Student who drove Halberstam during crash to be charged

[Goopster24]

I don't know much about law but can this student be put in jail for this really? Wow.

 

Link

 

SAN FRANCISCO -- A graduate student who was behind the wheel when Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Halberstam was killed in a car crash will be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, a district attorney said Thursday.

 

Kevin Jones, 26, a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley's journalism school, was driving Halberstam to an interview with football legend Y.A. Tittle on April 23 when the fatal accident happened in Menlo Park, south of San Francisco.

 

An investigation showed that Jones made an illegal left turn into the path of a car that had a green light. That car smashed into the passenger side of the car in which Halberstam was riding, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Jones had a red light.

 

Based on eyewitness accounts and a reconstruction of the accident, investigators determined that Jones made the turn while in a lane intended for traffic heading straight -- instead of from either of the two left-turn lanes, Wagstaffe said.

 

"He turned into the oncoming traffic, and that's why the [other] car crushed the side of the car with Mr. Halberstam," Wagstaffe said.

 

Jones is expected to be charged next week.

 

Records from the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that Jones had two previous accidents on his record, from March 2005 and March 2006. Neither resulted in a citation.

 

In 1999, while he was a teenager living in Washington state, Jones was convicted of driving under the influence and paid an $862 fine, court records show.

 

"His prior driving record did play a factor in our deliberations," Wagstaffe said.

 

The misdemeanor charge prosecutors plan to bring against Jones carries a maximum sentence of a year in county jail, a fine or both.

 

An autopsy showed Halberstam, who was wearing a seat belt, died almost instantly when a broken rib punctured his heart, authorities said.

 

Jones suffered a punctured lung in the accident and took a leave of absence from school after the crash. He did not immediately return a call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

 

His defense lawyer, Laurel Headley, said Jones "is still extremely upset" and struggling to come to terms with Halberstam's death.

 

"It's been an absolutely devastating experience for him," Headley said. "He feels a great loss of a mentor of his, and that's a big deal to have to deal with."

 

Halberstam, the author of 21 nonfiction books, was at work on a new one about the legendary 1958 NFL championship game between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants.

 

The 73-year-old won the Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his coverage of the Vietnam War, a subject he revisited in his 1972 best-selling book, "The Best and the Brightest." He went on to write 14 other best-sellers, including "The Breaks of the Game," "The Reckoning," and "The Powers That Be."

 

"The Coldest Winter," an account of a key battle of the Korean War, is to be published posthumously in the fall.

 

Halberstam's widow, Jean Halberstam, hired a lawyer to explore the possibility of suing whichever driver ultimately was found at fault. She was out of the country on Thursday and not available for comment.

[cliaz]

Yeap he can be charged.

[untateve]

It would appear that this was simply an "accident", as is most car crashes. Charging one with vehicular manslaughter seems a little over the top, although it is only misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.

[Bronco Billy]

It would appear that this was simply an "accident", as is most car crashes. Charging one with vehicular manslaughter seems a little over the top, although it is only misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.

 

 

Stupid question, I know - but would you feel the same way if it were your loved one that died as a result of his illegal & irresponsible action?

 

He ought to be charged, and he ought to get appropriate punishment. This wasn't an "accident". It was the consequences of his intentional poor judgment, and his poor judgment cost a man his life. Justice says there has to be some accountability.

[Piranha]

It was an accident, but he made an illegal turn.

And on top of that,

 

In 1999, while he was a teenager living in Washington state, Jones was convicted of driving under the influence and paid an $862 fine, court records show.

 

"His prior driving record did play a factor in our deliberations," Wagstaffe said.

[Hugh 0ne]

It would appear that this was simply an "accident", as is most car crashes. Charging one with vehicular manslaughter seems a little over the top, although it is only misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.

 

 

I would have to disagree based on this:

 

An investigation showed that Jones made an illegal left turn into the path of a car that had a green light. That car smashed into the passenger side of the car in which Halberstam was riding, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Jones had a red light.

 

 

His negligent actions led to the death of another individual. There has to be some accountability imo.

[Hugh 0ne]

Awww, sh*t. I just agreed with Pony Boy. I feel dirty.

[detlef]

It would appear that this was simply an "accident", as is most car crashes. Charging one with vehicular manslaughter seems a little over the top, although it is only misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.

