That can be the government waste the republicans say they want to reduce. Someone call the presumptive speaker of the house!
What i find most troubling about this situation is this comment from the prosecutor:
This assumes that the guy currently has no assets that could be used to pay a civil judgment against him, and that he requires ongoing income in order to pay such a judgment.
We’ve learned from the story that he manages over $1 billion in assets. Now, i’m no expert on the financial industry, but i’d be very surprised if that guy earns anything less than a pretty substantial six-figure income. I’d also be pretty damn surprised if he didn’t have a decent investment portfolio of his own, as well as a good chunk of equity in a nice house, and possibly additional property.
If the DA doesn’t think a felony charge is warranted by the circumstances of the actual incident, that’s one thing. But to push it aside just because it might affect the guy’s ability to pay restitution is ridiculous. It’s especially ridiculous if the guy does, indeed, already have substantial assets that could be used to pay a judgment.
mhendo, you’ve discussed assets. Is there perhaps another side of the equation that may be relevant here?
The prosecutor dropped the charges to a misdemeanor because it would jeopardize the guy’s job.
The prosecutors said that.
That is reason enough to drop charges to a slap on the wrist for a hit and run that caused serious injury? (And I am willing to bet the injuries as reported are a matter of record)
The prosecutor also said this:
“We had been talking with them about this misdemeanor disposition for a while now,” Hurlbert said. “The misdemeanor charges really are what he did.”
I’m not. I didn’t intend to, anyway.
Rand Rover claimed that it is not clear that the violation rises to the level of a felony. (Cite.) I merely linked to the applicable law, and quoted the relevant text.
Rand Rover: You question whether the following constitute ‘serious bodily injury’, which is required to meet the felony requirements:
[ul][li]Cerebral hemorrhage[/li][li]Spinal cord injuries (plural)[/li][li]Debilitating pain caused by the injuries[/ul][/li]I have three questions for you:
-
Would a reasonable person deem that the listed injuries are ‘serious’ as laid out by 42-4-1601(b)?
-
If you believe that the listed injuries are not ‘serious’ as related to 42-4-1601, what minimum level of injury, more serious than those listed, meets the criteria?
-
If Milo were your client, and he wanted to press criminal charges to the fullest extent, would you find that his injuries are ‘serious’ enough to meet the requirements for a felony prosecution?
Sure there is, but if the prosecutor is going to decline felony prosecution based on such issues, i think it’s incumbent upon them to make clear the circumstances of the case, including the assets/debt ratio that led to their decision.
Also, when the victim himself makes clear that he would prefer felony prosecution, even if it does affect the guy’s ability to pay, then i think the prosecutor should be willing to accept this evaluation. It’s disingenuous to say, in effect, “We’re doing this for your own good,” when the victim himself makes clear that he would prefer the alternative.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that provided that the financial penalty is actually severe and life-changing, and that the victim(s) receive the money (or in lieu of an actual individual or individuals, the State does).
For example - assume Erzinger is worth $500M. What’s better for Milo?
a) Erzinger goes to prison for 5 years and pays maybe a $10,000 fine. He may or may not get soaked in civil court - with $1B I’m sure he can hire the A-Team of lawyers to litigate and fuck over Milo.
b) Erzinger pays $100M in cold, hard, cash to Milo, AND covers his medical bills, and walks. That’s $100,000,000 - and IIRC judgments in civil cases are not usually taxable(?).
Clearly everyone is better served by option (b). What is not cool is option (c):
c) Erzinger pays $500,000 and does not cover any of Milo’s medical bills, and walks. $500,000 can be eaten up really damn quickly by MRIs, physical therapy, etc.
I hope folks see what I’m trying to say, that paying money to escape other penalties can be the best option - by far - provided it’s a real, severe, and life-changing amount for the defendant. In other words, it has to be punishment for the crime.
The question with the Una solution, of course, is how do you define that level of financial punishment. That obviously would have to vary depending upon the severity of the crime committed. And you would have to have the plaintiff’s approval as well.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a kickback involved. Very sad.
I agree with this, in general. And i think it’s a good reason why the prosecution should take the victim’s preference into account in a case like this. Say, for example, the victim is financially comfortable himself, and would feel that justice would better be served by a 5-year prison sentence than by a large financial payment?
I think one problem here is separating out the financial issue from the actual elements of the crime. As Rand Rover correctly noted, the prosecution also said:
Well, if this really is true, and the actions of Erzinger only warrant a misdemeanor charge, why did the prosecutor even make the statements about money?
Your questions are irrelevant. The point is that people on the SDMB do what you are doing here all the time–they say “oh ho ho, of COURSE the facts I got from an article clearly show that the elements of the statute I found on the internet have been met, anyone who fails to 100% support this statement is a witch who must be burned.” Well, no. The law doesn’t work that way. The exact scope of a “serious bodily injury” may not line up exactly with your idea of its scope and outlines. And the only facts you have about the guy’s injuries are the very sketchy outline from the article, all of which is coming only from the victim. So get over yourself, pal.
Irrelevant. Acts which constitute a felony are almost certainly going to constitute a lesser included misdemeanor in any case.
The issue here is the corrupt prosecutor’s decision to let a wealthy defendant off the hook.
Cite for the prosecutor saying “We did not pursue felony charges because the facts of the case would not support them”?
Give it, or admit you got nothing.
I always assumed a crime was a state issue. The state prosecutes and not the victim.
This is not a civil matter (although a civil case may well ensue). This is a criminal matter and people should not be able to buy their way out of a crime.
By your reckoning if I murdered someone as long as I paid a substantial amount to the victim’s family it would be ok if I walked. Afterall the family is better off that way than tossing me in jail.
Sorry but just not seeing it that way.
Even if the doctor said, “Give me the money, let him walk” the state could still prosecute because a crime was committed.
No, they are not. You have been given the text of the law. If court documents are considered to be true claims, do you, or do you not agree that under the letter of the law a felony has been committed?
As for getting over myself, go back and read what I’ve posted here. I believe I have been civil to you. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to get over himself.
Johnny, you can’t look at facts in an article and the text of a statute on the internet and try to match the two up and determine if the law has been violated. It’s just a dumbass thing to even talk about.
That’s what I took the quote above to be saying.
Cite that the prosecutor is “corrupt”? Give it, or admit you got nothing.
Indeed the facts of the case may be different and this could be sensationalist reporting.
Perhaps the spinal injury was a minor fracture requiring no treatment.
Perhaps the cerebral hemorrhage was a bloody nose.
Perhaps the scapula injury was really an old football injury.
Perhaps the reconstructive surgeries were just a nose job and liposuction he already planned on.
However, till you can show that all we have to go on is the article and we have no reason to doubt the facts presented. We therefore argue assuming in good faith the facts are as presented.
If the facts change then by all means we will reassess our positions.
I am not calling for the guy to be lynched.
I am calling for the guy to have charges pressed commensurate with the crime and go to court like you or I would.
At least a grand jury (do they do grand juries for something like this?).
If Milo had been killed, could one match the facts in the article and the actual text of the law and determine whether a felony has been committed?
Quoted for irony.