Update on 'cyclist' who killed pedestrian...

[kankrum83]

...He was found not guilty by a grand jury. I like the part about the "inability to prove a mental state that would constitute criminal negligence".

Told you guys this dude was crazy. The article can be found here:

http://gtconnect.com/articles/2005/09/20/news/community/tueloc02.txt

[UmneyDurak]

Actually I don't think that quote has anything to do with him being crazy or not.

[DinoShepherd]

Couple quickies.

Grand juries don't find people guilty or not. They just determine whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. I am unsure as to whether the DA can refile this one if new evidence surfaces.


He may or may not be crazy. But the mental states referred to in the article are the levels of culpability required under the requirements for conviction of various crimes. i.e.: willingly, knowingly, maliciously, etc...

-Z

[kankrum83]

...everyone's a critic *sigh*

[noisebeam]

Sound just like how motorists don't go to trial after hitting a cyclist because there is not enough evidence nor intent to be malicious.

You'd think that lack of skid marks would be considered evidence that the cyclist did not try and stop for a pedestrian who was crossing where vehicular traffic should have stoped per sign and given right of way to pedestrians.

Al

[webist]

Looks as though it may need to proceed as a civil matter.