View Full Version : DA Explains His Actions in Not Prosecuting, right or wrong?
cat0020
01-23-08, 11:38 AM
This may have been posted before..
A cyclist named Sheri Mann was killed a few months ago while riding her road bike in Redding, CA. Mrs. Mann was a well known and avid bicyclist in the area. The young mother who struck her was not prosecuted though. She struck Mrs. Mann while reaching into the back seat of her car for a baby bottle.
Redding District Attorney published an open letter in The Redding Record Searchlight, explaining why he made the decision he did to not prosecute the driver of the car. Here is the link:
http://redding.com/news/2008/jan/22/criminal-charges-could-not-stand-up-in-redding/
San Rensho
01-23-08, 11:58 AM
The DA is a coward, or lazy or just doesn't like cyclists. His argument about not prosecuting is a complete dereliction of duty.
Most states define wreckless driving as willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. Clearly, willfully taking your eyes off the road for no good reason shows wanton disregard for the safety of others when you are propelling a 3000 pound vehicle down the road at double digit speeds.
Face it, there is a huge bias against bicycle riders. In the back of the DA's mind is the notion that bicyclists are taking their lives into their hands when they ride on the street, shouldn't ride on the street and that they get what they deserve.
bdcheung
01-23-08, 12:13 PM
So you would rather the DA waste resources? The guy says the investigation did not turn up sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act occurred.
As previously noted, only one thing wiill change such motorist behavior: attaching massive mandatory fines and jail time to ANY injury or death resulting from motor vehicle operation.
San Rensho
01-23-08, 12:30 PM
So you would rather the DA waste resources? The guy says the investigation did not turn up sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act occurred.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is up to a jury, the only thing the DA has to show is a primae facie case, one that will not be dismissed by the judge, and her admission that she turned all the way around to reach for something in the back seat is more than ample prima facie evidence. And as a DA, he has a duty to bring charges against someone when he has a primae facie case.
The problem is that DA's have almost limitless discretion in deciding to bring a case or not. And since the DA is human, he will let his biases influence his judgement. Why do you think that so many white people that committed crimes against blacks in the South in the early to middle 1900s never got prosecuted? Because the DAs were white and prejudiced against blacks.
This DA is prejudiced against cyclists.
San Ren for Prez!
The DA is clearly biased, and understands how biased the (motorists) on a jury would be.
They'd all be sitting there thinking "ooo - what if that were me?"
As the DA said, "if taking one's eyes off the road while driving were a crime..."
He's perfectly articulated the sentiments of any potential juror, ALL of whom would be motorists.
That's why MANDATORY fines/jail time are essential - it takes prosecution out of the realm of discretion & bias, and would transform driving.
dhofmann
01-23-08, 01:01 PM
What lawyer on the prosecution side would allow the jury to be made up exclusively of motorists?
DH, what else would s/he have to choose from?
San Rensho
01-23-08, 01:06 PM
What lawyer on the prosecution side would allow the jury to be made up exclusively of motorists?
He's limited to the jury pool and I would speculate that 99.999% would be drivers.
San Rensho
01-23-08, 01:10 PM
San Ren for Prez!
The DA is clearly biased, and understands how biased the (motorists) on a jury would be.
They'd all be sitting there thinking "ooo - what if that were me?"
As the DA said, "if taking one's eyes off the road while driving were a crime..."
He's perfectly articulated the sentiments of any potential juror, ALL of whom would be motorists.
That's why MANDATORY fines/jail time are essential - it takes prosecution out of the realm of discretion & bias, and would transform driving.
Thanks for the nomination but I was born in Cuba, so I couldn't be president!
Just imagine if the same woman, doing the same thing, turning around and reaching into the back seat while driving, hit a cop who was outside his vehicle while doing a traffic stop. Hanging would be too good for her.
njkayaker
01-23-08, 02:05 PM
Most states define wreckless driving as willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. Clearly, willfully taking your eyes off the road for no good reason shows wanton disregard for the safety of others when you are propelling a 3000 pound vehicle down the road at double digit speeds.
So, the DA says that it is not "wanton" and you say that it is. Presumably, the DA is using a legal definition of "wanton" and you are using a non-legal definition. Who do you suppose knows more about the law? You or the DA?
