Infuriating [Archive] - Women's Cycling Discussion Forums

indysteel

11-09-2010, 06:08 AM

Eden

11-09-2010, 06:38 AM

Isn't justic supposed to be blind?

Oh I forgot that was before these liberal judges took over the constitution and our court system. The poor wealth manager, it might affect his future job prospects never mind he left a person for dead.

I'm fuming :mad::mad::mad:

Excuse me? Wow that blows my mind.... while I'm pretty furious about the case itself it really blows my mind that someone would think to blame it on "liberals".....

The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to due process and equality under the law, and separation of church and state are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.

In any case there is a petition if anyone would like to sign it here: http://south-routt-velosport.blogspot.com/2010/11/q-when-is-felony-hit-and-run-only.html

(there's a big photo at the top so it doesn't look like the page has loaded - but it has, just scroll down)

JennK13

11-09-2010, 09:21 AM

It's all Hurlbert. The same DA that filed FELONY impersonation charges against Wendy Lyall and Katie Brazelton in the 2009 Leadville 100 when Brazelton (injured) gave her bib number to Lyall to race in her place. So, "cheating" in a mountain bike race is FELONY but driving over someone and leaving the scene is NOT?!??! How the hell does this guy get re-elected?

Bike Writer

11-09-2010, 09:42 AM

indysteel

11-09-2010, 10:12 AM

I'm here for the swapping of ideas, opinions and knowledge, mostly on how it pertains to cycling and other items. I am not here to debate. DA is part of the court system regardless of party affiliation (there are liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats but they are not the norm) and I agree whole heartedly with the freedom of speech concept as it pertains to our opinions and thoughts. Obviously we each have differing opinions on this matter, I am quite comfortable to acknowledge yours and your entitlement to your view and opinion and hope that mine are acknowledged as well. :cool:

Apologies if anyone is offended by someone offering up a point of view that may be contrary to their own.

I am known for being of strong opinions, we all have our weaknesses.

Let's not take our eye off the ball, someone got injured and the person who is at cause got off easy and about that I am fuming.

You say you're not here to debate politics, but you're the one who opened that can of worms. Nevertheless, I'm going to try to ignore the rather broad brush you've used to paint "liberal judges," although I heartily disagree with you.

I do, however, feel the need to offer a bit of a Civics 101 lesson for you. Judges and prosecuting attorneys are not one and the same, nor do they serve the same "branch" of government. If you had any working knowledge of the judicial system you would understand the importance of the distinction and how seriously a lot of the players in the system take it.

JennK13

11-09-2010, 10:16 AM

Are you kidding me? :mad:

Does Colorado have a "vunerable roadway users" law or similar?

I've never heard of "vulnerable roadway user" but we do have a 3 foot law for cyclists.

bikegurl

11-09-2010, 10:55 AM

Leaving someone to die on the side of the road, and he calls a mechanic? What a crook, he should be in jail.

The problem seems to be his status and money. If he were a poor ghetto kid, he would be in jail before he could turn around. Sadly enough, it seems most of the rich crooks get off with just a light punishment, and those that can't defend themselves get the brunt of it. :mad:

sarahkonamojo

11-09-2010, 10:57 AM

Liberal judges? No.
Judge: liberal, conservative, activist, or not should apply the law equally. If the driver had cared enough to dial 911, the world would be a different place.

Owlie

11-09-2010, 11:04 AM

The problem seems to be his status and money. If he were a poor ghetto kid, he would be in jail before he could turn around. Sadly enough, it seems most of the rich crooks get off with just a light punishment, and those that can't defend themselves get the brunt of it. :mad:

This.

Eden

11-09-2010, 11:14 AM

bike writer, theres a big difference between a different point of view and false information. But then again, thats just my opinion ;)

such a sad story. Leaving someone to die on the side of the road, and he calls a mechanic? What a crook, he should be in jail.

+++1

Becky

11-09-2010, 11:38 AM

I've never heard of "vulnerable roadway user" but we do have a 3 foot law for cyclists.

Delaware doesn't have a 3-foot law, but recently passed a vunerable users law. It provides for enhanced penalties for drivers who injure pedestrians and cyclists on public roads.

http://blog.bicyclecoalition.org/2010/08/delaware-vulnerable-users-bill-to.html

oxysback

11-09-2010, 12:47 PM

Isn't justic supposed to be blind?

