Rogan

Caught.

This happened yesterday morning.

B. Carfree

Looking at the weapon, he hit him square in the middle of the pick up. That looks like a willful act to me.

turbo1889

Not enough information in the article to make any kind of judgement except for the fact that he fled the scene would indicate he was the one at fault in the collision. Willful homicidal act? Drunk driver? Otherwise negligent or impaired? Not enough information to make any judgement on that.

hallux

I love the "oh, he'd never do that, he's a great kid. his truck must have been stolen or something" By the same guy that took him to the hospital for a head laceration when he showed up to work in a damaged truck! Looking at the vehicle, I bet that laceration came from the glass that broke in his face!

nashvillwill

"I didn't see him. Didn't even know I hit him."

Ok son. 8 hours of community service, then go about your life.

turbo1889

Unfortunately, your cynicism is very well justified.

dynodonn 

Kill a cyclist, flee the scene, and get out on a 15,000 dollar bond........ a slap in the face to all those riding bicycles.

rydabent

Out on bail???? He should be in jail and becomming the boy friend of big Harry. Throw the book at him.

rydabent

I just dont understand that when someone kills somebody with a gun, all sorts of people get their knickers in a knot. Yet let some murderer, and yes this guy is a murderer, kill a cyclist with his car, it is looked upon as no big deal. If things go as usual this killer will get a slap on the wrist, and then go on living his life. The mere $15,000 bail is an indication of how things are going already. How many gun murderers are let out on $15,000 bail********************????

Myosmith

While I don't disagree with you that the courts are lopsided in their views of vehicle vs cyclist incidents, all the driver has been proven guilty of so far is fleeing the scene of an accident. Murder requires intent, so unless you can prove that he struck the rider on purpose with the intent to injure or kill him, you can't assume murder. If the driver was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, intoxicated, or otherwise at fault, the charge would be some degree of manslaughter. If the tragic event is proven to be an accident or mutual error by rider and driver, the driver may only be charged with the fleeing the scene.

The simple fact is that there is not enough information in the article to determine what happened, so unless someone on the forum witnessed the event, we are just playing keyboard Columbo in trying to guess degree of guilt.

My heart goes out to the fallen rider and his family and friends and my hope is that the whole truth comes out and that justice is properly and fairly served.

dynodonn 

Personally, I feel that fleeing the scene of an accident that causes a death should render more than a 15000 dollar bail and should include harsher penalties, it's just too easy for motorists to choose to flee if they're intoxicated or under the influence, or into thinking that they won't get caught.

ItsJustMe

My money would be on distracted driving, I've seen texting idiots drift far enough that they could easily have hit a cyclist dead center in their vehicles if there had been a cyclist there. I wonder whether that thought ever occurs to them? If so, it's pretty frightening that they continue to do it anyway having realized that they could easily have killed someone.

Even if this was an unintentional event, leaving the scene of that blatant of an accident is utterly unforgivable. He definitely needs to serve time, pay a whole lot of money, and ideally be banned from driving forever. We really have to make the penalties for leaving the scene of an accident worse than any penalty that someone who stayed would be subject to, otherwise people will always make the decision to run.

Myosmith

I don't disagree. If someone has a history of fleeing a scene to avoid repercussions, I would think they would be more likely to flee a jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. Don't anyone get my wrong, I'm not trying to let the driver off the hook, just saying that until all the facts are in and can be examined in an unbiased manner, we are just making wild guesses as to what happened.

dynodonn 

Still, too make an arrest for fleeing the scene of a collision that caused a death, then set the bail for 15000 dollars..... what?...... any higher might cause some undue hardship.......

FBinNY 

For the record, the owner of the truck hasn't been proven of anything except of being the owner of the truck. To prove that he left the scene of an accident they first have to put him there driving.

Bail pending trial is how our system works, and is usually based on a likelihood of the accused appearing for trial. Factors like the extent of the charges, the danger to the community, and the likelihood of flight are weighed. The only way we can argue that bail is too low is if the accused does in fact flee the jurisdiction, or has another serious accident.

BTW- don't flame me over the post, I'm not in any defending the accused, just saying that's what we have courts for, and in the USA even those accused of heinous crimes (including intentionally killing a cyclist) are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

FenderTL5

I can hear it now:

"I was just driving down the road, minding my own business (updating facebook and checking all my twitter feeds) when suddenly there was this **bam**, my window is broken, my front end bashed in. I stopped, I got out, I walked all the way around the truck.. nothing (cyclist/bike was 80' below the overpass in the retention area). There was nothing there that i hit.. I thought aliens or that i ran into that Dome like on the TV show.. so I went on in to work.."