Is this case being treated any differently than accidents which don't involve bicylists? Is this case being treated any differently than a car/car collision that happens to kill somebody? Is this case being treated any differently than a car running over and killing a pedestrian? I can't be sure but I suspect that it is being treated the same way.
Have you ever been the cause of an accident? Did you get charged for a criminal act as a result? If not, should you have been?
Pig_Chaser
01-23-08, 02:30 PM
^^^ Long on questions, short on answers ^^^
Keith99
01-23-08, 02:41 PM
To sum up the DAs reasons.
The chances of winning the case are slim.
The sentence even with a win is slight and often adds insult to injury
And the big one... The victims husband does not want to prosecute.
Number 3 says it all for me.
San Rensho
01-23-08, 02:45 PM
So, the DA says that it is not "wanton" and you say that it is. Presumably, the DA is using a legal definition of "wanton" and you are using a non-legal definition. Who do you suppose knows more about the law? You or the DA?
Is this case being treated any differently than accidents which don't involve bicylists? Is this case being treated any differently than a car/car collision that happens to kill somebody? Is this case being treated any differently than a car running over and killing a pedestrian? I can't be sure but I suspect that it is being treated the same way.
Have you ever been the cause of an accident? Did you get charged for a criminal act as a result? If not, should you have been?
Well, I am a lawyer and I know what the definition of wanton and willful is and based on these facts, the DA could bring a reckless charge that would stick. DAs charge people who flee in cars when stopped by the cops with intent to committ homocide with a dangerous weapon whenever the cop is on foot and the car comes anywhere near the cop. Its a judgement call, and when they want to, DAs can make a charge stick.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is up to a jury, the only thing the DA has to show is a primae facie case, one that will not be dismissed by the judge, and her admission that she turned all the way around to reach for something in the back seat is more than ample prima facie evidence. And as a DA, he has a duty to bring charges against someone when he has a primae facie case.
The problem is that DA's have almost limitless discretion in deciding to bring a case or not. And since the DA is human, he will let his biases influence his judgement. Why do you think that so many white people that committed crimes against blacks in the South in the early to middle 1900s never got prosecuted? Because the DAs were white and prejudiced against blacks.
This DA is prejudiced against cyclists.
+1 on bias against cyclists in the legal system.
as in the Portland cases, there should be lesser charges with lower standards of proof available, such as vehicular manslaughter. Right now there appears to be nothing between criminally negligent homicide and a traffic ticket. Is this true in CA as well as OR?
There could also be 'vulnerable road user' protections for pedal and motor cyclists and peds
And the big one... The victims husband does not want to prosecute.
who would want to go through the death of their spouse and a trial about it, with at best a 50-50 chance of overcoming the social and cultural biases against cyclists and winning?
:(
StrangeWill
01-23-08, 02:54 PM
Thats bull****, there is a difference between threads like the trucker with the blind spot that had practically no choice other than to assume someone is in his blindspot ignoring his signs 24/7, and someone that does dumb **** like reaching into their back seat enough that they can't maintain a proper lane-position while driving. Do that **** in a DMV test, auto fail, do it and kill someone, it's okay apparently.
And this idiot will continue to be on the road...
The legal system is heavily biased in favor of motorists. During voir dire, I was dismissed from a panel of prospective jurors in a vehicular manslaughter case specifically because I did more than a very casual amount of bicycling. The defense attorney secured a "Runaway Jury" of 12 noncycling motorists, so the defendant got a trial by a jury of his peers, such as they were. :(
MADD has made some significant progress against inebriated drivers, but now we need a similar effort against inattentive or distracted motorists. I predict much more innocent blood will be spilled before society finds the political will to address the solution by actually holding individuals accountable for their actions (novel thought there ... ). In the meantime, I hope the victim's husband considers a civil suit, because the criminal injustice system has failed him miserably.
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 03:44 PM
As previously noted, only one thing wiill change such motorist behavior: attaching massive mandatory fines and jail time to ANY injury or death resulting from motor vehicle operation.
Punishment has only marginal effect on behavior.