 

It was not an "accident", it was a "collision". It does seem harsh. However, no where near enough people take driving seriously. Some old dude plows through a street mall and kills 5 people and everyone just talks about what a nice old man he was and never meant anyone harm. Well, he may have not "meant" to hurt anyone but he got behind the wheel and did.

 

It is unfortunate that the only difference between this and any number of other collisions is that somebody died. Well, I guess that's just too bad for the driver. He got unlucky. Not as unlucky, mind you, as the dude who died, however.

 

At what point do you draw the line when an illegal activity has a harsher consequence than planned on?

Edited June 22, 2007 by detlef

[untateve]

Stupid question, I know - but would you feel the same way if it were your loved one that died as a result of his illegal & irresponsible action?

 

He ought to be charged, and he ought to get appropriate punishment. This wasn't an "accident". It was the consequences of his intentional poor judgment, and his poor judgment cost a man his life. Justice says there has to be some accountability.

 

 

As I get older, I find the "would you feel the same way if your loved one..." to be a bogus argument.

 

In driving, all of us have made mistakes when driving. Sometimes there have been accidents and many more times it has only resulted in a close call. I have only been in one accident in my life that was my fault and it was just that, an accident. I hit the front fender of a car . If I had hit the car a second later, I'd have plowed into the passenger door and who knows what would have happened. I'm guessing that many of us have similar stories. I've also been hit a few times, just like most of us, due to mistakes. Almost always in an accident, someone is clearly at fault. That person gets the ticket. However, s/he is not charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter. I guess my view is that sometimes, mistakes are made, and bad things happen. There's a difference between someone who doesn't see a car, makes a right turn and plows into someone that results in a death and an idiot who is changing lanes recklessly, zipping in and out of traffic, causing an accident that results in death. I don't know the particulars of the case in the original post, but generally, I think misdemeanor vehicular homicide doesn't make sense. Of course, I could be misunderstanding how the law is applied.

 

In general, my view is that when bad things happen, often times people want someone to blame--they want to be able to assign a reason to why this bad thing happened and have somewhere to direct their overwhelming pain. As I am fortunate enough to have never experienced something like this, I can only imagine what it must feel like. At this point of time in my life, my view is that sometimes bad things happen and no matter how hard we want to blame someone or find an acceptable reason, sometimes that's just not possible.

[untateve]

It was not an "accident", it was a "collision". It does seem harsh. However, no where near enough people take driving seriously. Some old dude plows through a street mall and kills 5 people and everyone just talks about what a nice old man he was and never meant anyone harm. Well, he may have not "meant" to hurt anyone but he got behind the wheel and did.

 

It is unfortunate that the only difference between this and any number of other collisions is that somebody died. Well, I guess that's just too bad for the driver. He got unlucky. Not as unlucky, mind you, as the dude who died, however.

 

At what point do you draw the line when an illegal activity has a harsher consequence than planned on?

 

 

are you saying the driver purposely caused the collision? because if not, then we are talking semantics and it was an accident.

 

you are aware that he is only being charged with a misdemeanor. as such, at most, he will only have to serve a year in jail.

 

as to where I draw the line, I honestly haven't put that much thought into it. In a general way, I guess if a person is purposely driving recklessly (e.g., zipping in and out of traffic, speeding, etc.), that would be different to me than someone not seeing a stop sign and blowing through it.

[detlef]

are you saying the driver purposely caused the collision? because if not, then we are talking semantics and it was an accident.

 

you are aware that he is only being charged with a misdemeanor. as such, at most, he will only have to serve a year in jail.

 

as to where I draw the line, I honestly haven't put that much thought into it. In a general way, I guess if a person is purposely driving recklessly (e.g., zipping in and out of traffic, speeding, etc.), that would be different to me than someone not seeing a stop sign and blowing through it.

 

No, the difference is one often pointed out by insurance companies and law enforcement. An accident is technically faultless. A tree falls down in the road, which causes x and then y to happen. A collision is simply two things hitting each other. Just because the guy wasn't trying to hit the other car doesn't mean it wasn't caused by him. He made an illegal turn. That turn is illegal because this kind of thing can happen. Just because it almost never does, does not diminish the need to make the legal turn.

 

We often caution our children not to do certain things because they might get hurt. The child may remind you that they did it a bunch of times already and haven't been hurt yet, it that doesn't mean you should say, "OK, then you seem to have it under control." When he cracks his head open the next time he tries, do you write it off as, "Well, he could have landed on the grass and it would have been fine, it's just too bad he hit the pavement. Oh well, it happens." No, the action was identified as something that could have this effect, that's why you should have not allowed him to do it.

