Advocacy & Safety - Finally, a motorist charged with murder

I understand accidents happen but I am sick and tired of motorist getting charged with no more than manslaughter or less when a bicyclist gets killed while they are driving impaired. About time a murder charged got filed.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050707/NEWS01/50707009

A 25-year-old Louisville woman has been charged with murder and DUI after the car she was driving allegedly struck and killed a 22-year-old bicyclist on Bardstown Road Wednesday night, according to police.

Officer Dwight Mitchell, a spokesman for Louisville Metro Police, said Heather L. McCorty was driving southbound in the 4400 block of Bardstown Road near Buechel when she struck the bicyclist, Charles Barfield, who was also traveling south.

Barfield, of the 4500 block of Beech Brook Drive, was taken to University Hospital, where he died at 12:22 a.m. from multiple blunt force injuries, according to Jefferson County deputy coroner Jack Arnold.

In addition to the murder and DUI charges, McCorty was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

understand accidents happen

It is not an accident!

When you drink you are knowingly impairing your ability for rational judgment, and willingly decreasing your ability to drive a vehicle. It is not an accident. This is the problem with America. Driving while drunk is such a common placed thing that it is considered an accident when someone decides to drink and drive, and they wreck into someone or something.

This dumb ### not only was drunk, but had dope in the car.
Was that an accident? No she planed to get screwed up, and while screwed up she killed someone. It was her choice.

Pre meditated murder should be her sentencing.

Let’s get with it. When people decide to have that first drink they are knowingly saying I am going to be impaired. Isn’t that premeditated? It is the same as saying I am going to kill someone, then put a bullett into the chamber, and fire it into a croud.

No different, and as soon as society realizes this the better.

Let’s get with it. When people decide to have that first drink they are knowingly saying I am going to be impaired. Isn’t that premeditated? It is the same as saying I am going to kill someone, then put a bullett into the chamber, and fire it into a croud.

No different, and as soon as society realizes this the better.

I have to disagree with that one, I personaly don't even have a car, so I don't drink and drive and am very against it as I don't want to be hit by a drunk driver, but I would imagine that well over 90% of the time, impared drivers get home fine (considering that a LARGE amount of people who drink also drive impared from time to time) with no accidents and no premeditation to get into one, however firing a gun into a crowd? Uh, that would lead to at least an injury well over 99.9% of the time and can be considered pre-meditated in that you are obviously planning to injure someone, or you are mentaly impared and should'nt own a gun in the first place.
Of course, I have no problem with murder charges if you kill someone, or even assult charges or attempted murder if you injure someone while drinking and driving, but pre-meditated? No, I don't see that at all.

I have no problem with murder charges if you kill someone, or even assult charges or attempted murder if you injure someone while drinking and driving, but pre-meditated? No, I don't see that at all.

With everything that has flooded the media concerning driving under the influence, and how it impairs your judgment as well as reactions, and full knowing that it is illegal to do so, then isn’t doing it premeditated? You don’t accidentally put a drink to your mouth and take a drink do you? No, you full well know that you are going to take a drink, and you full well know that it is against the law to do so and get behind the wheel, but you decide to disregard the law and do it anyhow. Yes, or No.

Your answer must be yes, you know you are going to take a drink, and you know the consequences, so there is nothing in the equation that is not premeditated.

Drinking and driving is wrong, and if you think differently you can tell the mother of the 3 girls that lived up the street from me who were killed by a drunk driver at 3:30 in the afternoon. Two of the girls had seatbelts on, and the third was in a car seat. They were hit so hard from behind that it killed them. Tell the girl’s mother that he almost got home, but he killed them instead. He got home ok the other times when he was drunk, but this time the three girls were killed because they were just unlucky. Yea, right.

So its OK if you drink and get home, but its not if you drink and kill someone. A casual drinker has the same chance in killing someone than an alcoholic does. When you are impaired you are impaired. You know you are going to do it before you are impaired. So it is BS to say
but I would imagine that well over 90% of the time, impaired drivers get home fine (considering that a LARGE amount of people who drink also drive impaired from time to time) with no accidents and no premeditation to get into one,…” If you take that first drink you are premeditating to impair yourself thus impairing the ability to safely control your vehicle.

