Is This Justice?

[Sunshine]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

If you read the article, you will see that he was warned by the authorities not to go that route.

When did firefighters replace State Highway laws?

So if someone like a firefrighter/EMT in a place with which you were not familiar gave you a similar warning, you would ignore it? Maybe there's a place in a women's prison for you! LOL

 

[freedombecki]

If you read the article, you will see that he was warned by the authorities not to go that route.

When did firefighters replace State Highway laws?

So if someone like a firefrighter/EMT in a place with which you were not familiar gave you a similar warning, you would ignore it? Maybe there's a place in a women's prison for you! LOL

This case is not about me.

It's about whether the highway is suitable as it was the night of that accident for a big rig to traverse it. That decision falls squarely on the engineering department and/or professional engineering team reviewing the safety of that road as to whether it is fit to drive.

If the road is deemed unsafe for any reason that contributed to the collision that took place and the subsequent deaths, the fault lies squarely upon the state highway department that permitted that road to hell to be traversed by big rigs.

And that's how veracity in highway safety engineering works, madam bosom show.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Negligent acts are not criminal and should not be punished criminally.

even if the Negligent one knows that his negligence just may cause someone some harm?......leaving a Loaded Gun where a bunch of 6 year olds can find it is Negligence also.....if one of them finds it and shoots and kills one of the other kids......who should get blamed for the kid dying?,the kid who shot the gun or the guy who left the gun there?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

i'm kind of surprised by your assessment. mens rea doesn't require that you *intend* to have an accident. it requires that you allow your braks to be so dangerous that you can't stop a truck. a reasonable person could anticipate that failure to stop driving on bad brakes could lead to a dangerous situation. and if it does, in fact, lead to a dangerous situation, then there is intent.

Sounds to me your are talking more about gross negligence than intent. In CA, if a driver causes a vehicular death involving gross negligence, the driver is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. I'm not saying that isn't the law - I am just saying that I DISAGREE with such a law.

It isn't a question of gross negligence justifying an inference of criminal intent - that is not how the California courts seek to justify imprisoning someone for a crime lacking criminal intent. Rather, vehicular manslaughter is seen as an exception to the requirement of criminal intent for conviction of a criminal act. The idea is that, so long as there is a vehicular death that resulted from gross negligence, that in and of itself is sufficient.

In California, prosecutors almost univerally file vehicular manslaughter charges whenever a death results from a traffic collision, without any regard for the facts of the case. I swear, if someone died as the result of their plowing into the rear end of a car that was stopped for a red light, some mad dog DA would charge the driver of the stopped car with vehicular manslaughter here in California. I exaggerate somewhat, of course - but not all that much. Read my post on this thread about the case I handled for the truck driver who was making the right turn.

I just have real trouble with statutes that seek to impose criminal sanctions on people for actions which do not involve criminal intent. Yes, people can do really stupid things that have horrible consequences. And yes, there is such a thing as gross negligence - but it is still NEGLIGENCE, any way you want to slice it.

Obviously, you have a different tolerance level that I when it comes to laws that impose criminal sanctions for negligent conduct.



Of course.



Correct.

don't worty, though... he'll be out in less than 4 years.... which is more than we can say for Angel Posca and his little girl.

Now, now . . . your right wing is showing . . .

Ya cause we all know Jillian is a right wing fanatic right?

did ya notice the wink Sarge?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Negligence, by definition, cannot be intentional.

George the guy knew the brakes were not looking to good.....tell me this guy did not think about what may happen if the brakes go out going down this hill?......

 

[Tank]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

After this incident signs were posted.

 

[freedombecki]

Negligent acts are not criminal and should not be punished criminally.

even if the Negligent one knows that his negligence just may cause someone some harm?......leaving a Loaded Gun where a bunch of 6 year olds can find it is Negligence also.....if one of them finds it and shoots and kills one of the other kids......who should get blamed for the kid dying?,the kid who shot the gun or the guy who left the gun there?......

The loaded gun in this case, Harry, is likely a grossly unsafe and unfit highway for public transportation, particularly large trucks.

The man driving the trucks is not the person who let that highway to hell be used by the public. The Highway Department is.

 

[jillian]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

what happened to personal responsibility?

i thought you rightwingnuts love that....

highway department, my butt...

the guys brakes were smoking and melting.