The behavior you're trying to prohibit has to be perceived as being wrong in order to effectively inhibit it.
That's why murder, rape, burglary, driving at night without lights, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc., are relatively effectively inhibited by the law, but minor speeding, rolling stops, and using drugs... not so much.
When a mother has years of experience of driving without incident in a particular type of situation, during one instance of which her baby suddenly expresses a need for a bottle, she's not going to think "oh, I better ignore my child or I might get a $300 fine" - she's going to give the baby the bottle. That's human nature, and you're not going to change that, no matter what. And if you think you're going to get her to think about the remote possibility that she might end up killing someone the thousandth time she does something she's always done before without incident, you're really not getting it, especially if you think realizing she might crash her car and kill someone is not enough to get her to change her behavior, but realizing she might crash her car, kill someone AND go to jail will be enough. I mean, let's be realistic.
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 03:52 PM
Beyond a reasonable doubt is up to a jury, the only thing the DA has to show is a primae facie case, one that will not be dismissed by the judge, and her admission that she turned all the way around to reach for something in the back seat is more than ample prima facie evidence. And as a DA, he has a duty to bring charges against someone when he has a primae facie case.
The problem is that DA's have almost limitless discretion in deciding to bring a case or not. And since the DA is human, he will let his biases influence his judgement. Why do you think that so many white people that committed crimes against blacks in the South in the early to middle 1900s never got prosecuted? Because the DAs were white and prejudiced against blacks.
This DA is prejudiced against cyclists.
It's not only that the DA is human, but he or she wants to be reelected, and conviction rate, based on the cases he or she decides to bring to court, is key to that.
And, frankly, that's a good thing. I, for one, don't want the justice system burning up all kinds of money and resources on cases that the DA does not believe has a reasonably high likelihood of achieving conviction.
Besides, the system couldn't handle it. Assume we could quantify that DA's confidence about a case achieving conception in terms of percentage. Let's say right now his cutoff is that he has to be 95% confident about a case to bring it to court. If he lowered that cutoff to some lower percentage, say 90%, that could double the number of cases he brings to court. Now say his confidence in this case is 50%, and if he lowered his threshold to that, he would bring 20 times more cases to court. Is that what you want?
San Rensho
01-23-08, 04:08 PM
Punishment has only marginal effect on behavior.
The behavior you're trying to prohibit has to be perceived as being wrong in order to effectively inhibit it.
That's why murder, rape, burglary, driving at night without lights, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc., are relatively effectively inhibited by the law, but minor speeding, rolling stops, and using drugs... not so much.
When a mother has years of experience of driving without incident in a particular type of situation, during one instance of which her baby suddenly expresses a need for a bottle, she's not going to think "oh, I better ignore my child or I might get a $300 fine" - she's going to give the baby the bottle. That's human nature, and you're not going to change that, no matter what. And if you think you're going to get her to think about the remote possibility that she might end up killing someone the thousandth time she does something she's always done before without incident, you're really not getting it, especially if you think realizing she might crash her car and kill someone is not enough to get her to change her behavior, but realizing she might crash her car, kill someone AND go to jail will be enough. I mean, let's be realistic.
But criminal justice not just about general deterence, getting the population in general to stop certain behavior, its about specific deterence, first of all, making sure this woman never does it again and making her lose her license through criminal prosecution is certainly a deterrent.
But more important, criminal justice is about punishment, making someone pay for their criminal behavior. We will never stop drunk driving, it can't be dettered, so do we just not punish drunk drivers because it will not be a detterent? Of course not, we punish them because of the consequence of their actions.
Punishment has only marginal effect on behavior.
The behavior you're trying to prohibit has to be perceived as being wrong in order to effectively inhibit it.
That's why murder, rape, burglary, driving at night without lights, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc., are relatively effectively inhibited by the law, but minor speeding, rolling stops, and using drugs... not so much.
When a mother has years of experience of driving without incident in a particular type of situation, during one instance of which her baby suddenly expresses a need for a bottle, she's not going to think "oh, I better ignore my child or I might get a $300 fine" - she's going to give the baby the bottle. That's human nature, and you're not going to change that, no matter what. And if you think you're going to get her to think about the remote possibility that she might end up killing someone the thousandth time she does something she's always done before without incident, you're really not getting it, especially if you think realizing she might crash her car and kill someone is not enough to get her to change her behavior, but realizing she might crash her car, kill someone AND go to jail will be enough. I mean, let's be realistic.
this message brought to you by the American Dream Coalition.
