BeeR Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Didn't see elsewhere. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mother...-201219312.html The article tries to slant it as "drunk driver gets lighter sentence than mother of killed child" but surprise the media doesn't always get things exactly right and isn't afraid to enact severe bias. Really this is one of those things where it's hard if not impossible to really say how much fault was the driver's and how much hers or both or neither etc. But going after her for jaywalking, even if she was at fault, is IMO pointless and extremely idiotic, if not flat-out cruel. BJ if this was already posted I know I can count on you to help me not duplicate. Edited July 28, 2011 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 It's really possible to say that a guy was drunk driving and ran over the kid to death. That makes it his fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) There are some states that ignore the DUI bit if the collision is truly not the fault of the driver. For instance, if it is determined that even a sober person could not have avoided the collision. That was the case with Dante Stallworth's ruling in Florida. And, to some degree, I understand that logic. Not sure to what degree GA takes that into account or to what degree the collision was unavoidable. So there is that. It does seem pretty damned cruel to be putting this woman through this, though it sounds like we're talking about a very busy street. Several lanes on each side, a median strip. So she did, in fact, act very recklessly. And, assuming that her kid did jump right out in front of a car that, even if driven by a sober driver would have been unable to avoid him. Well, she sort had a lot to do with why her kid is now dead. That she's got at least as much, if not more to do with it than the guy driving the car. Even if he happened to be over the limit. Edited July 28, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 She was sentenced to probation and community service. The judge has also allowed her to have a new trial to overturn the previous guilty verdict. Now, the lady has some culpability in the death of her son. She was jaywalking across a very busy five lane road at night. A sober person could very easily have hit them. The crosswalk was .3 miles down the road, she could easily have walked down there. Here inATL this has been a hughe issue, jaywalkers getting hit by cars. In most cases, the person hitting the jaywalker is sober and will be traumatized for the entirety of their life from such an event. In this case the dude just happened to be drunk and blind and have a prior history of hit and run. THis does not remove the mom from culpability for a stupid ass decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again it's hard to say exactly without having actually seen it happen, but to me this is a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit. We've all jaywalked, most probably many times. And even if she was at a crosswalk, the kid could have jumped out in front of a car before traffic had stopped. So condemning her as the bad guy here is dicey. I just think she is and will suffer enough such that going after her (esp when IMO it is PR driven) is asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again it's hard to say exactly without having actually seen it happen, but to me this is a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit. We've all jaywalked, most probably many times. And even if she was at a crosswalk, the kid could have jumped out in front of a car before traffic had stopped. So condemning her as the bad guy here is dicey. I just think she is and will suffer enough such that going after her (esp when IMO it is PR driven) is asinine. If yer driving down the road, someone is jaywalking, you are unable to stop and you kill their child you don't think that they should be charged with negligent homicide, jaywalking, child endangerment etc...? Especially if there was a crosswalk within .3 miles of where they were crossing? Say a person runs a red light, turning left, and braodsides another person and kills them. The person who ran the light and turned left shouldn't be charged whith manslaughter, failure to yield, careless driving, etc...? Say it doesn't kill the person they hit, but rather their own child that was riding in their car, should they be charged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again it's hard to say exactly without having actually seen it happen, but to me this is a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit. We've all jaywalked, most probably many times. And even if she was at a crosswalk, the kid could have jumped out in front of a car before traffic had stopped. So condemning her as the bad guy here is dicey. I just think she is and will suffer enough such that going after her (esp when IMO it is PR driven) is asinine. The logic that "she's suffered enough" could apply to anyone who has ever done something really stupid and lost a child. And, again, while the guy should certainly be charged with leaving the scene and DUI, because he most certainly committed both of those crimes, it doesn't change her role. Again, like SEC says. Assuming the kid just jumped out in the middle of the road in a way that even a completely sober person could not avoid. How is this not completely 100% her fault? She endangered her kid. So, the only difference is that this guy happens to be guilty of a crime that, actually may or many not even be related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 A few things need to be clarified. The initial investigation shows that she and her other children were already in the road, they were hit as well. Her son happened to be walking ahead of them as she was holding the hands of the other two children. It isn't like they were standing on the curb and her son darted out into traffic. Unless further police investigation has changed these previously released "facts", she was acting irrespnsibly, negligently and willfully. As a result of her willful negligence a person died. Negligent homicide seems appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 A few things need to be clarified. The