 

The point is, the legal system is all set on precedent, so it seems to be a pretty convenient place to start. If something horrible happens while you are doing something illegal, you get punished.

 

Yes, I do understand that it's only a misdemeanor and that seems about right to me. I'm not saying the guy should hang, just that somebody died while he was operating his vehicle in an illegal manner. There should be a punishment for that.

Edited June 22, 2007 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

In driving, all of us have made mistakes when driving. Sometimes there have been accidents and many more times it has only resulted in a close call. I have only been in one accident in my life that was my fault and it was just that, an accident. I hit the front fender of a car . If I had hit the car a second later, I'd have plowed into the passenger door and who knows what would have happened. I'm guessing that many of us have similar stories. I've also been hit a few times, just like most of us, due to mistakes. Almost always in an accident, someone is clearly at fault. That person gets the ticket. However, s/he is not charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter. I guess my view is that sometimes, mistakes are made, and bad things happen. There's a difference between someone who doesn't see a car, makes a right turn and plows into someone that results in a death and an idiot who is changing lanes recklessly, zipping in and out of traffic, causing an accident that results in death. I don't know the particulars of the case in the original post, but generally, I think misdemeanor vehicular homicide doesn't make sense. Of course, I could be misunderstanding how the law is applied.

 

 

 

Wow. Well, the way you view it, if someone discharges a gun in an intentionally reckless manner and the bullet happens to go through someone's forehead - even though he didn't mean for it to happen - that it's just a freak occurence and ought to be forgiven & forgotten.

 

An accident implies no blame on anyone's part - and I admit that they do happen. Driving recklessly, which is what the grad student was doing - turning from a no-turn lane, against a light, and into oncoming traffic - is serious stuff, and a car canm be just a deadly a weapon when used recklessly as a gun. A driver has an obligation when on the road to control their vehicle and operate it in a safe fashion. I guess I don't see how turning from a straight ahead lane (to the right of 2 turn lanes) and against a light is anything different than a guy weaving through traffic - which you call idiotic behavior that should carry additional liability. I also don't see how you make that distinction.

[untateve]

No, the difference is one often pointed out by insurance companies and law enforcement. An accident is technically faultless. A tree falls down in the road, which causes x and then y to happen. A collision is simply two things hitting each other. Just because the guy wasn't trying to hit the other car doesn't mean it wasn't caused by him. He made an illegal turn. That turn is illegal because this kind of thing can happen. Just because it almost never does, does not diminish the need to make the legal turn.

 

We often caution our children not to do certain things because they might get hurt. The child may remind you that they did it a bunch of times already and haven't been hurt yet, it that doesn't mean you should say, "OK, then you seem to have it under control." When he cracks his head open the next time he tries, do you write it off as, "Well, he could have landed on the grass and it would have been fine, it's just too bad he hit the pavement. Oh well, it happens." No, the action was identified as something that could have this effect, that's why you should have not allowed him to do it.

 

The point is, the legal system is all set on precedent, so it seems to be a pretty convenient place to start. If something horrible happens while you are doing something illegal, you get punished.

 

Yes, I do understand that it's only a misdemeanor and that seems about right to me. I'm not saying the guy should hang, just that somebody died while he was operating his vehicle in an illegal manner. There should be a punishment for that.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying that the driver did not cause the collision - I'm saying he did not do so intentionally--it was an accident. As I've said, almost all motor vehicle accidents involve someone who is at fault. I stub my toe and break it--well, that was certainly my fault but it was still an accident because I did not mean to do it.

 

It seems that we are punishing outcome and not intent (and yes, I know that the idiot who is zipping in and out of traffic is not intending to cause an accident but his blatant disregard for rules needs to be considered).

 

And since in most accidents, someone can clearly be identified as being at fault, this begs the question as to why they are not charged with attempted vehicular homicide or perhaps vehicular battery. I understand legal precedent, but it does not mean that I need to agree with it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Wow. Well, the way you view it, if someone discharges a gun in an intentionally reckless manner and the bullet happens to go through someone's forehead - even though he didn't mean for it to happen - that it's just a freak occurence and ought to be forgiven & forgotten.

