Infuriating

[Irulan]

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

[Trek420]

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"

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

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

[Kathi]

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

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...ntprofile=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]

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]

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]

Bob Mionske's take:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...cites-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/...defense_149196

[ny biker]

An update on this case:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...n-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.