Don in Austin

https://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/w...t-with-vehicle

This part of Austin is the pits of hell as far as I am concerned -- particularly at 2:00 AM. Kind of like the French Quarter in N. Orleans during Mardi Gras. Good to see the drunken girl did get busted.

Don in Austin

Doohickie

Underage drunk, no less.

genec

Yup, but time and time again we see that motorists are being busted not for the abuse of cyclists, but for the abuse of some substance. One has to wonder how this might have gone if alcohol was not involved... your typical "oh it was just an accident." Or worse, "well, that's what you get by mixing bikes and cars... "

Time and time we see that cyclists don't fare well, even though they act like drivers of vehicles.

Don in Austin

This was pretty egregious -- hit the pedicab three times! Hard to call that accidental. That part of town is teaming with drunks -- both in cars and on foot -- @ 2:00 AM. Extreme congestion and nothing moving very fast.

Should be attempted homicide, but we can only be glad for whatever we get.

Don in Austin

mnemia

Agree that this should be attempted murder charges, just like it should be whenever motorists intentionally use their vehicle to hit a cyclist or pedestrian. Using a car or SUV to hit someone is no different from indiscriminately firing a gun at them, in my book. I cannot at all understand why police, prosecutors, and courts disagree in cases where there is clear evidence of intent.

dynodonn 

Sounds like a case of a spoiled little girl who wasn't getting her way.

Mom and dad will probably be fronting some big bucks on a lawyer in getting their little girl the lightest sentence possible.

joewey

There seems to be a pretty unhealthy attitude towards cyclists in certain parts of the US.

KD5NRH

Should at least be two counts of aggravated assault and one of AA causing bodily injury; the pedicab operator and the uninjured passenger seem to be getting ignored. Tacking on criminal mischief for any damage to the pedicab itself wouldn't be out of line either.

hotbike

This story is one of the most bizarre stories I have read in many months.

Don in Austin

Exactly! Not going to be easy to put a good spin on her actions in this case, however.

Don in Austin

San Rensho 

I love the comment that says "she didn't do anything wrong because she's hot. Hot chicks are allowed to d whatever they want, everyone knows that."

mnemia

Sad thing is that they might be right, as far as criminal charges and penalties.

Chris516

Can someone say attempted murder.

KD5NRH

Same offense class, and aggravated assault/deadly weapon is easier to prove, since you don't need to show intent to kill.

mnemia

I get that, but how is repeatedly ramming a pedicab with your car not intent to kill? Maybe doing it once could be dismissed as an accident, but the repeated ramming shows that it was intentional. At that point, I don't see how it's much different from using some other weapon like a gun. Could someone repeatedly shoot at someone and then say that they didn't mean for them to die? If not, then why can they get away with that using an SUV as the murder weapon? Are we supposed to believe that people view intentionally hitting someone with their car as unlikely to kill or seriously harm them, or that it's no big deal to use your car as an extension of your fists just because you're frustrated or angry? If that's a widespread view, then society needs to reevaluate its assumptions.

I'm not questioning the legal judgement, but I have to wonder WHY it's so hard to establish intent in these cases. It seems like a problem of erroneous popular assumptions to me.

dynodonn 

No it wont be, but I'm sure that mom and dad will make sure that they will get the best spin for their buck.

ItsJustMe

By simply applying sufficient stupid. "I didn't want to kill him, I wanted to get him to move." She just didn't CARE if he died. Not the same as intending to kill. Prosecutors have to be very careful to only ask for what they know they can prove.

KD5NRH

Actually, in TX, if you actually do kill someone while attempting to only cause serious bodily injury, that's enough to convict for murder. Attempted (unsuccessful) murder does require intent, though.

himespau 

What's that about them getting hit with ice cream right before the attack?

genec

Imagine trying to find a balanced jury for such a case...

Keith99

Let's see, because all but the last were taps? If I punch yuo and kick you in the cajones it does not show intent to kill. Intent to injure yes, not to kill.

Nothing in the story shows intent to kill. Plenty to add Reckles endangerment and a few more things.

Her best chance of getting off is to have attempted murder charges files and a good defense lawyer playing the jury with a theme of her being persecuted.

dougmc

Perhaps, but Austin isn't really such a place. We've got a lot of cyclists here (about double the national average that I can tell) and lots of advocacy going on, and for the most part, motorists treat cyclists appropriately -- it may or may not be "respect", but they yield when they have to (and often when they don't), don't run cyclists over, etc.

Of course, there's exceptions, but I don't think Austin has more of them than other places.

Don in Austin

Hi Doug...

I hesitated even doing the original post, but figured if I didn't someone else would, so why not be first? I'm not sure that what was going on this loser girl's "mind" at the time really had much to do with cyclists. More a general drunken rage. And we don't know if she had a grudge on the passengers in the pedicab or what was the catalyst for the whole thing. What transpired earlier is not very clear or whether or not it involved the owner or occupants of the pedicab.
Of course, when someone is as wasted as she appears to have been, you can't expect anything to make sense.

And yes, Doug, I agree the vast majority of motorists in this town do not want to injure a cyclist. I see a much greater problem with ignorance -- cyclists and motorists equally -- than malice.

Don in Austin

ItsJustMe

I don't think you could even prove intent to cause serious bodily injury here though. She can just say "I wanted him to get out of the way."

mnemia

Right, I understand this, and I agree that given normal assumptions about how a jury would be likely to view the case, it doesn't make strategic sense to go for the greater charge. However, again, I have to ask how this is different from firing a gun at someone who pisses you off in traffic? In the case of the gun, couldn't the person argue the same thing ("I didn't want to kill him; I just wanted to get him to move.")? At some point, we do have to assume that the person likely DID want to kill them, and I think it's somewhat subjective where we draw that line. Most people would probably agree that someone firing a gun at someone is intent to kill, but what I'm saying is that I think that there isn't really a big difference between that and intentionally hitting someone with your SUV. Both are deadly weapons, and both are intentional acts that are meant to seriously harm someone. You could argue in either case that there is no intent to kill, but that argument sounds silly to me. But I recognize that my opinion on this is probably outside the mainstream, since most of the population believes that traffic collisions caused by negligence are mere "accidents" that "could happen to anyone" and that they are some unavoidable fact of life. I disagree, especially when we're talking about an intentional collision with someone in a far more vulnerable position.