View Full Version : $5000 identify murderer in Corvallis Oregon
Bjorn Warloe
08-12-04, 03:58 PM
A bike commuter in Corvallis Oregon was killed by a hit and run driver in Corvallis Oregon on Tuesday August 10th. There is a $5000 dollar reward for information leading to the identification of the murderer. The accident occured at the corner of Mtn. View and Lewisburg drive and the only lead is that the car is believed to be a sedan, dark in color, possibly with front end damage consistent with striking a bicycle. If you have any information please contact either Diana Simpson or Ryan Moody at 541-766-6858.
Bjorn Warloe
madpogue
08-15-04, 10:23 PM
... identification of the murderer. The accident ... It can't be both an accident and murder. Which is it?
Feldman
08-16-04, 09:04 AM
Being a fatal hit and run it should be considered a murder. I wish our legal system wasn't so damn pussified about this!
madpogue
08-16-04, 08:48 PM
Why should it be murder? No other negligent, but not malicious, killing is. It's either negligent homicide or manslaughter. Since the driver left the scene, it's clearly manslaughter. But murder requires malice aforethought, which would be extremely difficult to assert (and, indeed, may not even exist) in this case.
Murder is when it's planned.
I hope what they do if they catch him is make it so that killing someone unintentionally then running away would combine to form a sentence greater than if he had just murdered the person in the first place. Less motivation to run.
Chris L
08-16-04, 09:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the act of running away after the event shows no concern for the welfare of the victim. At best it's reckless, however, I would suggest it's most likely deliberate.
Whether it's and accident, manslaughter, or murder depends only on the course of events leading up to and including the act that results in the death. If the driver intentionally hit the cyclist then it's murder. If the driver was drunk and hit cyclist (even unintentionally) then it is probably criminally negligent homicide (depeding on state law). If the driver misjudged the distance to the cyclist, then it was an accident.
Leaving the scene of the collision is a separate offense. It occured after the cyclist was hit. The driver could very well have accidentally hit the cyclist, paniced, and fled. It would still have been an accident, but the driver would be subject to prosecution for leaving the scene. If the driver was drunk (likely) or intentionally hit the cyclist (unlikely) then the driver may face charges in addition to fleeing the scene.
catatonic
08-16-04, 09:44 PM
it's still manslaughter, since they will most likely not be able to prove there was intent beforehand. Manslaughter is still a massive red mark on your record though, so he's going to feel the pain for quite some time.
madpogue
08-16-04, 10:49 PM
Actually, misjudgment is still negligence. The federal government stopped using the word "accident" to describe traffic crashes years ago, for just this reason. If it's not equipment failure or a road engineering problem, it's something the driver did, and, in effect, upon signing her/his driver's license, promised not to do.
operator
08-16-04, 10:57 PM
If the driver misjudged the distance to the cyclist, then it was an accident.
Rebutted by.
Actually, misjudgment is still negligence. The federal government stopped using the word "accident" to describe traffic crashes years ago, for just this reason. If it's not equipment failure or a road engineering problem, it's something the driver did, and, in effect, upon signing her/his driver's license, promised not to do.
Murder is when it's planned.
No, that's premeditated murder. We can all put our blinders on and call traffic fatalities "accidents"; but we've made a choice as a society to write these deaths off as 'the cost of doing business', hence the euphamism "accidents" to casually dismiss hundreds of thousands of annual sacrificial deaths world wide at the alter of the motor vehicle, in the name of the false gods of 'convenience' and 'mobility'. Murder by automobile is still murder...All very Orwellian if you ask me.... :(
Chris L
08-17-04, 02:42 AM
Murder is when it's planned.
I hope what they do if they catch him is make it so that killing someone unintentionally then running away would combine to form a sentence greater than if he had just murdered the person in the first place. Less motivation to run.
It takes only a split-second to plan something.
It takes only a split-second to plan something.
Like it or not, you have a very jaded view of people sometimes. I'm absolutely 100% sure he didn't think, "oh man there's a cyclist on the side of the road, let me go and kill him! *turns wheel*"
I don't think anyone wakes up in the morning thinking, "alright! I'm pumped, time to run me over some cyclists!"
Actually, misjudgment is still negligence. The federal government stopped using the word "accident" to describe traffic crashes years ago, for just this reason. If it's not equipment failure or a road engineering problem, it's something the driver did, and, in effect, upon signing her/his driver's license, promised not to do.
There's a difference between 'negligent' and 'criminally negligent'. If you are negligent, you get sued for damages. If you are criminally negligent, you also go to jail. Simply misjudging a passing distance and causing an injury is not criminal negligence. To be criminally negligent, you need to be doing something that a reasonable person would foresee being likely to cause the accident. Examples are being drunk or racing. Generally, in the US we do not put people in jail for simply be involved in an automobile accident (or crash if you are into semantics).
brokenrobot
08-17-04, 09:29 AM
Like it or not, you have a very jaded view of people sometimes. I'm absolutely 100% sure he didn't think, "oh man there's a cyclist on the side of the road, let me go and kill him! *turns wheel*"
I don't think anyone wakes up in the morning thinking, "alright! I'm pumped, time to run me over some cyclists!"
