Vehicular Manslaughter

[nykizzle]

Driving without a license.


Driving without a license.

Driving without a license.

Had he NOT been driving without a license he would have been able to cause the death of another person.


Driving without a license and speeding- by the OPs argument 'at most' 70.

I think any reasonable person knows that speeding could cause a risk of death or bodily injury... although many believe they can drive like a race car driver and have the skill to handle a vehicle above legal speeds.


Had he not been driving- he would not have become a consequence to their deaths.

p.s. - can a MOD merge the two thread.. the OP keeps going back-and-forth.


Is that the only argument the DA is bringing up for his contribution to the deaths?

OP ? calling me names now? and i am only going back and fourth cause thats how it comes to me email.... sheeeesh. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING I HAVE DONE BEFORE.... so yes MOD can you please get these people off my back and Merge like the #%^# said... man people get attitudes around here. ha

 

[Cali408nia]

OP ? calling me names now?

OP means original poster, which is you. It's not derogatory term. I understand your frustration but you will get posters here who have nothing better to do than argue against your side no matter what the story is, so you'll have to deal with it, and the mods won't do a thing about "people on your back" as long as its their opinion and it doesn't violate the terms of service. CdwJava is usually the only advice worth listening to here, and in this case, due to his experience and working in the same state, his advice is really the only one you should take seriously.

 

[nykizzle]

OP means original poster, which is you. It's not derogatory term. I understand your frustration but you will get posters here who have nothing better to do than argue against your side no matter what the story is, so you'll have to deal with it, and the mods won't do a thing about "people on your back" as long as its their opinion and it doesn't violate the terms of service. CdwJava is usually the only advice worth listening to here, and in this case, due to his experience and working in the same state, his advice is really the only one you should take seriously.

got it .. thanks for that...

 

[Zigner]

OP means original poster, which is you. It's not derogatory term. I understand your frustration but you will get posters here who have nothing better to do than argue against your side no matter what the story is, so you'll have to deal with it, and the mods won't do a thing about "people on your back" as long as its their opinion and it doesn't violate the terms of service. CdwJava is usually the only advice worth listening to here, and in this case, due to his experience and working in the same state, his advice is really the only one you should take seriously.

Garbage

OP doesn't HAVE a side, as this matter doesn't concern him in the first place!

And, in the "second place" - Carl's saying the same thing that others are.

 

[asiny]

Garbage

OP doesn't HAVE a side, as this matter doesn't concern him in the first place!

And, in the "second place" - Carl's saying the same thing that others are.

Firstly- Zigner- much obliged.. I don't think what I posted was that far-fetched. My responses were not in contradiction to Carl.. but were towards the OP (Original Poster).

Secondly- to try and keep things in one thread.. I was about to post this in the 'toxicology' thread;

whoa... I could answer each one of those question legit... but you would not hear a thing i say...

The only reason I posted is because I did read everything you have written- and, so far, the only thing you are saying is 'he could not have been going that fast', 'he had the right of way', 'blame the dead'.

so you will have to find your answers somewhere else... I'm not going to offer information to someone who wishes evil to my bubble...

I am wishing a suitable, legal response to what your 'bubble' caused and any legal litigation that could follow.

I will add that the other driver was driving on a provisional license and should not have been on the road with anyone under 20 years old...

So.. seeing as you seem to be, firmly, wanting to place the blame on the dead... You don't see any problem with cousin driving without a license? Or speeding, regardless of it being 70 or 90 (70 is over the speed limit, as per your posts)? Or that your cousin doing both- WAS a large-contributing factor to the deaths of 2 people?

And I am a little fuzzy on why he left the scene of the accident?

my cousin left the scene but he didn't even know what he hit! he also hit his head badley.. the girls had skull fractures what do you think he had?

If he was hurt as badly as you imply- how did he have he ability to leave the scene?

he didn't even know what he hit. he tried to get help.

So he tried to get help- was sound enough in mind to leave the scene and locate help. But didn't know what he hit?

he was hurt and was in the opposite field where he could not move.

How exactly did he leave the scene if he could not move?

first off he has spent over 10 months as a murderer of two boys.

First off- I would never title your cousin as a murderer.. despite what I believe. His causing the death was not an intentional act of his, it was- as stated- an accident. What makes the charges what the DA is looking to bring is your cousin and his want to drive illegally and speeding.

My soul wont let me rest until i get the whole story out

So far you have not gotten the whole story out- you have gotten out what many have read from your posts 'he could not have been going that fast', 'he had the right of way', 'blame the dead'.

Yet when asked a few questions, not just by myself, you have beat-around-the-bush and given half-answers... most of which lead to your repeat of 'he could not have been going that fast', 'he had the right of way', 'blame the dead' and, now, conspiracy.

