Mom convicted in son’s jaywalking death will (?) serve more time than her son's Killer!

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
This is this guys THIRD hit and run. Not third accident or third time driving drunk, HIS THIRD HIT AND RUN

Why was he even allowed to drive in the first place!!

Yes, I agree on this one. It is a very hard line attitude, but I think if you get a single DUI you should be suspended for a year. If you cause a single loss of life due to a driving while under the influence, you should never drive again. And if you get the 3rd strike, as in 3 DUI tickets then again, no more driving ever. This is just absurd that people think they can drive while intoxicated or drugged and function responsibly. And if you do it once, chances are you will do it again.

Use a designated driver, call a cab, spend the night at your friend’s house etc. I can say in all honesty I have NEVER driven while incapacitated like this and I would hope I never find myself tempted to do so. If someone were to take a machine gun, go to the park, put on a blind fold, and start turning is circles firing on full auto, the public outcry would be heard on mars. This is no different, you are willfully endangering others. You may not have aimed your car at the child on purpose, but you most certainly engaged in a reckless act that killed him.



Well obviously not "YOU." I hope you see this is not aimed at "you."

Jaywalking with your kids, especially a 4-year old, is absolutely inexcusable, and stoooopid beyond all means.

And to think she had the nerve to do this at night across 4 lanes of traffic.

This is not only endangering yourself, but your kids, and it's setting a terrible example at such a young age.

Also, by jay-walking in a group, it only increases your odds of someone getting hit, since more are in the road.

And the fact that the kids are young, just increases your chances of an accident, since they are so small, and can't react as fast.

Some may argue jaywalking is a petty crime, and I agree, in the circumstance that you're alone, know the streets well, and are not endangering anyone else but yourself.

She decided to gamble with her life, and the life of her kids - whom she is fully responsible for - and she lost.

Sorry, but when you decide to gamble with someone elses life, and they lose, you deserve to pay the price.

Hopefully some other parents will catch light of this story, and get the gist on how stupid this behavior is. It's all too common these days I see parents pushing a stroller across multiple lanes of traffic on a red light, and as more and more people continue doing this, we'll only continue hearing more of these stories.

(Note: I'm not targeting you specifically, just using it as an example for my counter-argument.)

Originally posted by emaildogsEdit: Ok, the Kid broke away, and this whole thing was an accident. But the Judge and Jury felt differently.

If she wasn't so busy setting a bad example, it's unlikely the kid would have any interest in running across 4 lanes of an open road. I'd bet my left nut that this was not a 1-time occurrence, given the poor excuse she had given for wanting to avoid the crosswalk.

Nelson, who doesn't have a car, was three-tenths of a mile away from the nearest crosswalk when her bus dropped her off at the stop across the street from her apartment with her three children. She decided to cross with her kids rather than remain outside any later at night, she said.

Oh my, 3/10 of a mile.. a mere 2 minute walk to the cross walk. Surely, staying out an additional 5 minutes would have been tragic.

Also...

Has anyone even considered the fact that she has probably made a habit of this 'jaywalking routine' to her apartment most times she gets off of the bus?

She may taken this gamble 100 times before, and this was the one time the cards weren't in her favor.

Keep it simple, don't get frustrated.
1. No jaywalking, no drink and drive = both did a mistake
2. If the lady wasn't jaywalking, then there wouldn't have been an accident = cause of the accident
3. If the lady alone was jaywalking, then it would have been a smaller mistake = less charges
4. Jaywalking with kids = committing a mistake + telling kids that they can committ that mistake + irresponsibile when committing that mistake = blunder.

The driver can be charged only under DUI .. it is that simple judgement.

Originally posted by mnshooter
reply to post by KnightFire

 

You're are completely wrong about drunk drivers not getting the punishment they deserve. There is only one group that lobbies for or against drunk drivers and that is MADD. There is no one arguing for intoxicated drivers rights. Right now if you get pulled over and accused of drinking you have no rights. You are guilty until proven innocent. If you refuse to take their test you are admitting to being guilty. If the people at MADD have their way you will be locked up for a year and never be able to drive again for washing your mouth out with mouthwash.

Wow, thanks so much for opening my mind to the forgotten civil rights issue of the 21st century, fighting for the right to shotgun 12 beers, then take a massive fuel injected killing machine at 70+ MPH down highways at 2am so you can skip out on that extra $20 bucks on the cab fare.

Hopefully people will begin to pay attention. It's certainly right up there with the right to smash that pharmacist who won't hand over the stash of Oxycontin.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by silo13

 

Honestly can't believe this, I mean I could see charging her for reckless endangerment or a more minor crime and then letting her go without any jail time at all but several years seems a bit steep. No offense but she does hold a fraction of the responsibility here (though not near as much as the driver), jay walking is a stupid idea considering how some SOBER people drive.

