Driver ordered to stand trial in electrocution deaths

[TokyoBayer]

@TriPolar

The danger from a downed pole is also a foreseeable consequence when trying to help the person who crashed his car into it. It might be a tough call in the end, depending on the law that would apply. I don’t have any problem with throwing the book at him though.

Which is exactly what his attorney is arguing, and what other experts have said about the case, that this would be brought up by the defense.

Samsonian’s attorney, Andrew Flier, didn’t argue that his client may have been driving recklessly on Magnolia, but said there was no way to know that the “intervening acts” would occur once he turned onto Ben and crashed.

The defense attorney also argued that the people on the scene should have known the inherent dangers associated with downed power lines and standing water.

I found this comment.

Prosecutors need to “be able to argue that there’s a close enough connection between whatever this young man did behind the wheel of the car and these two women ending up dead, that you can say there’s a legal nexus, that there’s a cause and effect,” CBS2/KCAL9 legal analyst Steve Meister said.

His attorney is claiming that

Flier said there were a series of unseen, independent acts that led to the deaths of Zamora and Schreiber.

We’ll see.

[madsircool]

@TokyoBayer

IANAL, but second degree murder requires intent. That doesn’t seem possible under the circumstances to prove that.

He is facing vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, which he could face several years in prison.

This is the streethe was turning onto when he lost control. Had he navigated the turn he still clearly he should not have been going that fast down that narrow of a street.

The OP is overly sympathetic.

IIRC, the drunk driver who killed Angels rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart and friends was convicted on 2nd degree murder. (Cant check eight now). Hope the driver gets significant jail time.

[Dewey_Finn]

It’s not as if the bystanders walked into the path of visibly sparking power lines from an overhead power pole. The power lines were the ones that powered the light pole and were just sticking out of the ground. And it was night, and since the street light was down, clearly dark. So I can understand that they didn’t see these wires at street level. So I don’t buy the defense argument.

[ducati]

@TokyoBayer

The OP is overly sympathetic.

Man, I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but sympathetic isn’t one of them.

I certainly support cutting his legs off and tossing him in a cell forever just due to his driving, but I believe foreseeing someone getting zapped as they save your sorry ass is difficult at best.

I’m not arguing the law; I just don’t/didn’t see how it applies…

[miss_elizabeth]

@colander

I can think of situations where I might have trouble justifying holding this guy responsible for his rescuer’s injuries, sure. If they’d been caused by a freak roadway meteor strike, for example, because who expects that to happen? But this dude was driving recklessly on streets that he had to know were lined with electrified cables, and it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that smacking into one of those might lead to trouble.

As usual, colander has posted what I wanted to say, but better.

[TokyoBayer]

@ducati

Man, I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but sympathetic isn’t one of them.

I certainly support cutting his legs off and tossing him in a cell forever just due to his driving, but I believe foreseeing someone getting zapped as they save your sorry ass is difficult at best.

I’m not arguing the law; I just don’t/didn’t see how it applies…

Saying things such as “tough crowd” in the OP because he’s being charged with manslaughter isn’t an indication of sympathy? OK, you and I have different definitions of that term. Were this simply be an accident which didn’t involve gross negligence, then it would be different.

As quoted in my previous post, the question if it’s manslaughter or not depends if there is a causal relationship between his actions and the death. If a person robs a bank and a police officer crashes his car rushing to the scene, then this falls under felony murder.

Finally, the felony-murder rule may lead to murder charges even when a death occurs that is logically connected to a felony . . . but not directly caused by any of the people involved in committing the felony!

For the felony-murder rule to apply in this sort of situation, the following elements must be proven:

(. . .)

The cause of death and the felony/attempted felony were part of one continuous event: AND

There was a logical connection between the felony and the death (this means something more than the death just happening to occur at the same time and place as the felony).

The defense is claiming that actions were not part of one continuous events, which IMHO, doesn’t see to logically follow and then will likely claim that deaths should have avoidable. However, given the statement that it was dark and with the confusion, the people who attempted rescue may not have known that.

As **Cheesestake ** conjectures, if the power pole he had knocked down happen to fall on the street and and passing motorist stuck it, dieing as a result, I doubt that you would be arguing against manslaughter charges, even though the there wouldn’t be anyway of exactly forecasting which direction the pole fell.

@madsircool

IIRC, the drunk driver who killed Angels rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart and friends was convicted on 2nd degree murder. (Cant check eight now). Hope the driver gets significant jail time.

The internets appear to say there are specific laws which define that.

Someone can be prosecuted for murder in California if he drives while intoxicated and causes an accident that kills another person.

DUI second-degree murder (otherwise known as a “Watson murder”) is the most serious of the California felony DUI charges.1 Unlike Penal Code 191.5 PC vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated…which involves ordinary or gross negligence2…Watson murder involves allegations of implied malice or malice aforethought. Simply put, “malice aforethought” means a conscious disregard for human life3.