Court TV Drag Racing Trial

[turbojimmy]

Originally posted by whitehot84
Also these kids were not from out of town and more than likely were out to watch a race or two.

Once more: I do not condone what happened but I still don't see them trying the second driver for murder in any degree.

In all likelihood they were there to watch, you're right. But, they're dead so we'll never know. Actually, the guy that was reduced to pretty much a vegetable might recall something someday, but it won't much matter.

It's tragic and senseless - for everyone. The guys that were racing, as much as the press likes to make them out to be villians, will suffer for the rest of their lives too.

Jim

 

[whitehot84]

Originally posted by turbojimmy
In all likelihood they were there to watch, you're right. But, they're dead so we'll never know. Actually, the guy that was reduced to pretty much a vegetable might recall something someday, but it won't much matter.

It's tragic and senseless - for everyone. The guys that were racing, as much as the press likes to make them out to be villians, will suffer for the rest of their lives too.

Jim

Agreed.

The problem is that we all, as car enthusiasts, must suffer too.

 

[black heat]

In this part of the country (San Diego area), we have hanging juries and judges. These guys will do time, no doubt about that.
There has been a lot of wrecks and deaths lately around here, and these guys on trial are just the tip of the iceberg.

Not that it makes any difference, but the cars involved have not been buicks (Hmm, I can't think of one accident involving one).

And, the media is in a frenzy about all this. First, the media show the eighth mile drags on fridays at the Charger stadium, and then it flashes on the accidents that have been happening.

And I do believe, that no amount of drag strips built will stop all of those crazies out there.

 

[gn85]

Out of curiousity...

I didn't catch this on TV and I didn't see anything in the article so I was wondering if anyone could answer a question for me. Is there any mention, or does anybody know exactly what time this accident occured?? Perhaps I missed it when I read this thread 2am last night.

Thanks

 

[The Radius Kid]

Originally posted by whitehot84

I do not condone what happened but I still don't see them trying the second driver for murder in any degree.

Correct me if I'm wrong here,but in most[all?] states,doesn't being a co-conspirator in a criminal activity carry the same weight of penalty as actually commiting the crime?

 

[whitehot84]

I believe it does but my contention is that there is no direct evidence putting this guy at the scene. All circumstantial unless I missed him admitting it.

Considering this is in California and their track record in court, let me submit a scenario. Since they are being tried as one (both guys) and say the jury finds that the second driver cannot be proved to have been the second racer, does that mean that both men walk? It could happen.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Nope there were witnesses...

Calhoun was especially animated during the testimony of a motorist who watched the accident in his rearview mirror. Several jurors leaned forward in the jury box as that eyewitness, Jonathan Spooner, recounted how he approached the intersection of Imperial Avenue and Viewcrest Road the evening of Oct. 6 and immediately suspected a drag race was occurring.

Two men were standing near the intersection, a popular finish line for illegal races, staring up the road, Spooner said. He assumed they were drag race spectators and followed their gaze up the road where he saw two cars — one with its headlights off — barreling toward the intersection.

One motorist on Imperial Avenue that night told police that he heard the roar of engines behind him shortly before 7 p.m. and pulled to a side street in fear.

The motorist said the El Camino and the Barracuda were coursing down Imperial Avenue side by side. The Barracuda, he recalled, had its headlights off and the vehicles appeared to be going 100 miles per hour. The speed limit was 50 mph.

Theres more on it i dont feel like digging thru the whole article, but im pretty sure given the situaton (the guys phonecall) the guy can 100% be identified as being involved. It wouldnt have gone this far if they couldnt completely identify him...

Radius Kid- youre absolutely right, only in sme very very special circumstances have courts found otherwise and only with a preponderance of evidence.

As for them being there to watch the race, if they were there to watch... why would they have pulled into the road... they probbaly would have known or thought to listen to see if something was going down, also the guys mom testified that that road is part of the route to get to the house from hers.

The time of the accident was approximately 7pm Sunday October 6th...

 

[gn85]

We think manslaughter... get ready to read.

First off, we all have to remember that we are NOT in the courtroom, nor do we have mounds of evidence that we can read through carefully. We have these articles and what is seen on TV. So, what we are ALL saying is speculation and a good thought provoking conversation.

My g/f and I talked about this last night and this morning. Talked over the case and here's what we came up with. First off, my g/f is against street racing. I of course have had my day or two at it, and I'll still go down to check out the new rides. With that said, here's the opinion we came up with and some things to think about.

First off, let's plug in a resource here. These are the definitions from the BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, seventh edition, 4th reprint.