 

[del]

Negligent acts are not criminal and should not be punished criminally.

even if the Negligent one knows that his negligence just may cause someone some harm?......leaving a Loaded Gun where a bunch of 6 year olds can find it is Negligence also.....if one of them finds it and shoots and kills one of the other kids......who should get blamed for the kid dying?,the kid who shot the gun or the guy who left the gun there?......

The loaded gun in this case, Harry, is likely a grossly unsafe and unfit highway for public transportation, particularly large trucks.

The man driving the trucks is not the person who let that highway to hell be used by the public. The Highway Department is.

and here i thought the smoke billowing out of the truck's brakes would be a good reason not to take it down a steep incline.

i'm so silly sometimes

 

[freedombecki]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

After this incident signs were posted.

That is a definite and distinctive signal that the highway department did and does know the highway is not fit to traverse. IOW, the State Highway Department of California allowed a public road to be used by all vehicles, even though it knew it was unsafe for big rigs.

There's an innocent foreign man in a California prison who should not be there if that is the truth, and the highway department needs to man up and close that sucker until the road is amended.

 

[Intense]

Eight miles or so northeast of Los Angeles, the San Gabriel mountains cut across the San Gabriel Valley, separating the greater Los Angeles Area from the High Desert. Now, there are three or four ways to traverse the San Gabriels if you want to drive up, into Northern California. Sixty years ago, there were only a couple of ways to do it.

One of those ways was (and still is) a steep and winding two-lane road called the Angeles Crest Highway. It is very steep going up, in a northerly direction and it is equally steep going down in a southerly direction from the summit into the town of La Canada-Flintridge.

Two years ago, a truck driver by the name of Marcos Costa, was bringing his big rig down the Angeles Crest, headed for La Canada-Flintridge. Somewhere along the way, the brakes went out on his rig. Marcos was unable to stop the huge truck and it ended up hitting a passenger vehicle occupied by Angel Posca and his 12-year-old daughter. They both died in the crash.

Last week, Marcos Costa was sentenced to seven and one-half years in state prison, following his conviction for vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving. Prior to this accident, Marcos Costa had led an exemplary life, never getting into any kind of trouble.

Whenever I read something like this, I want to throw up. One of the first things that is taught to first year criminal law students is the concept of mens rea. Here is how Wiki defines that term:

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

Note the last sentence of that quote - strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes do not require a guilty mind. All you have to do to be guilty of a strict liability crime is commit the prohibited act. Once again, Wiki:

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

It should be noted that the vast majority of strict liability crimes do not involve serious offenses or confinement in jail or prison as punishment. Parking tickets are strict liability crimes.

Which brings me to vehicular manslaughter. Any way you want to slice it, a death caused by an automobile accident does not involve mens rea or criminal intent. It is an ACCIDENT. The last thing in the world that Marcos Costa wanted to have happen that day two years ago, was what did happen. Furthermore, once his brakes failed, he was powerless to prevent it and probably did everything he could to stop it from happening.

Yet Marcos now goes off to state prison for seven and one half years. This is not justice.

Of course the deaths were tragic. Of course if Marcos and/or his employer were at fault in any way for the accident, they should be required to pay appropriate damages to the injured family of the people who died by way of a CIVIL action in a CIVIL court.

Think on this - vehicular manslaughter is the only crime I know of where your wife can get in her car, go to the store, and wind up in state prison without ever being allowed to return to the family home until she has served her sentence.

What are we doing here?

p.s. - I am aware that the brakes on the truck failed, which was the primary cause of the accident. I am also aware that that should not have happened and whoever allowed it to happen is at fault for what took place because of their negligence in not keeping the brakes in good shape. That does not mean that this was done with any criminal intent, however and, unless criminal intent is proven, this case belongs only in a civil court, not a criminal court.

Is This Justice?

Let's look at some factors.
Did the driver possess the appropriate license for the type of vehicle he was driving?
Was the Vehicle properly Registered, Inspected, and Insured?
Were the brakes considered in good condition before the trip?
Was the driver operating the vehicle in the proper low gears going down a steep grade, taking the load off of the brakes?
Was the vehicle over weight considering the road conditions?
Were the tires in good condition?

If these questions have good answers, we are in agreement.

 

[freedombecki]

even if the Negligent one knows that his negligence just may cause someone some harm?......leaving a Loaded Gun where a bunch of 6 year olds can find it is Negligence also.....if one of them finds it and shoots and kills one of the other kids......who should get blamed for the kid dying?,the kid who shot the gun or the guy who left the gun there?......

