away with First Degree Premadatated Murder, but his vicctims family destroyed his life in civil court. HINT HINT.

FBinNY 

What nobody likes to talk about is how difficult it can be to prosecute a DUI case, especially one with a BAC not much above the limit. While the law has a clear cblack and white limit at 0.08 the test has a working tolerance. I'm sure judges vary by state on this, but in many states 0.087 would not meet the standard of proof.

So it's entirely possible that the DA went with the bird in the hand negotiated DUI with the other charges dropped. Also keep in mind, that if the DUI is tossed because of the lack of incontrovertible evidence, then prosecuting this as manslaughter vs a simple accident becomes impossible.

I'm not saying the woman didn't get favorable treatment, just that this is a tougher case than may appear.

scott967

In my state .04 is the limit. Over that and it is evidence of impaired driving, but not prima facie unless over .08.

scott s.
.

Chris516

Given that it was Vermont. I would have thought that someone appreciating nature. Would be 'appreciated. Instead of the status quo.

mrchaotica

According to the article, this murdering ***** was not just drunk, but also high on Xanax! In a just world, she would not only have been charged with some kind of homicide, but her husband would be put on unpaid leave while they both got investigated for drug dealing!

FBinNY 

Not defending her, but let's try to stay reasonable. Xanax is a prescription drug. Are you saying that all husbands or wives of people on prescription drugs are drug dealers? Because there was no evidence offered that the Xanax wasn't by prescription, so I have no idea where you're accusation of "drug dealing" stems from.

gpsblake

That's a fair statement. I know we want them to be tougher on cycling deaths. But also when being tougher with laws, it makes it harder for a conviction. I'm no expert but 0.8 vs 0.87, her lawyer would argue the standard deviation of such test would put reasonable doubt if she was over the limit or not. Maybe the DA could argue taking Xanax, even with a prescription, along with alcohol is negligent or involuntary manslaughter. Or the cyclist did in fact do an immediate u-turn in front of the car.

dpeters11

No, but I can't imagine that Xanax, Zoloft and Pamelor with alcohol is a good combination.

FBinNY 

It certainly isn't, and mixing both can lead to unexpected impairment. From the interaction labeling:

Using ALPRAZolam together with ethanol can increase nervous system side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and difficulty concentrating. Some people may also experience impairment in thinking and judgment. You should avoid or limit the use of alcohol while being treated with ALPRAZolam. Do not use more than the recommended dose of ALPRAZolam, and avoid activities requiring mental alertness such as driving or operating hazardous machinery until you know how the medication affects you. It is important to tell your doctor about all other medications you use, including vitamins and herbs. Do not stop using any medication without first talking to your doctor.


But let's not kid ourselves---- not reading or giving adequate credit to the accompanying labels on prescription drugs is par for the course in the USA.

Part of the problem is that people are inundated with warnings, and therefore have little basis for knowing boilerplate from something serious. Again, I'm not excusing the driver here, who absolutely should have known the likelihood of impairment. My post was in response to a nonsense one saying that her husband should be charged with drug dealing.

CliffordK

The prescribing physician should give warnings of drug interactions with alcohol. Whether the patients listen is another story.

One can only go by the test reading. The equipment can be sequestered and have the calibration checked, but she still failed.

Assuming the Xanax was actually prescribed, and the woman was told of drug interactions... and still drove intoxicated wile under the influence of Xanax, there aren't to many valid excuses.

One might argue that some driving is expected when taking these drugs, but she still doesn't have to drive drunk.

The cyclist may have done a stupid turn, or perhaps she is just saying that. But, if she had not been under the influence of drugs and alcohol intoxication, she might have adjusted her speed and driving to approach the rider with caution before the alleged turn, and react quicker when he did it.

I hope she at least gets her license permanently revoked with no chance of reinstatement.

Coal Buster

I was prescribed Percocet for the surgery I had two weeks ago. The prescribing physician specifically told me not to drive while taking it. I can't believe that anyone taking Xanax regularly doesn't know the risks of mixing it with alcohol and driving. It's not a case of not reading labels. It's not caring.

kickstart

John Deere was sued for just that reason, there were so many warning labels on a piece of equipment that the primary danger was obscured.

steve0257

This line from the related news article is a little problematic.

Neary reported Najarian, who also was southbound, was struck two feet left of the double yellow line in the northbound lane..

The article makes it sound like they were both southbound, but collided in the northbound lane.

italktocats

its a standard legal procedure when getting caught with drugs in your car..

FBinNY 

**********

We can speculate idly and comment to our heart's content. But it really simplifies things if we stick to the facts at hand. There was no mention of drugs in her car, nor illegal use of drugs of any kind without prescription. From the report, the driver (or her lawyer, or someone else) mentioned that she was taking various prescription drugs, and if they were by prescription there's nothing illegal involved there, (discounting the implications of driving with them in her system).

In any case, the DA has accepted her plea to DUI, and is declining to prosecute this as negligent homicide. I'll await the judge's sentence.

BTW- we can comment and have every right to be angry or frustrated by cases like this one. But prosecutors can't operate by emotion. They have to deal in Realpolitik, and consider the costs and risks of prosecuting cases, and the real likelihoods of losing outright, or winning what could have been had via plea (pleas can't be appealed).

Here in Westchester we had a long and expensive prosecution of an essentially "no harm, no foul" DUI incident (prescription drugs, not alcohol), that resulted in an acquittal. Odds are that it could have been negotiated for a plea to a lesser offense, with a fine or community service, but (IMO) the DA's office was interested in making an example and showing that they were tough on DUIs.

I-Like-To-Bike

Idle speculation, fabricated facts, and imaginary expertise ARE "standard legal procedure" for the jailhouse lawyers practicing their craft on A&S.

prathmann

When I had a bout with kidney stones a couple months ago my physician mentioned that although he couldn't officially recommend it, the prescribed pain killers would be more effective in combination with a good drink. Since I was wheeling my bike out of his office at the time he probably correctly assumed that I was already limiting my motor vehicle use while under the influence of either substance.

FBinNY 

Most likely an old time doc, who knew his medicine and equally important, knew his patients.

My old doc also had an off schedule muscle relaxant, which involved lower doses of drugs combined with a measured dose of my favorite alcohol. It was very effective for spasms, and to be taken only once I was safely home for the night.

italktocats

maybe, not sure, im not a lawyer

mconlonx

This makes it sound like exactly how the accident was officially described, as the cyclist making a u-turn and being struck by a driver... who in this case swerved exactly the wrong way to avoid. I'd even suggest if this is the case, perhaps a bit of target fixation involved. And in which case, intoxication could be a complicating factor, but not a root cause of the collision. Given the exact same situation, a sober driver could have made the same split second, reflexive, and very disastrous reaction.

This official finding being fabricated to match the driver's SWSS story could still be open for debate, however, if one assumes that the investigators are on the same side as the cop and cop's wife...

People do stupid moves in cars and get hit; to think that cyclists never do stupid things on bikes and get hit is to ignore reality. I don't think there's any way to tell from current reporting one way or another who is truly at fault in this situation. The official report is in and exonerates the driver. All the A&S pre-judicial board has to go on is prejudice, assumptions, and feelings...