Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Rob Perkins, Sep 4, 2005.

  1. Rob Perkins

    Rob Perkins Guest

    I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
    that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep
    2003. See
    http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm


    Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that
    this bastard, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005,
    after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing.
    Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he,
    once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck.
    237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson
    County 09/12/2005

    This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started
    shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for
    real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve
    one year once you're convicted.

    I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the
    sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle.

    Rob
     
    Tags:


  2. Mike Kruger

    Mike Kruger Guest

    "Rob Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
    >that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep
    >2003. See
    > http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm
    >
    >
    > Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that
    > this bastard, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005,
    > after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing.
    > Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once
    > more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck.
    > 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005
    >
    > This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started
    > shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real.
    > If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year
    > once you're convicted.
    >
    > I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the
    > sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle.
    >

    You might want to query Google Groups on this.

    Here's a link to one earlier thread on the sentencing:
    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....ifer+sentencing&rnum=1&hl=en#dca317bb3bbda477

    Ken's next of kin were consulted on the sentencing process. How much
    consultation that was I don't know, but Ken (who I unfortunately never met
    and only know through his writings) seemed to be a man of both strong
    convictions and of charity and it is likely that his next of kin saw no
    point to pressing for a long incarceration.

    From a news story at the time of sentencing: "[DA] Perry said. "Nathan Kifer
    is a very forgiving man who genuinely wanted Rodgers to succeed in
    rehabilitation.""
     
  3. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Rob Perkins wrote:
    > I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
    > that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep
    > 2003. See
    > http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm
    >
    >
    > Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that
    > this bastard, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005,
    > after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing.
    > Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he,
    > once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck.
    > 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson
    > County 09/12/2005
    >
    > This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started
    > shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for
    > real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve
    > one year once you're convicted.
    >
    > I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the
    > sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle.
    >
    > Rob


    The result that you and many others (myself included) find
    objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per
    se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one
    else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of
    the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made
    when somone kills using a vehicle".

    The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun
    randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is
    their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A
    to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of
    transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is
    unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no
    legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent
    is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street.

    Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act
    that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's
    *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences
    of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic
    fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly
    egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of
    the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing
    with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States
    could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course
    but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really
    want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty
    parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply
    because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too
    severe?

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  4. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Rob Perkins wrote:
    > I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
    > that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep
    > 2003. See
    > http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm
    >
    >
    > Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that
    > this bastard, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005,
    > after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing.
    > Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he,
    > once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck.
    > 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson
    > County 09/12/2005
    >
    > This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started
    > shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for
    > real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve
    > one year once you're convicted.
    >
    > I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the
    > sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle.
    >
    > Rob


    The result that you and many others (myself included) find
    objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per
    se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one
    else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of
    the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made
    when somone kills using a vehicle".

    The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun
    randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is
    their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A
    to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of
    transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is
    unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no
    legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent
    is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street.

    Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act
    that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's
    *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences
    of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic
    fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly
    egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of
    the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing
    with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States
    could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course
    but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really
    want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty
    parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply
    because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too
    severe?

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  5. Bill Henry

    Bill Henry Guest

    Bob wrote:

    > It's not a matter of "attitude" but of the law. Having said that, your
    > opinion and mine differ only in that I don't think that posts in r.b.m.
    > will make any difference at all. What *could* make a difference is if,
    > instead of simply ranting in a Usenet group, every poster directed
    > their comments to their elected legislator(s) and asked that the
    > penalties for vehicular homicide be made tougher. How many
    > emails/letters to people that can actually change the law, i.e. State
    > legislators, would have been generated from just this NG if that had
    > happened say five years ago?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Bob Hunt


    I think mandatory sentences and penalties for vehicular manslaughter
    don't allow for certain cicumstances to be taken into consideration.

    Certainly there should be some penalties and it's a tragedy, no question
    about it. But there are cases where the victim's family wants to grant
    leniency to the offender. Sometimes they don't even want the person
    prosecuted. I've heard of cases where teenagers (drunk) killed their
    best friends who were in another car.