There is a big difference between being charged and being convicted.

It is not an accident!

When you drink you are knowingly impairing your ability for rational judgment, and willingly decreasing your ability to drive a vehicle. It is not an accident. This is the problem with America. Driving while drunk is such a common placed thing that it is considered an accident when someone decides to drink and drive, and they wreck into someone or something.

This dumb ### not only was drunk, but had dope in the car.
Was that an accident? No she planed to get screwed up, and while screwed up she killed someone. It was her choice.

Pre meditated murder should be her sentencing.

Let’s get with it. When people decide to have that first drink they are knowingly saying I am going to be impaired. Isn’t that premeditated? It is the same as saying I am going to kill someone, then put a bullett into the chamber, and fire it into a croud.

No different, and as soon as society realizes this the better.

You are absolutely correct. It was not an accident. If you cchoose to drink/take drugs and drive and kill someone, it's premeditated murder.

Does anyone notice that the only people charged or convicted for killing cyclists are the ones who happen to be drunk at the time? The sober road-ragers and other assorted non-drinking murderers always seem to walk without so much as a police report.

You are absolutely correct. It was not an accident. If you cchoose to drink/take drugs and drive and kill someone, it's premeditated murder.

Exactly, if you choose to kill someone, just drinking and driving is not deciding to go out and kill someone, It's against the law and should be severly punished, but in no way is that alone the same as saying "I think I will get drunk tonight, then drive wildly and intend to kill someone" That may endup up being the result depending on the driver, but not usualy the pre-meditation. I know this can be debated left and right, but that's my stance. Saying it's pre-meditated murder is just silly in my opinion, maybe pre-meditated getting drunk and DUI, but that's about it.

I bet it gets plea bargained down to manslaughter, which is really what it is. To recklessly endanger someone knowingly resulting in death is manslaughter, not murder, as I understand the law. Doesn't make it right.

We have a legal system. Not a justice system.

Murder is the willful intention to kill someone. Whether it is thought out or impulsive.

DUI and killing some one is not premeditated or impulsive. It is stupid, selfish, and neglectfully wanton act that may or may not result injury or loss of life or destruction of property. While there is no premeditated thought to intentionally harm anyone, the enormous possibility is still there.

I agree though that it should be severely punished.

I think that reckless homicide would be appropriate:

from Findlaw (http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/1448.html)
QUESTION:
Is a conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) a felony?

ANSWER:
A first-time DUI, (or, in some states, "DWI" -- short for "driving while intoxicated") is normally charged as a misdemeanor, not a felony. But if someone was injured as a result of the drunken driving, some states (including your home state of Illinois) will raise the charge to a felony. (And if the victim dies, Illinois may charge the driver with reckless homicide.) Also, in a number of states, a DUI will be raised to a felony if it is the driver's second, third, or even fourth DUI offense. Your state, Illinois, falls right in the middle -- Illinois will charge a third DUI as a felony.

"Misdemeanor" and "felony" are emotionally charged words, but what do they really mean? Whether a conviction ends up as a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the type and length of the punishment for the crime. Misdemeanors carry the possibility of incarceration in the county or local jail for one year or less; felonies usually result in a state prison term of more than a year.

Emphasis added

It is not an accident!

When you drink you are knowingly impairing your ability for rational judgment, and willingly decreasing your ability to drive a vehicle. It is not an accident. This is the problem with America. Driving while drunk is such a common placed thing that it is considered an accident when someone decides to drink and drive, and they wreck into someone or something.

This dumb ### not only was drunk, but had dope in the car.
Was that an accident? No she planed to get screwed up, and while screwed up she killed someone. It was her choice.

Pre meditated murder should be her sentencing.

Let’s get with it. When people decide to have that first drink they are knowingly saying I am going to be impaired. Isn’t that premeditated? It is the same as saying I am going to kill someone, then put a bullett into the chamber, and fire it into a croud.

No different, and as soon as society realizes this the better.

Finally, the voice of reason. I couldn't agree with you more.

