Advocacy & Safety - Motorist charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing 2 bikers

http://www.thestate.com/136/story/827636.html?storylink=omni_popular



PEMBROKE, N.C. -- A woman driving a car faster than 100 mph jumped railroad tracks in a North Carolina town and slammed into two motorcycles, killing the bikers and injuring a third rider, police said.

Police Chief Dwayne Hunt said the driver of the car never braked late Friday as she sped into the town of Pembroke in a four-door Saturn and lost control, The Fayetteville Observer reported Monday.

The motorcycles were hit as they turned into a gas station lot with other riders. Hunt said 16 people witnessed the crash.

Virginia C. Locklear of Lumberton died instantly, Hunt said. She was a passenger on one bike and the driver was critically injured. Hunt said Marie D. Locklear of Pembroke was alone on the other bike and was killed.

Julie Miller, 40, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, the chief said. She was being held at the Robeson County Jail under $1.25 million bond.

Hunt said Miller said she couldn't recall the crash and tested negative for alcohol and drugs. He said he would send a detective to South Carolina to try to determine why she was in the Robeson County town.

The Saturn came to a stop two blocks from the crash scene and Hunt said one motorcycle was cut in half.

"We had debris for two city blocks. Motorcycle parts," Hunt said.


While the victims were not cyclists, it could have easily happened and the outcome would have been even worse. In this case she was charged with involuntary manslaughter and will probably spend quite a few years behind bars. If only punishments like this are handed down more frequently to motorists who kill cyclists, I feel our roads will gradually become much safer.

Why do you think the manslaughter charge was brought up in this case? Is it because bikers are regarded as more privileged than cyclists, because of the presence of 16 witnesses?

It might have something to do with her doing 100 mph ...

I love a good conspiracy theory, but do you have a similar case in the same area where bicyclists were killed and blame was that obvious with that many witnesses and manslaughter charges weren't pursued?

You really think 'involuntary manslaughter' is enough? I don't think there is anything 'involuntary' about choosing to drive at 100mph.

I think there's two counts of murder here, even if the driver did not specifically intend to kill those people, deliberately choosing to create the circumstances that any reasonable person can be confident that someone will most likely be killed has to be considered murder. Would it be murder if I went around randomly firing a gun at people's houses and killed someone? why isn't it murder if I randomly drive at 100mph and kill someone?

A car still remains the weapon of choice if you want to commit murder with near-impunity.

A car still remains the weapon of choice if you want to commit murder with near-impunity.

Yup. our slavish devotion to the automobile brings the deaths of over 43,000 people each year. Imagine a 747 crashing ever four days for an entire year. It would be madness. But when the equivalent death toll is reached through the incompetent operation of automobiles, we're willing to accept it year after year after year.

Like it or not, `murder' has a specific legal definition. It generally requires an intent to kill or at least malice.

Driving 100 mph is reckless, certainly, but she probably wasn't deliberately looking to kill somebody. The DA could try to charge her with murder, but the jury would respond with `not guilty'.

Be happy with manslaughter charges. It's usually the best the legal system has to offer.

http://www.thestate.com/136/story/827636.html?storylink=omni_popular



PEMBROKE, N.C. -- A woman driving a car faster than 100 mph jumped railroad tracks in a North Carolina town and slammed into two motorcycles, killing the bikers and injuring a third rider, police said.

Police Chief Dwayne Hunt said the driver of the car never braked late Friday as she sped into the town of Pembroke in a four-door Saturn and lost control, The Fayetteville Observer reported Monday.

The motorcycles were hit as they turned into a gas station lot with other riders. Hunt said 16 people witnessed the crash.

Virginia C. Locklear of Lumberton died instantly, Hunt said. She was a passenger on one bike and the driver was critically injured. Hunt said Marie D. Locklear of Pembroke was alone on the other bike and was killed.

Julie Miller, 40, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, the chief said. She was being held at the Robeson County Jail under $1.25 million bond.

Hunt said Miller said she couldn't recall the crash and tested negative for alcohol and drugs. He said he would send a detective to South Carolina to try to determine why she was in the Robeson County town.