First Degree Murder: Murder that is willful, deliberate, or premeditated, or that is committed during the course of another serious felony (often limited to rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, or arson) All murder perpetrated by poisoning or by lying in wait is considered first-degree murder. All types of murder not involving willful, deliberate , and premeditated killing are usually considered second degree muder. Also termed -- murder of the first degree, murder one

Second Degree Murder: Murder that is not aggravated by any of the circumstances of first-degree murder. Also termed -- murder of the second degree, murder two

Manslaughter: The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

Involuntary Manslaughter: Homocide in which there is no intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, but that is committed with criminal negligence or during tbe commission of a crime not included within the felony-murder rule. Also termed -- negligent manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter: An act of murder reduced to manslaughter because of extenuating circumstances such as adequate provocation (arousing the "heat of passion") or diminished capacity. Also termed intentional manslaughter

OK, so with these defintions, as we read them, it so far sounds to me like manslaughter. If we're fulfilling the defintions right. Now, the one catch is what the article said about Second Degree Murder by way of this "implied malice theory". So, here's the definition for "implied malice"

Implied malice: Malice inferred from a person's conduct. Also termed -- constructive malice, legal malice, malice in law

That is going to be your sticking point. That's what has to rub a jury one way or the other. Now, let's not forget that for someone to be found guilty in criminal court it must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you go for Second Degree and the defense can bring about reasonable doubt, guess what. You have the OJ Simpson trial all over again!

Manslaughter, NO QUESTION, no reasonable doubt.

One last thing. What time did this accident happen?? Yes, one of the drivers had his lights off... but I also recall the witness for the prosecution saying that the cars were obvious despite "dusky conditions". Dusky conditions would tell me it wasn't fully dark yet. If it was around dusk, then he may escape that part. Different states have different laws. I know for Maryland, you must have your headlights on at 30 mins after dusk until 30 minutes before dawn.

Once again, this is for all the fun of conversation. Hope that was something to help, one way or another. My opinion. Involuntary manslaughter. gn85girls opinion: At the best; Involuntary manslaughter

Viel Spaß

 

[gn85]

BTW...

Sunset for that evening was about 6:26 pm. Just an interesting twist with the headlights being off. Can anyone in California tell the law for when lights should be on or off??

Just some more food for the ol' brain box.

 

[webleyaz]

It sounds to me like involuntary manslaughter, too. I've never been a big fan of the accomplice receiving the same sentence law. Try him for what he did...street racing, wreckless endangerment, leaving the scene, etc. If he's seen street racing again after all this then by all means, shoot him on the spot.. If the law makes him equally responsible, so be it. They are the laws we enacted and they must be adhered to.

And put this all over the news every time it's on. Let the rest of the street racing population see it alot to hopefully gain some insight on what can happen and how it turns out. The guys on trial have learned their lessons I"m sure. And they'll do the time they deserve for one stupid act.

 

[whitehot84]

The laws are state specific. I know here in Kentucky there are no degrees of murder. You are guilty of murder or manslaughter. The penalty is given according to the prejudice. In otherwords was it premeditated or an act of vengence or possibly done in the heat of the moment. If it was done during a felony you can get the death penalty.

 

[TurboJunky]

Very good points gn85. I agree that Manslaughter fits the bill but most prosecutors "charge high" and let the chips fall where they may. They're also out to prove a point with street racing killing so many in the San Diego area. It's just ironic that it happened to be two black men they choose to prove their point with.

Michigan law has a specific statute that deals with this scenario exactly. It states:

750.324 Negligent homicide; penalty. [M.S.A. 28.556 ]
Sec. 324. Any person who, by the operation of any vehicle upon any highway or upon any other property, public or private, at an immoderate rate of speed or in a careless, reckless or negligent manner, but not wilfully or wantonly, shall cause the death of another, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.325 ;--Am. 1965, Act 38, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966 .

Former Law: See section 2 of Act 98 of 1921, being CL 1929, § 16744.


The penalty may be a little too light but the law's 40 years old. It's also one of Michigan's handful of "high" misdemeanors. 99.9% of laws here that exceed 1 year of incarceration is a felony. For whatever reason the legislature made this crime a 2 year misdemeanor....very odd to say the least.

 

[The Radius Kid]

I see why they charged them with second degree murder now.
Manslaughter does not have fore thought,and therefore,no accomplice[think I said that right?].
Wanna bet that the defence attourney won't be bargaining this one down?
Maybe it had something to do with the fact both cars didn't have their headlights on?
That could be construed as being mitigating grounds for the charges.
If they both had their headlights on,then the car pulling out could have made a reasonable judgement as to the approaching vehicle's velocity[in her lane]and possibly not entered the roadway at that time.
Therefore the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident[the racer],placed the victim in mortal peril by not allowing the driver the appropriate sensory input to make a safe assessment of the situation before entering the roadway.
Those "Law and Order" episodes are really helpful.

 

[fubar2.5]

If this happened before 7 pm {as per witness] weather either or neither car had their headlights on is not relevant unless Cal. has a 24 hr light law.
I think they should be charged with the same thing because if there was only one car speeding there would have been an escape route to get around a slow moving vehicle.

 

[68 stang]

How about charging them with the same laws that they would with drunk driving. It falls along the same lines. The driver that struck the car, should be treated like a drunk driver. They both know that they should not be doing it, and yet they both have results that ends in death without them meaning too. The other driver should also be charged like a bar tender would, because they are supposed to stop serving when you are visable intoxicated. Also you cannot race yourself.