:rolleyes:
-=Łem in Pa=-
01-23-08, 04:18 PM
The DA's excuse making for the driver is inexcusable.
All of his points in the letter can be argued by existing law.
Taking your eyes off the road momentarily is not against the law but when you
kill someone, it is. Why all the phoney, never-to-be-used text messaging laws
coming into effect in different states now, then ? All these have to do with taking
your eyes off the road. The DA, although a lame dumass is smart enuff to know
that prosecuting a Mom taking care of her cute little baby would be the career suicide
and doesnt want to go there. I bet if it was a middle eastern guy taking his eyes
off the road to read a passage of the koran it would have been a public stoning.
We will never win in the U.S., all we can hope for is to live to ride another day.
There can be other punishments than jail for first time felons of this nature such as
working with people who have been hit by cars a few days a week or having to drive
with a tag saying "Im a killer".............
San Rensho
01-23-08, 04:20 PM
It's not only that the DA is human, but he or she wants to be reelected, and conviction rate, based on the cases he or she decides to bring to court, is key to that.
And, frankly, that's a good thing. I, for one, don't want the justice system burning up all kinds of money and resources on cases that the DA does not believe has a reasonably high likelihood of achieving conviction.
Besides, the system couldn't handle it. Assume we could quantify that DA's confidence about a case achieving conception in terms of percentage. Let's say right now his cutoff is that he has to be 95% confident about a case to bring it to court. If he lowered that cutoff to some lower percentage, say 90%, that could double the number of cases he brings to court. Now say his confidence in this case is 50%, and if he lowered his threshold to that, he would bring 20 times more cases to court. Is that what you want?
You are assuming that the DA's excuse, that the case is unwinnable, is correct. Well according to common wreckless driving statutes its not. This incident demonstrates a primae facie case of wreckless driving which has a very good chance of winning at trial, or achieving a plea bargain so that the woman is brought to justice.
As I posted above, if this woman had reached into the back of the car and run off the road and killed a cop that on the roadside, giving someone a ticket, would the DA have just left it at that? The woman would have been hauled off in handcuffs and charged with the maximum crime possible.
Criminal prosecution is a limited resource which has to be used judiciously, but DAs also have an ethical duty to indict whenever the evidence is there, and this case certainly warrants prosecution. I don't buy the Da's self-serving excuses. Its bias against bicyclists that is at the forefront in his refusal to indict.
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 05:13 PM
You are assuming that the DA's excuse, that the case is unwinnable, is correct.
No, I'm assuming that the DA's belief that the case is not sufficiently likely to be won to bring it to court is correct. It's the DA's call, and it's his or her career that's on the line. Now, the system is biased to favor erring on the side of assuming a case is less likely to win that it is, and not bringing it forward. But our whole justice system is predicated on the notion that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to wrongly convict 1 man, or however that saying goes. You don't seem to agree with that. I think you put too much stock into the role that punishment plays in changing human behavior, but I addressed that topic in a separate post.
Well according to common wreckless driving statutes its not. This incident demonstrates a primae facie case of wreckless driving which has a very good chance of winning at trial, or achieving a plea bargain so that the woman is brought to justice.
So says who? You? And we're supposed to take your word for it, and discount that of the DA? :roflmao:
As I posted above, if this woman had reached into the back of the car and run off the road and killed a cop that on the roadside, giving someone a ticket, would the DA have just left it at that? The woman would have been hauled off in handcuffs and charged with the maximum crime possible.
If so, I suspect that would be because he felt that a woman who killed a cop is much more likely to get convicted than a woman who killed a cyclist, and he's probably right. But he has to deal with the real world, including the likely makeup of the jury and the likely prejudices they will hold. He also has to assume the defense attorney will do the same, and all that will be reflected in any plea bargaining. He probably knows the jury conviction probability is so low that a plea bargain is highly unlikely.