The loaded gun in this case, Harry, is likely a grossly unsafe and unfit highway for public transportation, particularly large trucks.

The man driving the trucks is not the person who let that highway to hell be used by the public. The Highway Department is.

and here i thought the smoke billowing out of the truck's brakes would be a good reason not to take it down a steep incline.

i'm so silly sometimes

No, you're not silly. In this country, we do not use our public highways as loaded guns in safety and accident prevention.

 

[del]

The loaded gun in this case, Harry, is likely a grossly unsafe and unfit highway for public transportation, particularly large trucks.

The man driving the trucks is not the person who let that highway to hell be used by the public. The Highway Department is.

and here i thought the smoke billowing out of the truck's brakes would be a good reason not to take it down a steep incline.

i'm so silly sometimes

No, you're not silly. In this country, we do not use our public highways as loaded guns in safety and accident prevention.

no offense, but that's the lamest defense of anything ever posted here.

it's the road's fault that this knucklehead continued to drive with defective equipment.

otay

 

[Tank]

I am hearing that the road is likely unfit for big rigs. If that truly is the case, there should be a prohibition of big rigs from using the road and a sign telling them to use alternative routes. If that be the true source of this "crime" the culpable party is the highway department of the state in which this travesty occurred.

Any way you look at it, nobody won.

After this incident signs were posted.

That is a definite and distinctive signal that the highway department did and does know the highway is not fit to traverse. IOW, the State Highway Department of California allowed a public road to be used by all vehicles, even though it knew it was unsafe for big rigs.

There's an innocent foreign man in a California prison who should not be there if that is the truth, and the highway department needs to man up and close that sucker until the road is amended.

When the drivers truck was smoking that was the sign to stop.

 

[Intense]

After this incident signs were posted.

That is a definite and distinctive signal that the highway department did and does know the highway is not fit to traverse. IOW, the State Highway Department of California allowed a public road to be used by all vehicles, even though it knew it was unsafe for big rigs.

There's an innocent foreign man in a California prison who should not be there if that is the truth, and the highway department needs to man up and close that sucker until the road is amended.

When the drivers truck was smoking that was the sign to stop.

How experienced was the driver?
Does he know how to use low gears in a steep incline?
Was it Posted?
Was he familiar with the road?

 

[freedombecki]

and here i thought the smoke billowing out of the truck's brakes would be a good reason not to take it down a steep incline.

i'm so silly sometimes

No, you're not silly. In this country, we do not use our public highways as loaded guns in safety and accident prevention.

no offense, but that's the lamest defense of anything ever posted here.

it's the road's fault that this knucklehead continued to drive with defective equipment.

otay

Actually, I've seen heinous accident photos of people who died due to improper road construction and/or other fallacies in the construction, speed measurement, and overall safety of the road.

The damn road is a highway to hell. The highway department knew this, and AFTER THE ROAD CONDITION OF FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE BRAKING PIT, KILLED 2 PEOPLE, they put up a warning sign, and not before.

That judge threw the book at the wrong person. He should have been jumping up and down about road safety. Instead, he clobbers the poor foreigner who couldn't stand up for himself due to a language barrier.

This whole incident is sickening, and it sickened George Costanza's gut initially. That in and of itself should tell ya something.

 

[jillian]

No, you're not silly. In this country, we do not use our public highways as loaded guns in safety and accident prevention.

no offense, but that's the lamest defense of anything ever posted here.

it's the road's fault that this knucklehead continued to drive with defective equipment.

otay

Actually, I've seen heinous accident photos of people who died due to improper road construction and/or other fallacies in the construction, speed measurement, and overall safety of the road.

The damn road is a highway to hell. The highway department knew this, and AFTER THE ROAD CONDITION OF FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE BRAKING PIT, KILLED 2 PEOPLE, they put up a warning sign, and not before.

That judge threw the book at the wrong person. He should have been jumping up and down about road safety. Instead, he clobbers the poor foreigner who couldn't stand up for himself due to a language barrier.

This whole incident is sickening, and it sickened George Costanza's gut initially. That in and of itself should tell ya something.

this issue is clearly beyond your capabilities.

be quiet... please. you're too stupid for air.

