Money buys a pass.
Printable View
I saw that last night. It's disgusting.
Are you kidding me? :mad:
Does Colorado have a "vunerable roadway users" law or similar?
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Writer
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".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Writer
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.blogspo...-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)
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Writer
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.
I've never heard of "vulnerable roadway user" but we do have a 3 foot law for cyclists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndirelah
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.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikegurl
+++1Quote:
Originally Posted by syndirelah
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JennK13
http://blog.bicyclecoalition.org/201...s-bill-to.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Writer
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...)
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oxysback
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.
Could that really happen? How? Doesn't the DA have to present a case to the jury for it to be considered?Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
I've never served on a Grand Jury, so I don't really understand how it works.
Just wow. Noone does drama like the team estrogen women.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oxysback
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, 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.
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by oxysback
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataboo
On-topic. It's all about the Benjamins. Lohan, Hilton, et al. should have been behind bars ages ago.
Or dogs, or anything really. This is about the most low-drama group on teh interwebz.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoom-zoom
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 on "those liberal judges." So, "those liberal judges" are blamed for everyone's lack of judgement?Quote:
Originally Posted by indysteel
The plead offered by Hulbert is a mockery of justice.
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!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
Um, did you actually read the news coverage?Quote:
Originally Posted by JennK13
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
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.
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 :)
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
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.
Um, yes, which is how I knew he was a surgeon.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JennK13
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
As for restitution's role in criminal justice in general, that would be a different discussion.
having been on the jury on negligent death cases, fines are in part supposed to be punishment, not restitution.