Criminal prosecution is a limited resource which has to be used judiciously, but DAs also have an ethical duty to indict whenever the evidence is there, and this case certainly warrants prosecution. I don't buy the Da's self-serving excuses. Its bias against bicyclists that is at the forefront in his refusal to indict.
It might be bias, but it's likely to be more the likely bias the jury will have, which he would be derelict to ignore, than his own bias. And even if it is his own bias, it's probably a fair approximation of the likely jury makeup. As John E noted above, the defense attorney is probably going to make sure there are no bicyclists on the jury. Eliminating a jury of pro-biker bias is easy; eliminating a jury of pro-cop bias is difficult (though it can be done in certain areas, as was shown in the OJ trial). All this must be taken into account by a competent DA, and, apparently, has been.
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 05:16 PM
this message brought to you by the American Dream Coalition.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, right. Somehow I don't think the American Dream Coalition is comprised of folks favoring ending the drug prohibition. :rolleyes:
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 05:25 PM
Everything I wrote above, up to this point, was before I even read the DA's explanation. (http://redding.com/news/2008/jan/22/criminal-charges-could-not-stand-up-in-redding/) Now I've read it. This is all very clear:
It is important to show that the driver did something more than act with inattention or take her eyes off of the road. If taking your eyes off the road were a crime, we would all be guilty of it.Do you disagree with this? If so, on what grounds? If not, what do you think the driver did other than taker her eyes off the road or act with inattention, and how are you going to prove that?
In this case, we can't prove where the collision occurred - in the roadway, on the shoulder or in the dirt. We cannot show that the driver ever left her lane or the roadway. For all we know, Ms. Mann turned into the driver or suddenly rode into the lane. Although I do not believe that to be the case, there is no evidence to preclude that possibility. This is critical evidence to making this event a crime.The DA is saying he has NO CASE. What is the issue?
Generally when we prosecute these cases, the surviving victims are not happy with the result because they mistakenly equate the "light" consequences under the law with the value of the victim's life.What part of mistakenly equate do you not understand?
The lack of evidence and the wishes of Dr. Mann were enough for me to decide that this is not a case that should be prosecuted.Dr. Mann? So even the family agrees with the DA here? And you guys are still not satisfied?
-=Łem in Pa=-
01-23-08, 05:29 PM
Nope.
I live in Redding and have been following this case since it occurred.
With regards to prosecution, I think the two main problems are:
1) There were no eye witnesses nor physical evidence to indicate where in the roadway the initial impact occurred (the roadway has a wide outer lane - 10+ feet wide).
Apparently, the woman driver "bumped" the cyclist. After getting bumped, the cyclist then fell down into traffic where she was struck by a following vehicle. It was the following vehicle that actually caused most of the injuries to the cyclist.
Absent evidence as to position, a smart defense attorney could easily argue that the cyclist "darted out into traffic". The DA would not be able to prove otherwise.
2) The husband expressed the family's desire to not prosecute the case.
FWIW, I've told all my friends and family that if I'm ever killed or maimed by a driver, that I want them to use their best judgment regarding prosecution and civil suits, but that my wish would be, "Hang 'em High!" if appropriate for the accident scenario.
Helmet Head
01-23-08, 05:51 PM
Thanks SSP, I was hoping you'd give us a local's perspective.
Thanks for explaining that. Makes sense.
Kerlenbach
01-23-08, 06:23 PM
We argue these same points endlessly, and we can all by now figure out who is going to be on which side. I, as usual, side with HH. People, including every single one of us in this forum, make mistakes while driving. 99.999% of the time, nothing happens. When bad something does happen, usually it's not serious. Very rarely, a simple act of negligence kills someone. It seems like it happens frequently, but in a country where autos drive over a billion miles a day, the very rare seems commonplace.
Simple negligence should almost never be a crime because criminalizing negligence will not deter it. I hope this victim's family recovers a large civil judgment, because they deserve it. But this tragedy, if it happened the way the prosecutor describes, is not a crime.
If I'm taken out by a mother reaching for a baby bottle, I hope they don't put the woman in jail, either. It just seems so futile...if she's a decent human, there is nothing that could punish her more than having killed someone, and she's highly unlikely to drive distracted again. I don't know if I could even drive at all if I hit someone.
