According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, some train engineers and safety experts say that the fact that the train was being pushed by an engine rather than pulled could have contributed to the severity of the wreck.
Engines are much heavier than cars. When an engine collides with an object, the engine is more likely to push the object out of the way than if a car collides with the same object. When a train is being pushed rather than pulled, a collision is more likely to result in a derailment.
Note that, regardless of whether the train is being pushed or pulled, the engineers ride in the front of the train. In the latter case, they work out of a special control cab that is at the front of the lead car.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, there is no evidence that a train is safer being pulled than pushed. I don’t know where to find records on train wrecks, but it seems like common sense that a train being pulled by an engine would be safer.
There are other interesting aspects to this case. According to this article , Glendale Police Chief Randy Adams said that Alvarez (the suspect) had slashed his wrists, while Sgt. Tom Lorenz of the Glendale Police now says that Alvarez didn’t slash his wrists. Also, according to this article , Alvarez’s other reported self-inflicted injuries happened after the crash.
That’s what I would think too. One of the newspaper articles (sorry, can’t find it right now) quoted someone from the railroad company saying cars are usually smashed to smithereens. But in this particular incident the car was wedged into the tracks and immobile, so the car wasn’t thrown off the tracks.
A psychiatrist who had studied suicide by train was quoted in the LA Times as saying it’s not a foolproof nor painless way to die. About 10% of people who try it survive and it’s not pleasant as you then survive with crippling injuries.
So you’ve gone from being clinically depressed and suicidal to being clinically depressed, suicidal, and unable to move most of your extremities.
Less recently, we saw this in an episode of ER. Except (IIRC) in that case, the perp stayed in the vehicle, but survived for the ER doctors to work on.
Speaking of precedents, I believe that I heard that the reason that the cops that beat Rodney King were acquitted was basically because they tried to charge them with the equivalent of (premeditated) murder (hey, I’m no lawyer), but they obviously weren’t trying to kill him. Which brings up a (possibly OT) question: If you try someone for murder one, but the jury decides that they were only guilty for a slightly lesser charge (let’s say manslaughter in this case, since I’m not clear on the distinctions), do they simply get acquitted, period? Or is it possible for the jury to say, essentially “We find him innocent of man 1, but guilty of manslaughter.”? IOW, can the jury decided to convict someone of a lesser charge than was brought up, or is it kind of an all or nothing type deal for the prosecution?
According to someone on another site, it’s pretty much always been a part of the statue. Trains have been vitally important in the history of this nation since their inception, and derailments were a common method of stopping the trains for the purpose of robbery. The scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid with dynamite springs to mind.
Don’t forget that prior to the introduction of diesel locomotives it was more dangerous for the occupants of the train to be in a derailment than it is now. The boiler could explode, and when wooden cars were heated by coal burning stoves a derailment had the potential of turning into a fatal fire as well.
In my opinion, and that of many others. they were acquitted because they were tried in Simi Valley. As a friend of mine remarked, “Those jurors moved to Simi Valley to * get away* from Rodney Kings.”
Either the prosecution or the defense may ask the jury to consider lesser charges. The prosecution makes this decision at charging time. They may ask the grand jury to return indictments on multiple charges. Obviously this is a tactical decision: including a lesser charge gives the jury the option of not convicting on the top count. If faced with conviction or acquittal, the jury may convict on the top count, but if given a lesser choice, they may choose to lessen the blow. If the jury convicts on multiple counts which comprise lesser-included offenses, they merge into one conviction for sentencing purposes.
The defense is entitled to a jury instruction on any lesser-included offense which the evidence adduced at trial might support. Just as with the prosecution, this is a tactical decision: if they leave only the most serious charge for the jury, the jury may give him an acquittal. Or they may convict.