initial investigation shows that she and her other children were already in the road, they were hit as well. Her son happened to be walking ahead of them as she was holding the hands of the other two children. It isn't like they were standing on the curb and her son darted out into traffic. Unless further police investigation has changed these previously released "facts", she was acting irrespnsibly, negligently and willfully. As a result of her willful negligence a person died. Negligent homicide seems appropriate. So nobody just jumped out in front of the drunk from nowhere? Sounds like his fault to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 So nobody just jumped out in front of the drunk from nowhere? Sounds like his fault to me. No, they were already in the road. If my memory serves me correctly one of her daughters broke her arm and the mother had some bruises and bumps. The eldest daughter was unharmed. Not only was the driver possibly drunk, he had admitted he had been drinking earlier in the day, but he was on pain killers and is partially blind in one eye. I really believe that their is culpability on both parties. Though, it is tough to sayif even a dead sober person could have stopped in time. I'm telling you, this crap happens all the time here in ATL. A few months after this a woman was crossing a busy 4 lane in Paulding County on a foggy morning with her child in tow, this time a sober person mowed them down. Not sure the status of that case. People really need to consider what the repurcussions may be when crossing a road when it is dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 People really need to consider what the repurcussions may be when crossing a road when it is dark. And the repercussions of speeding, or driving after having just a couple drinks. Seems like any idiot can walk in the middle of the road and they will still scrutinize the driver to some extent if the idiot is mowed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 And the repercussions of speeding, or driving after having just a couple drinks. Seems like any idiot can walk in the middle of the road and they will still scrutinize the driver to some extent if the idiot is mowed down. I know that I'm not suggesting the driver be absolved from any fault here and I'm rather certain that SEC isn't either. The simple point is, mom did something reckless and stupidly endangered the life of her children on a major road at night time. If all four of them were in the street, presumably in a line holding hands, even more issue because it seems as if the driver had even less options. You can swerve to miss one kid, but it sounds like a lethal game of "red rover" here. So, unless he had enough room to stop (which we don't know), it appears as if he didn't have much choice. Now, if this was broad daylight and he had all the time in the world to see them, yet in a drunken stupor, just kept speeding forward and plowed into them, then the fact that they were jaywalking would be a less significant fact, because any reasonable person would expect the driver would be able to react accordingly and that would be that. So, were that the case, the fact that the guy was drunk would be the only issue of any significance. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. And as a result, this woman's act of negligence contributed greatly to the death of a child. And, typically when that happens, there is punishment. Is there truly a "she's been punished enough" precedent in these sorts of cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) I know that I'm not suggesting the driver be absolved from any fault here and I'm rather certain that SEC isn't either. The simple point is, mom did something reckless and stupidly endangered the life of her children on a major road at night time. If all four of them were in the street, presumably in a line holding hands, even more issue because it seems as if the driver had even less options. You can swerve to miss one kid, but it sounds like a lethal game of "red rover" here. So, unless he had enough room to stop (which we don't know), it appears as if he didn't have much choice. Now, if this was broad daylight and he had all the time in the world to see them, yet in a drunken stupor, just kept speeding forward and plowed into them, then the fact that they were jaywalking would be a less significant fact, because any reasonable person would expect the driver would be able to react accordingly and that would be that. So, were that the case, the fact that the guy was drunk would be the only issue of any significance. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. And as a result, this woman's act of negligence contributed greatly to the death of a child. And, typically when that happens, there is punishment. Is there truly a "she's been punished enough" precedent in these sorts of cases? So you can get a sense of how far she had to walk to the croswalk, look north. I don't think I'd run the risk. However, this area, I am familiar with it, has quite good visibility. I'm not certain how either her, or the driver for that matter, didn't see one another coming. Edited July 28, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The article tries to slant it as "drunk driver gets lighter sentence than mother of killed child" but surprise the media doesn't always get things exactly right and isn't afraid to enact severe bias. lookee here. the media boogieman again. the only article I read on the story did a pretty good job of reporting on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 If yer driving down the road, someone is jaywalking, you are unable to stop and you kill their child you don't think that they should be charged with negligent homicide, jaywalking, child endangerment etc...? Again it depends on the specifics and is easy to say in hindsight. Generally I agree that both parties appear to share fault but maintain going after her (I realize they are going as lightly on her now as possible) was The logic that "she's suffered enough" could apply to anyone who has ever done something really stupid and lost a child. Yes it could. I've gone back and forth on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.