Agreed, but I'm absolutely certain that there are times in traffic when drivers make a conscious decision to HIT cyclists, without considering explicitly that to do so might KILL them.
-chris
Police may have located the vehicle involved in the accident.
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/08/14/news/top_story/h-r00.txt
Chris L
08-18-04, 03:16 AM
Like it or not, you have a very jaded view of people sometimes.
I have a very "jaded" view of people all the time. Although I prefer to use the word "cynical". However, regardless of the wording, it's based solely on my observations of human behaviour.
I'm absolutely 100% sure he didn't think, "oh man there's a cyclist on the side of the road, let me go and kill him! *turns wheel*"
Again, it's a question of wording. I've had drivers deliberately swerve at me on numerous occasions, and countless others that may or may not have been deliberate (such as the one this evening, although I think that guy was just a dropkick). As someone else has already mentioned, the intention may well have been to hit the cyclist rather than kill him. However, I challenge anyone on this forum to shoot someone dead, then claim the intent was not to kill but merely to immobilise them. See how far that defence gets you.
I've said on numerous occasions that if I ever decided to kill someone I'd use a car because I'd be able to claim it was an "accident" and get away with it. It looks like someone's been reading my posts. :eek:
madpogue
08-18-04, 09:50 AM
There's a difference between 'negligent' and 'criminally negligent'. If you are negligent, you get sued for damages. If you are criminally negligent, you also go to jail. Simply misjudging a passing distance and causing an injury is not criminal negligence. To be criminally negligent, you need to be doing something that a reasonable person would foresee being likely to cause the accident. Examples are being drunk or racing. Generally, in the US we do not put people in jail for simply be involved in an automobile accident (or crash if you are into semantics). A reasonable person would forsee misjudging distance to be likely to cause a crash (or "accident", if you're into semantics). And you're right; we don't put people in jail for being involved in crashes. We put people in jail for causing crashes and seriously injuring or killing people in the process. There's a guy sitting in a jail cell two floors up from me right now, on a charge of homicide by negligent use of a vehicle. Last night he was reaching for a pack of cigarettes, misjudged the distance to the car in front of him, and drove over it, killing a grandmother and granddaughter. He wasn't drunk or racing or doing anything that "flagrant". He simply used bad judgement, and, appropriately, is facing felony charges.
Note, however, that it's "negligent homicide", which is akin to "manslaughter", but not murder.
A reasonable person would forsee misjudging distance to be likely to cause a crash (or "accident", if you're into semantics). And you're right; we don't put people in jail for being involved in crashes. We put people in jail for causing crashes and seriously injuring or killing people in the process. There's a guy sitting in a jail cell two floors up from me right now, on a charge of homicide by negligent use of a vehicle. Last night he was reaching for a pack of cigarettes, misjudged the distance to the car in front of him, and drove over it, killing a grandmother and granddaughter. He wasn't drunk or racing or doing anything that "flagrant". He simply used bad judgement, and, appropriately, is facing felony charges.
Note, however, that it's "negligent homicide", which is akin to "manslaughter", but not murder.
So, considering that most automobile crashes are caused by some error in judgement, most injury collisions should have one of the drivers going to jail for assault or homicide.
With those odds, I'm glad I started commuting by bike.
By the way, was the guy who was reaching for his cigarettes trying to get them off the floor of his car or somewhere that prevented him from keeping an eye on the road? There's got to be more to that story than just glancing down for a second.
madpogue
08-18-04, 12:18 PM
So, considering that most automobile crashes are caused by some error in judgement, most injury collisions should have one of the drivers going to jail for assault or homicide. Here, it depends on the severity of the injury. If it's just a trip to the hospital, there may be nothing beyond the civil infraction. If it's life-threatening and/or permanent, they call it "injury by negligent use..." (they use the word "injury" instead of "assault". Keep in mind that (1) most traffic crashes don't involve any injuries; fewer still involve serious injury or death, and (2) this only applies when the injured / killed person is not the one found negligent.[/quote]
By the way, was the guy who was reaching for his cigarettes trying to get them off the floor of his car or somewhere that prevented him from keeping an eye on the road? There's got to be more to that story than just glancing down for a second. Yup, the smokes had fallen to the floor. See http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local/index.php?ntid=8572 .
I've said on numerous occasions that if I ever decided to kill someone I'd use a car because I'd be able to claim it was an "accident" and get away with it. It looks like someone's been reading my posts. :eek:
Hey that was my idea, you stole my idea! Don't make me run you over... :p
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.