ForumGarden

http://tinyurl.com/we4ew



I hope this works!



I can't paste the article because of NY Times' stupid safeguards and my messed-up computer. It has taken me almsot 30 minutes to get this far! :-5 So you will have to register or log-in but it's painless, I promise. :wah: I'm sorry.



The basis:



A 25 year old drunken idiot plowed into a limo carrying a family coming from a wedding. A 7 year old girl was killed. According to the story, her mother says all that was left was the girl's head and that she sat on the roadside holding her.



I think this clown should die. Is there anyone who doesn't know what booze and cars do?! Anyone living under a rock? I didn't think so. I suppose someone will say he should get prison but because he didn't *mean* to kill her, that he should get another chance.



What do y'all think?

Here's part of the article (saves you having to register).

IMO, it's about bloody time drunk/dangerous drivers were charged with murder, wish we did here in the UK.



So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.

Will murder charges help deter drunken driving? Will juries convict these drivers, knowing that they will be in prison for a long time? And is it fair?

The Heidgen jury, which took five days to reach its verdict, seems to have had difficulty confronting these questions. In a way, the confrontation was forced on them — in part by a newly installed district attorney elected on an anti-drunken driving platform and in part by a grieving mother.

The facts of the case were never in dispute: Mr. Heidgen, an insurance salesman returning home from a party, was very drunk, his blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit. He was driving the wrong way on a highway when he plowed head-on into the limousine carrying the family of Neil and Jennifer Flynn home from a wedding. He killed the chauffeur, Stanley Rabinowitz, and Katie Flynn, 7.

The girl’s mother used no euphemisms in describing the accident. “As I crawled out of the car, the only thing that was left of Kate was her head, Mrs. Flynn, 36, said two days after the crash. “And I took her, just like that, and sat on the side of the Meadowbrook and watched at the horrendousness going on around me. I want everybody to know that.

There is no official count of how many times drunken drivers involved in fatal accidents have been charged or convicted of murder. But of the more than 13,000 alcohol-related driving deaths last year in the United States, prosecutors are aware of only a few murder cases each in Texas, California and New York. So there seems to be at least a bit of ambivalence about whether drunken drivers who kill people should be subject to the same legal penalties as gunmen who kill people.

“There is a certain psychological barrier

:wah: I just noticed your sig line, Diuretic....cranky but harmless!





Umm....



Why would you opt for a prison term, Di? I ask because we all know that you can't be drunk and operate a vehicle with any guarantee of safety. I have no prob with him drinking or being drunk. That is, if he had stayed home or got a ride from a friend or public transpo. My problem is that he got drunk and knowingly got in his truck and got on the road, taking everyone's life into his hands. And he killed two people because of his negligence. To me that is tantamount to intentional murder.

Hi Abbey! Thank you so much for posting part of the article! I was really annoyed that I couldn't make it work for me.

Diuretic wrote: Sums me up RG







I take the point RG but this is where the law (well the law in my jurisdiction) gets all tangled up. Murder requires a very specific intent and recklessness or negligence usually means a manslaughter charge is appropriate. I can't speak with any authority for the US jurisdictions but I would think that no jurisdiction has the death penalty for manslaughter or vehicular homicide or whatever the appropriate term might be. So in that sense the death penalty wouldn't ordinarily be available.



But just thinking - if executing him would restore life to those he killed then I'd say do it. That's fantasy thinking of course but it's how I feel.



The real shame is that whatever happens to him, some other idiot will do it as well somewhere else.


That's true, some idiot will. I don't know offhand the %, but here in the US, drunk driving and even murder by drunk driving is a recurring offense in far too many cases. We need something to make these thoughtless morons stop in their drunken tracks.

We have "checkpoints" set up during holidays (like that's the only time people are drunk) and people complain about "their rights" being trampled on and the infringement upon their privacy. *eyerolls*



I was once friends with the captain of the sheriff's department who quite frequently drove with an open beer in his hand after having consumed lots more beer! :-2 I mean, what does that say?!



:-5

RedGlitter wrote: COLOR=blue]A 25 year old drunken idiot plowed into a limo carrying a family coming from a wedding. A 7 year old girl was killed.

(snip)

I think this clown should die. Is there anyone who doesn't know what booze and cars do?! Anyone living under a rock? I didn't think so. I suppose someone will say he should get prison but because he didn't *mean* to kill her, that he should get another chance. :

COLOR=blue]What do y'all think? confused:


What should happen depends upon what the law says. A very quick look seems

to indicate that this conviction won't stand. This:

http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/

contains two links:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0164.htm

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleF ... 2090320619

that are also worth a glance.

Diuretic wrote: If it were my child I'd want to kill the mongrel. That's an immediate gut reaction.

He needs to go to prison for a lengthy term. When he eventually gets out he should never be allowed to have a driver's licence again and if he's found driving a car he should go back to prison again for a very long time.


I can agree with that.

know this is difficult to understand. Depraved indifference to human life is a tough matter and the NY State Court of Appeals has made it as clear as they can. Here is the answer, yes the person who drives purposely the wrong way down a one way street at full speed not intending to kill anyone but not caring if he does and realizing he might is guilty of Depraved indifference. The person who either does not perceive the danger to others because he is intoxicated or metal ill, or lost, is not guilty of depraved indifference murder.See this decision

As written on a bulletin board service I am privileged to subscribe to, if a person goes up on top of a high rise and drops a bowling ball on a crowd below, that's depraved indifference. If he is so drunk that he goes to the top of the high rise and throws the ball down thinking he is in a bowling alley, he's not guilty.



Red Sees Red....!



Holy Salt Lick!!





Unreal!! This is exactly why people don't take responsibility for their actions- because the state doesn't make them!



Only a complete moron would go for this. This is saying if you were chemically impaired and you killed somebody it's not your fault! Is that not what it says?

I am so livid I'm going to leave for a while from this thread before I spit blood!

Hey- I'm not mad at any of you guys! Just need to go sit on some ice cubes!

:mad:

RedGlitter;440235 wrote: (Quote from website: if a person goes up on top of a

high rise and drops a bowling ball on a crowd below, that's depraved indifference.

If he is so drunk that he goes to the top of the high rise and throws the ball down thinking he is in a bowling alley, he's not guilty.)



Red Sees Red....!



Holy Salt Lick!!mad:


I quite agree.... there is perhaps something missing or wrong in the law. I have

edited my initial post in this reply, since I am not sure of the whole of the law,

or what other may be applied to a particular case.