Oh I forgot that was before these liberal judges took over the constitution and our court system. The poor wealth manager, it might affect his future job prospects never mind he left a person for dead.

I'm fuming :mad::mad::mad:

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Rally to restore sanity and/or fear? Perfectly fine to make a thread about.
Tea Party rallies (and their "ilk", as someone so kindly called them in a different thread)? Definitely NOT ok.

Just thought you should know.

(Sorry gals. I do like this forum, but sometimes I feel it's not as "non-partisan" as it could be, which is why I don't post very often.)

(I DO agree that this particular DA needs to find another job ASAP, and the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)

(Ok...I'm done. Commence the flogging...)

OakLeaf

11-09-2010, 12:58 PM

Once again:

This has nothing. to. do. with. judges.

Maybe the good "conservative" citizens of the county, via the Grand Jury, will decide on their own to indict this piece of ****, as is their right and duty. That could happen. :rolleyes:

And anyone who thinks the "Rally to Restore Sanity" was "liberal" ... I don't even know where someone would get that idea. Unless sanity is a "liberal" idea. Read or watch some of how it's being vilified in the Left press and on TV, maybe. I think the whole purpose of the rally (besides advertising) was actually to distract attention from the rally the first weekend of the month, which was for human rights causes that some people consider "liberal."

ny biker

11-09-2010, 01:00 PM

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Rally to restore sanity and/or fear? Perfectly fine to make a thread about.
Tea Party rallies (and their "ilk", as someone so kindly called them in a different thread)? Definitely NOT ok.

Just thought you should know.

(Sorry gals. I do like this forum, but sometimes I feel it's not as "non-partisan" as it could be, which is why I don't post very often.)

(I DO agree that this particular DA needs to find another job ASAP, and the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)

(Ok...I'm done. Commence the flogging...)

Well, since I started the thread about the Daily Show rally... I was asking if anyone was going to an event on the mall. It wasn't about advocating any particular position, just seeing if anyone was going to attend, and to see if anyone had any interest in meeting up. Which was why it was in the Mid-Atlantic forum, since I was asking folks who live near DC. If someone wanted to see if anyone was planning to attend a different event, whether it was a Tea Party rally or a Smithsonian festival or Rolling Thunder or whatever, I wouldn't care.

Eden

11-09-2010, 01:26 PM

It's not whether or not the post was left leaning or right leaning, but rather about whether or not it was accurate.....

I can call the sky green all I want and say its my opinion, but its not accurate...

It's just not accurate to blame the situation on a "liberal judge" - for one it was the DA's decision, not a judge and that particular DA isn't particularly liberal.... and beyond that it would be pretty well against liberal beliefs to act in such a way anyway.

redrhodie

11-09-2010, 01:35 PM

Maybe the good "conservative" citizens of the county, via the Grand Jury, will decide on their own to indict this piece of ****, as is their right and duty. That could happen. :rolleyes:

Could that really happen? How? Doesn't the DA have to present a case to the jury for it to be considered?

I've never served on a Grand Jury, so I don't really understand how it works.

Cataboo

11-09-2010, 01:36 PM

Just wow. Noone does drama like the team estrogen women.

PamNY

11-09-2010, 01:39 PM

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Um...understanding how the justice system works makes you left-leaning? I think you missed the point. In this case, the judge has done...what? S/he could lean far enough to fall on the floor -- wouldn't affect the topic under discussion.

Back to the original topic, could there be validity to the argument that maintaining earning power increases the villain's ability to pay restitution? According to an article in HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/martin-erzinger-morgan-stanley-hit-and-run-_n_780294.html), restitution was part of the plea bargain. Apparently the two misdemeanor counts could bring up to two years in jail.

And if there's a civil lawsuit? I'd much rather sue a high earner.

I don't understand at all why the victim is pushing for a felony conviction that would later be expunged from the record. Does he want the felony just as a matter of principle?

The more I read about this the less I understand.

Bike Writer

11-09-2010, 01:51 PM

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Just thought you should know.

(Ok...I'm done. Commence the flogging...)

Yikes, now you tell me! Thank you for the heads up, I can hold my own but this is not the time or place. Energy better spent on bike riding. :)

ultraviolet

11-09-2010, 01:57 PM

Why should his "high earner" status somehow exempt him from the standard of the law? How much money he does, or can, earn should not be a factor in what charges are brought against him. (Unless we're going to say that we should have different laws for people based on monetary "class" or societal standing...and I'm pretty sure none of us want to go down that road.)

