Advocacy & Safety - Enough To Stay At Home!

THIS IS SCARY!!



This Driver Hits Man, Body Stuck in Windshield



DELEON SPRINGS, Fla. (AP) - A motorist drove home about a mile with the legless body of a pedestrian in his front windshield before calling authorities to report that he had struck the man with his car, officials said.

Deputies first learned of the accident, which happened about midnight Friday, from bar patrons who called to report finding two legs near the parking lot, according to sheriff's reports.

With Joseph Markert's torso lodged in his windshield, Daniel Dradeen, 19, drove a mile to the home he shared with Ronald Brownie and Brownie's son, who called 911, the reports showed.

Dradeen didn't stop to report the accident because he didn't have a cellular phone with him and Brownie's home was only about a mile from the accident site, Brownie said.


``A guy coming through your front windshield tends to rattle you,'' said Brownie.


Markert, 57, was trying to cross a roadway in DeLeon Springs, about 40 miles north of Orlando, when he was struck, the Florida Highway Patrol said.


The medical examiner will determine if Markert survived the impact, but he likely died immediately, officials said.


Investigators believe the legs were severed by the impact with the car, not the windshield. One of Markert's arms was also severed and was found with his torso in Dradeen's blood-covered car, officials said.


Kim Miller, a spokeswoman for the highway patrol, said Dradeen was not impaired and no hit-and-run charges will be filed. She said the case is under investigation.


``It's the pedestrian's fault. He was wearing dark clothing,'' Miller said. ``The poor kid (Dradeen) was in the wrong place at the wrong time.''


Last month in Fort Worth, Texas, a jury sentenced Chante Mallard, 27, of Fort Worth to 50 years in prison after convicting her of murder in the death of man she struck with her car and left to die in her windshield in her garage.



07/07/03 23:13
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030707%2F231490939.htm&sc=1110

I think the most scary thing about that story is that none of it surprises me.

I think the most scary thing about that story is that this kid is being excused for his actions, while the other woman gets convicted of murder. The other woman definitely deserved it, but just because the kid wasn't under the influence of anything (allegedly), doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.

Don't forget, the authorities found out about the accident because patrons of a bar called in to say they'd found the legs. And the kid never called the authorities either- it was the kid's roommates. And I wouldn't be surprised if the roommates called because they insisted, in part because of the other woman's actions who struck and killed the other pedestrian. They didn't want to be named as accomplices, although I'll assume here that they also wanted to do the right thing. But it certainly says something to me when the guy that hit the pedestrian is NOT the one who called the police! Why drive home because he didn't have a phone to call the police with, and then get home and not call? :confused:

And the stupid woman who said it was the pedestrian's fault- dumb, dumb, dumb... from the sounds of it, they were BOTH at fault.

I don't think the guy meant to hit the pedestrian, but there was a crime committed here- and the guy shouldn't get off scot free.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I think the most scary thing about that story is that this kid is being excused for his actions, while the other woman gets convicted of murder. The other woman definitely deserved it, but just because the kid wasn't under the influence of anything (allegedly), doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.



This kid hit someone unintentionally but the victim died instantly and there was nothing he could do.

But the woman in the previous case was convicted of murder because she imprisoned a severely wounded person in her garage while he bled to death. Her unitentionally striking the guy with her car wasn't the proximate cause of death; it was intentionally failing to help him once she did.

Big difference.

OK, maybe the pedestrian was at fault but there are a couple of things I don't fully understand.

1. The incident took place in the road outside a bar. So why didn't Mr. Dradeen stop the car, run into the bar and call the police from there? Since he left the scene of the incident, isn't this a case of hit-and-run?

2. The article says that the incident remains under investigation, yet the spokeperson for the Highway Patrol is already saying it isn't Mr. Dradeen's fault and no charges will be filed. I sounds to me like either the investigation is completed or that there really isn't going to be a full investigation.

I'd be curious to know the time at which the first call was placed by the bar patrons and the time the later call was made by Mr. Brownie. It says that Dradeen lived only a mile from the scene. The time of the calls should be pretty close together. It would have taken a little time for someone to walk outside the bar, find the severed limbs, go back inside, and call the police. How much longer do you think it would have taken Mr. Dradeen to drive home, go inside, and call the police? A couple of minutes max?

Something seems fishy about this, IMHO.

This kid hit someone unintentionally but the victim died instantly and there was nothing he could do.

But the woman in the previous case was convicted of murder because she imprisoned a severely wounded person in her garage while he bled to death. Her unitentionally striking the guy with her car wasn't the proximate cause of death; it was intentionally failing to help him once she did.

Big difference.

That's exactly what I already said. However, do not forget- the investigation is ongoing. We don't know if the death was instantaneous, and we don't know if it was unintentional or not. As Steve pointed out, they are still gathering the facts and waiting for the results of the autopsy. The fact that the police are already blaming the victim and holding the pedestrian as the guilty party before they get all the facts makes me hesitate- they should not be releasing any statements on the kid's guilt or innocence until they finish their investigation- that is, if they do one, because it sounds as though they are not inclined to, which means we'll never get the true situation!

In MHO, it sounds a bit fishy to me too.

Koffee

It does sound like something is missing here doesn't it? How fast do you need to be going to sever the legs and an arm. It doesn't say the kind of road but it was neer a bar so not an interstate I wounder how fast he was going.

I can believe having a legless body impaled in your windshield would shake you up a bit. Go a mile home and get your roommate to call - maybe, but there seems like other stuff doesn't make sense.

Joe

Originally posted by Koffee Brown


In MHO, it sounds a bit fishy to me too.

Koffee

Yeah. Can't deny that.

BTW, I wasn't trying to excuse what the kid has done. I'll be interested to see how this plays out, especially when his friends start changing their stories.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
the kid never called the authorities either- it was the kid's roommates.(I wouldn't want to call in about the kid I just killed either) And I wouldn't be surprised if the roommates called because they insisted(a bit of an assumption?), in part because of the other woman's actions who struck and killed the other pedestrian. They didn't want to be named as accomplices, although I'll assume here that they also wanted to do the right thing. But it certainly says something to me when the guy that hit the pedestrian is NOT the one who called the police! (give him a break, he was in shock) Why drive home because he didn't have a phone to call the Think about it a moment. A person hits someone else. Hes too freaked out, so he goes home and gets a roomie to call in. Suprised? I seriously doubt this kid was trying to get away with murder. True, he shouldn't get off free, but its a bit extreme to say that his reaction was irrational for the moment.

Originally posted by caloso
I'll be interested to see how this plays out, especially when his friends start changing their stories.

How can you make assumptions so easily?

Just an cynical observation of human nature. Perhaps I overstated; maybe I should have said "...especially IF his friends start changing their stories."

But still, people are unreliable when trouble comes. Many examples in your local law library. I think in MN, the cases are reported in the Northwestern Reports. Find any case titled "People v. Somebody" and read the part of the case headed Facts. The friends of the defendant rarely keep their stories straight.

Not saying that this kid is a criminal. But something doesn't smell right.

I still do not know why this is not considered "hit and run." I think a driver's license suspension would be appropriate.