Blue Order

Notice the charges...

Driver Rampage

Driver allegedly goes on rampage, injuring four, including two LAPD officers
By Tami Abdollah, Times Staff Writer
11:02 AM PDT, August 1, 2007

A Panorama City man was in custody today after allegedly going on what police described as a 10-minute rampage in which four people, including two LAPD officers, were injured as he attempted to run over several pedestrians and ram police cars.

Jimmy Giron, 26, was visiting his girlfriend about 12:40 a.m. at the Valley Ball Cabaret strip club on Sepulveda Boulevard in North Hills and after a "heated exchange" with her got into his white Dodge van and tried to run over seven pedestrians, authorities said. Two people were struck and were treated at the scene for minor injuries, said Lt. Mario Munoz of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Giron then drove onto the 118 Freeway, leading police officers on a chase, Munoz said. After colliding with another car on the freeway, Giron's car was spun around in the opposite direction but he continued driving, exiting on a nearby on-ramp, Munoz said.

As the pursuit continued on the street, Giron slammed on his brakes and backed into the pursuing patrol cars, injuring two officers, Munoz said. Both were transported to a local hospital, where one was treated for a broken wrist and the other for minor injuries caused by the patrol car's air bag deployment, he said.

Giron "continued his rampage," ramming another police vehicle and attempting to collide with other pursuing patrol cars three times, Munoz said.

Eventually, Giron abandoned his car and tried to flee on foot, but officers managed to apprehend him at Sepulveda and Roscoe Boulevard and take him into custody, Munoz said.

Giron is expected to be charged with four counts of attempted murder on a police officer and six counts of assault with a deadly weapon, Munoz said.

hairyman

So, ramming a police car is "attempted murder on a police officer" but trying to run over pedestrians is only "assault with a deadly weapon"? Sounds like a bit of double standard, eh?

Blue Order

I think they probably made an enhanced crime for assaulting police officers because police work is inherently dangerous.

Anyway, in California intentionally hitting somebody with your vehicle is "assault with a deadly weapon," at least if the D.A. feels like pressing those charges.

donnamb 

What a charming fellow.

SweetLou

Yes, charming, but what does this have to do with safety and advocacy? I guess you posted this to tell us to stay away from lunatics?

Blue Order

I thought it would have been obvious when I mentioned the charges. A recurring theme around here is the failure to appropriately charge drivers who intentionally try to run cyclists off the roads. In this case, the driver didn't receive "Failure to yield" charges (although he also didn't receive "attempted murder" charges.).

SweetLou

And the driver didn't go after a cyclist. Even if he did, how would knowing about a maniac help me to understand about cycling safety or to advocate cycling? This is just a story about an idiot, it could have just as well been about a person killing people with a gun. It has nothing to do with cycling.
As with the charges, I will assume it is much easier to convict this idiot with the assault with a deadly weapon and have the charges stick, than it would be with a driver hitting a cyclist. If your story is true, then it would be obvious that the person was attempting to injure someone and could easily be found guilty of the charges, whereas a driver hitting a cyclist would be much harder to convict, but a "failure to yield" would be easy to convict.

Blue Order

Yes, failure to yield is easier to convict on. And that's the problem-- when cyclists are assaulted, it's not taken seriously enough to charge the driver with a serious offense. The prosecutors go for the low-hanging fruit. And that has everything to do with this forum. When you have more than a handful of posts, you'll see that it's a common theme here, people posting news accounts of cyclists being killed and drivers getting a slap on the wrist.

Berg417448

I suppose it depends upon the law and specific penalty written into the law. In my state attempted murder is really little more than "attempt to commit a felony". Assault with a deadly weapon (aggravated assault in my state) might actually get more prison time.

surly_tourer

What does this have to do with bicycling?

Bushman

+1

Bikepacker67

No offense Blue Order, but this just makes it more apparent that there is a double standard amongst the Boys in Blue regarding aggressive motorists vs. civilians, and aggressive motorists vs. cops.

I have some video of an azzhole trying to run me off the road... if I had had a badge I could have shot the bastahd, no questions asked.

genec

Double standard is just the tip of the iceburg... running over and killing a cyclist is typically either dismissed, as the driver is in "distress," (never mind the cyclist) or reckless driving... which carries about the same fines as littering.

