Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Break 4 Laws + KILL = slight mistake (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/923551-break-4-laws-kill-slight-mistake.html)

CB HI 11-24-13 07:11 PM

Break 4 Laws + KILL = slight mistake
 
Update to story posted before by our MD friends (I believe).

Just $2,000 MAX for a life
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...2e1_story.html

Initial Stories
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...yclists-death/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...852_story.html


Break 4 Laws + KILL = slight mistake

Quote:

... It needs to be more than just a slight mistake —— I understand that someone died, and that’’s a horrible thing —— but how many people make those slight mistakes every day? We don’’t want be putting people in jail for making a mistake, ...
Significant remorse from the killer
Quote:

A few hours after police delivered the traffic tickets to her door Friday, DeCesaris made her first public comment in a posting on Facebook.
“Starting today, I need to forget what’’s gone, appreciate what still remains, and look forward to what’’s coming next,”” it said.
I am sure the $2,000 will convince her to never kill again
Quote:

DeCesaris married into a socially prominent family —— the cancer building at the Anne Arundel Medical Center is named the Geaton and JoAnn DeCesaris Cancer Institute —— and the family firm, Sonny DeCesaris and Sons, built many of the Maryland developments east of the District.

Matariki 11-24-13 07:48 PM

Having a good lawyer, as most socially prominent families do, causes the prosecution to reconsider how much they want to invest. What leaves me cold is the apparent air of inconvenience for something that was "just an accident".

Digitalfiend 11-24-13 09:43 PM

i'm so sick of people that leave comments stating the cyclist shares part of the blame; the only person at fault here is the driver. Not passing someone up a hill is driver's ed 101 as well as against the law for this very reason. Sure this cyclist would still be alive if she had chosen another route but she would also be alive if the driver hadn't broken the law. You have to wonder if the charges would be different if this idiot had crashed into and killed another motorist instead of a cyclist.

bikemig 11-24-13 09:51 PM

I love the comment from the driver after the grand jury refused charges. She said “Starting today, I need to forget what’s gone, appreciate what still remains, and look forward to what’s coming next," Lovely, lovely person whose conscience is apparently non-functioning.

dynodonn 11-24-13 10:34 PM

"The decision sent a chill through the region’s vibrant cycling community."


Undoubtedly.......

CB HI 11-24-13 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikemig (Post 16275432)
I love the comment from the driver after the grand jury refused charges. She said “Starting today, I need to forget what’s gone, appreciate what still remains, and look forward to what’s coming next," Lovely, lovely person whose conscience is apparently non-functioning.

And how many times here in BFs have we heard about the motorist will have to live with killing someone for the rest of their life.

I think the quote completely expresses the lack of remorse most motorist feel. Most of their remorse is in court and for being convicted

turbo1889 11-24-13 11:19 PM

And everyone thinks I'm nuts when I suggest that idiots that kill with cars should be treated no differently then idiots that kill with guns. Still think I'm nuts? How well would the "slight mistake" line go over when someone has an AD (Accidental Discharge, AKA = Oops, I didn't mean to shoot the gun.) that kills someone else? Same thing, both are extremely dangerous machines fully capable of massive potential lethal damage and by the civilian statistics its not guns but cars that are the dangerous machine used to create the greater dead body and serious injury count.

ItsJustMe 11-25-13 07:40 AM

"How many people make these slight mistakes every day?"

Too many, that's the point. If you never punish people for making these mistakes, there's no incentive for people to learn to stop doing it.

rydabent 11-25-13 07:53 AM

Turbo +1

I could not agree with you more. The simple facts is, someone is dead, and someone is the killer.
What difference does it make what their weapon of choice is?

Digitalfiend 11-25-13 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 16275587)
And everyone thinks I'm nuts when I suggest that idiots that kill with cars should be treated no differently then idiots that kill with guns. Still think I'm nuts? How well would the "slight mistake" line go over when someone has an AD (Accidental Discharge, AKA = Oops, I didn't mean to shoot the gun.) that kills someone else? Same thing, both are extremely dangerous machines fully capable of massive potential lethal damage and by the civilian statistics its not guns but cars that are the dangerous machine used to create the greater dead body and serious injury count.

This is a great analogy. This case is really no different than any other case of gross negligence, whether it be an obviously preventable workplace accident (e.g. knowingly overloading a storage shelf with heavy crates) that results in the wrongful death of a worker or someone being careless with a weapon. The bottom line is that this death was a result of an impatient and careless driver that knowingly broke a lawthat is clearly in place to prevent this sort of accident.

I wonder what would have happened if the defendant had struck the other vehicle head-on and killed the other driver or passengers instead of the cyclist. I bet people would still blame the cyclist somehow because no one is ever responsible for their own actions and mistakes, right?

spivonious 11-25-13 08:46 AM

This is disgusting. Passing while nearing the crest of a hill isn't "grossly negligent"?

genec 11-25-13 09:13 AM

Well heck folks.... no alcohol was involved... it was "just an accident" and the dead person was "just a cyclist..."

I guess “starting today, I need to forget what’s gone, appreciate what still remains, and look forward to what’s coming next..."

