TheAgitator.com
Morning Links
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008- Maxim apologizes for its made-up review of the new Black Crowes CD.
- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s office charges $1,200 for an open records request.
- All the usual disclaimers about claims made in a forwarded email apply. And it’s a couple of years old. But still, these made me laugh.
- An Illinois man is ready to take a fine and possible jail time to make a statement about property rights in the age of Healthism. Good for him.
- Guess which driver’s facing prison time, and which one got off? Lessons from our two-tiered criminal justice system.
- Retired judge challenging Arizona’s poker laws.
The story about the drunk driving accident is appalling. Just unbelievable. It really shows how once the police get a story in their heads about who’s the victim and who’s the bad guy, that’s it — nothing else matters, certainly not evidence.
Whoa!!! How is slowing down too fast a problem? I’d always been taught that is the job of drivers to always keep a safe driving distance between you and the car in front of you. How is it his fault this girl was following too closely, going too fast, was drunk, et al his fault?
He definitely screwed up by leaving the scene after she clipped the front bumper of his car as she sped around the left side of him, crossing over the center lane because she was going too fast and too close to stop herself as he slowed down. There is nothing there for him to be blamed in the crash really, but the way he’s been treated by police and prosecutors since the accident might lend creedence as to why running might have been a good idea. He does have some alcohol in his system and marijuana, but he still wasn’t the reason the accident happened.
I’m kind of pissed at the mother of the dead girl suing him and Varker. I don’t mind her suing Varker (as much but is still find it wrong on some levels) since the girl’s drinking, poor driving, etc. did lead to the accident, but I’d lay just as much blame on her own daughter for not wearing her seatbelt, getting into a car of a drunk underage driver, etc.
Sad story, and the guy is getting railroaded just makes it worse.
Clarification Alcohol in his system was below legal limits (way below on blood test) and only trace marijuana, but I don’t see how this affects the issue of who is at fault in the accident since there was nothing on his part that would have been chabged if he had been stone cold sober.
This seems like a classic formula of following too close, not paying attention, going too fast rear ender type accident.
There has to be more to this story. I’d love to see the police report on it.
I think that sums it up perfectly. Probably the most common type of car accident there is and almost always the fault of the car in back.
>I think that sums it up perfectly. Probably the most common type
>of car accident there is and almost always the fault of the car in
>back.
In my state (Pennsylvania) at least, it’s by definition the fault of the car in back.
I think it’s interesting that the police are completely unable to get the other girls in the car to talk. that tells me they’re just not trying very hard. The girls generally can’t refuse to meet with investigators without raising the possibility of being charged with obstructing justice. They may be able to claim a fifth amendment right because they would have to answer questions about whether they were illegally drinking under-age, but that does not have anythign to do with the accident.
All that aside though, the cops seem to know the girl was drunk, and that she and another girl used fake IDs to buy beer. Well, that sees enough to bring charges and then have those charged start to paint a clearer picture of what everyone else was doing in exchange for leniency.
Accident or no accident, how the f*ck has this girl not been charged with drunk driving? Does it get any more cut and dry? The “loss of a friend is enough punishment” canard is (rightfully) for defense attorneys, not cops.
Hell, I’d run too, now that I know the charge for being tailgated by a blue-blooded girl is actually manslaughter.
I don’t know if there’s any truth to it or not, but I have heard that, in some states, drunk drivers are commonly assumed to be at fault in an accident even if they are rear-ended because they should not have even been driving to begin with.
Speaking of forwarded e-mails. This is my favorite of all time.
http://www.infiltec.com/j-cybern.htm
Ah, y’all should live in Washington.
In WA, if there’s an accident and one driver is drunk, it’s the drunk’s fault.
In WA, if there’s a rear-ender, it’s automatically the person in the back car that’s at fault.
But wait! If the drunk rear-ends another car, and the second car’s driver isn’t insured, it’s the second car driver’s fault.
