Can't get the animation to play for some reason, but if I was on a jury of some sort, I would probably convict the truck driver of some sort of charges (manslaughter?).
Sure, drunk/buzzed/sober couldn't have slammed on the brakes in that time.
But:
Would have seen 8 beelion feet of limo ass behind some Jeep getting ready to pull out in front.
As others have mentioned, braking wouldn't cure everything, but steering coherently to miss, or more likely, to minimize damage, could have helped.
The defense focus is obviously the split second of braking and throwing as much blame as they can elsewhere. If the guy had been stone sober and maybe peeking at his phone, laughing his butt off at something on the radio, headbanging to metal, any of a million other things, no charges. But FFS - you get in your vehicle with a good dose of alcohol in you nowadays, and whether or not you are "at fault", guess what, you are sooooooo gonna be "at fault".
(Note: the limo driver is still drawn & quartered under my scenario, just that trial is separate.)
By law, because Romeo's alleged intoxication could not be linked to the crash, which was "unavoidable sober or drunk", he will not be indicted for vehicular homicide or criminally negligent homicide," Spota said.
“Mr. Romeo had only 200 feet to react to the hazard he saw, and stop his vehicle. Traveling at 55 miles per hour, it would have taken 1.6 seconds to perceive the limo in his path, to realize he must apply his brakes, and then to begin braking. This would leave Romeo with even less distance —129 feet — to avoid a crash, impossible for him to do,” Spota said. “In fact our experts tell us that at 55 mph it would have taken anyone 263 feet to stop and avoid the crash.”
He added: “Romeo can be held criminally responsible for driving while intoxicated but he cannot be held criminally responsible for the crash. The person who is criminally responsible for the crash is Carlos Pino and Carlos Pino alone.
I do wonder if you changed this specific scenario and made it 'the driver was texting' or 'the driver was finding his next Spotify tune' does it change the rage factor?
To be honest the texter/cell phone skimmer while driving frightens me more than your average 'drunk' driver now. Basically because they are always on the road and in greater frequency throughout the entire day.
I think it would be a more clear case of guilt in the case of a texter.
Why? If physics prove it couldn't be avoided regardless. I think either way the guy would get off. I just think you wouldn't see the same rage since texting&driving is still for whatever reason not considered in the same taboo realm as drinking&driving.
The DA disagrees with you:
He didn't have a good dose of alcohol in him. He was under the legal limit.
Not really. When a limo is stretched out from a normal car, they are basically just adding in extension beams. There aren't really safety features, making them somewhat unsafe to ride in.Do limos have to meet side impact regulations like "normal" cars that have a turbo reinforced belt-line that is creeping ever closer to chin level? The 6 inch tall windows we'll have by 2020 will be great!
We agree completely then. I agreed with your other points, but clarified my viewpoint on accidents. Again, we seem to agree there as well. I pointed it out because far too many people view accidents as "oh well, shit happens." When in reality, it doesn't just "happen." It's usually caused by some form of negligence.I think I was pretty clear when I said the limo driver was the one at fault here.
By definition and accident is: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
The limo driver was careless. I still stand behind the numbers as presented that the truck driver was in an unfortunate spot and had that person been sober this would have been an entirely different discussion even if the outcome would have been the same.
Like I said, couldn't get any video to come up. Was trying to visualize any of it from some descriptions.
200' is 4 houses down - if I can't see an idiot about to pull out in front of me, there better be some obstructions. Evidently there were.
Good on a DA for apparently looking at all the facts of a case.
Barely under the limit and running into things definitely gets you convicted in many places. The limit is the automatic, "we don't care how well you handle it" conviction. Below the limit is the "look, he couldn't cross his eyes, walk backwards on a curb, and sing the Star Spangled Banner in perfect pitch. Busted!"