The Saturn came to a stop two blocks from the crash scene and Hunt said one motorcycle was cut in half.

"We had debris for two city blocks. Motorcycle parts," Hunt said.




:eek:

How long does it take your average Saturn to hit 100 MPH?

any reasonable person can be confident that someone will most likely be killed

Haven't you ever been out on some of the straight/flat rural roads and freeways in the wee hours of the night?

I've been passed over double yellows more than once driving home from work past midnight.

Like it or not, `murder' has a specific legal definition. It generally requires an intent to kill or at least malice.

Driving 100 mph is reckless, certainly, but she probably wasn't deliberately looking to kill somebody. The DA could try to charge her with murder, but the jury would respond with `not guilty'.

Be happy with manslaughter charges. It's usually the best the legal system has to offer.

That's exactly right. She wasn't charged with murder because she didn't commit murder. To commit murder, you have to specifically intend to kill someone. That has to be your purpose in doing whatever act you did. There is a difference between what this woman did and what, say, Lee Harvey Oswald did.

And involuntary manslaughter is not a minor crime - it's a felony that comes with an 8 year prison sentence in my state.

That's exactly right. She wasn't charged with murder because she didn't commit murder. To commit murder, you have to specifically intend to kill someone. That has to be your purpose in doing whatever act you did.

Not always. If you commit a felony and someone dies as a result, whether you intended them any harm or not, then you're guilty of "felony murder". The classic example is a bank robbery gone bad: if someone is killed, then everyone participating in the robbery, even the unarmed getaway driver waiting in the car outside, can be convicted of murder. The only intent that the prosecutor has to prove is the intent to commit the original felony.

For exactly this reason, I'd love to see drunk, distracted, or reckless driving reclassified as a felony on the second offense (since I know the political will doesn't exist to make it that way on the first offense.) Then if the driver injures or kills someone, they can be charged with assault or murder, respectively, and it might actually stick.

Not sure how driving that speed in addition to the drugs and alcohol does not warrant the felony upgrade (which would allow for the murder charge)

:eek:

How long does it take your average Saturn to hit 100 MPH?

A better question is-

Why can you buy a car that will go 100mph? Cars should be limited electronically and mechanically to 70 mph. As a start. Get the foot in the door with vehicle limitations then gradually lower it.

Not always. If you commit a felony and someone dies as a result, whether you intended them any harm or not, then you're guilty of "felony murder". The classic example is a bank robbery gone bad: if someone is killed, then everyone participating in the robbery, even the unarmed getaway driver waiting in the car outside, can be convicted of murder. The only intent that the prosecutor has to prove is the intent to commit the original felony.



Traditionally that's how felony murder worked, but in all states now it only applies if the death occurs while you are committing one of a small number of specified crimes. In my state there are 12 specified crimes, which are generally the ones you would expect - robbery, burglary, ****, kidnapping, child molesting, etc.

In my state, drunk driving causing death comes with a possible 20 year sentence, and there is not usually much difficulty prosecuting these people. (Although the sentence was raised to 20 only a few years ago; previously the max was 8, and for people under age 21, it still is).

But - turning to the issue of bicycling specifically - I don't think that bikers who are victims in MV accidents have problems being treated the same as automobile drivers if the kind of accident in which they were involved could have also killed or injured a person in a car. This is where the lack of equitable treatment comes from.

So the women driving at 100+mph and not braking...will be prosecuted because she could have injured or killed someone in a car by driving like that. Drunk drivers who run over bikers - they'll be prosecuted too, since drunk drivers kill a lot of other drivers, so we need to get them off of the road.

But when a driver's behavior is such that it kills or injures a bicyclist, but wouldn't have been a serious risk to a person in a car, it is *this behavior* that leads to inequitable results. A person driving 30 mph in a suburban area who bends down to pick up a french fry off of the floor, and in so doing veers over and hits a biker...won't be seriously punished, since she probably would have only scratched a car had she veered into it...and plus, she probably would have seen the car, but of course no one sees bikers because they are invisible...

