Teen driver deliberately hits motorcyclist- judge lets him keep license

[cali]

PELHAM - “I wasn’t going to let him pass me.”

That’s what police say a Windham teen told officers at the scene of a motor vehicle crash in Pelham early Friday morning, where the 18-year-old is said to have intentionally crashed his car into a motorcyclist, causing serious injuries.

<snip>

Judge Kristin Spath chose not to grant Mannion’s request that the teen be barred from driving if released on bail.

“I’m hesitant at this point to adopt the state’s recommendation with respect to your not driving,” Spath told Eller during his arraignment. “Mostly, it’s in the hopes that you can be out looking for a job.”

<snip>

http://unionleader.com/article/20110513/NEWS03/110519957/0/news03

I think that's nuts. How about an evaluation first?

[Fumesucker]

1. I think the judge should be limited to nothing but a motorcycle for transportation for a year..

If she survives she might learn something.

[my2sense]

2. Must be some kid belonging to a VIP n/t

[Blue_Tires]

5. that was my thought, too

if anything, usually judges over-react with teen drivers

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. +1

[Ikonoklast]

3. That judge better get her head out of her ass.

She is about to become famous...for being an idiot.


That kid should lose driving privileges FOR LIFE.

[Fumesucker]

4. The kid should do time...

Negligent manslaughter is the very least charge he should be facing.

[cali]

6. the motorcyclist is not dead nor expected to die

[Fumesucker]

7. Attempted murder then..

[Ikonoklast]

10. Attempted Manslaughter, then.

If the motorcyclist does die, and with a severely fractured leg that is a possibility, the charge would be Vehicular Manslaughter.

That is how a friend of mine died after being hit by an old lady that ran a red light and pulverized his leg...took him two years, but he finally died from that injury.

[reggie the dog]

27. how? please explain

how did it kill him in the long run? it sounds horrible.

[reggie the dog]

28. arent manslaughter and attempted incongruent?

attempt shows intent, therefore no manslaughter

attempt, if scuccessfull would be in this case i think murder 2 as it was a spurr of the moment thing.

[Fumesucker]

8. I thought about this a bit more..

We have people right here on DU who say if they are driving the speed limit that they will block people trying to pass, I read those sort of comments a lot when we have an OP that discusses driving and speed limits.

This is the result of that sort of thinking.

[Codeine]

13. Precisely this.

People declaring themselves traffic cops and public safety officers are always more dangerous than the behavior they think they're controlling.

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. ^^^ +! ^^^

[graywarrior]

9. It happened in NH. That's all you need to know.

NH does not require auto insurance. Why? Because it's a rural state and people have no other way to get to work than to drive. Seriously. That's what I was told after I was hit by a drunk driver with "issues." They would not charge her nor did they take away her license.

So, I repeat...it happened in NH, and that's how it is up there.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Let's play the paper doll game.

Now, put on the driver gloves on the black driver. Would it have made a difference?

[Lance_Boyle]

12. Only while out on bail - the trial hasn't happened yet.

Hopefully when the trial is over, the road-raging teen will find himself cooling off behind bars with no license after his release.

[cali]

15. I don't see how that changes much. the point is that a kid

without any impulse control is retaining his license without any checks on it.

[ieoeja]

20. Lancy is one of those nutjobs who believe the judicial system should behave as if the suspect is ...

... innocent until proven guilty.

Weird, huh?

[cali]

21. how about protecting the public?

it's a balancing act. I think the judge got it wrong here.

[Xithras]

23. No balancing act. The judge is right.

The prosecutor was asking for him to be punished before they'd even had a probable cause hearing, much less a trial.

A judge has two choices: If the accused is believed to be an imminent threat to the public, or is a flight risk, he can be held in jail until trial. Otherwise, he must be released on bail. Our Constitution gurantees the accused a right to bail, and it can ONLY be denied if the judge has reasonable cause to believe that the accused will reoffend between the cause hearing and the trial date. We let accused murderers out on bail on a regular basis.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a marketing phrase, but is the foundation that our legal system is built on. It's refreshing to see that some judges still remember that.

[cali]

24. I disagree.

I think the accused is an imminent threat the moment he gets behind the wheel. And driving isn't a right. It's a privilege.

