I am sure we can all think of cases where a rich person manages to get treated differently and rather well by the legal system where most of us would be screwed.
This, however, seems to really take the cake. So much so I’d suggest the DA should be prosecuted for gross negligence in his duties.
I have a damn good idea what would happen to me if I hit someone as above and fled the scene and it wouldn’t be getting my charges reduced to a misdemeanor because it might affect my job.
Bet hey! If it is a good job then no worries right?
Tired of there being two justice systems. Either let me go the next time I am accused of hitting someone or take the other guy to court and let it be decided like it is for most everyone else in this country.
I don’t give a rat’s ass how rich you are or I am.
Wow. That is pretty much bullshit. I’m pretty sure a felony charge would affect anyone’s ability to pay restitution as long as they have a fucking job. I can’t think of a single job I’ve had in my adult life where a felony conviction would have been okay.
Jebus H. Keerist on a crutch, this crap really pisses me off.
I starting riding a bike again for transportation last spring. My car is a P.O.S. and I’m trying to make it last as long as possible. I’ve ridden 2000 miles so far this year.
As part of riding again, I’m reading bike news and bike blogs. You would be astonished as how freakin’ many people hit cyclists and Just. Drive. Away, sometimes dragging the bike under their car. And almost NOBODY gets charged for it.
It scares the crap out of me sometimes, because I ride on city streets and roads. There’s not all that much cycle-specific infrastructure here. I use it when it’s available. And yes, I stop at red lights and generally stay as far to the right as possible/practical, but I take the lane when I have to.
And I am freakin’ SICK of rich people getting passes like this. Jeezopete.
I’m sure the following salient points will be dismissed and I’ll just be yelled at for supporting rich guys, but here goes anyway:
It is not clear from the article that the actual elements of the felony charge are present in the case.
Assuming the elements of the felony charge are present, it looks like the judge has a choice between (i) imposing the felony charge and seriously hurting the defendant’s ability to pay restitution and (ii) imposing a misdemeanor charge and not hurting the defendant’s ability to pay restitution. Choosing (ii) doesn’t seem all that horrible to me.
Of course the choice presented above would be present only in the case of wealthy defendants–broke defendants wouldn’t have the ability to pay restitution in any event.
I don’t think the victim is thinking this through all that well. When he gets that big-ass check (without having to sue a bankrupt defendant or attempt to levy against his assets), I’m fairly confident he’ll stop his whinging about the guy only being charged with a misdemeanor.
Just thought of an issue not covered in the article or my post above–I’m not sure how the defendant’s insurance coverage will/should play into this. It seems like a standard liability policy would cover the restitution, meaning that the felony charge wouldn’t hurt his ability to pay. Maybe the amount of he restitution is in excess of the coverage.
Are you sure that’s a complete listing of all elements of the felony charge?
You are assuming that you know what it means for an accident to “result in” “serious bodily injury.” The law doesn’t work that way–you can’t read an article saying the dude had “spinal cord injuries” and then think “yep, the accident definitely resulted in serious bodily injury.” Well, you can if you want to, but it’s an idiotic thing to do.
Here’s what the DA says:
I’m sure you’ll understand if I take the word of someone extremely familiar with the relevant law and facts over yours. But thanks for sharing.
You might have a point there. If it’s a choice between maximizing the hitter’s punishment, and maximizing the restitution to the hittee, it makes some sense to choose the latter.
Still, even if that’s the deal, I’d feel better about it if the victim himself weren’t “livid” about the decision.
Granted it needs to be proven the guy indeed hit the cyclist but that is why you go to court. Let the facts be presented and let the chips fall where they may. As presented the guy sure looks like he did it but again, let the court decide that as they are supposed to.
If the guy is rich I would presume he has the ability to pay restitution. That Mercedes alone is worth a lot. Doubtless he has insurance. Betting the guy has a nice house. Also betting he has money saved and investments. All of which can be gone after.
This basically says if you are rich you can buy your way out of jail. If you are poor tough luck. You are ok with that?
If I got run over I would want restitution and I’d also want justice. As mentioned I am sure there is plenty you can get from a guy like this if money is your only motivation and still get him busted.
ETA: See I was beaten to the cite on the law. Answered the phone while typing and didn’t preview. Not trying to re-state what was already said.
I believe bleeding from the brain is generally considered ‘life threatening’, and spinal cord injuries represent a ‘substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment’.
“Milo suffered spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula, according to court documents. Over the past six weeks he has suffered “disabling” spinal headaches and faces multiple surgeries for a herniated disc and plastic surgery to fix the scars he suffered in the accident.”
If that is not serious bodily harm then the term is meaningless.
ETA: <<Shakes fist at Johnny L.A. for beating me again>>
Great. No need for all those bothersome courts and lawyers and what-not, we’ll just get Johnny L.A. and Whack-a-mole to (i) read an article describing the facts, (ii) read the relevant statute online, and (iii) fully and finally determine whether the defendant is guilty.
