Mother convicted of Homicide....drunk driver gets 6 months.

[Quickie]

Woman Convicted of Homicide After Drunk Driver Kills Her Child - E.D. Kain - American Times - Forbes

And you don't think our system is broken?

[Selta]

Here's a link to an actual news article on it, not a blog:
Pedestrian convicted of vehicular homicide in own child's death *| ajc.com

[Longhair]

Guy was originally charged with hit and run, first degree homicide by vehicle and cruelty to children. Charges were later dropped to just the hit and run charge.

Either he or his lawyer has some important friends or the prosecutor was very lazy and looking for the easy win.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Ray Salamon

Here's a link to an actual news article on it, not a blog:
Pedestrian convicted of vehicular homicide in own child's death *| ajc.com

Ahhhh...thanks for the basically same information. I realize how some here just must see a "newsworthy" source before you believe anything.

You see, I posted that link so that people could see others outrage.

[PSPookie]

Nothing about that article is right. By that I don't mean that it isn't factual. What I mean is: "That aint right. None of it".

[Chebass88]

That "news article" was written by troglodytes.

"It still effects him..."

Really?

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

That "news article" was written by troglodytes.

"It still effects him..."

Really?

Thank you Mrs. Johnson, but how about we concentrate on the topic...hmmmmk?

[hrodbert696]

Neither of the links gives us the actual testimony or other evidence that the case may have been built on. For all we know she threw one of her children into the path of the car while jumping aside herself. That's why cases are tried according to strict procedures and rules of evidence, not by the mob's reaction to inflammatory news stories. If it is a miscarriage of justice, which it may well be, that is what the appeals system is for.

Cases are prosecuted, defended, and decided by human beings, and human beings are not perfect. There will always be stories like this. I'd still prefer not to be tried and sentenced by machines.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Neither of the links gives us the actual testimony or other evidence that the case may have been built on. For all we know she threw one of her children into the path of the car while jumping aside herself. That's why cases are tried according to strict procedures and rules of evidence, not by the mob's reaction to inflammatory news stories. If it is a miscarriage of justice, which it may well be, that is what the appeals system is for.

Cases are prosecuted, defended, and decided by human beings, and human beings are not perfect. There will always be stories like this. I'd still prefer not to be tried and sentenced by machines.

She was on the Today show this morning. It's how I learned of this case.

She did not throw her child into the path of the car.

[superfunk47]

Originally Posted by Quickie

She did not throw her child into the path of the car.

That's not the point. The point has to do with important details being left out. Hence the focus on professional news sources.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by superfunk47

That's not the point. The point has to do with important details being left out. Hence the focus on professional news sources.

You know of professional news sources?

[superfunk47]

Originally Posted by Quickie

You know of professional news sources?

Not many, I'll give you that.

[gttim]

The guy has two previous hit and run convictions. I don't see a whole lot coming up making him less culpable in this matter, although some people like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Austell Road, like many roads in Marietta, and Atlanta and surrounding areas, is 4 lanes, with a turn lane / median. There are numerous apartment complexes located on it. There is also bus service. It is a low income area. Intersections with crosswalks are rare- this is not like a city, but is an area of sprawl with few red lights. There are also no crosswalks added for safety, as there should be. It is a very dangerous area for the people who live there. Pedestrians frequently are run over in areas like this, but have to cross the road.

I drive a road just like this every morning going to work. I take extra care when doing so because there are always people crossing in areas without red lights. There are frequently no red lights for well over half a mile on most stretches. There have been people killed on this road- a few a year.

Considering the guy was on alcohol and pain medication, with a history of hit and run, he should have been locked away for a long time. It is nothing short of sheer stupidity that the mother gets locked up. Feel free to argue otherwise, however.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by gttim

The guy has two previous hit and run convictions. I don't see a whole lot coming up making him less culpable in this matter, although some people like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Austell Road, like many roads in Marietta, and Atlanta and surrounding areas, is 4 lanes, with a turn lane / median. There are numerous apartment complexes located on it. There is also bus service. It is a low income area. Intersections with crosswalks are rare- this is not like a city, but is an area of sprawl with few red lights. There are also no crosswalks added for safety, as there should be. It is a very dangerous area for the people who live there. Pedestrians frequently are run over in areas like this, but have to cross the road.

I drive a road just like this every morning going to work. I take extra care when doing so because there are always people crossing in areas without red lights. There are frequently no red lights for well over half a mile on most stretches. There have been people killed on this road- a few a year.

Considering the guy was on alcohol and pain medication, with a history of hit and run, he should have been locked away for a long time. It is nothing short of sheer stupidity that the mother gets locked up. Feel free to argue otherwise, however.

No argument here.

[hrodbert696]

My point is, if someone accused you of a crime, how would you prefer to be tried? By public opinion on the basis of a sixty-second news report or three column inches of text in a newspaper or blog, or in a court room in front of a professional judge with a lawyer to argue your case, strict rules of evidence, several days for judge and jury to hash over it all, and the opportunity to appeal if you think the resulting judgment was unfair?

We here in internet-land do not have all the evidence, we have not heard all the arguments, and we have only vague knowledge of the applicable law. Yet we love to get up on soapboxes and rant about "broken systems" on the basis of a fraction of the information that was available in that courtroom.

[gttim]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

My point is, if someone accused you of a crime, how would you prefer to be tried?

With some common sense, which seems to be lacking in this case, and frequently in other cases before courts. But feel free to argue otherwise.

[Frank Tuesday]

First: The mother broke the law. She crossed the street away from a crosswalk. Crosswalks are there for pedestrian safety. They get a designated signal when it is safe to walk, and drivers expect to see people crossing at crosswalks. Drivers do not expect people to pop out from inbetween cars on a busy street.

Second: There is no proof that the driver was drunk. I think it is likely that he was somewhat impaired, but there is no proof of such. Maybe hit and run laws need to be adjusted to account for the fact that drunk drivers can take advantage of them.

Third: We don't know the sequence of events beyond a general statement. It is possible that the pedestrians would have been hit regardless of the level of impairment of the driver. If this were the case, the impairment would not have been a contributing factor, and fault would not lie with the driver.

[sandmangeck]

She was jaywalking at a busy intersection. That's akin to me walking infront of the shooters at a shooting range, getting hit, then trying to sue the shooter because they had taken pain meds, and had a beer that day. You think the driver intentionally hit this family?

[macaroni tony]

Hmm...so she was supposed to walk 1/2 mile to the nearest designated crosswalk. Which, in itself, is a travesty; an example of the powers that be not caring about poor people. Like the whole Katrina shenanigan.

In California, every 4-way intersection is a crosswalk, marked or not. So I figured it was the case in Georgia; apparently not. Even so: Jaywalkers are subject to a $208 fine. According to Georgia law 40-6-92.c, pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles when they aren’t using a marked crosswalk, and in fact can’t cross at any place but a marked crosswalk at which traffic-control signals are in operation.

[macaroni tony]

Originally Posted by sandmangeck

She was jaywalking at a busy intersection. That's akin to me walking infront of the shooters at a shooting range, getting hit, then trying to sue the shooter because they had taken pain meds, and had a beer that day. You think the driver intentionally hit this family?

Anyone who thinks the mother should sue the driver is nuts. Anyone who thinks the mother should be convicted of homicide is nuts. According to the reports and the one TBer who is actually familiar with the area, this is a highly congested area where the residents are trapped on one side of a street, with very limited marked crosswalks.