No, the shoe does not fit.

Why was he driving without a license?

Why was he speeding?

Why did he leave the scene? (based on posts- How did he leave the scene?)

We cannot ask the dead why they were not wearing their seat belts.

We cannot ask the dead why they went through a stop sign.
Just thought.. how did we know they did NOT stop at the stop sign?
If your cousin saw them... why didn't he slow down?
Defensive driving usually recommend that when approaching an intersection to check your speed and cover the brake- because you never know what the other driver is going to do.

 

[CdwJava]

Driving without a license.

Driving without a license is not an act that is normally dangerous to human life. The infraction for excessive speed (VC 22350 or 22349) was. And driving without a license is not goign to cause the death of another.

Had he NOT been driving without a license he would have been able to cause the death of another person.

That's not going to be an issue of fault. Speed would be.

Driving without a license and speeding- by the OPs argument 'at most' 70.

But, the state would then have to prove that 70 equated to death whereas 55 did not. Not an easy case to make.

Had he not been driving- he would not have become a consequence to their deaths.

Had the other person not been driving, he'd be alive, too. So, that argument sorta cancels itself out.

Is that the only argument the DA is bringing up for his contribution to the deaths?

The speed is the only thing they appear to have that will meet the final element ... that the unlawful act CAUSED the deaths.

I am also curious why he might not be charged with VC 20001 for leaving the scene of an injury collision. Or, is he?

 

[Cali408nia]

OP doesn't HAVE a side, as this matter doesn't concern him in the first place!

You can try to assert what the OP does and doesn't have all you want. It's pretty clear there is a bias towards one side, seeing as the OP's cousin's future is at stake.

And, in the "second place" - Carl's saying the same thing that others are.

Then why did Carl just refute part of asiny's argument? Not everyone is saying the same thing, clearly.

And to the OP: I would suggest that you stop posting on this forum about this subject if you can't control yourself. Because you are getting way too emotional and caught up in this (which is what some people's responses are trying to get you to do). Using all CAPS to yell and posting rants will get you nowhere. There is more of them here than there is of you. You can't win the argument. Stick to the facts, take the advice that has been given with good effort, and take out your emotions somewhere else like counseling or whatever you need to do. Just don't do it here, it's not a winning battle.

 

[nykizzle]

You can try to assert what the OP does and doesn't have all you want. It's pretty clear there is a bias towards one side, seeing as the OP's cousin's future is at stake.


Then why did Carl just refute part of asiny's argument? Not everyone is saying the same thing, clearly.

And to the OP: I would suggest that you stop posting on this forum about this subject if you can't control yourself. Because you are getting way too emotional and caught up in this (which is what some people's responses are trying to get you to do). Using all CAPS to yell and posting rants will get you nowhere. There is more of them here than there is of you. You can't win the argument. Stick to the facts, take the advice that has been given with good effort, and take out your emotions somewhere else like counseling or whatever you need to do. Just don't do it here, it's not a winning battle.

okay well actually i didn't know that all caps was yelling... cause i was never every yelling.. learn something new everyday i guess.. no caps here... but thanks cdwjava caps is just easier for me to see when i type... so CAPS is ranting... interesting. thanks

 

[asiny]

Driving without a license is not an act that is normally dangerous to human life. The infraction for excessive speed (VC 22350 or 22349) was. And driving without a license is not goign to cause the death of another.

True- my point was not that driving without a license IS normally dangerous but in reading the post it does not say that the misdemeanor must be dangerous to life.. but that it was a misdemeanor that was illegal that, if he was not in the commission of the misdemeanor, would not have caused a danger to human life.

But, the state would then have to prove that 70 equated to death whereas 55 did not. Not an easy case to make.

And this I have no argument.

Had the other person not been driving, he'd be alive, too. So, that argument sorta cancels itself out.

Now this is the OPs argument.. blaming the other driver.
The other driver, however, did hold a legal license to drive. Albeit not allowed (as per the OP) to have a passenger under 20 in the car at the time under the terms of the licence.

But your statement is equivalent of saying 'Had the girl not been out at the club, acted provocatively, and drank- she would not have been raped'....

The speed is the only thing they appear to have that will meet the final element ... that the unlawful act CAUSED the deaths.

I guess, based on what is known, a question would why is the DA not looking at the unlawful act of driving, when the driver should not have been, as cause of the deaths. Or, as the story reads, a contributing factor?
CdwJava- in regards to what you posted in the 'toxicology' thread- I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of what you posted.

I am also curious why he might not be charged with VC 20001 for leaving the scene of an injury collision. Or, is he?