Ain’t that a peach? Don’t you just love living in a world run by lawyers and insurance companies?
No, that’s not from personal experience. But it ticks me off nonetheless.
You might want to check the law on u-turns.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00752.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
28-752. Limitations on turning around
A person shall not turn a vehicle to proceed in the opposite direction on a curve or on the approach to or near the crest of a grade if the vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within five hundred feet.
Am I missing something here? The guy makes a u-turn (clearly in violation of the Arizona law) killing a 15 year old girl then leave the scene of the accident. But it’s not his fault and the girls should be charged.
Nice!
Do you know something about the case we don’t, Gresham? Do you know what the sight distances were? Or where the crash was located, or that the other drivers couldn’t see him?
It’s repeated multiple times that the u-turn was legal in that location in the story. Maybe read the article…
“According to the sheriff’s report, witnesses suggest Varker saw his little Hyundai slowing and crossed over the yellow lines into the center lane to pass him. At least one witness, a friend of Varker’s who was just behind her on the highway, told deputies that the other car was slowing too dramatically for her to stop; Varker had to lurch into the center lane just to avoid rear-ending him.”
Here’s the problem (and it’s why I’m interested in seeing a copy of the police report). Her friend kind of kills any case. Independent of whether he was making an illegal/legal U-turn or stopping because something darted out in front of his car she was following too close and going too fast to react to the conditions in front of her. She then compounds it by driving illegally in the center lane to get past him.
I’ll state clearly he deserves the charges for fleeing the scene. Stupid error on his part, but it’s really the only part he’s at fault here. Everything else seems to be the result of the girl not knowing how to drive, driving while legally drunk, driving with cargo poorly secured that necessitated a girl holding it down, having passengers without seatbelts on, most likely not paying attention to the traffic around her, etc.
Gresham Please tell me at which point did Wilkerson’s actions force Varker’s into those choices?
And the more I think about it, the more this wrongful death lawsuit from the dead girl’s family rankles me. It sounds callous, but she choose to get in the car of an underage drunk driver. She choose not to wear a seatbelt. I fail to see how this is Wilkerson’s fault either. They might have an argument against Varkers, and she needs to take responsibility for not making sure all her passengers are secured.
I refuse to drive anyone in my car that won’t wear a seatbelt. I don’t need your death on my conscious because you think seatbelts are stupid, uncomfortable, restrictive, etc.
I followed the link to the S.C. email issue… and he’s way off base with this.
And I used to run that office’s email system. It’s been a few years, but I still know the guys running it. It’s nowhere near a simple operation, unless you’re clueless about what it would take.
I do, however, feel vindicated. I went back and forth with Archives and History for months over the need for a standard for this sort of thing - and what it would take for a “true” archiving, searchable system.
I commented there, but they’ve got moderation enabled. If it’s not posted soon, I could copy it here.
Highway, I’m just going to take wild guess here but if this guy was hit wile making a u-turn I don’t think the road was clear 500 feet in both directions. This would put him in violation of the law.
Edmund Dantes, you make valid points about the girls stupidity however I do not see this as one-sided as the author, you or the rest of the comments here.
Gresham: Did you even read the law you posted?
“A person shall not turn a vehicle to proceed in the opposite direction on a curve or on the approach to or near the crest of a grade if the vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within five hundred feet.”
That doesn’t mean there can’t be any other cars within 500 feet of the vehicle making the u-turn. That means that it’s illegal to make a u-turn where there is not 500 feet of visibility in both directions: i.e. in a sharp corner with poor sight lines.
asg,
Hey, it’s Maricopa County…where it’s considered perfectly acceptable for the cops to suffocate mentally handicapped prisoners in handcuffs because they find them annoying and claim that multiple broken bones found on inmates they’ve beaten to death were sustained by “falling out of a bunk”.
http://justdreadful.com/?p=270
You’re honestly surprised that they’re going to railroad some working-class black guy when it can spring the daughter of a rich potential donor to Joe Arpaio’s reelection fund? The only thing that surprises me is that Arpaio’s little gang of thugs with badges doesn’t show up more often on The Agitator.