A hit-and-run is a felony offense. He committed a hit-and-run crime. He should be charged with a felony.

Feh.

Bike Chick

11-09-2010, 04:03 PM

This is horrifying and an outrage! Where did the DA go to law school is what I want to know?

For the record, the DA (or prosecutor) files criminal charges on behalf of the state against an individual who IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. This is a right guaranteed to us by our Constitution. You can either plead guilty or be found guilty by a judge or jury. You can't be adjudicated for a crime greater than what you are charged with. The problem in this case lies with the prosecutor---not the judge.

zoom-zoom

11-09-2010, 04:12 PM

Just wow. Noone does drama like the team estrogen women.

I take it you've never hung out on any dieting or mommy boards. This is nuthin'. I'm not getting out the popcorn for this.

On-topic. It's all about the Benjamins. Lohan, Hilton, et al. should have been behind bars ages ago.

PamNY

11-09-2010, 04:23 PM

I take it you've never hung out on any dieting or mommy boards. This is nuthin'. I'm not getting out the popcorn for is.

Or dogs, or anything really. This is about the most low-drama group on teh interwebz.

pll

11-09-2010, 04:26 PM

Let's get our facts straight. Mark Hulbert, the District Attorney in this case, is the one that dropped the charges. He's a Republican in an arguably conservative state. "Liberal judges"--whoever they may be in your mind--didn't have anything to do with what happened in this case.

I would normally not get involved in a discussion about politics, but, Bike Writer (and oxysback), you should not just brush off the criticism as 'left leaning'. You very lightly blamed the decision of a clearly Republican, conservative, DA (http://hurlbertforstatesenate.com/) on "those liberal judges." So, "those liberal judges" are blamed for everyone's lack of judgement?

The plead offered by Hulbert is a mockery of justice.

smilingcat

11-09-2010, 06:29 PM

One place where our justice system fail miserably is when the accused is well known or have deep pocket. But it does work both ways. Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley would have gotten off with less had she not had her notoriety. And oh the darling Martha Stewart, she went to jail for things male day traders get away with.Then we have Lohan, Paris... as zoom-zoom pointed out and not to forget OJ Simpson.

For what its worth, justice is not money/celebrity blind. Yes the DA should be thrown out of the office for dropping the ball. Judge had nothing to do with the debacle. He is an innocent bystander in this mess. Justice is not served!! Judge has no authority to force the DA to bring charges or to force the DA to drop charges. He can only do so after the DA acts upon the case or non-case.

hmm politically where do I stand?? Well that really isn't for here anyway!!

JennK13

11-09-2010, 06:37 PM

Back to the original topic, could there be validity to the argument that maintaining earning power increases the villain's ability to pay restitution? According to an article in HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/martin-erzinger-morgan-stanley-hit-and-run-_n_780294.html), restitution was part of the plea bargain. Apparently the two misdemeanor counts could bring up to two years in jail.

I don't understand at all why the victim is pushing for a felony conviction that would later be expunged from the record. Does he want the felony just as a matter of principle?
.

The villain's wage earning ability shouldn't have anything to do with the charges. A felony is a felony no matter what you earn. What about the victim and his earning potential prior to injury? The guy is a surgeon who will now be in pain and unable to work as he 0previously did.

PamNY

11-10-2010, 05:37 AM

What about the victim and his earning potential prior to injury? The guy is a surgeon who will now be in pain and unable to work as he 0previously did.

Um, did you actually read the news coverage?

That's the whole point of restitution -- it's an attempt to make up for some of what the victim lost, and it is part of sentencing in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor claims that keeping the guy's earning ability (and the possibility of a civil suit) played a role in his decision because there will be "significant" restitution. That could be nonsense, or it could be true.

He says the plea bargain is actually "more punitive" than what the victim wants (conditional felony). I haven't found anywhere the complete details of the plea bargain -- the two misdemeanor counts could mean two years in jail, but will they?

I thought it would be interesting to consider -- and I still think that, but obviously not here.

badgercat

11-10-2010, 05:54 AM

Um, did you actually read the news coverage?

That's the whole point of restitution -- it's an attempt to make up for some of what the victim lost, and it is part of sentencing in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor claims that keeping the guy's earning ability (and the possibility of a civil suit) played a role in his decision because there will be "significant" restitution. That could be nonsense, or it could be true.

