Advocacy & Safety - Don't Read This Chris_L. . .

I know how burned Chris in particular can get when negligent drivers are allowed to continue their destruction unabated. . .

Anyway, a local woman was recently acquitted of all crimes associated with her involvement in the deaths of two children; children she ran down (after drifting across center, into the oncoming lane, crashing through several mail boxes, striking the children, then colliding with a parked car) with her SUV while they rode their bike on the opposite side of the road.

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1051012728275550.xml?oregonian?nn
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/105109905951420.xml?oregonian?nn
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/105118595556740.xml?oregonian?nn
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1051272669176220.xml?oregonian?nn
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1051272691176220.xml?oregonian?nn

I am not anti-car, but to find no fault in this woman's situation is beyond ludicrous. And all she had to say is, "I can't remember anything." What a joke! And to put the proverbial, "icing on the cake," the local news indicated that this woman is very sorry and that she'll always be haunted when she drives by the scene in the future. . . yep, this woman is still allowed to drive - because she committed no crime.

I know that these threads can cause quite a stir, and they may not necessarily be on-topic, but I am struck by the disparity between the case above and http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/04/20ky/ke042003s398862.htm, that was mentioned in http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25374.

I live in Vancouver very close to where this happen; if this dumb broad has any sense of honor or decency she will voluntarily cease driving for the rest of her natural life.

Originally posted by oscaregg
I live in Vancouver very close to where this happen; if this dumb broad has any sense of honor or decency she will voluntarily cease driving for the rest of her natural life.

I agree! Regardless of my beliefs concerning the criminality of her actions - If she can't remember the event, and has no justifiable basis for her driving behavior, she should never be allowed to drive; she is obviously incapable of exerting the attentiveness required for operating a vehicle safely.

She was driving an SUV with a 5-year-old in the car. Do you get the feeling that she may have been distracted? That scenario would certainly support the "I don't remember" defense.

Perhaps she was chatting away on her cell. Perhaps her attention was taken up by the child in the car. Regardless, SOME punishment is NECESSARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two kids were killed. She doesn't remember?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :confused: :confused: :confused: :mad:

Originally posted by bac
She was driving an SUV with a 5-year-old in the car. Do you get the feeling that she may have been distracted? That scenario would certainly support the "I don't remember" defense.


And that's what's so incredible. . . that somehow, "I don't remember," is a defense? I'm not privy to the court proceedings, but justice was not served.

We know this much:
This woman undisputedly killed two children.
This woman offers no defense of her actions other than, "I don't know."

She may not have met the legal criteria for the EXACT charges filed, but she is certainly, criminally responsible for these two children's deaths and should be punished as such. Just as the prosecutor said, she was not paying the requisite attention, therefore, she is guilty. Get her off the road now. . . forever!

Courts aren't about determining what's right, but rather what can be proven under the law. Obviously, the prosecution didn't prove their case well enough to this jury.

Seems very sad, but what about the jury? Did they pull an OJ and simply disregard all common sense and acquit her? Did they fall for heartstrings being pulled?

Or did the prosecution not do their job? You never bring a case to trial that you will not win, that is one of the first rules of law. Otherwise you get a plea bargin.

In any case, they'll get her in civil court.

Originally posted by jatkins679
Courts aren't about determining what's right, but rather what can be proven under the law. Obviously, the prosecution didn't prove their case well enough to this jury.

.

Jatkins is right. The legal system unfortunately is not about justice but who can prove their case better. She obviously hired a top notch defense attorny. My father always said he would rather me prositute myself as sex slave in AIDs infested Thailand than to prostitute myself as a defense attorney for guilty wrong doers.

Originally posted by cbhungry
She obviously hired a top notch defense attorny.

... and after rubbing his/her head for a minute, he came up with the "I don't remember" defense. It's just crazy enough to work .......... on cyclists that is! :mad:

I can't take it anymore! Why does this happen? Are we just hearing about the unfair cases, or is this type of stuff commom place in our legal system regarding cyclists?!?