I’m probably the most racist, stereotyping regular poster on Radley’s blog. So with that in mind, here’s my two cents. Black guys drive really slow, but within the law. Seventeen year old (white) girls drive really, really bad. Especially when drunk in a 3 ton tank with a bunch of other drunk girls. If you ignore my amazing stereotypes, the facts presented in that story appear to be on the guy’s side. Factor them in, and this is an open-and-shut case.
Also, I’m regularly berated by other libertarians and conservatives for thinking large SUV’s should be illegal, and this story is going into my large mental file of antecdotal evidence (and my file about my two stereotypes, btw).
It’s sure is one sided when it comes to charges. The things he should be charged with are fleeing from officers and leaving the scene. Try him and convict him of those crimes if he is guilty.
Manslaughter is a dramatic overreach. The person that walked away scot free from the accident, and she was only recommended for charges several months later after an outcry about the leniency towards her even though she blew .09 after an hour wait, is underage, had fake id, had loose cargo, was most likely driving too close (also against the law), had un-belted passengers, etc..
It might just be me, but I see something seriously wrong with that set of circumstances. She should be facing charges of manslaughter.
Also note the retired Phoenix cop quoted in the article that is working for the Varkers didn’t call the u-turn illegal. He said that the mistake (again which doesn’t absolve Varker of her responsibility of safe driving distance) was that the guy should have pulled off to the side in the bus stop cutout to make a safer u-turn. He impeded the flow of traffic according to this guy. If the guy had slowed (impeded traffic) because something had darted in front of him and he was then struck by Varker or if his car’s engine suddenly died and he slowed, it would be her fault still. It doesn’t matter what the intent of Wilkerson was at that point. She still failed basic driving. Unfortunately someone died as a result, but the accident is still largerly her fault.
…however I do not see this as one-sided as the author, you or the rest of the comments here.
Sure, you do. In your first post you wrote,
“The guy makes a u-turn (clearly in violation of the Arizona law) killing a 15 year old girl then leave the scene of the accident.”‘
Actually, you see it as more one-sided because you’re ignoring the facts of the case. The u-turn wasn’t illegal, he wasn’t intoxicated, she was intoxicated and driving unsafely. And then you say that he killed a girl. That’s hardly looking at both sides.
This all come down to one thing. The facts. Without all of them, all we can do is hash out our own theories. The problem here is who controlls the facts? Give-up? The Police. This is the main problem with most DUI cases. The evidence has a shelf-life. Our courts have stated that the Police don’t have to keep the evidence from a DUI case. This impedes the defendant’s ability to have a “fair trial” and prove their innocense. Wait. I thought that we were presumed innocent, that the Prosecutor was supposed to prove guilt. Nope. This is a DUI we are automatically presumed guilty and have to prove out innocense. Kind of rough to do since the Polie threw out the evidence!
Yeah, that doesn’t make any sort of sense. Even if he decided to come to a complete and sudden stop in the middle of the road, the drivers behind him should be maintaining enough distance to stop in time. Ridiculous.
So if I understand this correctly you are saying that the law requires him to ensure 500 feet visibility in either direction but that he has no responsibility for his actions within that required 1000 feet. I am no lawyer and you may well be right. In that case he should request a trial by judge. I don’t think you will find many people willing to assign zero responsibility to him. If she was drunk, speeding and ridding his ass I wonder how he could not have known she was there. I agree the police report would be helpful. Without further proof I do not agree that he has zero responsibility for making a safe u-turn.
Do no take this as the girls should go free. All of them should be charged, prosecuted and pay a priced. I also might buy into the argument that he is being treated unfairly and/or differently. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to say he has no responsibility for the accident other than leaving the scene. At lest not with the information available.