 

 

 

 

WOW way to streeeeeeeetch that one out

[Bronco Billy]

 

 

It seems that we are punishing outcome and not intent

 

 

That is standard practice in our legal system. Attempted murder carries a different legal liability than murder. Attempted robbery carries a different legal liability than robbery. The outcome is a regular factor in meting out punishment.

[untateve]

Wow. Well, the way you view it, if someone discharges a gun in an intentionally reckless manner and the bullet happens to go through someone's forehead - even though he didn't mean for it to happen - that it's just a freak occurence and ought to be forgiven & forgotten.

 

An accident implies no blame on anyone's part - and I admit that they do happen. Driving recklessly, which is what the grad student was doing - turning from a no-turn lane, against a light, and into oncoming traffic - is serious stuff, and a car canm be just a deadly a weapon when used recklessly as a gun. A driver has an obligation when on the road to control their vehicle and operate it in a safe fashion. I guess I don't see how turning from a straight ahead lane (to the right of 2 turn lanes) and against a light is anything different than a guy weaving through traffic - which you call idiotic behavior that should carry additional liability. I also don't see how you make that distinction.

 

 

As we debate, it might not be better to ascribe views to me or make what you consider logical leaps and ascribe them to me. I believe there is a considerable difference between someone is recklessly playing with a gun and someone, in general, causing a car accident. I would equate someone recklessly playing with a gun to someone who is speeding and zipping in and out of traffic.

 

To be honest, I haven't read closely what the driver in this case did. I was responding in a more general manner. But again, almost every time there is a motor vehicle accident, someone is identified as being at fault. And--since someone is at fault, in each of these cases, someone has broken a traffic law. Yet charges are typically not brought against the identified individual. The person receives a ticket and that is it. It appears that we are punishing outcome vs intent. In my mind, someone who changes a lane and accidentally hits another car and kills someone is less guilty of a crime than someone who is zipping in and out of traffic, speeding, but does not cause a death.

[untateve]

That is standard practice in our legal system. Attempted murder carries a different legal liability than murder. Attempted robbery carries a different legal liability than robbery. The outcome is a regular factor in meting out punishment.

 

 

Because that is the standard, I do not have to agree with it. In my view, I believe that attempted murder should be treated the same as murder.

[Bronco Billy]

To be honest, I haven't read closely what the driver in this case did. I was responding in a more general manner. But again, almost every time there is a motor vehicle accident, someone is identified as being at fault. And--since someone is at fault, in each of these cases, someone has broken a traffic law. Yet charges are typically not brought against the identified individual. The person receives a ticket and that is it. It appears that we are punishing outcome vs intent. In my mind, someone who changes a lane and accidentally hits another car and kills someone is less guilty of a crime than someone who is zipping in and out of traffic, speeding, but does not cause a death.

 

 

I don't want to make it sound like I want the guy strapped into Ol' Sparky for what he did, either. But the facts appear to be pretty simple - the guy operated his vehicle in an intentionally reckless or irreponsible & illegal manner - take your pick - and the direct result of his actions were that a man died.

 

That has to carry more assigned responsibility than your standard out-of-hand fender bender where everyone goes home & calls their insurance companies afterwards.

[detlef]

Again, I'm not saying that the driver did not cause the collision - I'm saying he did not do so intentionally--it was an accident. As I've said, almost all motor vehicle accidents involve someone who is at fault. I stub my toe and break it--well, that was certainly my fault but it was still an accident because I did not mean to do it.

 

It seems that we are punishing outcome and not intent (and yes, I know that the idiot who is zipping in and out of traffic is not intending to cause an accident but his blatant disregard for rules needs to be considered).

 

And since in most accidents, someone can clearly be identified as being at fault, this begs the question as to why they are not charged with attempted vehicular homicide or perhaps vehicular battery. I understand legal precedent, but it does not mean that I need to agree with it.

 

The issue here is, the law regarding making that turn exists to prevent this very thing. He disobeyed that law and the very thing that it is there to prevent happened. There needs to be a punishment for this or there's no point in having the law. Once again, dude was very unlucky that his mistake caused a death but nowhere near as unlucky as they guy who died.

 

Broncos gun analogy was a bit of a reach, but let's say you forget to engage the safety on your gun or forget to unload it or do whatever you're supposed to do by law if you own a gun and some gets killed. It was not your intention to have someone killed, you weren't being reckless in an obvious manner like running around and pointing it at people, but essentially you were being reckless regardless. Our society has decided that there are safety steps that gun owners must take and you disregarded those steps. As a result, the thing those steps are there to protect us from happened.

