Street Racing Charge On WBNS 10TV

[Guest GMoney]

Help me understand something.

 

It was stated that Georges wife and neighbor was following behind. Hell that could mean they were participating and encouraging the race by being a chase vehicle?

 

First, I do not wish for George’s wife or neighbor to be charged in this or anyone for that matter, but for all the self proclaimed lawyers on here I would like to here what you have to say about this above statement? They should all be 100% charged as the same as Brandon if you are trying to say guilty by association. They were on site, why? Just cause possibly, the same as Brandon? Or even worse in support of an illegal action?

[Mallard]

I love how he is a street racer and there was a deadly race but yet no one was ever charged with street racing? man I can't stand the media........

 

why could they just state a young man was charged in a deadly accident?

Probably because racing is defined as two cars, side-by-side, in an acceleration contest. In order to prove he was racing at the time of the accident they would need either witnesses or video.

 

However, they could have evidence that he was there at the time, set up a race with George, etc. Probably establishing intent for racing, but it would be hard to prove they were in the act of it at the time.

[TTQ B4U]

First, I do not wish for George’s wife or neighbor to be charged in this or anyone for that matter, but for all the self proclaimed lawyers on here I would like to here what you have to say about this above statement? They should all be 100% charged as the same as Brandon if you are trying to say guilty by association. They were on site, why? Just cause possibly, the same as Brandon? Or even worse in support of an illegal action?

 

my belief is the prosecution is moving forward with what they have in the way of evidence that was able to convince the grand jury that Brandon was likely involved. perhaps they don't have enough to do the same for the wife or nieghbor. one would have to think they would be in the same boat if the prosecutor had the goods on them. they have time though, nothing says charges have to be brought about simulatiously. if something surfaces they will use it.

[Guest tbutera2112]

my belief is the prosecution is moving forward with what they have in the way of evidence that was able to convince the grand jury that Brandon was likely involved. perhaps they don't have enough to do the same for the wife or nieghbor. one would have to think they would be in the same boat if the prosecutor had the goods on them. they have time though, nothing says charges have to be brought about simulatiously. if something surfaces they will use it.

 

 

ide love to see your opinion on this whole matter if it involved someone you cared about

[Mallard]

ide love to see your opinion on this whole matter if it involved someone you cared about

I would say he's been looking at it that way...except he's looking at it as if someone he cared about was the innocent person that got seriously injured, where you're not.

 

If you read the Dispatch article you'll see that the father of the girl injured is an attorney, and I'm sure he has all his T's crossed and i's dotted. I'm sure he's done his homework to help make these charges stick and 11 months of investigation wasn't spent on circumstantial evidence. (I would hope)

[TTQ B4U]

ide love to see your opinion on this whole matter if it involved someone you cared about

 

You are, just on another situation not related to anyone here. Mallard.....bingo.

[TTQ B4U]

This is my brother Tom. He was never the same after the accident, so please, not jokes on his appearance. He was only 32yrs old when he was involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver.

 

(photo removed by me as noted)

 

He was a father of three, a grandfather of two and had to live the remainder of his life with my parents because his family couldn't bear the burden.

 

There's not enought power on my laptop to share what all of us, epsecially my parents have had to deal with as a result of his situation. Thats my son in his arms. My daughter was born on his birthday 2006. Tom passed away July of that same year. He would have been 49 years old this year and never saw the birth of his most recent addtional two grandchildren.

 

There's not a day that goes by that I don't say goodbye to my brother. This thread isn't about me, but since you asked. Say goodbye to him when you shut down for the night. Driving home to his funeral was the roughest ride I've ever made.

 

Again, I never met George nor do I have any ill thoughts of him or Brandon, but you bet I can relate to the situation.

 

I'll likely remove these photos later, and would hope you'll understand. I don't enjoy the subject.

 

(photo removed by me)

[Qtr_pndr]

You are, just on another situation not related to anyone here. Mallard.....bingo.

not to come off like a dick but you are post whoring this thread.

 

never met Brandon and all i can say is hope he holds his head up high and the best of luck to him.

[Guest tbutera2112]

This is my brother Tom. He was never the same after the accident, so please, not jokes on his appearance. He was only 32yrs old when he was involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver.

 

 

He was a father of three and had to live the remainder of his life with my parents because his family couldn't bear the burden. There's not enought power on my laptop to share what all of us, epsecially my parents have had to deal with as a result of his situation. Thats my son in his arms. My daughter was born on his birthday 2006. Tom passed away July of that same year.

