Sure. The difficulty here is whether the injuries here are just “an injury” or are “serious bodily injury.” The death case doesn’t reach that difficulty.
I guess above I should have said that “it’s a dumbass thing to talk about when there’s any difficulty involved.” Sure, if a statute says “it is illegal to breathe on Sundays,” and an article says a guy breathed on Sunday, I’m not going to get on your case for saying he broke that law. But the present situation is much different than that.
Seems kind of weird that people are dismissing the “He only did a misdemeanor” comment from the prosecutor but willing to burn him over the not-really-in-context job comment.
How’s that ironic? I’m not trying to match up the two–I’m saying that the article casts doubt on whether a felony charge can be supported.
Which brings us back to these:
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?
My mistake, yes; you were looking at the facts in the article and comparing them to nothing to determine if the law has been violated.
That makes all the difference in the world.
Seems to me I am on about both.
The job bit seems his rationale for making it a misdemeanor. I find that appalling. If you are employed do you think a DA should reduce a crime you committed? If you are not employed then you are fucked?
I have definitely argued, as has Johnny L.A., that the facts as given sure as hell seem to rise to Colorado’s definition of felony hit-and-run.
Why can’t the charges be brought then let the court receive evidence on the injuries and make that determination?
Isn’t that what the courts are supposed to do?
Why are you repeating yourself and persisting in your dumbassery? The point here is that neither you nor I have any idea what a “serious bodily injury” means for purposes of that statute. It’s a stupid thing to talk about. Yet you feel confident enough to come waltzing in here declaring that you know exactly what a serious bodily injury is. Your three questions are pointless–asking me to answer them twice is doubly pointless.
Because you are a complete dumbass with no clue about your own limitations. You have no idea what a “serious bodily injury” means for purposes of that statute. But you won’t let that stop you.
Translation, for those who are interested:
Rand Rover: ‘I am incapable of reading legal text, and am also incapable of interpreting facts presented under oath. Further, I am incapable of interpreting what things meet definitions and what don’t. Therefore, I shall declare anyone who asks me questions to be a dumbass, and refuse to answer questions that will reveal my ignorance.’
You bloody poon.
The victim is a New York City physician. He’s a transplant surgeon. It’s likely he has damn good insurance. And it’s very possible he doesn’t care at all about a payoff down the road, but would rather see the guy punished.
And yet, according to this story:
This suggests that the injuries themselves were, in the minds of the prosecutors, serious enough to warrant the charge originally. And now the charge has been reduced, and we have the prosecutor admitting that the financial issue was a reason for reducing the charge. Nowhere has he said that the injuries themselves were not serious enough to sustain the felony charge.
You’re right that these things are often technical, and there may be good reasons to charge a misdemeanor rather than a felony in this case, but given the information that we have right now, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that the injuries themselves were serious enough to qualify as “serious bodily injury.”
Uh oh, two random rich guys, the troll can’t suck up to both of them.
Possibly because you misrepresented my post.
You left out where I said:
That’s bad form on your part. Surely you knew I was going to call you on that, so I don’t know why you’d do this, even if it is the Pit.
And I might still be wrong even with that taken into consideration, but you do not get to put words in my mouth by leaving out inconvenient parts of my post.
I think in some cases there is a valid philosophical debate on whether some offenses against Society should instead be treated as offenses against the Individual - so the Individual receives fair and just compensation and has more input on the punishment.
Nothing to call me on because my point is it doesn’t matter what the victim wants.
Note you left out the part where I said: “Even if the doctor said, “Give me the money, let him walk” the state could still prosecute because a crime was committed.”
It is a criminal proceeding. The state prosecutes those. A victim of a rape can’t tell the DA she’ll be happy to be bought off for $100,000 and to drop the charges. The DA would rightly tell her the guy is being prosecuted and if she wants to sue for $100k she is welcome to.
This goes to the last part of your post but I do not think it wise to open the can of worms that says, “This crime you can buy your way out of if you have the means and if you don’t you are screwed. Those other crimes you can’t buy your way out of.”
What a mess that would be not to mention the issue of money allowing people to walk after committing a crime (presuming the victim is ok with it) while tossing the poor in jail for the same crime.
And how do you start assigning values to be able to walk? In one case the person will take $1 million and in another where the crime is the same someone is content to let the person go for $10,000.
Hell of a mess that would be.
DUh, you assign money to punish the perpetrator, not assign values to the crime. The point is that prison is really not that big a deal to rich people, as they can pay to have it be easy, or, in this case, to get out of it entirely.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the possibility of a bribe yet. It makes a lot more sense than the prosecutor’s reasoning, that’s for sure.
Una’s idea has merit, making the punishment fit the criminal rather than fitting the crime. Only drawback is fitting each to each, that calls for a wealth of Solomonic wisdom that has always been in short supply.
Literally as soon as I began to read the OP I thought: “this reminds me of William Zanzinger and Hattie Carroll.” I didn’t even know, until a moment later, that the guy’s name was Erzinger. Why are the Zingers of the world always doing these things?
Actually, he’s a snowmobile salesman.
And a damn fine one, from all I hear.
Well, you are not the one sitting in hospital waiting for extensive reconstructive surgery, physiotherapy and a serious reduction in quality of life.
And as to paying for stuff, the jackass driver has insurance.
I would much rather have the jackass who fucked my body and life up in jail doing hard pound in the ass time over just money. Revenge is sweet when served hot juicy and fresh.
Now that I’m rested up and fresh as a daisy, I’ll endeavor to fight your ignorance more directly instead of just yelling at you.
The legal issue here is whether the guys actions constitute not stopping after an accident resulting in “injury” or not stopping after an accident resulting in “serious bodily injury.” When determining which one it is, the relevant question is "what is a judge in the proper jurisdiction likely to conclude? Ways to answer that question include (i) looking at prior caselaw on the issue, (ii) looking at any relevant administrative interpretations, (iii) looking at how similar statutes were interpreted in similar contexts, and (iv) looking at any legislative history on the statute in question or similar statutes. And, one must analyze the law using the above tools with a head full of all of the relevant facts–not the facts as stated in one sentence in an online newspaper article.
So, since we don’t have the relevant background to determine how the judge will analyze the statute, and we don’t have all the facts, there’s just no reason to try and determine whether the guy should have been charged with a felony. And people who conclude that “of course it was serious bodily injury” only do so because they have an insufficient appreciation for how the law works–you can’t just come cold to text in a statute and believe you fully understand what it means, and you can’t read a one-sentence description of facts in an article and think you know what happened.