Gresham,
Yeah, he probably knew she was behind him, somewhere. So? I’m not sure if you’ve ever actually driven before, but there’s sort of a fundamental assumption that when you slow your vehicle, the people behind you will slow theirs accordingly.
Matt,
If he knew she was back there and turned into her path then the charges are warranted. I do not know that I can make that determination based on the story. I don’t think it is reasonable to make an immediate u-turn without looking in both directions. I also do not think it is reasonable to be drinking, driving and speeding.
I don’t know if this was simply a case of hostilities between these two drivers or just bad judgment. I do however think there is plenty of blame to go around. I also think that leaving the scene of an accident, which you were involved in, knowing that a vehicle is rolling over, is a particularly heinous act.
I would agree with most of the posters here that the girls should not get off. Where I differ is that the responsibility of the guy. At a minimum he is at least as negligent as the girls are.
Did you even read the article? It pretty clearly states that she turned into his path, and was on the wrong side of the yellow line when she hit him.
And again, even if he had slammed on his brakes and come to a dead stop in the middle of the road, she should have been paying enough attention and leaving enough space to stop her own vehicle in time. That’s a basic rule of the road, and I would be very much surprised if it’s not the law in every state. You seem to be suggesting that he’s somehow obligated to maintain a constant speed and trajectory just because there happens to be another car behind him. That’s crap. He could just as easily have been slowing for an accident, for road debris, for an animal or person in the road, etc.
As for negligence–please. Let’s see, she’s 17, has had her license for a whole 7 months, and is drunkenly piloting a 3 ton monstrosity of an SUV around with at least one unbelted passenger. Oh, and she hit him.
Matt,
I am not making the case that she should not have been able to stop. She should have and for this she is at fault. From what I read it appeared that it was her inability to stop combined with his u-turn that caused the accident. At minimum there were two acts. If either of these acts had not occurred there would not have been an accident.
Yes, there were two acts:
1) A legal u-turn made by a sober adult.
2) An illegal pass made by a drunk and inexperienced teenager who wasn’t in control of her vehicle.
It may well be legal to make a turn without checking for clearance. I will respectfully disagree with you and call it a night.
Thanks,
Gresham
No. Stop the stupidity. He hadn’t even made the u-turn yet. He had slowed to start to make the U-turn. He was beginning his turn in the process of turning when she veered out into the center lane to get around him because she couldn’t stop. (Her friend’s own reason for why she crossed the center lane.) The only part of his car hit was his front bumper was ripped off which to me means he had barely gotten into the u-turn at all.
Now he would be at fault if he had u-turned in front of an oncoming car and gotten t-boned by the car coming in the opposite direction because it wouldn’t have been a safe u-turn. However getting clipped by the person behind you because you’ve slowed (regardless of intent), and they can’t stop isn’t your fault. There is nothing illegal about slowing in traffic. It also isn’t enough to charge you with manslaughter, reckless driving, endangerement, etc.
Look at the retired phoenix (hired by Varkers family) cop’s words. he doesn’t call it an illegal u-turn. He simply states the guy “impeded the flow of traffic”. Which shouldn’t cause accidents since sudden stops for debris, accidents, etc. are a way of life on the road. It’s a shame this girl didn’t learn her lesson from her previous accident when she rear ended someone.
Once again to be clear, his crimes are Fleeing the scene (he’s pretty much nailed to rights on that one), and supposedly eluding police officers (wouldn’t know without seeing a tape of a police chase).
Maricopa County-
Um that pretty much explains it. The place with the crazy pink underwear sheriff who wants Shaq to come help him break down the wrong doors?
I swear around half of the articles I read about police brutality and general incompetence of the legal system occur in this place.
Funny how Gresham went from “What this guy did was clearly illegal” to “well, there were two acts and without both of them no one would have been hurt.” That was an intellectual shillacking!