It's a rare person who hasn't had a fender bender at some time.... it truly is accidental, and we don't get sent to prison if the person in the other car has a heart attack and dies, or hits their head in a freak way.
It's kind of the same thing with Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets. I've often wondered if they die of a head injury in an accident, if the car could be charged with vehicular manslaughter. It's the same freak accident, with unusually serious results.
Yeah, right. Somehow I don't think the American Dream Coalition is comprised of folks favoring ending the drug prohibition. :rolleyes:
where did that come from? you posted a hypothetical scenario about a mother that believed she was able to drive her car and tend to her infant in the back seat at the same time based on her vast experience doing so.
In other words, you are attempting to blame the cyclist for the motorist's failure to pay attention, sounds like something an ADC supporter would say.
"I'm putting the RV on autopilot and going in the back to watch Perry Mason for a while"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
gpsblake
01-23-08, 07:57 PM
To sum up the DAs reasons.
The chances of winning the case are slim.
The sentence even with a win is slight and often adds insult to injury
And the big one... The victims husband does not want to prosecute.
Number 3 says it all for me.
And also if the DA prosecutes and LOSES, it could really hurt a potential civil lawsuit.
cat0020
01-24-08, 05:59 AM
Personally, I thought the driver of the vehicle should have their driver's license suspended for certain amount of time and be required to use bicycle as transportation for the same amount of time.. even if the justice system provide the bicycle and riding gear to the driver, that should cost less than keeping up in prison for a year.
At least by the end of the lisence suspension, the driver would have some understanding of the danger someone faces while operating a two-wheeled vehicle on public roads.. if she doesn't get killed by another driver before she finishes serving her license suspension.
Other benefits could be included as reduced emission, less oil consuption, all that green stuff.
Maybe the DA should be commuting on a bicycle as well, just so ther he/she would have better understanding of bicycle commuters and the danger they face during their commute.
why2not
01-24-08, 06:05 AM
1) There were no eye witnesses nor physical evidence to indicate where in the roadway the initial impact occurred (the roadway has a wide outer lane - 10+ feet wide).
Apparently, the woman driver "bumped" the cyclist. After getting bumped, the cyclist then fell down into traffic where she was struck by a following vehicle. It was the following vehicle that actually caused most of the injuries to the cyclist.
I'm confused. If someone was following the lead vehicle, how could the not have observed the bumping that occured right in front of them?
Personally, I thought the driver of the vehicle should have their driver's license suspended for certain amount of time and be required to use bicycle as transportation for the same amount of time.. even if the justice system provide the bicycle and riding gear to the driver, that should cost less than keeping up in prison for a year.
I've had that exact same thought!
I'm confused. If someone was following the lead vehicle, how could the not have observed the bumping that occured right in front of them?
I'm not sure, but two possibilities come to mind:
1) Tailgating
The accident occurred around 8 am on a road that gets a lot of rush hour traffic. It's possible the following driver was too close to the vehicle ahead to see exactly what happened.*
2) Sun
All involved were traveling eastbound, directly into the sun, which was very low on the horizon.
* Part of my morning commute is on narrow roadways with speeds from 45-60 mph. The "distracted tail-gater" scenario worries me more than any other. It's one reason I use a mirror, and assertively use lane positioning to move traffic left when I observe an overtaking "pack" of vehicles.
njkayaker
01-24-08, 04:17 PM
Well, I am a lawyer and I know what the definition of wanton and willful is and based on these facts, the DA could bring a reckless charge that would stick.
It certainly isn't "willful" and it doesn't seem to be anywhere near "wanton".
DAs charge people who flee in cars when stopped by the cops with intent to committ homocide with a dangerous weapon whenever the cop is on foot and the car comes anywhere near the cop.
So what? That scenario doesn't resemble this one at all.
================
Is this case being treated any differently than accidents which don't involve bicylists? Is this case being treated any differently than a car/car collision that happens to kill somebody? Is this case being treated any differently than a car running over and killing a pedestrian? I can't be sure but I suspect that it is being treated the same way.
Have you ever been the cause of an accident? Did you get charged for a criminal act as a result? If not, should you have been?