He says the plea bargain is actually "more punitive" than what the victim wants (conditional felony). I haven't found anywhere the complete details of the plea bargain -- the two misdemeanor counts could mean two years in jail, but will they?

I thought it would be interesting to consider -- and I still think that, but obviously not here.

I thought I read in one article (I've looked at so many now that I've lost track) that if there had been a felony charge, there would have still been misdemeanor counts that would have "stuck" on the permanent criminal record. But maybe I'm mis-remembering. :confused:

A financial planner with a Mercedes probably has a ton of other assets. If you take away his ability to work in his profession (which is debatable, I also read that the DA himself said he wasn't 100% sure the felony would cause the guy to lose his job) so that he'd have to drain those assets, would that be even greater punishment? Again, we don't know any of the real terms of any potential deals, so who knows.

kacie tri-ing

11-10-2010, 06:03 AM

Really depressing......

I will say that I am on a number of forums, and I have always enjoyed the lack of drama on this one. I go to my other forums for drama. Keep it up those of you who are posting thoughtful responses :)

tangentgirl

11-10-2010, 06:09 AM

I would think that a felony prosecution would be much more of a detterant than a misdemeanor to the next person in CO who thinks about leaving the scene of an accident like this. Part of why we have laws and penalties is for prevention.

Both the cyclist and the driver were lucky here that someone else came along. The cyclist could have died.

Eden

11-10-2010, 06:13 AM

sfa

11-10-2010, 07:00 AM

I agree with Badger - this guy probably has lots of assets that could be sold to cover damages.....If he gets charged with a felony (not convicted just charged) he has to disclose it to either his clients or the regulatory board (I don't remember the article being completely clear on this point). That would likely would lose him clients if not his job - but really *so what*... the question is would the DA have made this concession if the hit and run driver had been, lets say, a minimum wage earning landscaper? If the answer is no, then throw the book at the guy - the big heavy one that says felony. I don't think money should be able to buy a person out facing their crimes...

The answer may well be yes, however. The one time I was in court (traffic court) another case that was being considered that day was of a guy who was a professional cab driver with enough points on his record that the speeding charge against him that day would cause him to lose his license and thus his profession. The judge decided to lower the charge so he wouldn't get any points but raise the fine, thus making it possible for the man to keep working (which would allow him to be able to pay the fine).

Now you could argue that someone with that many points on his record should probably not be driving people around in a cab, and I'd tend to agree with that. OTOH, the guy probably didn't have many skills to fall back on and losing his license could have a longer term negative effect on a greater number of people (job loss leading to loss of home, reliance on welfare, fall into poverty for himself and anyone dependent on him, possible increase in crime, etc.). I'm not sure I agreed with the judge's decision that day, but I can't say I entirely disagreed with it either. In either case, it's clear that the earning power of the person charged IS being considered in these cases, regardless if the person charged is rich or relatively poor. It's entirely possible that these sorts of decisions are made every day and we just don't hear about them.

I'm not saying I agree with the DA's decision in THIS case (in fact, I don't); I'm just saying that the decision wasn't unique.

JennK13

11-10-2010, 10:48 AM

Um, did you actually read the news coverage?

That's the whole point of restitution -- it's an attempt to make up for some of what the victim lost, and it is part of sentencing in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor claims that keeping the guy's earning ability (and the possibility of a civil suit) played a role in his decision because there will be "significant" restitution.

Um, yes, which is how I knew he was a surgeon.

So, basically, if you want to get out of a felony for committing a crime

1) earn a lot of money so your ability to pay restitution is taken into consideration when charges are filed (the more you earn, the better! that means you can pay more to the victim if they sue you, and the DA will consider that possibility when it comes to charges)

2) hurt some one who also earns a lot of money, thus justifying the need for your potential to remain since the more they earn, the more you MIGHT have a to pay.

3) do it in Mark Hurlbert's jurisdiction

But you're really in for it if you make minimum wage - since your ability to pay restitution is reduced, DA Hurlbert will help you out by charging you with the appropriate (or inappropriate charge - see the Leadville 100 case) which is more likely to lead to jail time (Hey! 3 hots and a cot!) or cause you to lose your job, which isn't that big of a deal since you don't make that much, anyhow.

I just don't get this reasoning. I also agree with Badger and SFA that the guy probably has substantial assests, other than his dented Mercedes, that can be sold off to cover restitution. He should be charged appropriately as dictated by law.

