Mother serves more time than drunk driver
Options
SemperAnticus1643
Posts: 703 Member
A few years ago, a mother got off of a bus and crossed the street in an area that did not have a cross walk. While crossing the street, the mother's 4 year old son was hit and killed by a drunk driver who later fled the scene. The drunk driver, who already had a few DUIs, served 6 months in prison and probation. The mother is now facing jaywalking charges along with vehicular manslaughter and reckless conduct charges which could lead to up to 2 years in prison. What's your take??
0
Replies
-
In a country where those laws are in place - she shouldn't have tried to cross.
But DUI should have a mandatory ten years for the first offense. No exceptions whatsoever: you drink and drive, you do ten years.0 -
It's stupid. But the law is the law. Also, 6 DUIs. The person must either be very rich and powerful, or has a damn good lawyer.0
-
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.0 -
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for DUI. If you're going to be driving, don't drink. Only the most stupid person finds that a difficult concept to comprehend. It's just as easy and just as likely to kill a little boy on the first time as it is the tenth.0 -
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for DUI. If you're going to be driving, don't drink. Only the most stupid person finds that a difficult concept to comprehend. It's just as easy and just as likely to kill a little boy on the first time as it is the tenth.
sorry but no. in some jurisdictions that can cite you with a DUI even if you are well below the limit most states set of .08.
furthermore if you are going to set draconian laws you better have them for people with under serviced cars. someone driving on bald tires? 10 years!0 -
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for DUI. If you're going to be driving, don't drink. Only the most stupid person finds that a difficult concept to comprehend. It's just as easy and just as likely to kill a little boy on the first time as it is the tenth.
sorry but no. in some jurisdictions that can cite you with a DUI even if you are well below the limit most states set of .08.
furthermore if you are going to set draconian laws you better have them for people with under serviced cars. someone driving on bald tires? 10 years!
In those states, wouldn't the intelligent thing to be - oh, I don't know - not drink and drive?
I like alcohol. That doesn't mean I would ever drive after having had a drink. I've got more sense than that. I would t drive after havin taken medication that affects it either. There's no excuse, no mitigating circumstances. If so evody chooses to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol, then they have made their choice and should have to deal with the consequences, rather than leave the consequences to other people in burying their loved ones or coping with losing their ability to walk, etc.0 -
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for DUI. If you're going to be driving, don't drink. Only the most stupid person finds that a difficult concept to comprehend. It's just as easy and just as likely to kill a little boy on the first time as it is the tenth.
sorry but no. in some jurisdictions that can cite you with a DUI even if you are well below the limit most states set of .08.
furthermore if you are going to set draconian laws you better have them for people with under serviced cars. someone driving on bald tires? 10 years!
In those states, wouldn't the intelligent thing to be - oh, I don't know - not drink and drive?
I like alcohol. That doesn't mean I would ever drive after having had a drink. I've got more sense than that. I would t drive after havin taken medication that affects it either. There's no excuse, no mitigating circumstances. If so evody chooses to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol, then they have made their choice and should have to deal with the consequences, rather than leave the consequences to other people in burying their loved ones or coping with losing their ability to walk, etc.
who wants to have dinner w/o a glass of wine or two? giving someone 10 years for their first dui is insane. and thankfully will never happen.
first dui...cost a few thousand dollars..thats all the punishment needed. everyone makes mistakes.
repeat offenders within a certain time period? now we can start discussing harsher penalties.
and just because 1 drink hits you hard enough to make you not drive doesnt mean it affects everyone the same way.0 -
was going to say this probably has a lot to do with the lawyer.
and 10 years for for first DUI? lol at that. unless you are off the charts wasted first offense deserves no jail time.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for DUI. If you're going to be driving, don't drink. Only the most stupid person finds that a difficult concept to comprehend. It's just as easy and just as likely to kill a little boy on the first time as it is the tenth.
sorry but no. in some jurisdictions that can cite you with a DUI even if you are well below the limit most states set of .08.
furthermore if you are going to set draconian laws you better have them for people with under serviced cars. someone driving on bald tires? 10 years!
In those states, wouldn't the intelligent thing to be - oh, I don't know - not drink and drive?
I like alcohol. That doesn't mean I would ever drive after having had a drink. I've got more sense than that. I would t drive after havin taken medication that affects it either. There's no excuse, no mitigating circumstances. If so evody chooses to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol, then they have made their choice and should have to deal with the consequences, rather than leave the consequences to other people in burying their loved ones or coping with losing their ability to walk, etc.
who wants to have dinner w/o a glass of wine or two? giving someone 10 years for their first dui is insane. and thankfully will never happen.
first dui...cost a few thousand dollars..thats all the punishment needed. everyone makes mistakes.
repeat offenders within a certain time period? now we can start discussing harsher penalties.
and just because 1 drink hits you hard enough to make you not drive doesnt mean it affects everyone the same way.
If you really can't cope without a glass of wine at a meal, perhaps you should consider seeking help.
