https://www.bet.com/article/vy450x/[WORD TOO LONG]
110 years for a car accident? I know the sentence was mandated by CO law, but the law must be changed and the sentence must be reduced.
It's tragic, but sentencing must be based primarily on culpability, not just result.
That the sentence is insane and will be reduced is hardly even subject to dispute. The question is that the appropriate sentence is.
Let's assume the prosecution's theory of the case is correct: he "knew his brakes were failing.... and dangerously weaved between vehicles, and that he drove past at least one runaway truck ramp."
I'm willing to stipulate that this constituted gross negligence and thus possibly second degree manslaughter. Consecutive sentencing for one accident is absurd.
His sentence should be nothing more than 2 or 3 years, IMHO.
@sh76 saidIt seems, from the article, he was punished for his prior DWI (with a .24) that led to death. While I agree that it his second incident could have been an accident, his first incident is worthy or serious punishment.
https://www.bet.com/article/vy450x/[WORD TOO LONG]
110 years for a car accident? I know the sentence was mandated by CO law, but the law must be changed and the sentence must be reduced.
It's tragic, but sentencing must be based primarily on culpability, ...[text shortened]... ntencing for one accident is absurd.
His sentence should be nothing more than 2 or 3 years, IMHO.
@quackquack saidNO. Read the article again.
It seems, from the article, he was punished for his prior DWI (with a .24) that led to death. While I agree that it his second incident could have been an accident, his first incident is worthy or serious punishment.
It was ANOTHER person they used as an example of a lenient sentence that killed four people.
The truck driver's breaks failed, he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He was never in a drunk driving accident prior to this.
Reading comprehension skills of you lot are depressing.
He wasn't involved in a previous accident that killed four people while drunk, that was someone else that got a very light sentence.
27 people were not killed, only four.
Quackquack and vivify, you both need to pay more attention when reading.
@dood111 saidMy last post was based on Sh76's comment, not the article.
Reading comprehension skills of you lot are depressing.
He wasn't involved in a previous accident that killed four people while drunk, that was someone else that got a very light sentence.
27 people were not killed, only four.
Quackquack and vivify, you both need to pay more attention when reading.
@vivify saidThat's interesting, since Sh76 never mentioned anything about the number of people killed, whether four or 27.
My last post was based on Sh76's comment, not the article.
You HAD to have skimmed the article to get those numbers.
Here's YOUR comment:
"Link says he was convicted on 27 counts of vehicular manslaughter. How many years does each count add?"
@dood111 saidSh76 responded to my post where that number was mentioned; I responded to that.
That's interesting, since Sh76 never mentioned anything about the number of people killed, whether four or 27.
You HAD to have skimmed the article to get those numbers.
Here's YOUR comment:
"Link says he was convicted on 27 counts of vehicular manslaughter. How many years does each count add?"
For someone complaining about reading comprehension, you're struggling to keep up with exchanges on the first page of thread.
@vivify saidSh76 never said anything about 27 deaths, you did.
Sh76 responded to my post where that number was mentioned; I responded to that.
For someone complaining about reading comprehension, you're struggling to keep up with exchanges on the first page of thread.
Just admit you read the article and got it all wrong.
@vivify said4, 27, 100. What's the difference? Let's say he was negligent and caused and avalanche that destroyed a city and killed everyone in it. So what? It was one act. The act was an accident that (let's say) was caused by negligence. But he didn't intend to kill anyone nor does it seem he was extremely reckless. At worst, he failed to take the runaway truck ramp and handled the situation poorly.
Wait..."additional deaths"? Were 27 people killed? If so, that puts this in a completely different light.
Nobody alleged that he was drunk or that he intended to hurt anyone.
At most, what he did was criminal negligence. Regardless of how tragic the consequence, a long prison sentence for that is fundamentally unfair.
@sh76 saidTypically, the amount of deaths caused from a negligent action increases the severity of the crime. Correct?
4, 27, 100. What's the difference? Let's say he was negligent and caused and avalanche that destroyed a city and killed everyone in it. So what? It was one act. The act was an accident that (let's say) was caused by negligence. But he didn't intend to kill anyone nor does it seem he was extremely reckless. At worst, he failed to take the runaway truck ramp and handled the situat ...[text shortened]... . Regardless of how tragic the consequence, a long prison sentence for that is fundamentally unfair.