Is what the DA did in this case any different than what he would have done in the examples I listed?
================
^^^ Long on questions, short on answers ^^^
That dopey comment certainly added to the discussion!
To sum up the DAs reasons.
The chances of winning the case are slim.
The sentence even with a win is slight and often adds insult to injury
And the big one... The victims husband does not want to prosecute.
Number 3 says it all for me.
Me too, but somehow some of the people here believe that their feelings are more important than those of the family, because motorists need to be punished, dammit.
San Rensho
01-24-08, 05:29 PM
It certainly isn't "willful" and it doesn't seem to be anywhere near "wanton".
So what? That scenario doesn't resemble this one at all.
================
Is what the DA did in this case any different than what he would have done in the examples I listed?
================
That dopey comment certainly added to the discussion!
What if based on exactly the same facts, turning completely around while driving to rummage in the back seat, she had hit a cop that was outside of his vehicle giving a motorist a ticket? Tell me with a straight face she wouldn't have been criminally charged.
What if based on exactly the same facts, turning completely around while driving to rummage in the back seat, she had hit a cop that was outside of his vehicle giving a motorist a ticket? Tell me with a straight face she wouldn't have been criminally charged.
Bingo!
bikebuddha
01-24-08, 06:53 PM
In California, ordinary negligence is sufficent to support a conviction for manslaughter in vehicle accident cases. The fact is the DA probably looked at the situation and calculated that a lot more mothers than cyclists vote. So despite the fact there's sufficent evidence of negligence, he decided to pull the plug on the case.
which is why the DA should not be elected. the fact is, Redding is a pretty conservative, automobile-oriented city
Sorry, but this seems to be the definition of an accident. Although suspect, reaching back into a car doesn't mean some sort of specific neglect. Many normal actions in your car or on your bike can distract a person. How many on the bike or in the car photos do I see on flickr everyday. A frikn sneezing attack can "distract' someone long enough for this type accident to take place.
Helmet Head
01-25-08, 01:02 AM
where did that come from? you posted a hypothetical scenario about a mother that believed she was able to drive her car and tend to her infant in the back seat at the same time based on her vast experience doing so.
In other words, you are attempting to blame the cyclist for the motorist's failure to pay attention, sounds like something an ADC supporter would say.
These are the words of mine you're talking about:
Punishment has only marginal effect on behavior.
The behavior you're trying to prohibit has to be perceived as being wrong in order to effectively inhibit it.
That's why murder, rape, burglary, driving at night without lights, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc., are relatively effectively inhibited by the law, but minor speeding, rolling stops, and using drugs... not so much.
When a mother has years of experience of driving without incident in a particular type of situation, during one instance of which her baby suddenly expresses a need for a bottle, she's not going to think "oh, I better ignore my child or I might get a $300 fine" - she's going to give the baby the bottle. That's human nature, and you're not going to change that, no matter what. And if you think you're going to get her to think about the remote possibility that she might end up killing someone the thousandth time she does something she's always done before without incident, you're really not getting it, especially if you think realizing she might crash her car and kill someone is not enough to get her to change her behavior, but realizing she might crash her car, kill someone AND go to jail will be enough. I mean, let's be realistic.
Where is even a hint of an attempt to blame the cyclist?
"I'm putting the RV on autopilot and going in the back to watch Perry Mason for a while"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Like that's even comparable? You missed the entire point.
If you could leave the RV driver's seat and go in back and watch TV without incident some 9,999 out of every 10,000 times of doing that, then your comment would make sense.
The point is, the vast majority of the time, being distracted, including even taking your eyes off the road for a few seconds, does not cause a crash, losing control, or anything close to that. So why would you use an example -- leaving the driver's seat to go watch TV in the back of the RV -- that has nothing to do with that?
Whether the fact that choosing to take your eyes off the road for a few seconds rarely causes a crash justifies doing it is a different issue. But to compare it to behavior that certainly causes a crash is absurd.
bikebuddha
01-25-08, 06:38 AM
Sorry, but this seems to be the definition of an accident. Although suspect, reaching back into a car doesn't mean some sort of specific neglect. Many normal actions in your car or on your bike can distract a person. How many on the bike or in the car photos do I see on flickr everyday. A frikn sneezing attack can "distract' someone long enough for this type accident to take place.