Please, someone tell me that this is the exception to the rule. If someone wacks me on the road, I would @ least like some form of punishment dealt out. I don't want this punishment for me (remember, I'm dead), but I want it for the negative reinforcement it will create on the part of said driver.

Anyone??? :crash:

Terrible tragedy. I cannot find words to describe my true feelings about this.

I get so sick of hearing about the constant failures of our legal system it makes me want to puke blood.

Time for a bit of private justice perhaps.

Motorist's hitting Those of us of the bike persuasion is so common anymore I have no doubt I'll be riding one day and see dead cyclists by the side of the road like I see dead squirrels and raccoons.

I can hear the children in the back of mommy's SUV now " look another dead biker mommy...someone should clean that up"

she doesn't remember?

the parents of those kids surely will... all to well infact.

apparently you can get away with manslaughter...... :(

Grrr

Sad-

At the very least, they should have revoked her license. At the most, jail time... has anyone stopped to consider if she'd been drinking, since she couldn't remember? If I hit anything that was alive on the road, I'd never forget it, even if it were a raccoon.

Either she was drunk or lying. Either way, she got off with not even a slap on the wrist.

Sad....

Koffee

Originally posted by oscaregg
I live in Vancouver very close to where this happen; if this dumb broad has any sense of honor or decency she will voluntarily cease driving for the rest of her natural life.
may be we do it for her, that she doesn't drive for the rest of her life, how that for a biginner
:crash: :crash: :crash:

That title was kind of like a red rag to a bull wasn't it? I'll just repeat what I've said before, until they make some fair dinkum laws about this, there is no rational reason to use a gun or a knife to kill someone when a car will do it just as effectively and make you immune to punishment.

OK- you guys don't like defense attorneys, but I would bet your tune would change if you had been charged with a crime. I don't think we should be too offended by good defense attorneys, as they are usually outgunned by a much better funded prosecutor's office, which has vast resources available for investigation. In fact, most prosecutors' offices have sufficient resources to gather evidence adequate to convict the innocent, if somehow they are convinced of the guilt. Only two things stop such abuse- ethical prosecutors and good, also ethical, defense attorneys.

In this case I have to wonder what evidence was available to the prosecution. If there were no eyewitnesses other than the driver, and she could not testify as to facts because she couldn't remember, then there may not have been facts sufficient for a finder of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a particular offense. Another possible issue is whether lesser included offenses were presented to the finder of fact. If she had been charged with an offense which required proving recklessness or intent, and the prosecution only proved negligence, then the only possible verdict would have been not guilty.

This is what happened "The two both were on Tyson's bike headed home when Cashdollar's southbound Ford Explorer swerved across P Street's center line, continued south in the northbound lanes, partially rode up on the grass and hit the children head-on as they rode north in the parking strip."

The kids were even on the other side of the road when she hit them. I just don't see how she could have possibly been aquitted. "I don't remember"? What kind of defnse is taht?!?! I don't remember killing people. And she got off?!?!

I am not an advocate of locking people up forever because of doing something stupid. These are not bad people, not driving forever and community service would be more appropriate in my mind.

Originally posted by FOG
OK- you guys don't like defense attorneys, but I would bet your tune would change if you had been charged with a crime. I don't think we should be too offended by good defense attorneys, as they are usually outgunned by a much better funded prosecutor's office, which has vast resources available for investigation. In fact, most prosecutors' offices have sufficient resources to gather evidence adequate to convict the innocent, if somehow they are convinced of the guilt. Only two things stop such abuse- ethical prosecutors and good, also ethical, defense attorneys.

My issue isn't with defence attorneys at all. My issue is with the judges and juries who don't understand the concept of personal responsibility for drivers. For some reason it's much easier to defend yourself if you kill someone with a car than if you kill someone with any other implement (this is not the first time this has been the case, nor do I believe it will be the last).

As I've said elsewhere, if I ever do decide to murder someone, I won't use a gun or a knife. I'll just use a car and plead ignorance. I won't have any problems with my defence.