It's not the drinking in itself that's the problem (anyone who looks at my diary can see that I go out a lot with friends and for gigs) it's the being stupid enough to get into a vehicle and drive afterwards that's the issue. Get a cab. Get a designated driver. Walk, even. I don't care how much people claim that alcohol doesn't affect their driving, it does. Every time. And to think that it doesn't generally proves that their judgement is impaired and they have no business being in control of anything that can kill people.0 -
If you really can't cope without a glass of wine at a meal, perhaps you should consider seeking help.
It's not the drinking in itself that's the problem (anyone who looks at my diary can see that I go out a lot with friends and for gigs) it's the being stupid enough to get into a vehicle and drive afterwards that's the issue. Get a cab. Get a designated driver. Walk, even. I don't care how much people claim that alcohol doesn't affect their driving, it does. Every time. And to think that it doesn't generally proves that their judgement is impaired and they have no business being in control of anything that can kill people.
ah now i get it...thinking that if someone likes to have wine with dinner makes them an alcoholic shows me you dont have a reasonable understanding of what alcohol is or how it works.
furthermore i assume you agree with my pervious post that if you are going to be this draconian then we should jail people with under serviced cars too right? they are willfully increasing the risk to the general public after all.0 -
hmm,, the law is the law,,,0
-
The yahoo article I read stated in an update that her vehicular manslaughter charges have been dropped. However, people need to use the crosswalks. I get that they don't protect people from being hit but they make people less responsible for when they do. And in any regard, people with DUI's really need to be punished harsher.0
-
The crimes of the drunk driver and the mother are two separate issues.
The mother tried to cross a 4 lane highway with small children!!! She put her children's lives in harm by not using the crosswalks and one of her children died because of that. That is negligent homicide; no?
It does sound like the driver should have gotten harsher punishment, but I tend to lean that way toward those who drive under the influence.0 -
The mother tried to cross a 4 lane highway with small children!!! She put her children's lives in harm by not using the crosswalks and one of her children died because of that.
I see this ALL the time and it pisses me off... here in Arlington many of our roads are 4-7 lanes... and these are arterial streets NOT just highways. And the posted speed limit is 35-45 but people constantly are traveling at 5+ miles over the speed limit. All the time people jaywalking (usually at night, wearing dark clothing and in between street lights) get hit. And it pisses me off... I have little sympathy for people who get hit because they weren't using common sense... I almost hit a couple of walkers with strollers in a cross walk because they were wearing DARK clothing... not a piece of white or reflective clothing on them... I didn't see them until my lights were shining right on them. Anyway, back to my commute, one of our arterial streets that I commute on pretty much daily (there are a whole slew of apartments along this road), I will see people parked out in the turn lanes waiting for the rush hour traffic to subside to finish crossing... I have even seen a wheel chair bound person do this in a motorized chair.
Should the mother be charged with a crime, yes. And I'm sure she will be suffering this tragedy all the time... and as much as jaywalkers piss me off, mostly because they are stupid and have a death wish... I don't think she should have paid a harsher sentence than the one doing the driving.0 -
Should the mother be charged with a crime, yes. And I'm sure she will be suffering this tragedy all the time... and as much as jaywalkers piss me off, mostly because they are stupid and have a death wish... I don't think she should have paid a harsher sentence than the one doing the driving.
But, whose fault is it that the child died? We could argue the mother's because she's the root cause. We could argue the driver because perhaps he could have swerved if he weren't under the influence.0 -
Should the mother be charged with a crime, yes. And I'm sure she will be suffering this tragedy all the time... and as much as jaywalkers piss me off, mostly because they are stupid and have a death wish... I don't think she should have paid a harsher sentence than the one doing the driving.
But, whose fault is it that the child died? We could argue the mother's because she's the root cause. We could argue the driver because perhaps he could have swerved if he weren't under the influence.
Don't get me wrong, I totally think she is just as much at fault as the driver is. The only sympathy I have is for the child as that poor boy didn't have the choice to live or die... it was totally in the hands of his mother and the driver... I'm just not sure she should have to pay more than the driver as she already is.0 -
If you really can't cope without a glass of wine at a meal, perhaps you should consider seeking help.
It's not the drinking in itself that's the problem (anyone who looks at my diary can see that I go out a lot with friends and for gigs) it's the being stupid enough to get into a vehicle and drive afterwards that's the issue. Get a cab. Get a designated driver. Walk, even. I don't care how much people claim that alcohol doesn't affect their driving, it does. Every time. And to think that it doesn't generally proves that their judgement is impaired and they have no business being in control of anything that can kill people.
ah now i get it...thinking that if someone likes to have wine with dinner makes them an alcoholic shows me you dont have a reasonable understanding of what alcohol is or how it works.
furthermore i assume you agree with my pervious post that if you are going to be this draconian then we should jail people with under serviced cars too right? they are willfully increasing the risk to the general public after all.
I know how alcohol works extremely well, thank you. And I can separate a want to consume alcohol from a need. It's simple, really; if somebody wants to consume alcohol, they shouldn't be driving afterwards, including the following day if it hasn't been fully metabolised due to the quantity or liver function being impaired.