[Xithras]

26. And what is your legal basis for that position?

On what basis do you presume that he's likely to reoffend before his trial date? Remember, the standard is NOT that he's a "danger" to the public. Plenty of dangerous people make bail. The standard is that he's likely to reoffend between TODAY and his trial date. If that bar isn't met, he has to be given bail.

The driving is a privlege/right thing is irrelevant here. Even DUI suspects get to keep their licenses until their trial date. While driving may be a privlege, the revocation of a license is a punishment, and if it's being assessed in response to a criminal act, it cannot be carried out until after the person has been convicted.

In the eyes of the law, this kid did not commit the crime he's being accused of. He's a wrongly accused, innocent person. Any pre-trial limitations have to be assessed based on that perspective.

[cali]

32. not all DUI suspects get to keep their licences

and not every time a license is yanked until trial is it for the purpose of punishment. And no, it's not true that in the eyes of the law the kid is not guilty. The law in the form of the state is stating clearly that in its eyes, he is guilty- thus the charges. What the fuck are you even talking about? What's with the idiotic claim that he's wrongly accused? Pretty clear you know jack shit about the law.

[Xithras]

36. Wow.

Where to begin?

and not every time a license is yanked until trial is it for the purpose of punishment.
Yes, it is. In every state I'm aware of, the yanking of a license can only happen after a judge has found the person guilty of a crime or civil infraction. The DMV can't even pull your license for speeding tickets until your court date for the ticket passes and you are given the opportunity to contest that ticket. If you simply pay the ticket, a default assumption of guilt is applied to the case. If you contest it, an explicit finding of guilt would need to be made. Either way, a court and judge have assigned you guilt.

And no, it's not true that in the eyes of the law the kid is not guilty.
I was initially interested to see where you were going with this, since the assumption of innocence has been the cornerstone of the American legal system since...forever. It was colonial American common law, makes up one of the articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, can be traced back to ancient Athenian legal codes, and has been solidly ensconced in American law ever since the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the ideal in the 1800's.

The law in the form of the state is stating clearly that in its eyes, he is guilty- thus the charges.
But then I read this, and just facepalmed. Do you understand that the assignment of charges is the decision of the PROSECUTOR, and not the court or any judge? This is basic high school civics stuff, so you SHOULD be aware of it. People vote for prosecutors, and those prosecutors can charge anyone with anything they want, with or without any evidence to back it up. It is the job of the judge and jury to determine whether or not the accused is actually guilty of anything. The personal opinion of the prosecutor is legally irrelevant, and in a fairly operated court isn't weighed when judges are making pre-conviction decisions. The fact that the prosecutor considers him guilty is interesting, but that carries about as much legal weight as the opinion of the local barber.

What the fuck are you even talking about? What's with the idiotic claim that he's wrongly accused?
Again with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing...you know, the cornerstone ideal upon which American justice is based? That's a pretty fundamental thing in a free society. The court, in a fair trial, must presume that the accused person is innocent and is being wrongly charged. It is the duty of the prosecutor to prove to the judge and to the jury that the accused person is ACTUALLY guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. When making pre-trial decisions, therefore, the court must operate from the assumption that the accused person has not committed a crime. The prosecutor hasn't yet made his case, so no assumption of liability can occur.

Pretty clear you know jack shit about the law.
While I freely admit that I'm a law school dropout, I like to think that I stuck around long enough to get the basic gist of things.

[tabasco]

38. You said:

"In the eyes of the law, this kid did not commit the crime he's being accused of. He's a wrongly accused, innocent person."

That is an absurd statement. In the eyes of the law, he's an indicted person who probably committed a crime. The presumption of innocence requires the state to prove the case, not believe the person is innocent.

I finished law school.

[reggie the dog]

29. the kid should be out on bail and one of the conditions should be

no driving until the trial, that or stay in jail until trial.

[toddwv]

16. I don't see any problems with this.

It's only natural to hand over a 2 ton killing machine to a homicidal teenager who lacks the ability to control his impulses.

[HappyMe]

17. Good grief!

Vicious idiot shouldn't be allowed to drive anytime soon. I'm waiting for all the 'excuses' for what this punk did to start coming out.