Of course... you poor dear...

/heaping sarcasm off.

enigmaT120 11-25-13 01:09 PM

Did the driver at least lose her license? I didn't see any mention in the first article.

CB HI 11-25-13 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigmaT120 (Post 16277043)
Did the driver at least lose her license? I didn't see any mention in the first article.

As far as I can tell, she now has to go to court for the 4 traffic tickets. I do not know how many points are at risk for her, but the fines are UP to $500 each.

FBinNY 11-25-13 10:53 PM

I could understand how a trial jury might not convict, but for a grand jury not to indict in this case is beyond comprehension. This isn't someone with the sun in her eyes, or who failed to see a cyclist at an intersection. This is someone who saw a cyclist, saw a hill with limited sightlines, and decided that investing 10 seconds of her time to be a safe driver decided that it simply wasn't worth her time.

Those who've seen my posts in the past, know that I don't see accidents as murder, but clearly meets the standard of reckless indifference.

The DA must have been inept, or tanked it.

CB HI 11-25-13 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16278578)
The DA must have been inept, or tanked it.

Or intentionally blew it so he could blame it on the grand jury, thus getting cyclist off his back while avoiding going after a socially prominent family with a family law firm, Sonny DeCesaris and Sons.,

B. Carfree 11-25-13 11:33 PM

What's that old line about what a DA needs to get an indictment out of a grand jury? Something about being able to get them to indict a cheese sandwich. Something is definitely smelling up the DA's office.

FBinNY 11-25-13 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16278637)
Or intentionally blew it ...,

Yes, that's what I meant by "tanked it" aka took a dive.

CB HI 11-25-13 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16278676)
Yes, that's what I meant by "tanked it" aka took a dive.

Sorry, I did not understand the intentional part. Regional dialect thing for me I guess.

Chris516 11-26-13 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16275540)
And how many times here in BFs have we heard about the motorist will have to live with killing someone for the rest of their life.

I think the quote completely expresses the lack of remorse most motorist feel. Most of their remorse is in court and for being convicted

If they get convicted at all. Because, It is almost Dr. Christopher Thompson's conviction and imprisonment, is just a cyclist's dream, instead of it actually happening.

Rollfast 11-26-13 03:43 AM

I think that you could focus your anger on the Atypical remorseless...again I will assert that it was no remorseless event on my part to be involved in two such accidents...I still wish I could have done more to avoid them. Striking a person with a car is not anything to be relieved of. I regret this driver, not the entirety of them, most of whom I'm certain are concerned for the victim's well being.

You can never WIN such a verdict...it's a loss all around.

Chris516 11-26-13 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 16275587)
And everyone thinks I'm nuts when I suggest that idiots that kill with cars should be treated no differently then idiots that kill with guns. Still think I'm nuts? How well would the "slight mistake" line go over when someone has an AD (Accidental Discharge, AKA = Oops, I didn't mean to shoot the gun.) that kills someone else? Same thing, both are extremely dangerous machines fully capable of massive potential lethal damage and by the civilian statistics its not guns but cars that are the dangerous machine used to create the greater dead body and serious injury count.

While I never said that was nuts, in the first place. I still agree with you that it isn't nuts in the second place. Because there is a double-standard. There are laws in the Maryland Annotated Code directed at cyclists', for cyclists' to follow, and the police are willing to enforce that. But the laws regarding cyclists' and directed at motorists' for motorists' to follow, are not enforced. I have often heard the excuse from local police, that they had to see the incident happen. They also won't accept bike camera footage, because they don't trust it.

Digitalfiend 11-26-13 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 16278886)
They also won't accept bike camera footage, because they don't trust it.

Really? How can you not trust unedited video footage? If I were a police officer I'd much prefer a video of the incident over witness testimony. It's like saying that the video police record from their squad cars for their protection (and presumably ours) is worthless.

genec 11-26-13 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 16278765)
If they get convicted at all. Because, It is almost Dr. Christopher Thompson's conviction and imprisonment, is just a cyclist's dream, instead of it actually happening.

Remember that situation took not only a direct confession to a cop on the scene, but also two victims (one to witness for the other) AND an electronic witness in the form of a GPS record. It was a "perfect storm" of evidence.

Most motorists just have to utter the words "the cyclist swerved" and they are home free.

ItsJustMe 11-26-13 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalfiend (Post 16279189)
Really? How can you not trust unedited video footage? If I were a police officer I'd much prefer a video of the incident over witness testimony. It's like saying that the video police record from their squad cars for their protection (and presumably ours) is worthless.

My belif is that they don't actually not trust it. They just don't want to go through the hassle for "only a cyclist." It's easier to just say you can't take the footage as evidence, because that makes you go away the fastest and results in not having to do any paperwork.

They know perfectly well that it's accurate, they just choose not to do their jobs because they have an out.

I don't really think that video evidence would be thrown out in court if it came to that, but TV would have us believe that it would. I've heard that one of the big problems that lawyers face these days is that juries tend to base their "common sense" on what they've seen on TV and movies, which is more often than not complete BS.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 PM.