 

There's not a day that goes by that I don't say goodbye to my brother. This thread isn't about me, but since you asked. Say goodbye to him when you shut down for the night.

 

Again, I never met George nor do I have any ill thoughts of him or Brandon, but you bet I can relate to the situation.

 

I'll likely remove these photos later, and would hope you'll understand. I don't enjoy the subject.

 

 

 

im sorry for your loss, but crucifying an 18 year old kid because somebody else wrecked their car hurting an innocent person, is wrong... brandon did not make george speed, he did not hold a gun to his head and tell him to drive...george sped on his own, and he lost control

 

i dont see how this relates to what happened with your brother...your brother was hit by a drunk driver, of course the person should be charged... if george would have suvived the accident then i think by all means he should have been prosecuted... but not brandon, he didnt wreck or hurt anyone....forget your lawyer talk that explains why he fits the charges etc, its still wrong to ruin his life because of the mistakes of another person...again im sorry for your loss

[TTQ B4U]

not to come off like a dick but you are post whoring this thread.

 

no....you are coming off as dick, but if debating on a forum is whoring...then so be it. I've surfed my share of useless shit for the night so here I am. If anyone has a problem with any member here standing up for something they believe in, then perhaps they are the one with a problem.

 

i dont see how this relates to what happened with your brother...your brother [

 

I'm not saying there's a 1:1 correlation. I posted my brothers situation to address your comment in response #179.

 

but not brandon, he didnt wreck or hurt anyone <snip> its still wrong to ruin his life because of the mistakes of another person

 

you and others feel he didn't, the law doesn't and I reserve my opinion. So far as ruining Brandon's life.....no one....not the prosecutor, police or anyone is ruining his life. They didn't put these events in motion....but they are seeking accountability by those that did as justice for those impacted.

 

What happened that night and the subsequent events were not put into motion by anyone other than George, Brandon, his wife, the neighbor and perhaps others we dont' know about....but no one else is to blame for ruining his life.

 

If anyone ever stands up and tells a judge not to impose sentence on them as result of a charge they are facing because he will be ruining their life.....hold on tight as you WILL get an earful on accountability. I've seen that happen in open court and it isn't pretty. There are no glass bubbles around any of us and with freedom comes responsibility.

[DOLLAR BILL]

I'm looking at it as a father.....if my son or daughter were killed by I'd go after everyone that contributed. Both of them were involved in the race. Charges don't follow cars that are smashed; the follow those that were involved in the situation.

 

If he was coming home from a bar drunk, the bar tender and establishment are both going down too....different law, but another one that I agree with.

X2

[DOLLAR BILL]

no....you are coming off as dick, but if debating on a forum is whoring...then so be it. I've surfed my share of useless shit for the night so here I am. If anyone has a problem with any member here standing up for something they believe in, then perhaps they are the one with a problem.

 

 

 

I'm not saying there's a 1:1 correlation. I posted my brothers situation to address your comment in response #179.

 

 

 

you and others feel he didn't, the law doesn't and I reserve my opinion. So far as ruining Brandon's life.....no one....not the prosecutor, police or anyone is ruining his life. They didn't put these events in motion....but they are seeking accountability by those that did as justice for those impacted.

 

What happened that night and the subsequent events were not put into motion by anyone other than George, Brandon, his wife, the neighbor and perhaps others we dont' know about....but no one else is to blame for ruining his life.

 

If anyone ever stands up and tells a judge not to impose sentence on them as result of a charge they are facing because he will be ruining their life.....hold on tight as you WILL get an earful on accountability. I've seen that happen in open court and it isn't pretty. There are no glass bubbles around any of us and with freedom comes responsibility.

X2

[V8 Beast]

You really need to calm the fuck down seriously. If he continues like this please ban me before it gets out of hand. Obviously you are missing the big picture here. Emotions are running high. If you do not like what I say come see me!

 

Not worth it Steve, they are just key strokes on a screen from a hurt and pissed off person.

 

 

Ignore it.

[Sam1647545489]

my belief is the prosecution is moving forward with what they have in the way of evidence that was able to convince the grand jury that Brandon was likely involved. perhaps they don't have enough to do the same for the wife or nieghbor. one would have to think they would be in the same boat if the prosecutor had the goods on them. they have time though, nothing says charges have to be brought about simulatiously. if something surfaces they will use it.

