For an interesting counterpoint, there was a hit-and-run case in Atlanta in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of 5 people, IIRC. The driverwas sentenced to 36 years.
If the facts as presented are true:
*“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.”
*
Then according to Colorado law:
*(b) “Serious bodily injury” means injury that involves, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, or a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree. *
Then without doubt this is felony hit-and-run.
But you are right. We are not the legal system. So send the guy to court and let it be proved or disproved there! Should be straightforward enough. Trot in the medical records and that’s that. It either is or isn’t felony hit-and-run and the court will be clear about it. This is what the courts are supposed to do. Not let the DA be judge and jury but have the judge be the judge and the jury do its job.
However, we have a DA whose rationale for not prosecuting the case is the guy has a good job and a felony prosecution would jeopardize that.
That is the really offensive part here. I’d bet dollars to dimes were it me I’d be standing before The Man on felony hit-and-run charges. I have a job but I wager not a good enough one to get the DA to roll over for me.
It wasn’t. In Colorado, the elements of Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Serious Injury, section 42-4-1601(1) are:
- That the defendant,
- in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
- being the driver or operator of a vehicle,
- directly involved in an accident which resulted in serious bodily injury to another person,
- failed to immediately stop his vehicle at the scene or as close thereto as possible or forthwith return to or in every event,
- remain at the scene until he had fulfilled the requirements of Section 42-4-1603, C.R.S.
See People v. Manzo, 144 P. 3d 551 (Col. 2006).
I don’t see any reason to believe that the element of “serious bodily injury” would not be met by the injuries described.
See, Rover? Bricker responded with legal information and didn’t even pre-emptively claim that everyone else was victimizing him and/or everyone else was an idiot.
He also hasn’t just gone through a 30-something page thread with idiots thinking they know how to read rules and that they alone can interpret them.
Oh, I’m Bricker can claim his share of board arguments. The main difference is that most of the time he’s not a jerk, while most of the time, you are.
Hey, great idea. A mere misdemeanor conviction also assures he’ll have the means to restitute his next victim. See, I might be unique, but I prefer to maintain my current state of health instead of purchasing a new one.
HAHAHAhahaha…you must be new here.
That’s what everyone else in it did. 
Rock-On! He can wheel-chair himself down to the Sears Medical Outlet and finally get himself that kick-ass new spine he was thinking about, the one with crome-plated discs, and he won’t even have to use layaway.
Until you are confined to a critical care ward suffering from "…spinal cord injuries, bleeding from [your] brain and damage to [your] knee and scapula…] I don’t think you are capable of thinking this through all that well.
:dubious: You’ve just described Bricker’s entire 26,601 post history on the board.
Except possibly that time when he agreed with me. 
OK, I’ve seen the light. Johnny L.A., sorry for being a douche last night. I should have just posted what I posted this morning.
I just get tired of people on these boards making absolute statements about what laws mean and how they apply to a particular factual situation based on reading statutes online and an article describing one person’s view of the facts. But I should simply state that in a civil manner instead of getting on someone’s case about it (repeat offenders and general all-around dumbasses excluded).
You guys think this guy’s getting off easy? HAH! Spend a day with me at work and you’ll be crying your eyes out over this shit. Let me tell you, there’s nothing special about rich or poor people when it comes to trial. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen illegal immigrants with 10 DUI charges, coupled with some domestic batteries and possessions of narotics, all nolle prossed. And then they’re not even turned over to immigration authorities! I’m not exaggerating in the least when I say that this happens every. damn. day.
It’s like our legal system has no desire whatsoever to actually punish these criminals. And it’s like no one even cares until they kill a nun.
TLDR version: It’s not just the rich that get off scot free.
Then I’m sorry for calling you a bloody poon.
Yeah, what a lucky fellow he will be when he gets that check! :rolleyes:
Well, Rand, you can’t take it with you. And no matter how much you have, you can’t refuse to go, either.
Tell that to Walt Disney’s frozen head. 
I wonder if the prosecutor is just knocking it down to try to get a plea bargain, instead of trying to fight some rich dude’s team of lawyers.
It would still suck in a big way, but it might make some sense - get a misdemeanor conviction and restitution, instead of spending a lot of tax payer money and taking the risk of getting no justice at all. I’d prefer they nail the guy to the wall, but at least this I could understand. If they charge a misdemeanor ands still take it to court, that would be ridiculous - a good prosecutor will pile on if it’s going to trial.
I wonder if the prosecutor is just knocking it down because he’s elected and kept in power by a bunch of rich dudes in Vail who need smart finance guys around to make them richer.
I’m not interested in buying into this debate in detail but I’ll offer a couple of thoughts based on my experience:
1/ sometimes no doubt criminals get off too lightly and maybe that is sometimes because of deals done by the wealthy that the poor would not have the resources to negotiate etc
2/ you can tell if what you know about a court case is incorrect by applying this simple test: did I learn what I know from the media? If the answer is yes, what you know is incorrect to a greater or lesser degree.
3/ The media like to fit all reports of criminal cases into certain standard cliches. The absolute number one cliche of all time is “crim got off too lightly”.
4/ The media don’t generally understand or like legal and factual detail. This is true generally, but when such detail will stand in the way of fitting into the number one cliche as above, journalists’ capacity for ignoring detail is magificent in its enormity.
As an aside, this correlates closely with (and no doubt plays to) public misperception of criminal sentencing ie that people think sentencing is far too light but when presented with detail about crimes and sentencing change their view.
Consequently, when I have the choice between
-
“journalist filed a ‘crim got off too lightly’ story and left out all the relevant detail which explains why what occurred was actually reasonable or at least pragmatic”, and
-
“crim got off too lightly because of corruption or undue influence or soft judges yadda yadda yadda…”,
I will play the percentages and choose the former every time.