NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Today, shouldn't former officer Johannes Mehserle had been given more than a 2 year conviction for the killing of Oscar Grant?
Any coincidence the trail was moved to Los Angeles and given to the same judge (Perry) who presided over the Rampart Scandal, in which he let all the officers off the hook?
This was caught on tape and still the justice system produces another case to fuel the already intense belief that cops are above the law (or far above the kind of sentencing the general public is subjected to).
Wonder if any police officers will protest the verdict.
The driver of the vehicle was found to be at fault for the collsiions due the violation of
21950(a) VC which states:
"The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."
The driver committed a traffic infraction which was not observed by a police officer and thus could not even be ticketed (much less arrested) for striking the girls.
If there was alcohol involved, this would be a felony crime and not a traffic infraction and an arrest could have been made. In the alternative if there was any evidence that this was an intentional act than a crime has been committed a the person arrested.
One of the girls died...that triggers the 192.5 of the Penal Code which states:
"Vehicular manslaughter pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 191.5 and subdivision (c) of Section 192 is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought"
This means that unless there is clear evidence of malice than even with gross negligence this section applies.
The punishment for this section is imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year. ITS A MISDEMEANOR.
Misdemeanor crimes are presented to the City Attorney for filing. This will go to the City Attorney so YES THERE ARE CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING IN THIS CASE...but keep in mind that the punishment will be a maximum of 1 year in County because it is a misdemanor.
It's so easy to jump to conclusions here and place blame on drivers. We are so used to hating on drivers that it's the obvious kneejerk reaction.
But you all know my favorite afternoon activity: Devil's advocate.
Item:
There are no traffic control signals at the intersection.
Item:
It was dark outside.
Item:
Two girls walked out into traffic. Wait, what? Two girls walked out into traffic. In the dark, at an intersection with no traffic control signals, with traffic oncoming, two girls walked out into the street.
Item:
The speed limit on Laurel Cyn at that intersection is 35mph. If you are doing even just 25mph on your bicycle and someone pulls out in front of YOU, who do YOU blame? Yourself? Or the retard that pulled out in front of you?
I actually think it's pretty clear where the fault lies on this one. Do I think serious injury and hospitalization is fair punishment for being enough of an idiot to walk out into the middle of the street at night with traffic coming? No, that would be pretty severe. But with no other information to go on, I'm not gonna bust the driver's chops on this one.
Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, my favorite anytime activity:
I am sure the contributing factor in all of this outside your unqualified statements is speed. If the driver was not speeding then the time to stop would have been adequate.
Speed is usually a factor. But only Cyclist break rules not drivers.
Foldie responding to a comment by outerspace
11.5.10 - 3:44 pm
You are assuming the driver had time to react. We don't know that he did or didn't. Like I said, we bitch and moan about drivers pulling out in front of us all the time, and we are only doing (typically) 15 to 20mph. The speed limit at that intersection was 35mph. At that speed, the typical driver needs almost 150 feet to react and stop the car, assuming perfect road conditions conducive to efficient braking.
The article doesn't tell us
- was the driver braking when he hit the girls?
- what speed was the driver traveling at prior to the collision?
- - during the collision?
- what was the distance between the girls and the driver when the girls moved into the intersection?
- etc
- etc
Regardless, in this situation, though pedestrians are given the legal right of way by the crosswalk, they were still idiots for walking out into moving traffic. It is a harsh truth but it is still the truth. Physics doesn't give a crap who has the legal right of way.
they were still idiots for walking out into moving traffic. It is a harsh truth but it is still the truth
For someone to post a list of missing information, and then conclude two young victims were "idiots" and it is a "harsh truth", is so not an idiot, right?
Physics doesn't give a crap who has the legal right of way.
How insightful. I believe that is why Roadblock asked an officer about this incident and not a physics text book, because it is people who give a crap about a legal right of way. With that, the legal right away is something people (not physics) adhere to, hence, if you take to the streets in your vehicle you are suppose to give the right away to pedestrians... and this driver apparently did not.
I cant believe this guy called a 10 and 12 year old "idiots" for trying to walk across a street. I hope you stop posting
md2 responding to a comment by outerspace
11.5.10 - 6:01 pm
in modern societies we usually don't roll with "might is right" as the rule of law. we are supposed to tweak laws and regulations to favor preservation of life even if it "inconveniences" people.
when I drive. I slow down when I'm approaching a crosswalk because it's the human thing to do and there is plenty of signage and indication of crosswalk ahead of time.
Think differently about how laws should be:
Roadblock responding to a comment by outerspace
11.5.10 - 7:36 pm
even if these 10 and 12 year old people were idiots. The driver should have slowed when approaching the crosswalk regardless of whether people were using it or not. That's the compassionate and careful way of driving.
Roadblock responding to a comment by outerspace
11.5.10 - 7:41 pm
I spoke too harshly and insensitively. I apologize.
I just don't think it's fair to demonize this guy so quickly. No, I don't know what really happened out there. But neither do you, not all of it (unless you were there), and you are ready to see this guy rot. That's pretty messed up, too. That's what made me all crazy.
The reason the criminal law is lenient under these circumstances is that the wrongful act (in theory anyhow) is violating a traffic law (not yielding the right of way to pedestrians). The problem is that there was a tragic result, but the driver lacked a mental state consistent with a more serious crime.
You would have a similar situation if a driver ran a red light (another traffic infraction) and hit another car causing a death. That driver would be as culpable as any other red light runner only their negligence results in a death rather than the usual no harm no foul that results all the other times that person has run a red light.
cascandal responding to a comment by outerspace
11.5.10 - 8:06 pm
the thing is, they are 10 and 12 years old -- they were children. I dont even think idiot can apply to them. And it's not even worth saying, especially since a kid died. What a fucking cheap shot, to call a child such after they passed away; a complete dick for sure.
We need safer streets, so our kids can simply walk across a street without endangering their lives. This is an example of what is clearly immoral about continuing to give precedent to automobiles.
When the emissions and even the dangerous from an automobile's speed/power, have so crippled your society, it is no longer an issue of privileges, but a moral issue. It's no longer about whether we must cater to drivers, but rather adhereing to higher principles that would trump the use and precedence toward facilitating a society with so many potential risks via the automobile. In this way a DOT is dealing in the moral realm, in my opinion.
It's just simply about right and wrong now.
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
11.5.10 - 8:13 pm
What frustrates me is the piecemeal approach taken by many in response to this incident. Protestors are gathering signatures to have a traffic light installed at the intersection of Laurel Canyon & Archwood.
This exact accident may never occur again. What we need to do is make streets safer for everyone everywhere, not just at THAT intersection and back to business as usual!
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