As for the aurguement over they should not be there at that time of night. What about a person going into a "rough" community after dark.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Originally posted by 68 stang

As for the aurguement over they should not be there at that time of night. What about a person going into a "rough" community after dark.

That time of night was only 7 pm and it seems it was a well traveled route between the two peoples (that got hit) homes... pretty sad

As I said also, just cause 1 guy wasnt unlucky enough to crash into another car doesnt make him any less guilty... if he had staged in the other lane hed be the one with the wrecked car....

 

[xlr8ngn]

What if the guy was just driving 90mph down the road with his lights off and hit them. What would you charge him with then?

The fact that he was drag racing is an emotional subject that should be separated. People make too many decisions based on emotion. The facts that I have seen from this thread alone are that he was speeding down the road with his lights off. This action is what caused the accident. The fact that he was racing another car did not cause the accident. He was speeding with lights off is what caused the accident, period. It is illegal to drag race and he should also be charged with that also, but the speed is what caused the accident. Should I say it again?

You are only responsible for your actions, not others. The other guy should be charged with what he did, not what someone else did. If he drag raced, he should be charged with drag racing. If he exceeded the speed limit while racing, he should be charged with that also. If he grossly exceeded the speed limit, he should be charged with reckless driving. It is really that simple. You have to take emotion out of it.

It sounds cold what I have said, but facts are facts. You cannot introduce personal emotions when judging others. You have to look at the facts alone. It is a tragedy what happened, but don't punish one for another's action.

Today, I was driving home from Florida on the highway and this person refused to get away from me. I slowed down, he slowed down. I sped up, he sped up. I went all the way to from 60 to 90 mph in the van trying to get away from this idiot. He was very busy bouncing around in his seat and waving his hands around, most likely to some rap. If he would have wrecked and killed someone at 90 mph trying to keep up with me, should I be responsible for what he did? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

 

[Rogue Leader]

Sorry but thats the WRONG way to look at it.. You have to take each situation and the facts seperately. Thats why the court system was developed... to interpret the laws!

By your thinking then lets say me and my buddy hold up a store with some people at gunpoint and I hold the guy, the guy fights back against me and my buddy blows him away I should just get charged with armed robbery while my buddy gets murder. The guy wouldnt have gotten shot if I wasnt holding him, he could have hid from the gun... heck the whole situation would have been different...

You ARE responsible for others actions... In the same respect by your thinking the guy who hires some shmoe to kill his wife isnt just as guilty????

This guy very likely wouldnt have sped down the road at 90 mph with his headlights off had he not had his instigator beside him trying to make him go faster... That makes BOTH of them guilty of the same crime.

You talk about FACTS not emotions... The FACT is that they were RACING eachother... It wasnt two seperate people isolated from eachother that happened to be speeding down the same road at the same time and one happened to be dumb enough to have his headlights off. They were both there for the reason to race eachother and that is a FACT... the reason they were going fast is cause they were racing eachother, FACT.

I suggest you get your FACTS straight befoe over analyzing the plain sight FACTS that are there in the first place....

 

[xlr8ngn]

I still believe that each should be judged on their individual actions. This automatic knee-jerk reaction to charging both parties with the same crime is a cop out for the judicial system. They don't want the responsibility of judging each person separately and the emotional reaction that many people would have. It is just easier to charge them both. I am an individual, I am responsible for my actions and mine alone, not someone else's.

By your thinking then lets say me and my buddy hold up a store with some people at gunpoint and I hold the guy, the guy fights back against me and my buddy blows him away I should just get charged with armed robbery while my buddy gets murder. The guy wouldn't have gotten shot if I wasn't holding him, he could have hid from the gun... heck the whole situation would have been different...

I believe both parties in that situation would likely be guilty of murder, but they should be looked at individually. Theoretically, if the guy holding the gun told his buddy that he was not going to shoot under any circumstance, then you would have to take that into consideration. On the other hand, if he told his buddy if things get ugly, I am going to start shooting...........

You ARE responsible for others actions... In the same respect by your thinking the guy who hires some shmoe to kill his wife isnt just as guilty????

I am not responsible for anyone's actions but my own. There is no question about it, I am responsible for myself and no one else. If I hire someone to kill another person, then I am paying someone to do what I would do myself. Therefore, you would be guilty of murder. The person who is hired is also guilty because they accepted and performed an illegal activity.

This guy very likely wouldn't have sped down the road at 90 mph with his headlights off had he not had his instigator beside him trying to make him go faster... That makes BOTH of them guilty of the same crime.

Maybe the other guy did not know he had his headlights off. I know they were both racing, but neither party was forced to race. Maybe one of the guys could comfortably handle an indy car at 190 mph while the other could not properly handle his hickey, should he be responsible for his lack of ability. What if the guy that hit them did it on purpose, should the other guy be responsible for that. What if the guy stalled his car on launch and the other guy took off anyway and the same thing still happened. I just do not think both should be charged the same in this case. Sorry.

 

[Pat Adkins]

How would the trial have went if it had been O.J. racing A.C.