[EnviroBat]

18. I was purposely hit by a motorist while on my Harley.

It happened on "private property", and the accident led to a physical altercation in which I smashed this person face until he was damn near un-conscious. Little did I know at the time that my shoulder was fractured in two places. When the police showed up, officer Judge & Jury convicted me on the spot. All he had to do was see my bike laying on its side, and suddenly I was the "Bad-Ass Biker/Troublemaker". Point is, the asshole stated that he would "kill me" after he had been playing chicken with me for a few miles. As I attempted to go around him in a parking lot, he turned the wheel into me and hit the gas. The cops refused to cite him for ANYTHING! No attorney would touch my case because the cop didn't cite anyone "at fault". When I jumped up off of the ground, the fucker came at me which led to a fist fight. Hopefully he will never screw around with a person on a motorcycle again. I got some beautiful upgrades on my bike and a prescription for pain-killers out of the deal.

People in cars just do not give a damn about your safety when you're riding. I've had people tail-gate me, swerve at me, pull out in front of me, and mostly it's not intentional. But for someone to purposely hit a person on a motorcycle with their car is nothing short of attempted vehicular homicide, period.

[MadHound]

19. And that not only applies to motorcycles, but bicycles as well

I've had people throw beer bottles and other shit at me, run me off the road, try to run over me, on and on.

For some reason, the sight of a person on two wheels drives some folks into a frenzy.

[EnviroBat]

22. Around here, the bicyclist often ride on rual county roads.

The assholes are in such a damn hurry that they cant be bothered to slow down until it's safe to go around the person on the bike. They treat these poor people like they are the biggest nuisance in the world. I've seen people in cars come close to side swiping them and try to intimidate them. I think it's a sign of the times, and it ain't good...

[rbixby]

31. People are surprisingly courteous to bikers around here

But this is an urban area, so that's probably got something to do with it. I think people are just used to it since we've got such a large number of bike commuters and messengers here.

[reggie the dog]

30. what state are you in ?

i ride around chicago a lot during the summers and was in sanjose for 2 weeks and rode every day last year and never had a problem, even in the city of chicago on the streets

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone who often gets shit thrown at them while biking, ....

... probably needs to take a look in the mirror.

A couple weeks ago, I saw some idiot riding down Halsted - no handed, wearing headphones and doing some sort of dance/upper-arm workout waiving his arms in the air and to the side. Riding in the middle of the lane. Cars would pass him but, because he was blowing through the numerous stop-signs on Halsted, he would catch back up and take the middle of the lane. He looked like he was enjoying tying up traffic. There was a pick-up truck ahead of me - the driver and the biker were exchanging dirty looks. Apparently a pissing match going on.

Anyway, by the time I managed to pass everything, the pick-up had pulled over and was apparently waiting for the biker. It looked like trouble brewing but I didn't stick around.

[Fumesucker]

35. And I think that limb is going to break off and drop you on your ass..

In some areas chunking things at bicyclists and pedestrians is a kind of sport, sort of like moonlight baseball.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Sez you.

[Fumesucker]

41. You know how things are in every locality in the US?

Quite an amazing feat really..

[taterguy]

43. Sez me too

Most motorists are decent folks, but there are a few that get quite a kick from harassing anyone on two wheels, just because they can.

[reggie the dog]

42. did they take out the bike lane on halsted?

there used to be a bike lane, there is no reason for someone to ride in the car lane when there is a bike lane

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. No. It's still there.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Speak of the devil.....

.... here is the D-bag on Clark street tying up traffic.

Happened to see him again this morning.

[maxsolomon]

25. Drinking at 16, driving at 21.

Our process is backwards.

[taterguy]

33. This will happen as long as our society is set up to make driving a requirement

Yes, I find it outrageous, but understandable.

[flvegan]

40. So the judge should punish someone based on unsworn testimony?

Really? If he's allowed out on bail, as much as I may not like it, I can understand the judge in this case.

For the record, not just last week some douchebag tried to run me off the road as I passed him. Wrong state to do that in, Jack. Sooner or later, that will end you.

[LeftishBrit]

44. That sounds crazy. I hope he doesn't harm anyone else...

with him at the wheel, his car could be a lethal weapon.