And in pointing out the lack of equal treatment, I don't even mean to argue that what she did should be a crime. Instead, it is often the case that the driver doesn't even receive a ticket.

A better question is-

Why can you buy a car that will go 100mph? Cars should be limited electronically and mechanically to 70 mph. As a start. Get the foot in the door with vehicle limitations then gradually lower it.

If that particular Saturn is like mine, it is already limited by the computer, as mine could go much faster if the computer didn't limit the top speed to 100 mph, even though the engine/transmission is capable of more. I did reach that speed and experienced the computer limit the speed in my Saturn on a flat straight section of road several years ago.

There needs to be some ability to go faster than the speed limit for extreme situations such as passing... plus people won't buy cars that are limited to the speed limit. But, I think there is some validity to a limitation... although there will always be (as there is now) a market for computer modifications to remove the factory limitations.

In the U.S., I can understand wanting a car capable of decent acceleration, but I cannot think of any situation in which one needs to exceed 85mph for safety reasons or to maneuver out of a tight situation. Unfortunately, if the car has enough horsepower for strong acceleration and a high enough top gear ratio for decent highway fuel economy, it will also tend to have a very high maximum speed, absent some sort of governor.

Put four adults in a car that can only go 70 mph, fill the trunk with luggage for a trip, and see what happens as you drive into a headwind. I was lucky to make 40 mph on I-80 heading west after visiting my family back in 2000, and I was by myself in a 4 cylinder Jeep Wrangler.

Put four adults in a car that can only go 70 mph, fill the trunk with luggage for a trip, and see what happens as you drive into a headwind. I was lucky to make 40 mph on I-80 heading west after visiting my family back in 2000, and I was by myself in a 4 cylinder Jeep Wrangler.

What am I supposed to say to this?




GOOD! that is what I say to this.

There is no reason for a car to have the ability to go faster than 70mph. I have said it before, I will say it again. GPS tracking in all cars, GPS speed tracking with automatic fine assessment (i.e. your computer registers you speeding, then fines you, no need for a cop to stop you), and if the fine is not paid or the driver has insufficient funds, then electronic lock down of the car after it's next shut off. COuld be instituted in all new cars in less than 5 years, and require it now for registration of all existing cars. WHo pays? Let the car owner pay.

What am I supposed to say to this?

GPS tracking in all cars, GPS speed tracking with automatic fine assessment (i.e. your computer registers you speeding, then fines you, no need for a cop to stop you), and if the fine is not paid or the driver has insufficient funds, then electronic lock down of the car after it's next shut off. COuld be instituted in all new cars in less than 5 years, and require it now for registration of all existing cars. WHo pays? Let the car owner pay.

No thanks, the government is already enough big brother as it is . Should we also wire tap everyone's phones to make sure they are not plotting the next terrorist attack or otherwise putting society at risk?

Even if you can remove all the speeders from the road, bad drivers will still be bad drivers, and will find ingenious new ways to harm themselves and others. How do you prevent drivers from texting while driving, or prevent a legally blind person from operating a vehicle?

The possibilities are infinite, and it's impossible to provide safety nets for all of them. On the bright side, there is a great thing called natural selection that helps ensure that the dumbest of the dumb do not remain in the gene pool for long.

http://www.thestate.com/136/story/827636.html?storylink=omni_popular



PEMBROKE, N.C. -- A woman driving a car faster than 100 mph jumped railroad tracks in a North Carolina town and slammed into two motorcycles, killing the bikers and injuring a third rider, police said.

Police Chief Dwayne Hunt said the driver of the car never braked late Friday as she sped into the town of Pembroke in a four-door Saturn and lost control, The Fayetteville Observer reported Monday.

The motorcycles were hit as they turned into a gas station lot with other riders. Hunt said 16 people witnessed the crash.

Virginia C. Locklear of Lumberton died instantly, Hunt said. She was a passenger on one bike and the driver was critically injured. Hunt said Marie D. Locklear of Pembroke was alone on the other bike and was killed.

Julie Miller, 40, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, the chief said. She was being held at the Robeson County Jail under $1.25 million bond.