Im proud to say I am a radical jaywalker . I always jaywalked with the kids and they all survived . For those very fearfull of the roads you need to stay indoors or never cross a road as at any moment a car could run that red light and hit you and the kids .
There is absoulutely no gurantee that the road rules will be followed by driver or human error just occurs .

thus to even take your children ouitside is endangering them , especially if ou take them in a car .

reply to post by silo13


Terrible story. And what the Hell is Jaywalking anyway? Are you telling me it's illegal to cross a street in the US without permission? In the UK the law is firmly on the side of the pedestrian - we cross where we want. (except for motorways obviously).

In tampa fl we have the 2nd highest pedistrian traffic deaths in the country behind only our neighbor orlando. People just dont know how to respect traffic. as far as the mom getting trouble i dont know about that. obviously she didnt want any of the kids hurt. she has to live with what she did jail is only going to make it harder on the rest of the family. it cant get any harder on her. As for the DUI guy... what are the details was he over the limit. i cant imagine only getting a couple months if you get a DUI manslaughter. i have friend that was doing 90 in a 45 and killed a little girl he wasnt even drunk and he is doing 15 years.

Reply to post by silo13

I feel sorry for her remaining children. I mean, if their mom doesn't even know how to cross the street properly can you imagine how stupid her kids (the ones that survive..lol) are going to turn out?

I don't care about the drive. Her actions put her kids in danger....period. I'm a crappy parent but not dumb enough to do what she did even on mu worst day.

Darawin in action I say.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

im with most of the others on here. they both are wrong. both should face charges. he admitted to drinking and she obviously crossed in front of him on a dark street. both should pay for it. and for the record there is no where in the law that "losing your child" is part of a punishment. here where i live it sounds like we have the same law. a pedestrian has no right in the roadway. the reason this was made this way is we have large groups of blacks in this area. they used to get in the roadway in a large group and stop and rob people. so they changed the law that if you are in the raodway you have no rights and i dont have to stop. kinda put a big damper on that whole deal when the first group got plowed into by a large truck. of couse doesnt really fit this situation since that is not what happened here. she made a mistake and lost a child for it. he made a mistake by drinking and driving. so yeah they are both guilty. but i can tell you that here, due to that law, she would have STILL been more responsible than the guy. she took a gamble (probably one of hundreads) and she lost this time. all it takes is one mistake. like i always say, a little common sense can go a LONG ways!

I agree situation all around is pretty #ty, but i do need to stress something.

She shouldn't have been jay walking. This is why that's a law, seriously what was she thinking, if it was night shouldn't there be headlights?! Oh let me just be too lazy to get to the nearest cross walk and just walk across the road in the middle of the night with my kids, that sounds like a great idea.

Makes me sick. Common sense people.

Precidence or whatever the term is I'm looking for. You can't just blame the drunk guy because he was drunk. Sober people get in accidents too, and if it's their fault, they should share the responsibility.
If I'm drunk, and someone runs into me even if it is a van filled with adopted toddlers, their driver (Even if it is a sober orphaned toddler) should be charged with man slaughter, I should only do endangerment.

Feel free to replace "legal terms" with the ones that are better.

reply to post by silo13


This country is offically insane I'm just lost for words I dont know what to say

This is some kind of a joke, right?

I feel sorry for anyone who has to explain themseleves to the arm of the law.. Your screwed even if your innocent!

As for jaywalking, this has got to be the most pathetic law I have ever come across. Get a grip on reality, America!!

Come to England my friends, where Criminals get convicted and the Innocent walk away. The way it SHOULD be.

Originally posted by TrixXxtaR
This is some kind of a joke, right?

I feel sorry for anyone who has to explain themseleves to the arm of the law.. Your screwed even if your innocent!

As for jaywalking, this has got to be the most pathetic law I have ever come across. Get a grip on reality, America!!

Come to England my friends, where Criminals get convicted and the Innocent walk away. The way it SHOULD be.

Jaywalking, alone, is a petty offense and would never land you in jail. The most you'd normally get, if the cop wasn't going to cut you some slack, in rare cases, is a small fine.

This isn't simply a 'jaywalking' offense, but multiple more serious offenses that stemmed from it.

Originally posted by BeyondPerception
Jaywalking, alone, is a petty offense and would never land you in jail. The most you'd normally get, if the cop wasn't going to cut you some slack, in rare cases, is a small fine.

This isn't simply a 'jaywalking' offense, but multiple more serious offenses that stemmed from it.

I understand that, but all this is doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Multiple times!

Originally posted by stevooo...

If she was actually concerned about her children's safety, she'd be teaching them to always use a crosswalk.

Once they're grown up and on their own, it's up to them whether or not they change their habits.

Originally posted by TrixXxtaR


Come to England my friends, where Criminals get convicted and the Innocent walk away. The way it SHOULD be.

When I lived in Seattle, I saw cops draw guns on jaywalkers. Twice.

ps - don't give idle offers for immigration to England unless you have a guest house!

Originally posted by TrixXxtaR
I understand that, but all this is doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Multiple times!

I'm confused. What exactly are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by CuervoWhen I lived in Seattle, I saw cops draw guns on jaywalkers. Twice.

So they'd hurry across the street? Sounds a bit extreme. I'm sure there was more to it then that. Either that, or it's an issue with the cops.