I want to say it again - Driving while intoxicated is NOT AN ACCIDENT!

Does anyone notice that the only people charged or convicted for killing cyclists are the ones who happen to be drunk at the time? The sober road-ragers and other assorted non-drinking murderers always seem to walk without so much as a police report.

Yeah this is the issue that gets me... Going after a cyclist is about as premeditated as it gets. But how many of these ragers have killed cyclists? And don't they usually come back with "I just didn't see the cyclist." The ultimate excuse.

I have to disagree with that one, I personaly don't even have a car, so I don't drink and drive and am very against it as I don't want to be hit by a drunk driver, but I would imagine that well over 90% of the time, impared drivers get home fine (considering that a LARGE amount of people who drink also drive impared from time to time) with no accidents and no premeditation to get into one, however firing a gun into a crowd? Uh, that would lead to at least an injury well over 99.9% of the time and can be considered pre-meditated in that you are obviously planning to injure someone, or you are mentaly impared and should'nt own a gun in the first place.
Of course, I have no problem with murder charges if you kill someone, or even assult charges or attempted murder if you injure someone while drinking and driving, but pre-meditated? No, I don't see that at all.

Believe it or not, shooting someone with a handgun has a very low rate of mortality, too. It's not an excuse to do it and then claim you weren't trying to kill anyone.
If you don't like your own example of intentionally firing the gun into the crowd, how about this one?

You take out the gun to show people. You point it toward the crowd (to look gangsta.) You put your finger on the trigger (hey, the safety's on!) You didn't check the chamber to be sure it was empty (not necessary, since you unloaded it last night before you cleaned it and you are a very safe and conscientious shooter.)

Now, at this point you've broken all the known rules of safe gun handling, no matter what your intent was. If something startles you and you pull that trigger, do you get charged with an accidental death, or do you get murder? Manslaughter is likely if you can show that there was no intent beyond stupidity, but is it appropriate? That's what drunk driving looks like to me.

Believe it or not, shooting someone with a handgun has a very low rate of mortality, too. It's not an excuse to do it and then claim you weren't trying to kill anyone.
If you don't like your own example of intentionally firing the gun into the crowd, how about this one?

You take out the gun to show people. You point it toward the crowd (to look gangsta.) You put your finger on the trigger (hey, the safety's on!) You didn't check the chamber to be sure it was empty (not necessary, since you unloaded it last night before you cleaned it and you are a very safe and conscientious shooter.)

Now, at this point you've broken all the known rules of safe gun handling, no matter what your intent was. If something startles you and you pull that trigger, do you get charged with an accidental death, or do you get murder? Manslaughter is likely if you can show that there was no intent beyond stupidity, but is it appropriate? That's what drunk driving looks like to me.

Sounds very reasonable, a lot more so then the pre-meditated murder charges flying around.

I actually meant there are accidents and then there are cases like this one. In a case of an accident where alcohol or drugs isn't involved, I understand charges not being filed unless it is total incompetence. I believe when a bicyclist, pedestrian, or even another motorist gets killed by a drunk or impaired driver, it should be murder. I believe driving under the influence is pre-meditation for murder. Everyone knows the dangers of it and everyone who drives impaired has the power not to drive.

Driving impaired should also include prescription medications. I wonder how many in this country that rant against drinking and driving take meds that have warnings, and then drive??????? ;) The punishment for accidents while under the influence of those should be the same as alcohol.

Dchief, The majority of americans take some sort of prescription medication. It's not the same as an illegal drug or alcohol. Taking an illegal drug and/or alcohol then driving is willful intent in my opinion.

If you would include legal prescriptions, you would dilute and kill any chance for stronger laws.

Dchief, The majority of americans take some sort of prescription medication. It's not the same as an illegal drug or alcohol. Taking an illegal drug and/or alcohol then driving is willful intent in my opinion.

If you would include legal prescriptions, you would dilute and kill any chance for stronger laws.

I'm talking about the medications that have impairment warnings. Nobody should be on the road driving while they are taking those. If we accept that, then why don't we accept alcohol? The answer, because it would affect a lot of people, no matter how dangerous it is.