 

[Wicked Jester]

And, please tell us all how the driver who KNOWINGLY drove with bad brakes, while KNOWING he was driving what amounts to a weapon that can harm and kill, is any different from a drunk idiot CRIMINALLY taking the wheel and killing somebody?

Good question. I don't think there is any difference. If anything, it would seem that our truck driver here was even more of a threat to others than a drunk driver, given the size of his truck, the steep grade and the condition of his brakes. Damn good question.

My objection is to the vehicular manslaughter laws in general, because I know that many times, they are used against people they should not be used against, even though a death may have resulted from a car accident. I guess there are cases where the degree of negligence is so gross that it does justify the full brunt of the vehicular manslaughter laws. This would appear to be one of those cases.

Well done, sir! You have posed a question that has caused me to rethink this issue and hopefully approach it in the future with a more realistic attitude.

Believe me George, I get what you're saying. Defendents do get overcharged at times. That's where good judges come in.

The judge in my wifes courtroom is excellent in that regard. He's a total hardass, but very fair. I've read many transcripts where he's stopped mid prelim, called a sidebar, and flat out told prosecuters they've overcharged based on what he's been presented to that point, and strongly recommend they drop and refile to lesser charges, or drop altogether. Basically, he will tell 'em they are wasting the courts time, and proceeding forward is not in their best case interest.

But in the case you've cited, and from what i've read up here and on the internet, this truck driver did nothing different then playing russian roullete with somebody elses head. It reaks of criminal negligence.

One thing is for sure, seeing as how the prison system here in Cali works, he won't be doing time in hardcore. He will be sent to a Camp Happyland where he can sit and stew over it in relative security, and be out in 3 and 3 1/4's....Not that I feel it's enough, but that is what will happen.

 

[freedombecki]

That is a definite and distinctive signal that the highway department did and does know the highway is not fit to traverse. IOW, the State Highway Department of California allowed a public road to be used by all vehicles, even though it knew it was unsafe for big rigs.

There's an innocent foreign man in a California prison who should not be there if that is the truth, and the highway department needs to man up and close that sucker until the road is amended.

When the drivers truck was smoking that was the sign to stop.

How experienced was the driver?
Does he know how to use low gears in a steep incline?
Was it Posted?
Was he familiar with the road?

All of that may be true, but still, nothing was done to make that road fit for a large truck to stop if it had brake failure. Some brake failures are caused by braking too hard on too many down grades, and eventually, they give way. The driver may not know his brakes are entirely gone until he goes barrelling down an unsafe highway with no safety pits to help him stop and prevent such a travesty as occurred on that highway.

If a state cannot afford to fix its roads, it needs to close it until the needed fixes are made. If it cannot fix the road, it needs to close the road permanently.

That's a fine sign. It tells the drivers the road is steep. Nothing was in place to help that big rig driver. The safety pit was in disrepair and closed. The State Highway Department has an obligation to the Public to CLOSE UNSAFE ROADS THAT DO NOT HAVE A MEANS FOR TRUCKS THAT LOSE THEIR BRAKES TO LEAVE THE ROAD SAFELY.

What is it about road safety that no one here except Midcan5 and I understand?

 

[Intense]

When the drivers truck was smoking that was the sign to stop.

How experienced was the driver?
Does he know how to use low gears in a steep incline?
Was it Posted?
Was he familiar with the road?

All of that may be true, but still, nothing was done to make that road fit for a large truck to stop if it had brake failure. Some brake failures are caused by braking too hard on too many down grades, and eventually, they give way. The driver may not know his brakes are entirely gone until he goes barrelling down an unsafe highway with no safety pits to help him stop and prevent such a travesty as occurred on that highway.

If a state cannot afford to fix its roads, it needs to close it until the needed fixes are made. If it cannot fix the road, it needs to close the road permanently.

That's a fine sign. It tells the drivers the road is steep. Nothing was in place to help that big rig driver. The safety pit was in disrepair and closed. The State Highway Department has an obligation to the Public to CLOSE UNSAFE ROADS THAT DO NOT HAVE A MEANS FOR TRUCKS THAT LOSE THEIR BRAKES TO LEAVE THE ROAD SAFELY.

What is it about road safety that no one here except Midcan5 and me understand?

Not quite Becky. If he was not in the proper gear for the down grade he would burn out his brakes, the weight of the load he was carrying is a factor too. Inexperience here does equal negligence.