A Misdemeanor?!!!!

[GlowBoy]

In this case, criminal negligence looks to be easier to demonstrate than recklessness (as opposed to carelessness, which is much less serious and pretty evident this time).

Having once served on a vehicular homicide jury, I'm not surprised a few people on this forum have said "there but for the grace of God go I" or "that poor kid ... just think what's going to happen to him in jail." In the trial I served on, a 19 year old had gotten stinking drunk and driven insanely, rolling his car and killing his girlfriend. Even then, there were fellow jurors who put out the same arguments (in fact, everyone on the jury cited "there but for the grace of God go I") before finally giving into reason and voting to convict.

It's this simple: the driver acted in an extremely careless manner and killed someone. Period. Too many of us are way too careless behind the wheel. Back when I took drivers ed (in a time and place when it was actually required) the point was driven home again and again that driving is a privilege and not a right. I think a lot of the carelessness we see on the road today stems from the fact that most people view it as their right to drive however they want, when in fact they don't have an inherent right to drive, period. Cellphones are bad enough, text messaging (with more information on the screen to look at) is even worse, nav systems are worse yet, and now I understand that some vehicles' nav systems can play TV and DVDs. I see an awful lot of minivans and SUVs with TV screens operating in them, and it sends shivers down my spine to think that many of them are viewable by the driver.

Top that off with how much bigger and taller vehicles have gotten in the past 10 years (meaning they're far more likely to kill rather than injure cyclists and pedestrians), how much faster they're being driven, and how nonexistent law enforcement has become -- and we have a pretty awful situation. Not to mention that improved crash protection and vehicle stability technology seem to have become a substitute in many people's minds for driving safely in the first place. I support the prosecution of sydney/biker_billy's killer to the fullest extent possible, but right now there isn't a lot of public support for tougher laws and/or enforcement. but these kinds of things are going to keep happening -- with greater frequency -- until the attitude of the public at large changes. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but the more publicity we can get for this case, and for every other cyclist death as well, the better. [/rant]

[webist]

It's funny because with automobiles, things seem to end up on the extreme sides of the argument.
On one hand, you have people losing points and being ticketting hundreds of dollars for very minor things. On the other, you have people who literally get away with murder.

I think the problem is a) no one wants to assume any responsibility anymore and b) everyone drives.

And c: Some legal actions result in revenue to the state and others in an expense to the state. I'm actually surprised we don't hear the claim that we shouldn't punish the kid at all because it won't bring the cyclist back. :mad:

[peripatetic]

I guess we are both playing the role of the jury in this case and judging the kids actions, which without having all the facts is a little risky. I believe his actions constitute felony negligent homicide, I guess you don't don't think the kid committed a crime. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. But I still believe the state attorney should have charged a felony and let the jury decide.


Just a note: this would be considered poor strategy. The "reasonable person" standard, as pointed out before, is what you're going to get 12 jurors (or a judge) to agree to. DAs will never go for the upper limit of what they think, but the upper limit of what they're confident they can get a jury to agree on. You don't do this, and you have two problems: (1) you're not going to have a chance for a plea-bargain because a good defense attorney's going to recognize that you have a questionable case; and, (2) you're going to have a tough case to try through to the end. A strategy like this could very well have you end up with an acquittal, and for a prosecutor, that's bad for business.

[neil0502]

Here is the link for ones who want to email the DA for Douglas County

The District Attorney is:

Carol Chambers
DA18@da18.state.co.us

Reach out to her ... whatever your position is. Make your voice heard.

[Guest]

I also started a petition. Please sign it and circulate the petition in other forums and with other people: http://www.petitiononline.com/7474355/petition.html

Thanks!

Koffee

[Dchiefransom]

You know those road side alert signs that broadcast holiday messages like, "don't drive drunk" and such? They should start randomly displaying traffic violations and their maximum sentences from running a red light up to running someone over. Then they should actually start enforcing those rules.

If the kid in this case DOES get a year in jail, then this would be a good item for a road sign. Include the fine and specify whether a wrongful death settlement went over the insurance coverage.

[Dchiefransom]

Just a note: this would be considered poor strategy. The "reasonable person" standard, as pointed out before, is what you're going to get 12 jurors (or a judge) to agree to. DAs will never go for the upper limit of what they think, but the upper limit of what they're confident they can get a jury to agree on. You don't do this, and you have two problems: (1) you're not going to have a chance for a plea-bargain because a good defense attorney's going to recognize that you have a questionable case; and, (2) you're going to have a tough case to try through to the end. A strategy like this could very well have you end up with an acquittal, and for a prosecutor, that's bad for business.

I believe this would depend on how the law in this case actually works. I've read many articles in my paper where a person was charged with one thing, and the judge instructed the jury that if the evidence didn't meet certain requirements in their eyes, then they could find for a lesser charge. The jury ended up convicting on the lesser charge. As I said, I'm not sure exactly how, and in what circumstances, this works.
The biggest problem I see in cases like this is that the "reasonable person" judging this case has tinted windows on their vehicle, including every windshield sold today, and all the same distractions that the person causing the death/injury had. If I ever have a problem with the windshield on my Wrangler, I'll have to wait a while, or the shop will have to cut one by hand, since I'm sure they don't make any windshileds anymore that are actually clear.

[supcom]

The biggest problem I see in cases like this is that the "reasonable person" judging this case has tinted windows on their vehicle, including every windshield sold today, and all the same distractions that the person causing the death/injury had. If I ever have a problem with the windshield on my Wrangler, I'll have to wait a while, or the shop will have to cut one by hand, since I'm sure they don't make any windshileds anymore that are actually clear.

As far as I can tell, the only tinting on a windshield is a couple inches at the top. Side and rear windows are commonly tinted. If there is any tinting on a windshield it is very lightly done.