lubes17319

You don't see a sentence like this handed down often.

Driver who killed DU student in hit-and-run faces 18 years in prison
https://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...nt-hit-and-run

genec

Probably thought he "hit a deer." Or perhaps he "didn't see the cyclist." Or wait maybe it was "that's just my driving style..." At any rate, he'll have time to think about it.

And no indeed, we do not see sentences like this handed down very often at all... especially without a DUI charge.

I wonder what pushed the prosecutor to go for this?

Commodus

I wonder why this is considered 'vehicular homicide' when so many others are simple accidents? Because the ran a red light? Is that more of a crime than wandering off the road onto the shoulder and killing someone?

GrouchoWretch

Because they had him so incredibly dead to rights on this one, it's not even funny.

This dumb SOB came giftwrapped.

genec

I too wonder the same thing.

howsteepisit

But then, the "up to 18 years" kind of bothers me, He could serve 18 minutes and that would meet the "up to" as written. So I will wait to see what the sentence is before forming an opinion.

gmt13

It's hard to decipher the strange journalism, but it appears that it was a case where the driver was impaired. The 2 news articles that I read kept remarking about folks having tattoos. What's the relevancy of that?

-G

GrouchoWretch

Tattoos were identifying info to link the men reported in the 911 calls to the driver/suspect.

Guys: often, the trouble is, the prosecutor just can't get the guy on criminal charges. We see it all the time.

Seldom does a violent criminal so sign, seal, and deliver the case against himself as this one did.

B. Carfree

Even when motoring killers mail in what should be their convictions, the police and district attorneys often return the package to sender rather than take the trouble to unwrap it.

Commodus

Obviously. The question is why.

Generally these sorts of laws require the proof of negligence. But isn't it always negligent to (for example) drive onto an occupied shoulder at high speed? Why aren't these cases always vehicular homicide?

GrouchoWretch

Mens rea, burden of proof of which lies with the State. Negligence is one thing. Criminal negligence is another.

I mean I hope that's it, and it's not just that the system reflects an opinion that no one should ride a bike on a busy road.

Sigh.

GrouchoWretch

Granted.

B. Carfree

I think it's the same reason drunk driving went largely unpunished for so long. Every cop and DA knew that the jury would have people on it who had driven drunk. The defense would convince them that they could easily be as "unlucky" as his client and the jury would acquit.

Currently, nearly every person is a motorist and nearly every motorist breaks the law every time they drive. The cops, DA's and jury are all part of this scofflaw-driving tribe and are ready to forgive him/her for hitting the "other" who shouldn't have been riding on that road, at that time, on that day...

Maybe, if we ever get more people to ride, we can change this. However, I don't see us getting substantial numbers of folks onto bikes until people see cycling as a safe means of travel, and that will require a substantial investment in law enforcement that is just not on the horizon at this time.

Chris516

FINALLY, NO DUMB SLAP ON THE WRIST FOR AN IDIOT MOTORIST!!!

enigmaT120

If BCarfree is right, bicyclists are also very unlikely to ever be on juries in cases like this. I wonder if that is one of the screening questions in jury selection, do you ride a bike? I've never been on a jury of any kind.

gmt13

I was on the jury for a civil suit related to a car accident. I don't recall them asking me if I ever operated a car. This is a great question though. Assuming that the selection attempts to sit or exclude cyclists, what sort of questions would they ask.

-G

Looigi

Agree, and it strongly suggests there is something wrong with the laws if ordinary people routinely going about their business find themselves breaking them all the time.

genec

How hard it is really to not break the traffic laws? One of the common questions we see here on BF is regarding cyclists being scofflaws... typically as red light runners or stop sign runners.... while they violate the letter of the law, most likely they are obeying the spirit of the law and are not violating other road users ROW.

Most motorists speed... I admit that too is my failing... when on a freeway, I tend to keep up with the flow of traffic. But when traffic is not heavy, I drive at the speed limit, I keep a safe distance and I am down right anal about using a turn signal. On surface streets, I am a cyclist... who happens to be in a car. I drive below the speed limit often...

How freaking difficult is it for others to do the same thing? What I see often is aggressive driving... people on the freeway driving well above the flow of traffic, driving close, driving zig zag between the majority flow. I see people with cell phones locked to their heads driving like zombies. On surface streets I see selfish driving... people who barge ahead, cut others off, even use bike lanes to get just one more car ahead. It is as if there is a competition to be first... without any real reward. Not everyone is out there doing this, but there are enough selfish drivers to cause major problems for all other road users.

Imagine a queue for a movie... most folks stand in line, wait their turn. Now imagine that there are folks cutting and barging the lines... it only takes a few to make the line uncomfortable and tighten up... this is much like what we see on the road.

What does it really take for people to simply cooperate on the roads?

B. Carfree

(Forgive me, Bard.) The fault, Dear Looigi, lies not in our laws, but in ourselves.

I've got to agree with Genec on this. Traffic laws are pretty easy to understand and obey. However, when people narcissistically place their need for speed and thrills ahead of other road users' safety, then bad things happen. They don't happen every time, but they do happen.

I don't really care when the lawbreaking doesn't affect other users. If you want to go ten mph over the speed limit on an empty freeway, have at it. Overdriving your vision by a similar amount on a winding road is a different matter entirely. Running a stop sign in the middle of no where has no impact on anyone. Rolling the stop sign in town when pedestrians are present is an aggressive move.

genec

I have to go just bit further on this... I wonder how much the car itself "influences" this narcissistic behavior. People view their cars as an extension of themselves... they often buy cars to suit their egos... Cars are sold to the public as a stroke of their egos; cars are tied to sex in a big way in commercials. How much does this then "drive" the motorist to want to fulfill their narcissistic needs... seeking to "win the race..." in spite of "the race" merely being nothing more than a long queue to the office or home.

Think about this for a moment... many cars are really quite overpowered for what they have to do... (Yes, I understand that pickup trucks may be powered just fine for the duties they perform) so naturally the driver now has all this excessive power and essentially "no place to go." What results? Aggressive driving? Perhaps?

dynodonn 

Concerning pickup trucks' horsepower, they too are overpowered. While in town visiting his relatives, my friend took me for a ride in his new fully equipped pickup, the thing would beat the pants off of his older, much lighter, spartan equipped interior 60's muscle car with ease and in full interior comfort.

rekmeyata

Fort Wayne Indiana is still in the cave man era...kill person with club, steal persons spouse. Just last week a woman driving drunk with .28 blow crashed her car into pedestrian killing the guy then she split the scene. The cops got her but caveman justice they sentenced her to 4 to 6 MONTHS in jail for felony hit and run and dropped the manslaughter completely!

https://www.indianasnewscenter.com/ne...165174356.html She was just sentenced last week for the hit and run charge, the murder charge was dismissed. Maybe if she had killed a cyclist she would have gotten off scott free.

genec

Sure, but if you have the need to tow or fill the bed with large loads, there may be a reason for all that power. You are not likely to do that sort of work with a passenger car.

Of course, again one may be buying to fulfill ego requirements...

smasha

depends on the state. another thread prompted me to look up NY's "vehicular manslaughter" statute and for all practical purposes, it doesn't apply unless a driver is DUI.

CB HI

We still have not seen a sentence like that handed out. The guy may only get probation. Please post again when the actual sentence is handed down.