PamNY

11-10-2010, 11:00 AM

I just don't get this reasoning. I also agree with Badger and SFA that the guy probably has substantial assets, other than his dented Mercedes, that can be sold off to cover restitution. He should be charged appropriately as dictated by law.

Your post said: "What about the victim and his earning potential prior to injury? The guy is a surgeon who will now be in pain and unable to work as he previously did." That's why I pointed out that restitution could be intended to address that issue.

I really don't want to argue about this; everything I've posted has been meant as a discussion point. I've read a bit about restitution playing a greater role in criminal justice, and wondered if that might be the case here. I don't know that it is; again, it just seemed like a reasonable idea to discuss -- but obviously not with this group.

JennK13

11-10-2010, 11:10 AM

I really don't want to argue about this; everything I've posted has been meant as a discussion point. I've read a bit about restitution playing a greater role in criminal justice, and wondered if that might be the case here. I don't know that it is; again, it just seemed like a reasonable idea to discuss -- but obviously not with this group.

I was speaking to the case in point and this DA's history. He is "famous" for these kinds of things. As such, I don't believe restitution played a role in this particular case.

As for restitution's role in criminal justice in general, that would be a different discussion.

Irulan

11-10-2010, 11:25 AM

having been on the jury on negligent death cases, fines are in part supposed to be punishment, not restitution.

Emily_A

11-10-2010, 05:29 PM

Liberal judges? No.
Judge: liberal, conservative, activist, or not should apply the law equally. If the driver had cared enough to dial 911, the world would be a different place.
Agreed, although my understanding is that in this case, a judge would never even have a chance to get involved. By choosing not to file charges, the DA is stopping the process before it even gets to that point.

Unfortunately, this particular DA seems to be a ladder-climbing, status-seeking wackjob so that makes it hard for the victim to get any sort of fair shake. I know this stuff happens to cyclists a lot but this is really the most egregious case I've heard.

Hopefully the victim can at least file a civil suit and take the jerk for all he's worth.

NbyNW

11-10-2010, 06:24 PM

A financial planner with a Mercedes probably has a ton of other assets. .

OR, he could be (as DH is fond of saying) "levered out to the hilt." In other words, he may be the kind of person who has borrowed tons of money against his potential earnings in order to enjoy a particular lifestyle.

If his ability to earn is curtailed by a felony charge, people and companies will be getting in line to collect what they are owed. And when the well runs dry, too bad, so sad, you don't get paid. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea how they would guarantee that the injured party in this case would get to go to the front of the line, if that is at all possible.

Irulan

11-10-2010, 06:33 PM

OR, he could be (as DH is fond of saying) "levered out to the hilt." In other words, he may be the kind of person who has borrowed tons of money against his potential earnings in order to enjoy a particular lifestyle.

If his ability to earn is curtailed by a felony charge, people and companies will be getting in line to collect what they are owed. And when the well runs dry, too bad, so sad, you don't get paid. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea how they would guarantee that the injured party in this case would get to go to the front of the line, if that is at all possible.

That was my thought. Very few of these guys have piles of money sitting around. Unless they are Dave Ramsey fans...:D

Trek420

11-10-2010, 07:24 PM

having been on the jury on negligent death cases, fines are in part supposed to be punishment, not restitution.

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV etc but if fines are are part of the punishment and I think I read somewhere they are then doesn't planning the fines, calculating his ability to pay etc before trial or even charges mean we're skipping that whole radical activist Constitutional "guilty until proven innocent beyond a" thang?

If they find me with the body, with my loaded slingshot, rubber band scars on my wrist from the sling shot and decide "no, we're not gonna book her for killing that @zzhole driver who cut her off because she has a phobia of being in the upper bunk bed and could never make it in a cell for the length of a murder sentence" :rolleyes:

Guilty until proven and then we figure it all out is at least what I thought we do:cool: I could be wrong.

(I'm not saying he is innocent, sounds like he done it)

Kathi

11-10-2010, 08:00 PM

Here is the DA's explanation of his decision posted in the Vail Daily.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20101109/COLUMNS/101109774/1026&parentprofile=1058

In Colorado restitution must be made by the person causing an accident before they can have their driver's licence reinstated. I know this because a drunk driver hit the corner of our house and fled the scene. No one was injured but it was his 2nd drunk driving offense. The driver was uninsured so our homeowners insurance paid the damages. We were responsible for our deductible. The court ordered the driver to reimburse us our deductible which he promply did. He also received jail time and lost his driver's license for over a year and probably his job. Our insurance company could have also gone after him to pay for our claim. No idea if they did.