    Part of the reason we have judges to administer sentences is because
    they're experienced enough to understand certain circumstances, whether
    the person is remorseful about what happened, whether the person was
    drunk, whether it was an accident or intentional, etc.
     
  6. The Wogster

    The Wogster Guest

    Bob wrote:
    > Rob Perkins wrote:
    >
    >>I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
    >>that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep
    >>2003. See
    >>http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm
    >>
    >>
    >>Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that
    >>this bastard, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005,
    >>after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing.
    >> Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he,
    >>once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck.
    >> 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson
    >>County 09/12/2005
    >>
    >>This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started
    >>shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for
    >>real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve
    >>one year once you're convicted.
    >>
    >>I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the
    >>sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle.
    >>
    >>Rob

    >
    >
    > The result that you and many others (myself included) find
    > objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per
    > se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one
    > else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of
    > the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made
    > when somone kills using a vehicle".
    >
    > The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun
    > randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is
    > their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A
    > to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of
    > transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is
    > unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no
    > legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent
    > is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street.


    #MODE RANT=ON

    Which is the problem, did he intentionally drive or intentionally drink,
    or both. He made a decision to drink, when the only previously arranged
    method to get home was to drive a motor vehicle. Whether he intended to
    mow down a cyclist should not be part of the equation, because as long
    as it is, they will continue with slap-on-the-wrist sentances. Instead
    the law should consider only the question of the intent to DUI, in these
    cases, and make the individual involved pay as if the result was
    intentional.

    #MODE RANT=OFF

    W
     
  7. Bob wrote:
    >
    >
    > Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act
    > that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's
    > *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences
    > of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic
    > fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly
    > egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of
    > the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing
    > with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States
    > could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course
    > but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really
    > want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty
    > parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply
    > because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too
    > severe?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Bob Hunt


    I understand your points. And I understand that you, too, find the
    early release of this scumbag to be distasteful.

    But these attitudes, and the policies and decisions they precipitate,
    are subject to change. It's my understanding that many European
    countries are far stricter about DUI than the US is. And certainly,
    the US is stricter than it once was.

    I think posts, complaints, letters, etc. expressing outrage have some
    vaule. I think these things will slowly start to change the attitudes.


    - Frank Krygowski
     
  8. Bob

    Bob Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > I understand your points. And I understand that you, too, find the
    > early release of this scumbag to be distasteful.
    >
    > But these attitudes, and the policies and decisions they precipitate,
    > are subject to change. It's my understanding that many European
    > countries are far stricter about DUI than the US is. And certainly,
    > the US is stricter than it once was.
    >
    > I think posts, complaints, letters, etc. expressing outrage have some
    > vaule. I think these things will slowly start to change the attitudes.
    >
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski


    It's not a matter of "attitude" but of the law. Having said that, your
    opinion and mine differ only in that I don't think that posts in r.b.m.
    will make any difference at all. What *could* make a difference is if,
    instead of simply ranting in a Usenet group, every poster directed
    their comments to their elected legislator(s) and asked that the
    penalties for vehicular homicide be made tougher. How many
    emails/letters to people that can actually change the law, i.e. State
    legislators, would have been generated from just this NG if that had
    happened say five years ago?

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  9. Rich Clark

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > It's not a matter of "attitude" but of the law.


    The law is an ass.

    You are, of course, correct about how to get the laws changed.

    RichC
     
  10. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Bill Henry wrote:

    > I think mandatory sentences and penalties for vehicular manslaughter
    > don't allow for certain cicumstances to be taken into consideration.


    Tougher does not equal mandatory. I'm not a big fan of mandatory
    sentencing in general, primarily because of that law of unintended
    consequence I mentioned earlier.

    > Certainly there should be some penalties and it's a tragedy, no question
    > about it. But there are cases where the victim's family wants to grant
    > leniency to the offender. Sometimes they don't even want the person
    > prosecuted. I've heard of cases where teenagers (drunk) killed their
    > best friends who were in another car.