 

 

The only evidence they have is what Georges wife is saying and what the other people are saying. There is no video or anything of them driving on the street that night. So if what you say is true then all Brandon would have to say is that Georges wife was racing them as well so they need to be charged as well?

[BDHG940]

im not going to read though all of the thread but I feel bad for whoever Brandon is and hope he has the money for a decent lawyer. Sounds like he is getting Fu%#ed and if he is going down there are others that were there that should be going down as well

[neonkiller]

Originally Posted by pdqgp

I'm looking at it as a father.....if my son or daughter were killed by I'd go after everyone that contributed. Both of them were involved in the race. Charges don't follow cars that are smashed; the follow those that were involved in the situation.

 

If he was coming home from a bar drunk, the bar tender and establishment are both going down too....different law, but another one that I agree with.

 

Are you off your rocker?...

 

So since I mount up tires all day long and any one who uses such tires during a crime I am liable such as street racing?

 

 

Looking for someone to blame is not the way to deal with a loss.

 

If a bartender does not know you are drunk nor does he know what your gonna do after you leave he shoul not be liable.

 

Maybe we should start arresting teachers that had the kids from columbine in there classes since they taught them and did not see what was coming "God rest there souls"

 

But that way of thinking is pathetic.

 

Cause and effect.

 

I watched my best friend pass away on his BMX bike. The prosecuters found out the lady was drinking that hit him, they knew where, when and what time. They only went after her, Not the bartender. Why cause she was soley responsible for that vehicles actions.

[TTQ B4U]

The only evidence they have is what Georges wife is saying and what the other people are saying. There is no video or anything of them driving on the street that night. So if what you say is true then all Brandon would have to say is that Georges wife was racing them as well so they need to be charged as well?

 

I don't believe at this point we know what all the evidence is. The defendant and his attorney aren't privy to what the prosecutor has in the way of witness testimony or evidence as he prepares the case for the grand jury.

 

Of course during trials there is is full disclosure, but up to this point, the DA was forming his hand and didn't have to share anything. Some news of a video they may have been making was leaked by the media, but I it was also leaked that the police don't have it. Again, truth or fiction...who knows. They may not have a tape, but a witness could have testified that there was one....you won't know for sure until trial. The DA is likely sharing what he wants to share as part of his plan. For all we know he has more or has less....but he obviously has enough to have convinced a grand jury to bring Brandon up on charges on three seperate counts, so he has something. He's not going to lose on all three points that's pretty much certain. Just look at his track record. He's good.

 

So far as others being chraged, it's up to the DA. It's not a matter of weather Brandon simply says this, that or the other....the DA won't move on it unless he feels the Grand Jury will bite and his case solid. He won't put himself in that position, especially if he feels one defendant is playing himself off another person or is simply just saying things for the hell of it.

 

Wish I knew more or more for certain. I'm just sharing what I believe to know as having been around this stuff a lot.

[STEVE-O]

shanton is right

 

Otherwise you could not have, say more tha one or two drinks at a bar because for some smaller people like young girls etc. they cant handle anymore without being imaprred. SO should there be a limit of 2 drinks at a bar for everyone? no

 

And I have a family member who went through something and if you drink at a bar at all and wreck they dont care of the amount they just see you ahd alchohol in your system and thats enough to chage you even more.

[TTQ B4U]

Are you off your rocker?...

So since I mount up tires all day long and any one who uses such tires during a crime I am liable such as street racing?

 

Let's say you did that and someone died.

 

1. even if you put slicks on a car, they would have to prove you knew that person was going to drag race on the street and even that would be a stretch since putting the tires on is further from the act of killing someone...the race itself is one step closer and is the point at which the law was broken, thus when the crime was put in motion. /case....you're clear.

 

2. the DA would have to prove your mounting slicks was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life. Not true /case...you're clear again.

 

3. here too, the DA would have to convince a jury that mounting slicks to a persons car would likely be a threat to the lives of others or you knew that the circumstances that could reasonably be a threat to the lives of others.

 

Now this point can be made a little gray....say if you mounted slicks on a car of someone who had previously been convicted of a felony for a similar crime and you were aware of that. If you have a felony on your record...wouldn't help you either.....but again, points 1 & 2 are cleared so you'd likely walk.

 

Make sense?

 

 

Looking for someone to blame is not the way to deal with a loss.

