Driver won't face criminal charges

Post and Courier ^ | Wednesday, May 19, 2010 | David Slade

[chris_bdba]

Sound like their police dept doesn’t like motorcyclist very well? Lets see what happen when one of their motorcycle cops gets involved in one of these “accidnets” bet they will be charged much differently!

[K-oneTexas]

Me neither. Something stinks in Denmark. Or closer to home anyway.

It makes no sense. Involuntary manslaughter at the very least I would think. But then again maybe the Grand Jury would not return a ‘true bill’.

I don’t know, but like you I am just not getting it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

hey

[-YYZ-]

I understand that fender benders will happen, and I don’t believe they should result in serious criminal or motor vehicle charges. However, when you’re so inattentive that you slam into stopped traffic at full speed, a careless driving charge should be automatic. I was almost killed some years ago on a highway when the guy behind us failed to notice that traffic ahead of him had almost come to a stop - we were doing about 10 or 15 mph - and slammed into us doing 65 or 70. He DID get charged with careless driving.

[HiTech RedNeck]

One of the bikers was fairly elderly (80); this does not sound like your typical rabble rousing gang that the locals would sooner see gone.

[downtownconservative]

Because he wasn’t under the influence and because he wasn’t on a cell phone (I wonder?) but simply inattentive, he didn’t break any law that rises to the level of felony.

If he had been racing or involved in road-rage, maybe they could have elevated his charge to manslaughter. You can’t charge him for murder for just being an idiot because the law just doesn’t cover that very well.

Now had he shot someone accidentally, maybe that would be a different story.

[K-oneTexas]

As I said, I’m just not getting it.

Something isn’t being told here. I don’t think all the facts are out.

if they are, well still ... somethings wrong.

[Cicero]

Usually rear-ending a stopped car is considered a very obvious offense. You are supposed to keep enough space between you and the car ahead so you can stop if they do.

There can be mitigating circumstances, such as someone slamming on the brakes for no reason, but even then the driver behind is usually penalized.

This sounds like negligent homicide to me.

[DJ MacWoW]

He ran full speed into vehicles stopped for a light and never tried to stop, killing two people and injuring a 3rd. That is NOT a “minor traffic offense”.

[thefactor]

No. You have to take in the totality of the circumstances. Does the guy look drunk? Is he slurring? Do you smell booze? See empty bottles? This was 1130 in the AM. Sometimes accidents happen. Maybe he was setting his radio stations. Who knows?

[DJ MacWoW]

Charging drivers with minor traffic offenses seems to be sop in SC, even when it includes a death.

[HiTech RedNeck]

A possible factor that would mitigate the traffic offense would be a large vehicle between the SUV and the bikes, traveling at a significant speed, blocking the view of the traffic light and the bikes, and which dodged into an adjacent lane at the last second to reveal the stopped traffic and the red light. This happened to a friend of my sister in law, who was caught unawares like this, fortunately it only resulted in minor injuries.

[DJ MacWoW]

That doesn't seem to be the case.

but Gragg said he had no information as to why McDonald did not notice the motorcycles and cars stopped at the red light.

[longtermmemmory]

They are calling it an “accident” not a crash.

I wonder how connected the driver was to rear end and kill someone and get away with it.

[DJ MacWoW]

I thought that the driver might be connected too but the article says that this is standard operating procedure.

[Eagle Eye]

Tail ending at 45 mph in broad daylight isn’t enough??

[23 Everest]

There doesn’t seem to be any provision in most traffic codes for collisions with particularly “vulnerable” vehicles such as motorcycles or tiny econoboxes. If instead of the bikes, it was an SUV sitting at the red light, and a similar vehicle going a little too fast for conditions slid into the SUV, probably nobody would have been hurt and we’d see a very minor traffic charge.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

What if your a pedestrian? And let's just say you're in a crosswalk. If it were my relatives killed you can be sure a manslaughter charge would be forthcoming.

[downtownconservative]

I agree, but the actual traffic infraction (inattention and failure to control) would have just gotten him traffic court. What if he had just seriously injured them? How would you want that to be handled?

Yesterday, a police office accidentally shot and killed a little girl trying to arrest a felon. He’s ostensibly an expert with a firearm, yet the unthinkable happened. He should not go to jail for this, but the city will be sued, no doubt.

This driver isn’t an expert. His recompense will come in the form of a multi-million wrongful death dollar law suit.

[downtownconservative]

I agree, but the actual traffic infraction (inattention and failure to control) would have just gotten him traffic court. What if he had just seriously injured them? How would you want that to be handled?

Yesterday, a police office accidentally shot and killed a little girl trying to arrest a felon. He’s ostensibly an expert with a firearm, yet the unthinkable happened. He should not go to jail for this, but the city will be sued, no doubt.

This driver isn’t an expert. His recompense will come in the form of a multi-million dollar wrongful death law suit.

[thefactor]

Not really. Inattentiveness and utter stupidity just isn’t a crime. Could be a traffic violation, but not a crime that requires arrest. People assume certain risks when they venture out on the roads. The biggest risk being other drivers.