 

In the slippery slope department, the "attempted murder" charge would be hard to stick because you need to prove intent. Simply disobeying traffic laws would not seem like intent to kill.

Edited June 22, 2007 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

 

WOW way to streeeeeeeetch that one out

 

 

Okay, I'll play the game, especially since it is rooted in logic & and its always interesting to watch you torture logic.

 

What is the difference to you? A gun is a tool that can be safely used when handled properly. So is a car. Those tools both become dangerous when handled irresponsibly and the user becomes both careless and reckless in regard for others' safety. Both can make people equally dead when handled improperly, even though the person who acted irresponsibly may have had absolutely no intentions of causing any harm to anyone through their actions.

 

What makes this event above where the grad student killed a man any different than when someone recklessly discharges a weapon and kills someone? Are you saying that the car is less deadly than the gun? Are you saying there is a greater standard of care involved in handling a gun than there is driving a car? Or is it something else?

[TimC]

Is attempted rape falling down in front of an attractive wimmin and accidently grabbing breastesessseessss?

[untateve]

I don't want to make it sound like I want the guy strapped into Ol' Sparky for what he did, either. But the facts appear to be pretty simple - the guy operated his vehicle in an intentionally reckless or irreponsible & illegal manner - take your pick - and the direct result of his actions were that a man died.

 

That has to carry more assigned responsibility than your standard out-of-hand fender bender where everyone goes home & calls their insurance companies afterwards.

 

 

Does your view change if the "standard out-of-hand fender bender" results in the death of the individual who is not identified as being at fault? I could think of any number of examples where this could be the case:

 

Making a lane change and not seeing a car in the blindspot = illegal lane change

Pulling into traffic and not misjudging the distance of an upcoming car = failure to yield right of way

 

Both of these typically end up as fender benders. However, if someone dies, then we vehicular manslaughter.

 

 

The issue here is, the law regarding making that turn exists to prevent this very thing. He disobeyed that law and the very thing that it is there to prevent happened. There needs to be a punishment for this or there's no point in having the law. Once again, dude was very unlucky that his mistake caused a death but nowhere near as unlucky as they guy who died.

 

Broncos gun analogy was a bit of a reach, but let's say you forget to engage the safety on your gun or forget to unload it or do whatever you're supposed to do by law if you own a gun and some gets killed. It was not your intention to have someone killed, you weren't being reckless in an obvious manner like running around and pointing it at people, but essentially you were being reckless regardless. Our society has decided that there are safety steps that gun owners must take and you disregarded those steps. As a result, the thing those steps are there to protect us from happened.

 

In the slippery slope department, the "attempted murder" charge would be hard to stick because you need to prove intent. Simply disobeying traffic laws would not seem like intent to kill.

 

 

Suppose I shoot my wife six times and the blitch lives. It's pretty clear I meant to kill her. Why should I be punished less than if she actually died?

[untateve]

Is attempted rape falling down in front of an attractive wimmin and accidently grabbing breastesessseessss?

 

 

You are describing what is known as "copping a feel." I believe this is legal in every state except Alabama and Maine.

[detlef]

 

Suppose I shoot my wife six times and the blitch lives. It's pretty clear I meant to kill her. Why should I be punished less than if she actually died?

 

I've never disagreed with your opinion that attempted murder is just as bad as murder. This might sound like a contradiction, but I don't think it is. If intent can be proven you should be tried as if you managed to pull it off.

 

My only point is this: If you violate a law that is put in place to prevent a certain effect causing that effect to take place, you should be punished somewhat severely. If you are fortunate enough that nothing horrible happens, there's no need to push for the max. Frankly, I also think that reckless driving should have major penalties as well. So I'm not saying the guy who does something illegal but certainly short of weaving through traffic at 100 mph that results in someone dying should not get a harsher punishment than someone who does drive in a very reckless manner that doesn't result in a death. Just that he should get a harsher penalty than someone who does the exact same thing yet does not cause a huge accident.

 

As is the case often in life, sometimes it just comes down to luck.

[H8tank]

That person gets the ticket. However, s/he is not charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter.

 

I am surprised someone who tries so hard on a daily basis not to come across as a complete retard would make a statement as stupid as this.