 

Brandon's not on trial to help others deal with a loss. He's on trial because the DA and a Grand Jury of people feel there is probable cause that he was involved and that he needs to be held accountable for his involvement. The justice system isn't set up for the family of the victim(s) to deal with loss or get even. They don't even have a say as to weather he's brought up on charges.

 

If a bartender does not know you are drunk nor does he know what your gonna do after you leave he shoul not be liable.

 

I said it a few pages back that this needs to be another topic. It's actaully been beat to death in the courts so it's not even worth debating but okay....

 

Maybe we should start arresting teachers that had the kids from columbine in there classes since they taught them and did not see what was coming "God rest there souls"

 

I've not read up on nor did I follow that case in detail, so I can't comment. However, the courts are looking at the responsibility of parents who's kids bring guns to school.

 

I watched my best friend pass away on his BMX bike. The prosecuters found out the lady was drinking that hit him, they knew where, when and what time. They only went after her, Not the bartender. Why cause she was soley responsible for that vehicles actions.

 

why? don't know...every single case is different. there's endless possiblities. Call the prosecutor and set up a meeting and find out.

[TTQ B4U]

shanton is right. Otherwise you could not have, say more tha one or two drinks at a bar because for some smaller people like young girls etc. they cant handle anymore without being imaprred. SO should there be a limit of 2 drinks at a bar for everyone? no

 

why is it that you think there's a hard and fast right or wrong you can or can't rule to this issue? the legality or likely hood of a grand jury indictment isn't based on how many drinks you, me or shanton can handle.

 

he's not correct...if a 300lb guy and a 100lb women both have 3 drinks and kill two seperate people that same night, the jury may find the bartender guilty on one count and not guilty on the other.

 

why?...again, beat this in another post....but they are going to say that it's not likely as clear for him to see a 300lb guy who was maybe .04 as impaired as easily as it would be for him to have seen a 100lb girl at likely .08+ as impaired.

 

same rules apply....

 

1. was someone killed...yes

 

2. Second, was the bartender serving three drinks to a 100lb women either by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life? don't know...maybe not dangerous.....but what if he's busy, simply not paying attention to the condition of his patrons, maybe he's hooking-up a guy nearby hitting on the girl.....possibly reckless? maybe.....I'd say a grand jury might bite on that one too.

 

3. As bartender, someone who is by trade and likely experience level able to make better judgements than the average lay-person on the effects of 3 drinks on a 100lb woman?....were his actions a threat to the lives of others or should he have known that the circumstances could reasonably be a threat to the lives of others? I'd say yes.

 

1-2-3, he's likely going to face charges. If the bar owner isn't training his bartenders to recognize this or card people or hiring cheap labor who can't recognize the effects or if he tells he people not to worry about it...then of course they are accountable too.

 

This whole issue is compounded and made a slippery slope by the very nature that both the establishment and bartenders make their living from serving alcohol and knowingly doing so to a large number of people who will be driving moments later.

 

What's bullshit is for anyone to think that either or both can have a double standard...serve alcohol, impair peoples judgement, make money and then NOT be accountable for doing so? I think not. Thankfully, most law makers believe in accountability and we DO have such laws. Again, there are no glass bubbles shielding folks to say the other guy is solely responsible for their own actions. That's not how it works folks.

 

Again, the above doesn't mean his guilty....only that there's probable cause and that he's going to face trial.

 

If you ever see a bartender give someone a last call shot and the guy downs it and walks out to his car....slap the bartenders and tell him what he just exposed himself/herself too.

 

And I have a family member who went through something and if you drink at a bar at all and wreck they dont care of the amount they just see you ahd alchohol in your system and thats enough to chage you even more.

 

yep...they are going to have gone after your familiy member and rightfully so. now why didn't they go after the bar or the bartender?.....likely the law didn't allow them to or require them to based on what crime your familiy member was found guilty of. If they killed someone, I know for a fact in Ohio they will go after them. Perhaps your family should have had the attorney look into going after them for something in the way of a civil matter. I bet there would have been a settlement. Especially if the establishment has/had money.

[supldys]

yep...they are going to have gone after your familiy member and rightfully so. now why didn't they go after the bar or the bartender?.....likely the law didn't allow them to or require them to based on what crime your familiy member was found guilty of. If they killed someone, I know for a fact in Ohio they will go after them. Perhaps your family should have had the attorney look into going after them for something in the way of a civil matter. I bet there would have been a settlement. Especially if the establishment has/had money.

 

I have to totally disagree with you on this. I didn't read any other post in this thread so I have no context but why should the bartender be guilty of anything?