Go figure.

kuan

Gotta love the reporting. Couldn't leave that little tidbit out of there could they?

San Rensho 

Don't you get it? The police charge someone who runs at them in a car with attempted murder, but they rarely charge a car driver with attempted murder when a car intentionally runs over a cyclist.

Usually in this situation, as soon as "Mr. Meth Head visiting his stripper GF at work" makes the first move at the cops, they start blazing at him with all the firepower they have.

SweetLou

Yes, I do get it. I hate the laws that are on the books that say killing a cop is worse than killing a civilian. Also in this post was that the civilian targets were not considered to charge with murder. I think that is awful that there is a double standard. All I was saying is what does the OP have to do with cycling, safety or advocacy? It has nothing to do with it. It was just a crazy person deciding to as much harm/death as possible.

Yes, it is true that I don't have many posts. I usually do not respond, but just read, and I am newer to this forum but do go to another one also (just recently found this one, like it better). I understand about going after low hanging fruit. Like I said, they get what they can get. Why charge someone with a higher degree crime when it is most likely they won't get convicted?

Blue Order

No, you don't get it. If you "got it," you wouldn't have then proceeded to ask:


It's been explained by more than one person here. You still haven't grasped what we're saying.

Blue Order

One more time:

1) This driver intentionally ran down several pedestrians, including police officers. He is being charged with multiple accounts of attempted murder of a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon.

2) We have seen numerous incidents where a driver has run down a cyclist and been charged with nothing more serious than "failure to yield"-- if the driver is charged with anything at all. In a case where the driver didn't intend to harm the cyclist, it's not appropriate to charge the driver with "assault with a deadly weapon," or "attempted murder." However, neither is "failure to yield" appropriate. "Careless driving," or even "reckless driving" if the circumstances warrant, would be more appropriate. Maybe "vehicular homicide" where the cyclist is killed. Not "Failure to yield."

In a case where the driver did intend to harm the cyclist, appropriate charges, such as "assault with a deadly weapon," or "attempted murder," must be filed.

And that is the point of the O.P.: It brings this case to the attention of cyclists. The next time a prosecutor (in California, at least) is being a milquetoast about pressing appropriate charges where a cyclist was intentionally** injured, cyclists have a case they can point to where a driver has been charged with something more serious than "failure to yield."






**It's important for cyclists to understand the difference between an intentional act and a negligent act, in terms of what charges can be brought.

trackhub

One must think like a California defense attorney. To Wit: "This man is the real victim here. The pressures of our society have caused him to act out his misdirected anger in this manner...." Fill in the rest with whatever claptrap you can think of.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they (defense attorneys) will pull some sort of twinkie defense.

genec

Of course a dead cyclist can't tell the DA which occured, and any one commiting an intentional act is likely to only respond with the old "I just didn't see the cyclist."

Helmet Head

Can you cite any cases (or threads discussing such cases) where the evidence clearly shows that the driver intentionally tried to hit the cyclist and was not charged with assault or attempted murder?

genec

the "evidence" may be dead... and certainly the driver ain't gonna confess...

Blue Order

It happens all the time. Here's one. That's not a fatality, and maybe the driver wasn't trying to actually make contact, but he did drive into the cyclist, and it was intentional. HH, drivers intentionally assault cyclists regularly, and police often do nothing about it. That's somewhat understandable when there's no evidence. However, anybody who has read these forums for any length of time is aware of what drivers do. I have no intention of chasing down old posts to prove something to you that we've all seen here.

ukie

Attempted murder charge is a bit too much. Assault with a deadly weapon sounds about right.

Carusoswi

Actually, I think he get's it. The thread has nothing at all to do with cycling or advocacy or safety.

It is a good sign for those subjects, however, since, obviously, BO's cycling world is so safe that he has run out of cycling specific sensationalism to share here, so, he drags in this unrelated, off topic tale that has nothing to do with cycling at all.

I read these threads more for entertainment than safety/advocacy enlightenment these days, since it seems that more and more the forum has become a contest to see who can dredge up the most sensational stories. This one takes the cake in the attempts of the OP and others to somehow manufacture an association between this OT incident and the subject of the forum.

The verbal/mental calisthenics are entertaining to observe, however.

Caruso