Which brings up another point. If the bicyclists health insurance is paying any part of his rehabilitation they could go after the driver for reimbursement.

I wonder why his company keeps him, the publicity certainly is a black eye for them.

Also, bicycle Colorado is looking into this.

pll

11-11-2010, 04:20 AM

NOt a lawyer here, and I don't understand why can't be charged and be convicted of a felony. As for the "felony deferred...", it could have repercussions in the future, depending on how the NASD phrases the relevant questions. If the NASD does what immigration authorities do, the question is whether someone was *ever charged* with a crime or offense, and the answer is a sworn statement, he cannot "deny that anything had happened," as Hurlbert suggests.

PamNY

11-11-2010, 05:07 AM

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV etc but if fines are are part of the punishment and I think I read somewhere they are then doesn't planning the fines, calculating his ability to pay etc before trial or even charges mean we're skipping that whole radical activist Constitutional "guilty until proven innocent beyond a" thang?

He was offered a plea bargain -- so no trial to determine guilt. That's the purpose of a plea bargain. At least that's how it works in other states.

ny biker

11-12-2010, 08:00 AM

Bob Mionske's take:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2010/11/11/hit-and-run-in-vail-colorado-incites-outrage/

He feels the crime is definitely a felony, due to the severity of the injuries. Also he points out the court could refuse the accept the plea.

And also, from velonews.com, The Explainer weighs in:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/11/news/the-explainer-is-having-a-mercedes-an-affirmative-defense_149196

ny biker

12-09-2010, 09:15 AM

An update on this case:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/12/news/the-explainer-the-vail-victim-gets-his-day-in-court_152315

There will be a hearing on Dec. 16 in which the judge would have to opportunity to reject the plea deal. The victim is expected to be there.

Also apparently the driver was required to report to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that he was charged with felony by Sept. 2, but he has not done so.

channlluv

12-09-2010, 12:57 PM

Feh.

+1 -- I've been thinking this exact same thing. And also that this uber-wealthy money guy and his uber-wealthy-protectionist DA sound like Fat Cat Republicans to me, but I wasn't going to say so out loud. Ha! I really don't see what a judge, liberal or otherwise, has to do with what charges a DA brings. And it's not like it's a class thing because the victim here is a surgeon and while he may not earn as much as uber-wealthy money guy, I imagine he's pretty comfortable. (And I'm a registered Independent, fwiw.)

Except for the lifetime of pain he's going to endure because of this accident.

I DO understand the desire for $$$ restitution on that point, and if uber-wealthy money guy is going to pay up big, he's going to need to work, so maybe all of that really did figure into the plea bargaining and the victim's lawyer was okay with it, in spite of the moral outrage. He gets paid more to, then, doesn't he?

In the end, it's really all about the money.

Roxy

bmccasland

12-09-2010, 02:46 PM

Yeah but the victim isn't exactly in the "poverty" economic class either - which is making this class talk rather interesting. The Doc could have been one of the Financial Manager's clients.

It's still sad that for a really lame reason a person was thus far allowed to get away with seriously injuring another. If he had beat him to a pulp with his fists, he'd be in jail. Or maybe his lawyer would be trying to get him off for some dumb reason.

It still amazes me that you can hit someone with a car, seriously injuring them, leave the scene of the accident and get away with it as if all you did was smack them on the butt as you walked by.

channlluv

12-09-2010, 07:41 PM

I'm trying to see this from the driver's POV. If he really was asleep at the wheel, and as someone with sleep apnea, I can relate to the extreme fatigue (I've actually dozed off at red lights - nuts, I know), but if he really did fall asleep, he may have hit the cyclist and not noticed. The report I read said he also hit an embankment or wall or something. If it was right after hitting the doctor, he may not have noticed the impact with the bicycle, or he may have assumed it was from the impact with the embankment. IF the the larger impact woke him up, then I think it's plausible that he really didn't know that he'd hit a person.

Still, wouldn't that still make him guilty of gross vehicular recklessness resulting in bodily injury or something?

Roxy

Charlotte Berry

12-10-2010, 03:41 PM

I'm not getting out the popcorn for this.