They can offer to call cabs,but ultimately can they stop the drinker from going to his car? I dont think they can take the persons keys (especially if its the 300lb guy), so they can call the cops but how long does that take?

Saying the bartender is guilty of selling a drink in a bar is saying a geek at best buy is guilty of selling a computer to a pedophile. Or a gun shop owner is guilty of selling a gun to a guy who goes out and shoots someone. Yes they all have their requirements to check (ID,Credit,Background, whatever) but it is always the customers responsibility to use the item correctly and within the law.

Now this all changes if the bartender sells the guy 10 beers and hands him his keys and says your ok to drive, get out of my bar. But I dont think thats what you're talking about.

[2wheels4]

well if he was involved and contributed to the cause, then I would say he is at fault.

 

if you and another guy go into a bank and the other guys shoots and kills someone, you'll go down too.

 

I think this is a matter of the girls family looking for justice. Once this gets completed, there will most definitely be a civil case. She'll likely need millions $$ for the remainder of her medical costs/life.

 

 

 

That is neither correct, nor intelligent. You fail. Hard.

 

Edit: The part about the girl's family wanting cash and that they will sue if he gets convicted is 100% correct. Everything else you said was bullshit though...

[V8 Beast]

That is neither correct, nor intelligent. You fail. Hard.

 

We touched on that. The bank robber shooting someone else is a lot different than the bank robber shooting himself. If a bank robber shoots himself during a burglery and harms another person the other criminal is typically blamed for the injuries of the innocent, but not for the death of the other bank robber.

 

A good lawyer would be able to make the prosecution feel stupid for even attempting to make a case out of this. If the trial is fair it doesnt have a leg to stand on. The only reason this is even able to go to trial is that the laws are left open to allow the courts room to interpret them based on individual matters. If the law was too specific it would allow people that should be held accountable room to get away... Lets just hope its a fair trial.

[neonkiller]

Let's say you did that and someone died.

 

1. even if you put slicks on a car, they would have to prove you knew that person was going to drag race on the street and even that would be a stretch since putting the tires on is further from the act of killing someone...the race itself is one step closer and is the point at which the law was broken, thus when the crime was put in motion. /case....you're clear.

 

2. the DA would have to prove your mounting slicks was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life. Not true /case...you're clear again.

 

3. here too, the DA would have to convince a jury that mounting slicks to a persons car would likely be a threat to the lives of others or you knew that the circumstances that could reasonably be a threat to the lives of others.

 

Now this point can be made a little gray....say if you mounted slicks on a car of someone who had previously been convicted of a felony for a similar crime and you were aware of that. If you have a felony on your record...wouldn't help you either.....but again, points 1 & 2 are cleared so you'd likely walk.

 

Make sense?

 

 

 

 

Brandon's not on trial to help others deal with a loss. He's on trial because the DA and a Grand Jury of people feel there is probable cause that he was involved and that he needs to be held accountable for his involvement. The justice system isn't set up for the family of the victim(s) to deal with loss or get even. They don't even have a say as to weather he's brought up on charges.

 

 

 

I said it a few pages back that this needs to be another topic. It's actaully been beat to death in the courts so it's not even worth debating but okay....

 

 

 

I've not read up on nor did I follow that case in detail, so I can't comment. However, the courts are looking at the responsibility of parents who's kids bring guns to school.

 

 

 

why? don't know...every single case is different. there's endless possiblities. Call the prosecutor and set up a meeting and find out.

 

Well I am guilty, I mount up tons of tires and customers say they will race on them, Dunno where, dunno why, Dont even care.

 

I Guess maybe the people who make cheater slicks AKA street/drag use should be up for grabs also.

 

Your statements are weak and I am sticking to my opinion on what should be done. Going after someone else that had nothing to do with his cars action is not the way the DA should go.

[Twistedrx7]

Shanton

 

Let's say you mount up slicks on someones wheel. The tire clearly states that they are for off road use only. Now, This person drives off with the slicks mounted on the vehicle. You know that they are not being transported off of the car, but mounted onto the car itself. If they get into an accident and possibly kill someone, you will be held accountable.

 

For one it is illegal.

 

Two you mounted them knowing it was illegal to use on the street.

 

Now, as far as going after GM and NOS and all the other BS companies for aftermarket parts. They clearly state for OFF ROAD USE ONLY. Thus, that is there way out of any charges being brought against them.