In the UK, you can be prosecuted for driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy and if involved in an accident, also for invalidating the Insurance - it's only a thousand pounds fine, though, plus points on the licence, which stay there for 4 years - any further driving offences, even things such as not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone, get added on until there are 12 points in a 2 - 3 period, leading to an automatic ban and, in the case of new drivers, the need to retake the driving tests again.
https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties
Over here, that driver could have got up to 14 years' imprisonment, a huge fine and have to retake the driving test, only regaining the licence if they pass a medical examination (so, somebody who had alcoholism or drug addiction and couldn't pass the licensing requirements to be fit to drive, for example, wouldn't get it back even then).0 -
In a country where those laws are in place - she shouldn't have tried to cross.
But DUI should have a mandatory ten years for the first offense. No exceptions whatsoever: you drink and drive, you do ten years.
that seems a bit ridiculous dont ya think? So a DUI where no one was hurt someone would go to prison for 10 yrs? cmon.0 -
In a country where those laws are in place - she shouldn't have tried to cross.
But DUI should have a mandatory ten years for the first offense. No exceptions whatsoever: you drink and drive, you do ten years.
Jaywalking laws (at least the details) aren't countrywide in the US, but local, or maybe state. In this case, the city's laws are something along the lines of "it's only jaywalking if there are crosswalks that are a reasonable distance apart, and intersections count as crosswalks, even if they're not marked." If I remember right, the nearest (even unmarked) crosswalk was nearly half a mile away, if you don't count kinda-sorta-tbone-intersection to her apartment complex.
You also have the "reasonable person" doctrines, which can affect how a given law in interpreted. In this situation, the reasonable person doctrine could dictate that the bus stop itself creates an unmarked crosswalk (pedestrian crossing), because any "reasonable person" would cross there (because the bus stop is there).
Here's some more information on the matter itself, for those who aren't familiar with it:
http://www.freerangekids.com/outrage-of-the-week-mom-convicted-in-death-of-her-son-who-ran-across-the-street/ (check out the comments, specifically, which have a lot of good information on crosswalk laws and whatnot)
http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/prosecuting-the-victim-absolving-the-perpetrators/ (includes map of the crossing location and more details about the case itself)
That said, I think it's ludicrous that the drunk driver got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. While I wouldn't say 10 years for first offence, I do largely agree with Sqeekyjojo's sentiments that drunk driving should carry harsher penalties, and the driver should at least carry more of the legal responsibility for the child's death. If I recall, the driver was also a repeat offender for drunk driving.
Also, I think this case is a symptom of a larger problem in the US. Most of our cities are actually extremely hostile to pedestrians (and even worse to bicycles). The situation itself made for a ticking timebomb - straight, 5 lane roads, with few and far between traffic lights not only make it easier to drive faster (and not just in the sense of "hey look, it's straight! Let's go faster!", but also in the sense that such straightaways throw off one's sense of speed), but also make it more difficult for pedestrians to easily cross. In other words, the idea of "who's to blame, the driver or the mother?" is a false dichotomy. The city planners should also hold some responsibility to see what can be done to change the geography so that the pedestrians can have safe, reasonable, means of crossing streets and using public transportation.0 -
Whenever I hear of a bizarre overprosecution like this, I immediately guess (a) this is somewhere in the South and (b) the defendant is black. In this case: Check and check.
Thanks for links, Dragonwolf. I definitely agree that transportation planners bear some responsibility for creating this situation. I used to work on a busy boulevard with three traffic lanes in each direction, no sidewalks, and no shoulders. Yet the street had bus stops, presumably often used by workers at the many businesses on each side. Each bus stop had ten or twenty feet of sidewalk where people could wait, but there was no way to get to or from the bus stop without walking in traffic. Whoever designed that street was begging for pedestrian deaths.
The latest news on this case:Raquel Nelson Finally Cleared of Homicide Charges, Pleads to Jaywalking
June 14, 2013
by Angie Schmitt
The long legal ordeal is finally over for Raquel Nelson, the mother who faced three years in prison after her four-year-old son was killed by an impaired driver in suburban Atlanta.
Raquel Nelson's long legal ordeal is finally over, but people around the country must still deal with the dangerous conditions that claimed her son's life.
Charges of vehicular homicide against Nelson — who was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when her son A.J. was struck and killed — were dropped yesterday in exchange for a guilty plea on jaywalking charges alone. She will pay a $200 fine, according to Transportation for America.
Nelson’s case gained national attention as an illustration of poor road design as a civil rights issue. The homicide charge was based on the idea that she was recklessly “jaywalking,” but Nelson was simply trying to get from the bus stop to her apartment, and the closest crosswalk was one-third of a mile away. . . .
http://streetsblog.net/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally-cleared-of-homicide-charges-pleads-to-jaywalking/0 -
We've proven, with the existence of the death penalty, that it does not matter how severe the punishment for a particular crime is, there are still those who will break that law, do that crime, knowing that their very life is on the line.
If knowing that you are in charge of a multi-ton fast-moving potentially deadly weapon isn't enough to deter you from operating it while drunk, the threat of a decade of potential jail time isn't going to, either.0