Myosmith

I may have been misunderstood (or maybe the misunderstanding is mine) but in my last post I agreed that $15,000 seems low to ensure that the driver, who has already exhibited a willingness to flee to avoid consequences, will show up in court.

Not jumping to conclusions about the appropriate final charges and guilt was a completely separate issue.

Myosmith

Good point. Please note that my post said "driver" not owner. Whether or not they are one and the same remains to be proven, though the police apparently felt there was enough evidence to make the arrest.

dynodonn 

So tell me this, why did law enforcement arrest the this man....... just for being the owner of the vehicle?. It seems that law enforcement should have some evidence placing this man at the scene of the collision before making an arrest and then having the courts set a bail amount.

FBinNY 

I didn't mis-read the your post. I intentionally referenced your "driver" as the owner, because the only thing known as a fact based on the physical evidence is that the truck was at the scene. The owner is the likeliest driver, but one doesn't automatically lead to the other, and before they can prove anyone left the scene, they have to put him there in the first place.

For all we know, the accused may have a rock solid alibi that puts him somewhere else at the time of the accident, and maybe the stolen truck defense will hold up. Not saying this is true or likely, just that it's possible. I don't like the crime any more than anyone else here, just saying that there's big difference between being accused and being proven guilty in a court of law.

FBinNY 

They arrested him because they had enough evidence to make an arrest. This standard is way short of proof, which is why we have courts and conduct trials.

We have a system of justice that works fairly well but if you prefer, we can save time and money and dispense with the system, and simply lynch "murderers" if they are likely guilty.

dramiscram

We had a case about 3 years ago of a man working night shift that killed 3 cyclists after he fell asleep on his way home in the morning. He hit them right in the middle of the Hood like this guy did. The cyclist were 6 going in a pace line, three were killed and the others were badly injured.
The driver got away with NOTHING, not even a fine.

Myosmith

FBin NY

I was actually editing my last reply when you posted as I felt I came off as argumentative when that wasn't my intent and I agree with your point.

Back in my journalism days, I covered a story in which a man from outside the area was seen at a bar in a neighboring town and then drove through an intersection on a rural highway in front of the car of a teenage girl, who died as a result of the collision. The immediate response was to crucify this guy in the town square as he was obviously a drunk driver who "murdered" one of our town's honor students and star high school athletes. When the facts came in, it turned out that the guy had actually been served two beers, with dinner more than two hours before the accident. Alcohol was detected in his system but well below the legal limit. A stop sign had been knocked down at the intersection, which everybody assumed happened during the collision. The investigation showed that the sign had been knocked down sometime earlier by a semi-trailer (determined by tire tracks) that had taken the corner to tight. Without knowing that there was supposed to be a stop sign, the driver believed he had the right of way and had apparently slowed but not stopped. It also turned out that the teen driver was driving significantly above the posted speed limit. A tragedy for sure but the only criminal (traffic) citation issued to the surviving driver was for improper care for not coming to a stop before proceeding when approaching an "unmarked" intersection at the same time as another driver.

B. Carfree

That is a bit of a false dichotomy. Can we not agree that our system could be improved without scrapping it entirely?

We seem to have a built in bias in favor of motorists in the sense that they can drive with reckless disregard for the safety of other road users and when the inevitable death or maiming occurs we infer that they had no specific malice towards their victims and therefore they are not guilty of a willful crime. Such a flaw in the system predictably leads to millions of serious injuries per year. Clearly, as a society we value keeping people driving far more than we value life or even reasonable safety. I suppose that will change when we get more people moving about without cars, but that's hard to do when the roads are filled with dangerous scofflaw motorists.

Personally, I favor something along the lines of what we do with felony murder. Felony murder is a situation where if you are committing a felony and someone dies, then you are guilty of murder. I would like to see us modify our laws such that if a motorist is committing any violation and he/she harms someone, then they are held to account as though the crime was premeditated. Perversely, this was the San Francisco DA's justification for prosecuting the cyclist who killed a pedestrian this past year; the cyclist may not have even been breaking the law at the time of impact, but he had been witnessed riding recklessly so he was dealt with far more harshly than any motorist would have been.

FBinNY 

I wasn't talking about the appropriate charge or punishment, simply reminding folks that he's only been charged, not convicted, and that the role of bail is to ensure his appearance at trial.

BTW- I agree that the penalties for hit and run are way too low in most states. Given that the most common reason for leaving the scene is to avoid an alcohol test, leaving the scene of a fatal accident should be in the same legal class as a fatal DWI accident.

But unless the law is changed, the driver can only be charged with what applies in the state.