Yes, this was Murder....
- Thread starter Jaguar27
- Start date
e0richt said:
They shouldn't be considered the same at all. There is not a guilty mind (mens rea, as someone said in a previous post) when someone gets killed in a car accident. On the other hand when someone is a murder they wanted to kill someone, it wasnt accidental(even if the thought was only therefor a millisec before the action and followed by immediate regret). Although they should both include lenthy prison terms, murder deserves a much longer one, and possibly capital punishment.
Michael Pisarri said:
State of mind is a consideration in such cases but there are others such as knowledge and forseeability.
The degree of muder charges vary also as someone can be charged with second degree because of a negligent action without premeditation.
This would require that the person could foresee the negative results of a negligent act, but I agree negligence does not necessarily constitute murder.
If I were King I might decree that this individual makes restitution to the family and has to ride a bike for the rest of his life in rush hour traffic. Maybe on the DC beltway,however long his life might last.
gross negligence means that you did something pre-meditated that would have an almost certain outcome of a person's death. Im sorry but I don't think that most murderers face the death penalty (and Im not talking about Murder 1 but really the similarity is more to murder 2)... and the fact that they should have different prison terms? I don't think so, tim....Michael Pisarri said:
please, especially for someone that "whacked". He knew he was drunk, remember he couldn't even keep the car on the road as he tried to "escape". oh and regret? do you think he had regret as he was speeding away or maybe when the police were cuffing him? I think his only regret was getting caught.
it certainly wasn't for the cyclist, if it was he would have stopped to see if he could get help for him.
e0richt said:
First of all, you aren't him, so you don't know what he did or did not regret regardless of what his actions. Secondly gross negligence does absoutly not have to be pre-meditated (although in his case, it was) or more importantly "have an almost certain outcome of a person's death". Gross negligence is "the failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or disregard for the safety of others." thats a far cry from both murder one and two. Both, according to NYS law and most other state laws, do require intent and premeditation. so accidently hitting someone and killing them,even under intoxication lacks both those conditions and is nothing like murder 2. Also I never said most murders get the death penalty (in some states its even impossible), I just said the possiblity was there.
jhuskey said:
Yeah, thats true...driving drunk does not guarantee an accidental death, so just because one can foresee something happening, doesn't mean it will. someone who can see that their actions can cause a death and still follows through with those action doesnt make them a murder, but it does make them negligent. the death is not premediated, it was just recognized as being possible. The possibility of the death is there even when you are are completely sober, the (extremly) increased risk from being drunk is what makes them negligent.
Characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning: a premeditated crime.
That is the definition of premediated as stated by the American Heritage Dictionary. I can see why some people would not see this tragedy as first degree murder. The law is all about definitions, and in most, if not all states, first degree murder carries the premeditated definition. So according to this, the driver would have to willfully plan to go out and kill a cyclist. I am not defending the driver, who I believe should be punished to the fullest extent. I think a lot of laws need to be rewritten to address situations such as these because it is due to definitions that some people go unpunished or not punished enough. In most states, this incident would be voluntary manslaughter, which carries a lesser sentence. We have let drunk drivers get away with too much in this country. In fact I believe we are the most lax when it comes to punishment for drunk drivers. First degree murder? Not by definition. But IMO, murder on another level in which a person took another person's life due to his/her irresponsibility and he/she should be punished as such.
That is the definition of premediated as stated by the American Heritage Dictionary. I can see why some people would not see this tragedy as first degree murder. The law is all about definitions, and in most, if not all states, first degree murder carries the premeditated definition. So according to this, the driver would have to willfully plan to go out and kill a cyclist. I am not defending the driver, who I believe should be punished to the fullest extent. I think a lot of laws need to be rewritten to address situations such as these because it is due to definitions that some people go unpunished or not punished enough. In most states, this incident would be voluntary manslaughter, which carries a lesser sentence. We have let drunk drivers get away with too much in this country. In fact I believe we are the most lax when it comes to punishment for drunk drivers. First degree murder? Not by definition. But IMO, murder on another level in which a person took another person's life due to his/her irresponsibility and he/she should be punished as such.
yeah, well, I don't buy that as an argument. I think its pretty obvious what he felt. He was just saving his skin to the detriment of another person.Michael Pisarri said:
well, don't you think that being that intoxicated so as to contribute to killing another is "the failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows recklessness"? He could have gotten drunk at home where he didn't need to drive. He could have called a taxi. He could have had someone pick him up. At the least, He could have stopped early and started to have a few coffees to calm down. He could also have driven slower while driving which Im not sure how much this would have helped.Michael Pisarri said:
This was a forceable event (even if it doesn't happen every time one does this...) that if some care had been taken could have been avoided. And I still would want to know if there were any priors, because that could be an extenuating circumstance affecting the sentence.
e0richt said:
Yes, it was "the failure to use even the slighest amount of care...." and yes it a forseeable and event that can be easily avoided by calling a taxi....but its negligence and not murder and should be seen as such, even when under consideration not under the context of the law.
That depends on a few things:Michael Pisarri said:
1 - he was trying to leave the scene of the accident (thats bad)
2 - he didn't try to render aid to the victim. (thats really bad because he left
him to die...)