    Whether the surviving family wants the offender strung up by the thumbs
    or let off scotfree is immaterial. There is a larger societal issue at
    stake than a single family's desire or lack thereof for retribution.

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  11. Bob the Cow

    Bob the Cow Guest

    "Bill Henry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Part of the reason we have judges to administer sentences is because
    > they're experienced enough to understand certain circumstances, whether
    > the person is remorseful about what happened, whether the person was
    > drunk, whether it was an accident or intentional, etc.


    I would have bought this without question until I saw a Federal judge who
    was being interviewed on TV and he actually said, "Who are we to judge?"

    I practically screamed at the TV: "That's exactly what we PAY YOU to DO!!"
     
  12. USNSM

    USNSM Guest

    Ken Kifer was a strong advocate for NOT WEARING helmets. Had he worn one, he
    might still be alive.
     
  13. Sock Puppet

    Sock Puppet Guest

    On 5-Sep-2005, "USNSM" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ken Kifer was a strong advocate for NOT WEARING helmets. Had he worn one,
    > he might still be alive.


    Oh Crap, a Liddite.

    --
    Sock Puppet
     
  14. Bob wrote:
    > ... your
    > opinion and mine differ only in that I don't think that posts in r.b.m.
    > will make any difference at all. What *could* make a difference is if,
    > instead of simply ranting in a Usenet group, every poster directed
    > their comments to their elected legislator(s) and asked that the
    > penalties for vehicular homicide be made tougher. How many
    > emails/letters to people that can actually change the law, i.e. State
    > legislators, would have been generated from just this NG if that had
    > happened say five years ago?


    :) If your post, quoted above, gets people to write those letters,
    then a Usenet post would have made a difference!

    If you really think there's no chance of that, your post was a waste of
    time, eh?

    Personally, I think attitudes usually change gradually, and I think
    almost every little discussion has some effect.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  15. Robert Uhl

    Robert Uhl Guest

    The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > Which is the problem, did he intentionally drive or intentionally
    > drink, or both. He made a decision to drink, when the only previously
    > arranged method to get home was to drive a motor vehicle. Whether he
    > intended to mow down a cyclist should not be part of the equation,
    > because as long as it is, they will continue with slap-on-the-wrist
    > sentances. Instead the law should consider only the question of the
    > intent to DUI, in these cases, and make the individual involved pay as
    > if the result was intentional.


    Wrong, wrong, wrong. His intent to drive under the influence is germane
    to, believe it or not, driving under the influence. His intent to kill
    is germane to killing. Intent is why we have first-degree murder,
    second-degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide and so forth. It
    all has to do with very well settled legal principals.

    Now, should he spend more than a year in jail? Almost certainly,
    esp. concerning the circumstances.

    --
    Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
    It's a beautiful hymn--at 5 mins. It looses something at 45.
    --Megan, on the Hymn of Cassiana and Vain Cantors
     
  16. Bob wrote:

    > Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act
    > that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's
    > *likely* not "possibly".
    > Since the overwhelming majority of incidences
    > of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic
    > fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly
    > egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of
    > the offense of murder.


    First, thanks for your reply. It was helpful in understanding this
    travesty. With all the mass advertising we have about the deadliness
    of DUI, I think it defies logic to defend oneself with the excuse, "most
    of the time I don't kill anyone when I drive high."

    Here in North Carolina, they just made it a criminal act to hunt while
    drunk. You'd think that people would know it is a bad idea, but...

    We know most drunken gun firing happens while hunting and usually
    doesn't result in human deaths. But, if a hunter convicted of hunting
    while drunk were to be released, get drunk 4 hours later, grab his gun,
    and then kill someone while blind drunk hunting, what is that? Any
    reasonable person knows that such behavior is going to lead to people
    _likely_ dying.

    > Do we really
    > want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty
    > parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply
    > because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too
    > severe?