Courts have held that merely taking your eyes off the road momentarily is usually not enough to establish negligence, however turning around to look in the back seat may be.
Mr. Underbridge
01-25-08, 08:47 AM
Well, I am a lawyer and I know what the definition of wanton and willful is and based on these facts, the DA could bring a reckless charge that would stick. DAs charge people who flee in cars when stopped by the cops with intent to committ homocide with a dangerous weapon whenever the cop is on foot and the car comes anywhere near the cop. Its a judgement call, and when they want to, DAs can make a charge stick.
DAs don't win cases by fiat. Best case scenario this gets past a grand jury. No way in hell does he get a conviction for murder, and probably not any significant degree of manslaughter. The defendant in this case isn't a drunk, isn't a recidivist criminal, wasn't on drugs. No, she's a mother who was just trying to deal with her baby. Jury would eat that up, you couldn't find a more sympathy-inducing defendant if you tried. If the defense attorney is even remotely competent, he'd paint the DA as a sadistic bast*rd with no heart. If there's even one mother on the jury, she'd hang the thing even if the DA somehow got 11 other people to agree with him. Which he wouldn't.
Additionally does the DA prosecute every single auto accident in which someone dies, with the driver at fault guilty simply of inattention and not drugs or alcohol? I highly doubt it. If that's the case, the bicyclist shouldn't expect a higher standard of justice.
I'll be honest - I don't think putting this person in jail serves any real purpose, and I'm not into screwing with one person to "send a message". I think she should lose her license for at least a year.
wagathon
01-25-08, 09:01 AM
Similarly, is the instance that was very well covered in Bicycling, in the article, "Broken" (posted on the web, Dec. 11, 2007) ... it runs you over just reading it, e.g.,
Broken
Every time we take to the open road, we entrust our lives to a safety net of legal protection and basic human decency. That system has failed.
Link: http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,6610,s1-3-12-16637-1,00.html?cm_mmc=RSS-_-bicrsshome-_-NA-_-NA
:)
San Rensho
01-25-08, 10:52 AM
DAs don't win cases by fiat. Best case scenario this gets past a grand jury. No way in hell does he get a conviction for murder, and probably not any significant degree of manslaughter. The defendant in this case isn't a drunk, isn't a recidivist criminal, wasn't on drugs. No, she's a mother who was just trying to deal with her baby. Jury would eat that up, you couldn't find a more sympathy-inducing defendant if you tried. If the defense attorney is even remotely competent, he'd paint the DA as a sadistic bast*rd with no heart. If there's even one mother on the jury, she'd hang the thing even if the DA somehow got 11 other people to agree with him. Which he wouldn't.
Additionally does the DA prosecute every single auto accident in which someone dies, with the driver at fault guilty simply of inattention and not drugs or alcohol? I highly doubt it. If that's the case, the bicyclist shouldn't expect a higher standard of justice.
I'll be honest - I don't think putting this person in jail serves any real purpose, and I'm not into screwing with one person to "send a message". I think she should lose her license for at least a year.
Well you've given a good closing argument for the defense, but ignored the prosecutions case. A woman is dead, for God's sake. The DA will show nice gory pictures of her after the accident and her in the hospital with tubes all over the place. She was a mother herself, a pillar of society, he will bring in the grieving family, what she used to do for them as a family etc, etc, And a woman is dead all because the driver, instead of taking a few seconds out of her precious life and just pulling over to the side of the road, decides to turn completely around and bottle feed her baby while she is driving.
She would charged with a third degree felony in CA and would lose her license. This obviuosly is not a case of premeditated first degree murder and no DA would charge it as that. Negligent homicide cases are brought all the time and DA's win them.
And just by charging her, the case would probably plead anyway, as the vast majority of cases do, so its not likely the case would even get to a jury. And even if she plead to a misdeamenor, justice would be done because she would be criminally responsible for criminally negligent behavior.
But by not even charging the woman, the DA is saying that he doesn't even want to waste his time with a clear case of negligence and a preventable death. What kind of message is that?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.