3 - did he have DUI prior charges? (yes=really bad because it means he should
have known better...)
4 - did he have a current active license and insurance? (no=really bad because
he was still being punished for something else that should have been taken
into account)
Im sorry but I think it should be considered something as a degree of murder because of that. Now, IF he had rendered some aid, and IF he hadn't tried to leave the scene... then I would consider this gross negligence...
You can do 90 days for stealing something in Massachusetts. The average sentences would suprise some. Federal regulations guide many of the drug arrests. Massachusetts also has minimum sentencing for major drugs with minimums in the ten year range.Michael Pisarri said:
Yet, a drunk driver can get away with anything. A driver that was caught DWI is automatically suspended. It means nothing! The Globe just had an article about a fellow that is driving around with his license suspended. The quote from the police was not very optimistic for the public in general.
Healy is running for Governor. Some of her ads talk about the culture. There is something wrong with the moral base of much of my state.
I pity anyone that wants to move here. We were basically the last state to make a license suspension mandatory if the driver refuses a BAC test.
bill
n1ey.com
While searching for more information about this accident, I came across an article two years ago involving a lawyer,( I believe),from Santa Clara, who was also drinking and driving and killed one cyclist, and while trying to flee the scene, about 300 ft later, he critically injured another person. This lawyer was said to have been driving on a suspended license. The jail time this lawyer was facing was 9 years.e0richt said:
I have read all the post in this forum thus far. I have read many posts placed on other web sites. What Chevelle did was tragic, and irreparable. I am not here to add further hurt to any of Mr.Peckham's family. I can not make excuses for Chevelle, but I do love him unconditionally. I have made so many bad decisions in my life, including driving while drinking. I can not condemn Chevelle for acts I myself have performed. I stopped drinking many years ago, and I have strong convictions for those who drive while drinking or who drive after drinking. Did Chevelle intentionally set out to kill Mr. Peckham? I do not believe he knew of Mr. Peckham before this tragedy. Chevelle did have a valid drivers license, but does that matter to anyone who is the victim of a drunk driver (No). I agree with the statement made about those of us who drive while we talk on the phone, or drive while we put on make-up in the mirror, or while we light a cigarrette, or who drink hot coffee. We know the risk we take with not only our own safety, but those who are in our paths, however,would we condemn someone who has caused a loss of life for those who are guilty of any of the above mentioned negligences ?(No)or most likely not, but everyone who perform those acts are capable of taking innocent lives, and are as every bit guilty as anyone who decides to get behind the wheel of a car after having ANY amount of alcolholic beverage. Life for a life? Burn in Hell? Murderer? We'd better be careful.
I agree, SA. This is a tragedy, exactly the same as every other tragedy brought about by negligence (Driving whilst talking on a phone, driving whilst lighting a cigarette, driving whilst singing, driving whilst leaning over to yell at the kids to put their seatbelts back on, driving over the posted speed limit...). The crime is negligence. Many of us, who drive cars, carry out negligent acts without being caught, although such acts have the potential to cause death. If one of those negligent acts makes subsequent death tantamount to murder, then they all do. None of these actions (including DUI) guarantees resultant death, but they all increase the odds. Let he who is without sin....In the meantime, we all need to be careful when we're out there driving our juggernauts around.sapphiresangel said:
Yeah this is not good. Now their is more debate about letting people have guns and stuff like this is happening. More people probably get killed this way than from guns. Drugs and alcohol are more dangerous than any kind of gun because people attempt to do the stupidest things when under the influence. The car becomes a weapon. Any of it people need to use common sense but that can be a scarcity for some. Maybe the law should only allow drinkers to have bikes. Lol. That will teach them. You wanna drink, you only are allowed a bike. Lol
So the debate here is can we call it murder? Well the feds regulate the tax on alcohol. The FDA allows the liquor companies to put all kinds of **** in the booze that does God knows what to people. The laws allow these things and leaves it up to the individual. People know drinking and driving is dangerous for themselves or others. A lot comes into play, but I think the real criminals are not the boozers. The FDA and Feds need to get their greedy heads together to do things that make sense for everyone. But its all about money though. Right and wrong is not a factor for these people.
So the debate here is can we call it murder? Well the feds regulate the tax on alcohol. The FDA allows the liquor companies to put all kinds of **** in the booze that does God knows what to people. The laws allow these things and leaves it up to the individual. People know drinking and driving is dangerous for themselves or others. A lot comes into play, but I think the real criminals are not the boozers. The FDA and Feds need to get their greedy heads together to do things that make sense for everyone. But its all about money though. Right and wrong is not a factor for these people.
Call it what you will, the end result was a man died, at the hands of someone who common sense would tell you KNEW the dangers of getting behind the wheel of a 3000+ lb projectile and driving impaired. He might not have MEANT to kill anyone (no premeditation or intent) but he had to know driving impaired significantly increased the chance he COULD kill someone. I think many states consider it "involuntary manslaughter". Personally, I think the penalty for killing someone while driving intoxicated should be the same as 2nd degree murder at least. What makes this case more damning is that he had to know he hit the rider, and LEFT the scene without even trying to help him.
Similar threads