    In the South, it used to be ok for a white person to kill a negro, and
    not be convicted of a crime. Now, we know this is a travesty. The
    (white) jury of his peers wouldn't convict, or view the murder as a
    lesser crime. To me, the fact that car drivers can kill pedestrians
    and cyclists and not be punished is a similar case. Just because
    society has a deal with the devil to not punish car drivers who are
    negligent doesn't mean it is right.

    IMHO, people should be scared by drastic punishment into not drinking
    and driving. The people who choose to drive drunk or high are already
    irrational and will only respond to draconian punishment. Whites
    stopped lynching blacks when the feds came in and enforced the laws.

    Best Regards, Rob
     
  17. USNSM wrote:
    > Ken Kifer was a strong advocate for NOT WEARING helmets. Had he worn one, he
    > might still be alive.
    >
    >

    Dear anonymous snipe,
    Take it elsewhere.
    You are speculating, distastefully.
    Rob
     
  18. The Wogster

    The Wogster Guest

    Robert Uhl wrote:
    > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Which is the problem, did he intentionally drive or intentionally
    >>drink, or both. He made a decision to drink, when the only previously
    >>arranged method to get home was to drive a motor vehicle. Whether he
    >>intended to mow down a cyclist should not be part of the equation,
    >>because as long as it is, they will continue with slap-on-the-wrist
    >>sentances. Instead the law should consider only the question of the
    >>intent to DUI, in these cases, and make the individual involved pay as
    >>if the result was intentional.

    >
    >
    > Wrong, wrong, wrong. His intent to drive under the influence is germane
    > to, believe it or not, driving under the influence. His intent to kill
    > is germane to killing. Intent is why we have first-degree murder,
    > second-degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide and so forth. It
    > all has to do with very well settled legal principals.


    So, by your logic, the action and the result of that action are two
    separate and distinct incidents. It may be the way it is, but is it the
    way it should be. Should the crime and punishment be different, whether
    the person committing it is drunk or sober? Considering that drinking
    is a voluntary activity, as is driving, then laws that were estabilshed
    before they had determined that DUI was dangerous, maybe deserve a rethink.

    Then again if the penalty for DUI was more then a slap on the wrist and
    a small fine (how about a long term driving ban, like 5 years on the
    first offence, 10 years on the second, 20 years on the third), would
    this individual even been driving?

    > Now, should he spend more than a year in jail? Almost certainly,
    > esp. concerning the circumstances.


    Like, how about that he was sentanced to 20 years, so how does a 20 year
    sentance become a year in jail?

    W
     
  19. Robert Uhl

    Robert Uhl Guest

    The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > So, by your logic, the action and the result of that action are two
    > separate and distinct incidents. It may be the way it is, but is it
    > the way it should be. Should the crime and punishment be different,
    > whether the person committing it is drunk or sober?


    Yes. I was on a first degree murder jury, and the entire crux of the
    defense's argument was that the defendant was stoned and this could only
    be convicted of second degree murder, sobriety being required for
    first. This makes sense to me, as first degree murder is the
    _intentional_, _planned_ murder of a fellow human being.

    FWIW, we rejected that stoned argument and found the defendant guilty.

    >> Now, should he spend more than a year in jail? Almost certainly,
    >> esp. concerning the circumstances.

    >
    > Like, how about that he was sentanced to 20 years, so how does a 20
    > year sentance become a year in jail?


    Partially because we like to fill our prisons up with folks who've done
    no-one but themselves wrong--i.e. drug users.

    --
    Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
    ....the moral of the story might be to never engage in copyright
    violation unless you have an unstable friend with several thousand
    nuclear warheads lying about. --Fox news, on the Sklyarov case
     
  20. USNSM

    USNSM Guest

    "Robert Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    Listen asshole. I said HE MIGHT still be alive had he worn a helmet. Ken
    Kifer was 100% percent wrong when he argued against wearing helmets and it
    MIGHT have cost him his life.

    We know this fact. He's dead and he wasn't wearing a helmet.

    It's a good argument to show idiots like yourself that wearing a bike helmet
    just might save your life.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Kifer's Murderer Released
  1. Wurm
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,030
Loading...