Jump to content

Opinions on this fatality


Fazerlady
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thank you C-Bus and Scruit for the subjective answers and attempting to understand what I am trying to say. :)

Again, I am not saying she should get off without any punishment! She drove drunk, a definite bad and wrong decision in my book.

If i drink I won't drive, and if I am driving, I won't drink! There, that easy!

I also understand if it would have been my loved one, I wish she would get the worsed punishment. I was simply trying to look at this without my personal emotion.

That brings me to another question. How about if you drive on a suspended license? Is that not breaking the law? There was an article in the DDN a few months back, where a driver only got a CITATION for driving with a suspended license. She actually hit an 6 yr old kid and killed him. A Citation? Seriously?

This on as well broke the law and make a poor choice and did not get charged with anything.... Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishment to fit the crime. Driving drunk is not only against the law but try driving at 2x the limit there most certainly will be a bad result. While driving without a license is against the law it doesn't rise to the level of knowingly driving impaired.

Edited by Slowroller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the guy had been walking down the road, and she hit him, he would have died...because he was not wearing a helmet. The only thing different here is that instead of walking down the road, he was sitting on his motorcycle.

I say fry the bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it said in the article he died of severe headtrauma. No, I don't know 100% he would have lived, but his chances would have been much better, they do not make helmets to keep your head nice and toasty warm. :wtf:

My buddy Kenny died of severe head trauma when a lady turned left in front of him. He was in full gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That brings me to another question. How about if you drive on a suspended license? Is that not breaking the law? There was an article in the DDN a few months back, where a driver only got a CITATION for driving with a suspended license. She actually hit an 6 yr old kid and killed him. A Citation? Seriously?

Another valid question, with a long but precise answer:

When you kill someone with a car it can be anything from an accident to a murder (google Clara Harris). Usually if we hear abotu it in the news it's somwhere beteeen those extremes - where the driver is criminally responsible for the accidental death.

Ohio has 3 levels of criminally responsible accidental death. (in increasing severity) Vehicular Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide and Aggravated Vehicular Homicide.

Vehicular Manslaughter can be charged when the detail was a "proximate result" of violating any traffic offense.

Vehicular Homicide can be charged when the death was caused by negligence, or speeding in a construction zone.

Aggravated Vehicular homicide can be charged when the death was caused recklessly, or reckless operation in a construction zone, or DUI/drugs.

In all of these cases the accident must be the result of a moving offense. If the illegal thing that the person is doing is not a moving offense and/or does not contribute the the accident itself, then the manslaughter/homocide charges should not count. This means that a person who has no insurance will not be charged with VM, VH or AVH in an accident on simply because they had no insurance. Any charge of VM, VH or AVH would have to be based on some traffic offense that caused the accident. Having no insurance (or no license, or invalid tags etc) does not *cause* an accident.

Having no license IS an aggravating factor when deciding the punishment. AVH may be a Felony 3 for a driver with a license, but it could be bumped to a Felony 2 if the driver has no license or was suspended etc. Just like having no insurance is a big factor after a collision. (you can lose your license until you have paid off all the damages)

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.06

Edited by Scruit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I consider myself a safe driver/rider.

But to think that I could make a mistake in traffic, which I am sure everyone has done here, and by some freak possibility I happen to hit a rider that dies b/c he decided not to protect himself as much as he can, scares me.

So are you saying I could go to prison for homicide if the person dies instead of invol manslaughter, or even a much lesser charge if the guy "only' gets injured because he chose to be smart and protect himself?

there is a difference between an honest mistake/accident and getting behind the wheel drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly why I am all for a helmet law!

While I feel extremely sorry for the family of the guy who died, I think it is not right that the driver of the vehicle is charged with vehicular homicide! I do agree with the charges of the DUI.

After all the riders decision to not wear a helmet probably contributed to him passing away due to severe headtrauma. So ultimately this changed the charge from assault (or whatever it would have been had he got hurt if he had worn a helmet) to homicide.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/daytoncourts/entries/2011/07/19/woman_who_struck_motorcyclist.html

I just think that we all have the responsibility to protect ourselves.

Just my opinion.