I honestly think Cali408nia has nailed- that the OP is (naturally) biased for the cousin. Is getting emotional (naturally) on this forum of all places... and- as many users do (including myself) begin asking questions that the OP begins to feel attacked and should not answer... bringing on the 'dissection' of everything the OP says (which is to be expected in a legal forum ).
Also that the OP needs to stop posting and be there to support their cousin, but also seek some counseling to come to terms with what they are feeling in a more private forum.

 

[CdwJava]

But your statement is equivalent of saying 'Had the girl not been out at the club, acted provocatively, and drank- she would not have been raped'....

That's sort of the state's position, not mine.

I guess, based on what is known, a question would why is the DA not looking at the unlawful act of driving, when the driver should not have been, as cause of the deaths. Or, as the story reads, a contributing factor?

The speed was an associated factor in the collision. That is to say it contributed to, but did not CAUSE the collision. The collision report is not doing the state's case any favors, and if the MAIT report comes back with an opinion of speed being less than the 90 MPH that the current claims seem to rely on, then the case becomes even more untenable for the state.

Driving without a license is a low grade misdemeanor typically punishable as an infraction. And the excessive speed is also an infraction. The speed, by itself, doesn't even qualify as reckless driving (per VC 23103) but if there are other factors involved MAYBE the state could make that argument (for reckless driving with injury per VC 23104) which might be easier than proving manslaughter.

And, I agree. The OP is understandably emotional. It might not seem fair that her (his?) cousin is being prosecuted for a tragic accident. But, in most any vehicular death, the matter will go to trial. Counseling may well be in order to help deal with the strain.

Though, IF the hit-and-run (per VC 20001) was dismissed at prelim and not because the DA dropped it, I am curious as to why? From all that seems to have come out, her cousin DID fail to remain at the scene of a fatal collision as required by law. There must be some additional reasoning behind that ... perhaps to seek medical aid, himself? And did I read earlier that the passengers waited at the scene trying to flag down passersby? That might play into the argument against a hit-and-run ... though if he did not tell anyone about the collision, that might bode ill.

 

[nykizzle]

That's sort of the state's position, not mine.


The speed was an associated factor in the collision. That is to say it contributed to, but did not CAUSE the collision. The collision report is not doing the state's case any favors, and if the MAIT report comes back with an opinion of speed being less than the 90 MPH that the current claims seem to rely on, then the case becomes even more untenable for the state.

Driving without a license is a low grade misdemeanor typically punishable as an infraction. And the excessive speed is also an infraction. The speed, by itself, doesn't even qualify as reckless driving (per VC 23103) but if there are other factors involved MAYBE the state could make that argument (for reckless driving with injury per VC 23104) which might be easier than proving manslaughter.

And, I agree. The OP is understandably emotional. It might not seem fair that her (his?) cousin is being prosecuted for a tragic accident. But, in most any vehicular death, the matter will go to trial. Counseling may well be in order to help deal with the strain.

Though, IF the hit-and-run (per VC 20001) was dismissed at prelim and not because the DA dropped it, I am curious as to why? From all that seems to have come out, her cousin DID fail to remain at the scene of a fatal collision as required by law. There must be some additional reasoning behind that ... perhaps to seek medical aid, himself? And did I read earlier that the passengers waited at the scene trying to flag down passersby? That might play into the argument against a hit-and-run ... though if he did not tell anyone about the collision, that might bode ill.

he was passed out in the field right there... morning he woke and called from a payphone and told his mom ... "mom, I'm hurt, I think I hit something." he wan't even sure what the heck happen when he woke up the next morning. a friend of the family picked him up bleeding no shoes no shirt... he said his shirt is in the field where he was. according to a news article... it said the prosecutors planned to dismissed the hit and run and file the vehicular manslaughter charge..... but the judge dismissed it... then they refiled with more serious harsher charges. based on those "witnesses" that weren't sure if it was still a little light outside at 9 pm at night or if it was pitch dark... just sayin.

 

[FlyingRon]

The UNLAWFUL ACT doesn't need to be causal for the death for the manslaughter.

 

[CdwJava]

The UNLAWFUL ACT doesn't need to be causal for the death for the manslaughter.

The act does. It does not have to be UNLAWFUL, but the act must be the cause of death.

Here is the fourth element that must be proven:

4. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) caused the death of another person.​

 

[Mnemosyne]

OP, do you have any more legal questions for CDW (or anyone else)? If not, this thread has long outlived its usefulness.

This forum is not the place to litigate your cousin's criminal case. It also is not your personal blog.

 

[Adam G]

At my cousins second Preliminary Hearing for vehicular manslaughter w gross neg for each boy. For a FATAL collision where two Prominent Teens ran a stop sign not wearing SEAT BELTS causing their early death.

I'm not going to wade into all the points raised in this three page ****storm, but this statement is dishonest at best. The issue is who was responsible for the accident. The injuries follow that point. You take your plaintiff as you find him/her.