I think it's going to take coffee rather then Popcorn. I didn't make it through on just a candy bar, so coffee or perhaps a mocha. I'm staying out of the fray, ducking entering and leaving. Nicities went out the window in this one, I say ducking and weaving. :-)

Eden

12-10-2010, 04:08 PM

(stepping into my flame proof suit)

If you can fall asleep and kill someone without knowing it from apnea then perhaps it is time to limit/disallow driving for those diagnosed with severe and untreatable or untreated apnea...(not unlike limitations on driving for epileptics). Of course this never stops people from driving anyway and who knows how many people are undiagnosed.

ridebikeme

12-10-2010, 07:04 PM

I agree with Eden ! The fact remains that we all make decisions to drive all the time. The difference here is that most people would take responsibility for their actions, and not make excuses. While there may be a sleep apnea problem for this person, the end result is that he caused a very serious accident. What truly bothers me is that he was able to stay awake long enough to drive and call his mechanic about the damages !! And if he does indeed have this problem, how does he stay awake long enough to perform his job?

Regardless of what happens, each time we drive our vehicles we are responsible for our actions. Whether we are tired, talking on the phone, or any other excuse that we can come up with... the fact remains that we are responsible.

Perhaps the family of the cyclist will file a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver, and have some sort of legal action taken. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

ny biker

12-15-2010, 01:46 PM

"The new-car smell made me do it."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/12/news/district-attorney-seeks-to-bar-vail-victims-testimony-in-plea-hearing_153108

I think bikesnobnyc sums things up pretty well:

"It's becoming increasingly clear to me that if you were addicted to humanity's shortcomings, and in order to feed your addiction you were to to take 21st century America and freebase it so that only its worst elements were left, you'd wind up with the quivering little gooey blob that is Martin Erzinger, which you'd then proceed to smoke and inhale. In any case, the patent absurdity of the "new-car defense" aside, I must say I'm tremendously disappointed in the current state of our rich people. At least "back in the day" they were ruthless in an above-board way, like robber barons, Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons," and the people in "Boardwalk Empire." Now they're just a bunch of cowardly whiners who can't handle the smells of their own luxury cars. Frankly, I think that when a human has devolved to the point where even the richly-appointed interior of his new Mercedes is too much for him, he's really not qualified for life in the outside world and should spend the rest of his life in a small enclosed area like the milk-fed veal calf that he is."

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2010/12/chamfering-at-bit-hard-times-soft.html

badgercat

12-15-2010, 01:52 PM

NEW CAR SMELL?!

It's like the Twinkie Defense all over again.

Bike Chick

12-16-2010, 03:56 AM

Sentencing is set for 1:00 today. Let's just hope the judge can see through all the bs the defendant is dishing out. Most of the time they can. The real villian in this case is the da, however. Someone needs to prosecute him for not doing his job!

Bike Chick

12-16-2010, 03:35 PM

The judge in the case has accepted the plea saying it wasn't a deal he would have made but he didn't find it to be unreasonable. The only thing I can find about today's sentencing was here (http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/12/news/colorado-judge-oks-controversial-plea-deal-in-vail-hit-and-run_153281) on Velo News. Perhaps there will be more tomorrow.

Deborajen

12-16-2010, 08:04 PM

After having a couple of seizures two years ago, I was told I couldn't drive for 6 months - Kansas Law. After 6 months, my doctor had to submit a form to the State reporting that 1. I hadn't had any more seizures 2. I'm compliant with taking my medications 3. I've followed up with my doctor as prescribed. The doctor also signed off that future medical exams shouldn't be required for me to retain my driving privileges, which basically means I take my condition and treatment seriously. The State responded that they'd go ahead and allow me to keep my license, but THEY want me to have an annual medical exam - failure to do so would result in immediate revocation of my license. I'm still complying with all of this. It's really not a bad idea, for my safety and for everyone else's.

Interesting that the driver in this case uses his condition as an EXCUSE. How often does he doze off and what would the consequences be if it happens when he's driving? I had 2 seizures in 46 years and then went on medication which research shows could very likely prevent me from having another seizure - ever. But I'm in the State's computer as being a medical risk. I'd NEVER get off the hook for an accident if I said "I didn't mean to - I just had a seizure."

The driver most certainly was negligent. He shouldn't be getting off the hook for this - not for a lot of reasons.