If you are DUI and cause an accident that kills someone then you get Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Felony 3 or Felony 2.

If the victim survives but is injured then you get Aggravated Vehicular Assault. Felony 3 or Felony 2.

The charges are pretty much identical and the punishments are too. The fact the the rider died only changes the section number that the person is charged under from ORC 2903.06 to 2903.08. The driver is in just as much trouble.

Also requiring helmet so that drivers who crash into us are spared a Homocide charge is totally the wrong reason to require helmets... ;)

In fact, requiring safety gear (or else you lose the protections that are afford to helmeted riders under criminal and civil law) is a slippery slope. What's next? Well, now you MUST wear an armored jacket, leg protection, ankle braces, airbag suit, hydraulic exo-skelton etc.

Blaming the motorcyclst for being vulnerable to a car is the same kind of thinking that has women in other countries wearing canvas tarps and crap like that - lest they inflame the passions of men.

No woman should be told to cover themselves up purely because some men can't control themselves. Similarly, no motorcyclist should be told to cover themselves up purely because some cagers can't drive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying.

I guess what I am looking at, is the severity could have been prevented.

- Yes, if she would have not been drinking, this probably would not have happened.

- Yes, if he would have worn a helmet, he probably would not be dead and it would not be homicide.

If everybody would take responsibility for their lifes, all of this could be prevented.

I don't get why there is a seatbelt law, but not a helmet law. It makes NO sense to me. They are both meant to prevent the severity of injuries in case of an accident!

The accident was survivable without a helmet (wife survived without one), so his choice not to wear one has very limited impact. My guess is that he died from massive trauma which was a result of being struck by the car. So, had shed not been impaired on the road, the collision between her vehicle and his more than likely never would have happened and he would probably still be alive. She CHOSE to get drunk, she CHOSE to get behind the wheel, and she killed someone as a direct result of her poor choices.

I actually wrote a paper in college advocating for the death penalty for intoxicated drivers that kill people while driving. They knew they were going to drink when they went out, so they should haven taken appropriate measures to keep everyone safe. If they didn't know they were going to drink, they surely knew that they drove. The culpible mental state is knowingly. In my opinion, she knew exactly what she was doing from the time she left her home until the minute she chose to get in her car to leave the bar. She knew what she was doing, and she absolutely should have been charged and convicted!

Edited by FZRMatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome input! Thanks on the details of the law.

Wow, a college paper on the death penalty on drunk driver, that would definitely be an interesting read.

I feel like my views on this got shifted a bit through other ppls knowledge of the law and their opinions. I knew I would find ppl that could entertain a discussion.

And btw I KNOW this forum is mostly Assholes,:eek: but contrary to what someone said here i can live with their comments and ignore them... :D

I enjoy this kind of crap, b/c I grew up in a different country and my views are a LOT different than most americans... so there is always food for discussions!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy this kind of crap, b/c I grew up in a different country and my views are a LOT different than most americans... so there is always food for discussions!!!

Which country? I'm originally from England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neat...well I could impress with the countries and states I have been to period, but I have not been many places with the bike...:cool:

Actually, I've been wondering how a case like this would be handled in other countries. From what I know, in Japan such a case would have very serious results. Probably life in prison, for lack of a death penalty. Drunk driving with injuries to another is very serious there. What happens in Germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one:

In Augsburg a drunk driver with 1.78 promille (german is a different measuring unit) would be 0.178 % here in the US, caused an accident that killed an elderly couple as his car hit theirs and they were pushed under an 18 wheeler. He got sentenced for negligent manslaughter and got 16 months in prison, and 30 months revoked license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 229 StGB Fahrlässige Körperverletzung

Wer durch Fahrlässigkeit die Körperverletzung einer anderen Person verursacht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

Translation:

He, who causes bodily injury to another person because of negligence will be sentenced to Prison up to 3 yrs or monetary penalty.

§ 222 StGB Fahrlässige Tötung

Wer durch Fahrlässigkeit den Tod eines Menschen verursacht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

He, who causes death of a person because of negligence will be sentenced to a prison up to 5 yrs or monetary penalty.

If it is a first time offense the offender can get probation, but if alcohol is involved it will most likely be a jail sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...