Hunt said Miller said she couldn't recall the crash and tested negative for alcohol and drugs. He said he would send a detective to South Carolina to try to determine why she was in the Robeson County town.

The Saturn came to a stop two blocks from the crash scene and Hunt said one motorcycle was cut in half.

"We had debris for two city blocks. Motorcycle parts," Hunt said.


While the victims were not cyclists, it could have easily happened and the outcome would have been even worse. In this case she was charged with involuntary manslaughter and will probably spend quite a few years behind bars. If only punishments like this are handed down more frequently to motorists who kill cyclists, I feel our roads will gradually become much safer.

Why do you think the manslaughter charge was brought up in this case? Is it because bikers are regarded as more privileged than cyclists, because of the presence of 16 witnesses?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???

Quote:

Julie Miller, 40, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, the chief said. She was being held at the Robeson County Jail under $1.25 million bond.

That sounds almost like the case of the deputy who "fell asleep at the wheel" I don't remember the bail but it wouldn't surprise me IF it was ROR. Or even the "lovely" Ms Thompson who WAS driving under the influence.

What does it take to get the same results for cyclists???

No thanks, the government is already enough big brother as it is . Should we also wire tap everyone's phones to make sure they are not plotting the next terrorist attack or otherwise putting society at risk?

Even if you can remove all the speeders from the road, bad drivers will still be bad drivers, and will find ingenious new ways to harm themselves and others. How do you prevent drivers from texting while driving, or prevent a legally blind person from operating a vehicle?

The possibilities are infinite, and it's impossible to provide safety nets for all of them. On the bright side, there is a great thing called natural selection that helps ensure that the dumbest of the dumb do not remain in the gene pool for long.

Yea. GPS trackers and all that nonsense is a horrible idea. I don't need a babysitter. Besides, speeding is one of the less dangerous things you can do in a car. However, if drivers licenses weren't given out like happy meals toys to anyone who paid, roads would be much safer. I would be willing to pay a ton of money to have my driving skill tested yearly and thoroughly if it meant there would be less sub par drivers on the road. Getting a license should be an indicator of maturity and skill rather than a sign you have turned 16.

As far as natural selection, it doesn't work like it used to. Cars are made today to isolate the driver from everything going on around them. It is pretty hard to die these days while driving a car with 20 airbags and medical advances that can save you from most anything. Chances are, the stupid people will have already have had children before their stupidity kills them.

You really think 'involuntary manslaughter' is enough? I don't think there is anything 'involuntary' about choosing to drive at 100mph.

I think there's two counts of murder here, even if the driver did not specifically intend to kill those people, deliberately choosing to create the circumstances that any reasonable person can be confident that someone will most likely be killed has to be considered murder. Would it be murder if I went around randomly firing a gun at people's houses and killed someone? why isn't it murder if I randomly drive at 100mph and kill someone?

A car still remains the weapon of choice if you want to commit murder with near-impunity.

Good questions, VERY good questions.

No thanks, the government is already enough big brother as it is . Should we also wire tap everyone's phones to make sure they are not plotting the next terrorist attack or otherwise putting society at risk?

Even if you can remove all the speeders from the road, bad drivers will still be bad drivers, and will find ingenious new ways to harm themselves and others. How do you prevent drivers from texting while driving, or prevent a legally blind person from operating a vehicle?

The possibilities are infinite, and it's impossible to provide safety nets for all of them. On the bright side, there is a great thing called natural selection that helps ensure that the dumbest of the dumb do not remain in the gene pool for long.

Ah, yes the Darwin awards. Sadly some recipients have managed to reproduce BEFORE removing themselves from the gene pool. :-(

An NFL player was just sentenced 30 days in jail....yup 30 days...for driving over and killing a man while drunk driving his bentley.
The problem with the laws as they exist today is that they punish people harshly for not doing anything but then very little punishement for doing something serious.

An NFL player was just sentenced 30 days in jail....yup 30 days...for driving over and killing a man while drunk driving his Bentley.
The problem with the laws as they exist today is that they punish people harshly for not doing anything but then very little punishment for doing something serious.

That and IF you are or know someone you get a different punishment then someone who is a "nobody." :-(