SUV driver talking on cell phone runs down and kills woman... not arrested!

[Contrapuntal]

@DMC

^
|
|
|
Psst, look that way.

Back atcha.

[Bricker]

@Cartooniverse

My turn.

You’re stupid. You’re also showing a severe weakness because you seem incapable of saying in public, " I was wrong. " " I spoke overly broadly" is AttorneySpeak because after all, a lawyer is never wrong, is he/she ? Go on. It’s gonna feel terrific. Admit you were just plain wrong in your statement, and the cite provided proves it.

@Bricker

Nonetheless, the charge was brought. I spoke overly broadly and in error.

Thank you for that link, DMC. I suspect it is not the only cite out there that completely refutes Bricker’s assertion. However, that is not what this thread is about, so I will be glad to let that cite stand as proof.

I was certainly wrong to suggest that no such charge had ever been brought. But the charge was disposed of by the judge’s finding that, as a matter of law, the charge that was brought was not sustainable – in other words, the judge found that under Maryland law the charge should not have been brought.

I’m not so sure that substantially weakens my original point.

[Cartooniverse]

One of us is capable of recognizing a full blown hijack.

To continue this hijack regarding Bricker, please visit this thread started in The Pit.

My apologies to the O.P.'er for the derailing. It is an important and worthwhile discussion, heated as it may be, and the side-sniping can- and now does- exist elsewhere.

Cartooniverse

[Walter_Windchill]

@WOOKINPANUB

I’ve always felt sorrier for the people left behind when someone dies; being dead is easy. It *does * seem kind of odd that the husbasnd would voice this kind of sentiment out loud and so soon after the occurence, though.

I’m sure the next time his wife dies he’ll chose his words more carefully so he doesn’t offend random people on the Internet.

[Boyo_Jim]

There are too many things we don’t know about this case to go declaring it some kind of outrage.

For instance,

1. He may have been asked to volunteer a blood or breathalizer test, and agreed. In such a case the police would have no need to take him into custody for for testing. The fact that the story didn’t have a reference to testing is a stronger indicator that the reporters didn’t think to ask the question, than it is that the subject didn’t arise between the driver and the police. Because the story would have included a sentence like, “He was released without undergoing a blood (or breath or sobriety) test” if they know that for a fact.
2. We don’t know how the incident ended. Was he allowed to get back into his Navigator and drive away? Did the police have it towed to be examined for mechanical problems or some other kind of tests?

This is definitely a story that smells kind of bad. Buy from what I’ve read (and haven’t, in a sense), it is possibly the smell of poor and incomplete reporting.

I hope it doesn’t turn out to be one of those, “Rich white guy runs over poor mom, pays ticket” stories, and it wouldn’t terribly surprize me if it did, but they really need to do more homework.

[Random]

@Bricker

II’m not so sure that substantially weakens my original point.

I don’t think it does either. Rather the opposite.

[Bricker]

@Random

I don’t think it does either. Rather the opposite.

I’m thinking that some readers may be unclear on the particular significance that being acquitted as a matter of law carries in this discussion.

[Frylock]

@silenus

Not “Why did this have to happen to my wife?” Not “What will become of my motherless childern?” Not “The light of my life is gone! Why?” None of that. Just “Why did this have to happen to me?”

Grief or not, that seems rather self-centered to me. If you disagree, fine with me.

“The light of my life is gone” practically==“Why did this happen to me,” IMO. Both are appropriate, AFAICT.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

@Speaker for the Dead

I will admit that I’m unfamiliar with such large vehicles, but can they truly cover ten feet so quickly that the driver wouldn’t be able to react and put his foot back on the brake?

If the car were moving forward at two miles an hour, it would have traversed 10 feet in about 3 seconds. Sitting at your computer counting out 3 seconds may make it seem like a long time, but when you’re not expecting your car to start moving, when you’re thinking about alot of other physical actions you are engaged in at the time, when you aren’t exactly sure why your car has started moving and need to figure it out in order to get it to stop, I’m guessing 3 seconds goes by in a heartbeat.

If the car were moving forward at three miles an hour, you’d be down to (I think–estimating here) less than 2 seconds reaction time.

-FrL-

[zamboniracer]

A thousand pardons if this has been posted already and I overlooked it. As the accident took place in Minnesota the the relevant statutes say
Section 609.21 Criminal vehicular homicide and injury.

Subdivision 1.    Criminal vehicular homicide.  A person is guilty of criminal vehicular homicide resulting in death and  may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or  to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the  person causes the death of a human being not constituting murder 

or manslaughter as a result of operating a motor vehicle:

(1) in a grossly negligent manner; 

(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of: 

(i) alcohol; 

(ii) a controlled substance; or 

(iii) any combination of those elements; 

(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; 

(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more,  as measured within two hours of the time of driving; 

(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance; 

(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled  substance listed in schedule I or II, other than marijuana or  tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or 

(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the  scene of the accident in violation of section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6. 

Subd. 2.    Resulting in great bodily harm.  A person is  guilty of criminal vehicular operation resulting in great bodily  harm and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five  years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both,  if the person causes great bodily harm to another, not 

constituting attempted murder or assault, as a result of operating a motor vehicle:

(1) in a grossly negligent manner; 

(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of: 

(i) alcohol; 

(ii) a controlled substance; or 

(iii) any combination of those elements; 

(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; 

(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more,  as measured within two hours of the time of driving; 

(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the  influence of a hazardous substance; 

(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled  substance listed in schedule I or II, other than marijuana or  tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or 

(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the  scene of the accident in violation of section 169.09,  subdivision 1 or 6. 

Subd. 2a.    Resulting in substantial bodily harm.  A  person is guilty of criminal vehicular operation resulting in  substantial bodily harm and may be sentenced to imprisonment of  not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more 

than $10,000, or both, if the person causes substantial bodily harm to another, as a result of operating a motor vehicle;

(1) in a grossly negligent manner; 

(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of: 

(i) alcohol; 

(ii) a controlled substance; or 

(iii) any combination of those elements; 

(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; 

(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more,  as measured within two hours of the time of driving; 

(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the  influence of a hazardous substance; 

(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled  substance listed in schedule I or II, other than marijuana or  tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or 

(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the  scene of the accident in violation of section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6. 

Subd. 2b.    Resulting in bodily harm.  A person is  guilty of criminal vehicular operation resulting in bodily harm  and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year  or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if the  person causes bodily harm to another, as a result of operating a  motor vehicle: 

(1) in a grossly negligent manner; 

(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of: 

(i) alcohol; 

(ii) a controlled substance; or 

(iii) any combination of those elements; 

(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; 

(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more,  as measured within two hours of the time of driving; 

(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the  influence of a hazardous substance; 

(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled  substance listed in schedule I or II, other than marijuana or  tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or 

(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the  scene of the accident in violation of section 169.09,  subdivision 1 or 6. 

…