Ah, for whatever reason that one site said he was sentenced to ~12 years, which is steep for vehicular homicide. Usually people go down for 4-6 at least from what I've seen around here.
Originally posted by: Nightfall
Sentenced!
5 years and 8 months.
Its just too bad that 3 lives had to end that day. I can tell you that he will be haunted by the death and injury of these people for the rest of his life, and rightfully so. Some mistakes we never get done paying for. Thats good and bad.
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: rh71
what determines the length of his sentence? It needs to be more harsh.
his lawyers. : /
Still thinking of you Rick and the short time you had here. The uniqueness of your personality and the endearing qualities that, even though must of us only got to experience on a this messageboard, has made us continue to care and remember you.
I would say it was due to the fact that the kids crossing the street were jailwalking - a drunk driver plowing into some people on a sidewalk is more at fault than a drunk driver plowing people that are crossing the street on a red light.
I'm not totally familiar with the details of what happened, but 11 years is pretty damn harsh for a vehicular homicide that isn't completely slam-dunk. The jailwalking part was something that his lawyer should've focused on.
He had a BAC of ~.25 at the time of his arrest. I think that's pretty bad unto itself: Text. He was going way too fast for the area as well....
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: rh71
what determines the length of his sentence? It needs to be more harsh.
his lawyers. : /
Still thinking of you Rick and the short time you had here. The uniqueness of your personality and the endearing qualities that, even though must of us only got to experience on a this messageboard, has made us continue to care and remember you.
I would say it was due to the fact that the kids crossing the street were jailwalking - a drunk driver plowing into some people on a sidewalk is more at fault than a drunk driver plowing people that are crossing the street on a red light.
I'm not totally familiar with the details of what happened, but 11 years is pretty damn harsh for a vehicular homicide that isn't completely slam-dunk. The jailwalking part was something that his lawyer should've focused on.
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
I can't believe it's been three years...
Hears to you Acemcmac, I hope you have a Scotch up there.
:sun:
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Not exactly, if I'm on the highway and someone runs out from the bushes, I'll take him/her out too. The fact that the people were crossing illegally makes the some % responsible in the eyes of the law.
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Not exactly, if I'm on the highway and someone runs out from the bushes, I'll take him/her out too. The fact that the people were crossing illegally makes the some % responsible in the eyes of the law.
Not when the driver was doing 90+ mph and had a bac of .242. He's 100% responsible. He should have gotten 25 to life IMO.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Not exactly, if I'm on the highway and someone runs out from the bushes, I'll take him/her out too. The fact that the people were crossing illegally makes the some % responsible in the eyes of the law.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Not exactly, if I'm on the highway and someone runs out from the bushes, I'll take him/her out too. The fact that the people were crossing illegally makes the some % responsible in the eyes of the law.
yes, they ninja jumped out of the bushes just asking to be hit.
get your head out of your ass. if that was any defense at all his lawyer would've been all over it.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
jaywalking? : /
this was slam-dunk all the way. he took Rick out. it doesn't get anymore slam-dunk than that.
Not exactly, if I'm on the highway and someone runs out from the bushes, I'll take him/her out too. The fact that the people were crossing illegally makes the some % responsible in the eyes of the law.
yes, they ninja jumped out of the bushes just asking to be hit.
get your head out of your ass. if that was any defense at all his lawyer would've been all over it.
I can guarantee you that was a big focus of the defense - that's why they tried going after the plea deal and then also play out the "society's fault" binge drinking angle. The kid was going for time served either way, but being only partially responsible is why hy get a lot less than the max for vehicular manslaughter and aggr. assault.
Would it be 100% driver's fault if the driver was sober and going the speedlimit, but still hitting the two guys?
Originally posted by: moshquerade
That's not the way it happened so no need to compare.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
That's not the way it happened so no need to compare.
Yes you do - that's how law works. If that hypothetical assigns some % fault to the pedestrian, then it's the same in the case on hand.
If you're not gonna look at things like that objectively, then there's really no point of discussing it. Might as well get a lynch mob and hang him from the nearest tree... it amounts to the same amount of justice.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
That's not the way it happened so no need to compare.
Yes you do - that's how law works. If that hypothetical assigns some % fault to the pedestrian, then it's the same in the case on hand.
If you're not gonna look at things like that objectively, then there's really no point of discussing it. Might as well get a lynch mob and hang him from the nearest tree... it amounts to the same amount of justice.
justice was served. give him a call if you think you can get him off the hook. apparently a judge and jury don't agree with you.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
That's not the way it happened so no need to compare.
Yes you do - that's how law works. If that hypothetical assigns some % fault to the pedestrian, then it's the same in the case on hand.
If you're not gonna look at things like that objectively, then there's really no point of discussing it. Might as well get a lynch mob and hang him from the nearest tree... it amounts to the same amount of justice.
justice was served. give him a call if you think you can get him off the hook. apparently a judge and jury don't agree with you.
/faceplam
I'm glad that all the i typed up above went straight over your head.
To reiterate: Justice was served, he got 5.x years, which is pretty standard. I'm positive the jailwalking is what played into the sentencing, which is why he got less than the average of the range they had to play with (4-11 years).
If i had to guess, the defense was counting on a plea deal and when that didn't work, they stuck to the "partially responsible" angle to get a lenient sentence (since he was gonna get time regardless). That's also why the kid specifically said partially responsible and never said "I'm sorry it's all my fault yade yada".
Originally posted by: moshquerade
why do you persist in calling it jailwalking? if anything, it is jaywalking.
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: moshquerade
That's not the way it happened so no need to compare.
Yes you do - that's how law works. If that hypothetical assigns some % fault to the pedestrian, then it's the same in the case on hand.
If you're not gonna look at things like that objectively, then there's really no point of discussing it. Might as well get a lynch mob and hang him from the nearest tree... it amounts to the same amount of justice.
justice was served. give him a call if you think you can get him off the hook. apparently a judge and jury don't agree with you.
/faceplam
I'm glad that all the i typed up above went straight over your head.
To reiterate: Justice was served, he got 5.x years, which is pretty standard. I'm positive the jailwalking is what played into the sentencing, which is why he got less than the average of the range they had to play with (4-11 years).
If i had to guess, the defense was counting on a plea deal and when that didn't work, they stuck to the "partially responsible" angle to get a lenient sentence (since he was gonna get time regardless). That's also why the kid specifically said partially responsible and never said "I'm sorry it's all my fault yade yada".