Agreed.
~Max
I just used Google Maps to figure out exactly how far down my street … 254 feet is.
I got a tear in my eye.
The mother’s testimony is compelling. She and her remaining child are lucky to be alive.
The context is important too. Sept. 29, 2020 was early covid when people were isolated at home and their main activity was going outside to walk and exercise.
It’s about 85 yards. That’s just 5 yards longer than a kickoff return at the 20 yard line to goal.
And calling that site propaganda is absolutely correct. Evidently they posted video presumably showing the children getting hit. WTF, YouTube?
I am curious why the person racing with her was not also charged.
He was charged with a misdemeanor but it was dropped after he agreed to make some public announcement or service or something. Dude used to pitch in the major league.
~Max
No it doesn’t. It’s .08 in every state. Not sure why you’re trying to make it seem like the DWI laws in CA are unique.
I think Utah is more strict.
~Max
Went into effect in 2018.
Yeah, everywhere else though, 0.08 BAC (for adults).
~Max
corrected as noted
[error correction] .08[/error correction.]
What I’m about to say in no way excuses her for what happened. She killed 2 children due to her negligence and she needs to account for it.
But they had a better defense with the car she was driving. They weren’t racing in the classical sense of street racing. Her car was capable of significantly higher speeds. It would accelerate from 35 to 80 quickly with a touch of the throttle with no massive sense of acceleration. For all practical purposes 80 feels like 35 and it’s likely they were passing through town unobstructed on the main thoroughfare. If she threw herself on her sword she might have fought the malice argument. Not much sympathy from me for killing 2 kids.
I regularly drive through a lot of small towns where the speed limit changes and I’m highly focused on where that occurs. I imagine a significant number of drivers blow through them without realizing when the zone changes. Particularly at night.
The headlines stand out more when the word “socialite” is used but she could have been any schmuck driving through town and the negligence would have been the same.
I’m lead to believe the intersection was within viewing distance of defendant’s house, as defendant’s daughter testified to walking out from the house and seeing her mother in the immediate aftermath.
~Max
Bullshit. There’s a vast difference in the view of passing scenery and road between the two speeds.
Her prior speeding issues just added knots to her noose.
I’m not going to argue with you because it becomes a defense of Grossman. But I have 3 cars and there is a VAST difference in the sensation of speed between the 3 of them. Scenery is not a sensation. It’s a visual cue.
Unless she was driving with her eyes shut, sensation doesn’t come into play when determining speed.
No shit it’s a visual clue.
…What? There’s a very, very, noticeable difference.
Looks at username
Implied expertise checks out.
I was talking about the sensation of speed. There’s a speedometer that registers speed which she should have been using.
I’m pretty sure everybody who has ever driven a car has inadvertently found themselves speeding despite the visual cues.
Why is that?
Calling her a socialite makes it spicy but if she wasn’t insanely wealthy she wouldn’t still be free over three years later with a ridiculous web page. She also would have taken a plea.
I hope the civil suit bankrupts the family