Does recklessness in and of itself imply intent ? I’d say it sounds more like negligence. But fine, I think we’re splitting hairs here.
Whatever the driver’s faults, I think life is excessive.
I personally knew a man who committed DUI manslaughter and didn’t even serve one year before being paroled.
Life? When part of the results may have been due to panic on his part?!
I’m not saying no prison time, or make him eligible for another CDL, but life is IMO excessive.
There are two parts to that question.
Generally they do NOT reach unjust verdicts.
At the same time, it’s certainly possible. And that’s what appeals are for.
If juries generally reached unjust verdicts, our judicial system would be worthless.
The owner is immaterial in the jury’s verdict for the driver.
Each entity should get charged individually, and face his own trial. Even if the owner had culpability (and I have no doubt that the defense raised that in the driver’s trial), the jury still found the driver guilty.
I think the owner should also face charges, but that doesn’t change the driver’s verdict.
Gage Evans is making an error in assuming “commutation” means throwing out the entire sentence. Commuting also means reducing. His sentence could be commuted, and he could still serve time. That’s why I asked about the possibility of the governor cutting the sentence in half.
As it turns out, the DA is asking for a re-sentencing to 20 years.
The real long-term solution here is for the state legislature to revisit mandatory sentencing as it is currently set up. I understand the point of mandatory sentencing. It prevents a judge from letting a rich kid convicted of rape from getting off without prison, for example. (Which we’ve seen in other states.) But this case shows a problem with the current legislation as it is set up today.
Right.
A drunk driver doesn’t (usually) intend to crash his car.
I just don’t get it that an accident is somehow murder. You lose your brakes & hit someone, & it’s murder? Is every accident a crime now? Makes me wonder if I even want to drive a car.
Yes, it’s bad someone died. Yes it’s understandable to want to place blame. But it wasn’t that long ago when an accident was just that, an accident.
What possible good does it do for our country to put a young man in prison for life over an accident? If he had been aware the truck had a problem & drove it anyway would to me make a difference, but he did not do that. A 110 year sentence?
I don’t think this is about driving a truck, as much as it is ill thought out laws that are on the books. The judge’s hands were tied by these same laws. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime and this part of the article encapsulates this discussion; “The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution says punishments can’t be cruel and unusual, and as far as Mr. Mederos is concerned, this is a cruel and unusual punishment,” Mederos’ attorney, James Colgan, told ABC News Tuesday.
2 Likes
There is a lot of misinformation with this case. The jury apparently believed he was driving recklessly on purpose. They did not believe he was out of control due to a failure of the brakes. They believed he was driving 85 in a 45mph zone which caused him not to be able to come to a stop in time. I personally do not believe that to be the case, but it’s just an educated guess.
They came to their verdict largely based on eyewitness testimony and the fact he bypassed an emergency ramp. Most truck drivers or those with CDLs would tell you they highly doubt he did what they are accusing him of doing. What most likely happened is he lost his breaks on the hill, missed the truck ramp in panic and that’s what caused his truck to gain speed to 85mph. Only a maniac with a death wish drives his semi 85mph down a hill. It just doesn’t happen.
But if you want to know what the jury thought, just look at the 27 counts he got convicted on. That says it all.
1 Like
He also lied about his experience to get the job in the first place. The 110 years is excessive, but he does have some responsibility here.
Already a thread on this.
My take is that he got a fair trial, and a jury found him guilty. The attempts at showing extenuating circumstances (alleged brake failure, truck owner culpability) were examined in the trial, and the jury still found him guilty.
Colorado minimum-sentencing laws dictate the exorbitant sentencing, but he’s appealing the length of the sentence, and the DA that brought him to trial is lobbying for a 20-30-year sentence instead of 110.
As for “Why Would Anyone Want to be a Trucker?”, I actually wish I could do it in my retirement. To each his own, I guess.
1 Like
Still a better deal than law enforcement right now.
This guy deserves some hard time for negligence. Ten to twenty IMO. The legislators of CO own the 110 year sentence.
I am not so worked up over this one. This was a horrible accident that industry standards should have prevented.
1 Like
They do it whenever they can get away with it (via gravity). Those air ride seats are a hoot at those speeds.
No way I’m driving truck. I thought like you in my retirement i might do some driving, no more. I disagree with putting people in prison for accidents. When I was young, an accident was sometimes tragic, but not a crime. I don’t get the jail time thing at all.
I realize it’s a bad thing, all that, but the guy didn’t cut his brake lines or wear a blindfold.
I think the law is wrong that it’s written in such a way as for it to become a charge to begin with.
I have lost my brakes before on a well maintained vehicle on a long downhill. I didn’t have a crash, but could have. I did nothing wrong, they just quit working on me.
Should I have gone to prison if I had an accident?
1 Like
There’s a lot about the judicial system I do not respect. I could give hundreds of examples, but I’ll give 2 just to make my point:
The Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution & this:
Jury decided that it was more than just an accident. It was homicide. Four counts. Plus other charges.
Nobody goes to prison for just an accident. (Ditto collisions attributable solely to mechanical failure.)
Without our judicial system, we would have anarchy. Vigilante “justice”.
I do not disagree that it has its flaws. But we still need it and have to rely on it.
For me, merely disagreeing with a verdict does not define a flaw.
The Rittenhouse prosecution was corrected BY our judicial system. It did not cause it. (Political activism and overreach caused it, in my opinion.)
Juries aren’t always right.
As it stands, there’s one Heisman trophy winner who’s probably searching for real killers on the golf course as we type.
Nonetheless, we are obligated as a society to accept the jury’s decision. And one high-profile decision doesn’t nullify the whole judicial system.
Further, we have an appeals process to challenge a decision, and to rectify error.
In the case of this incident, we see the challenge being directed at the sentencing, not at the jury decision. But at some point an appeal of the decision could still be filed. If so, our judicial system is structured to examine it and handle the appeal.
No, one or even several questionable decisions obviously don’t nullify the entire judicial system but people are free to express displeasure when they see what they perceive as an unjust verdict.
That’s all that’s happening here.
1 Like
