Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

The declination did not say that, read it again. It says the only violation possible was a speed violation, but it couldn't be shown. It also says they can't show she acted negligently, and both of those things are necessary.

Oh, my bad. You're right: it didn't say she was.

But seriously, after looking at the video and in light of the skid marks, you think she was driving reasonably? Because that's the crux of the charge.

 

[DrForester]

If you rear end someone on the highway you weren't driving responsibly. You were tailgating.

 

[DOWN]

Oh, my bad. You're right: it didn't say she was.

But seriously, after looking at the video and in light of the skid marks, you think she was driving reasonably? Because that's the crux of the charge.

It's pretty obvious you are reaching at this point. It's a tragic accident. That wouldn't mean automatic criminal charges for a normal citizen and it is not appropriate for this case either. The max sentence would be 1 year in prison if there was evidence of distraction or negligence, but there isn't. She wasn't speeding, she wasn't on the phone and there's no evidence of other distractions, and she wasn't driving under the influence. That doesn't result in criminal charges, just like it doesn't in many similar accidents.

Now you are trying to say the blurry video from an acute angle may be "unreasonable" driving? Like that's when you consider someone criminal? That's when you elevate it to a trial? What would they say in court, "She wasn't breaking laws or negligent, but does this look unreasonable and therefore worth the 1 year max?"

 

[MIMIC]

It's pretty obvious you are reaching at this point. It's a tragic accident. That wouldn't mean automatic criminal charges for a normal citizen and it is not appropriate for this case either. The max sentence would be 1 year in prison if there was evidence of distraction or negligence, but there isn't. She wasn't speeding, she wasn't on the phone and there's no evidence of other distractions, and she wasn't driving under the influence. That doesn't result in criminal charges, just like it doesn't in many similar accidents.

They already said that a possible violation would have been the basic speed law so I'm definitely not reaching if they brought it up in the evaluation.

Now you are trying to say the blurry video from an acute angle may be "unreasonable" driving? Like that's when you consider someone criminal? That's when you elevate it to a trial? What would they say in court, "She wasn't breaking laws or negligent, but does this look unreasonable and therefore worth the 1 year max?"

Well we can quibble about the video, but the skid marks gives a pretty good indication of what was going on. Not to mention that what most have concluded in the "blurry video" coincides with what the skid marks imply.

And BTW, you don't need to break a law to be guilty of vehicular manslaughter. From the link I provided:

What is meant by driving in a lawful but dangerous fashion?

One example would be making a right at a red light (which is legal), but without paying mind to persons walking through the cross-walk and proceeding without regard to walking pedestrians.

 

[DOWN]

They already said that a possible violation would have been the basic speed law so I'm definitely not reaching if they brought it up in the evaluation.



Well we can quibble about the video, but the skid marks gives a pretty good indication of what was going on. Not to mention that what most have concluded in the "blurry video" coincides with what the skid marks imply.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal charges.

 

[MIMIC]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal charges.

Well then enlighten me, because you mentioned throughout this thread that "she wasn't on her phone" when this point was never in question.

We're not at the trial stage. There is ample evidence for a charge.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Fucking scary that you can just be driving along, minding your own business when some asshole behind you who isn't paying attention can just run you off the road or into oncoming traffic and kill you. Reminds me of a recent story where a lady was waiting in a line leaving a church parking lot and someone rear ended her, sent her out onto the road where she was hit by a semi and killed instantly.

There should be stricter laws for idiots driving like idiots. There is clear evidence she caused the accident with bad driving, whether she was on the phone, following too closely, speeding, or just not paying attention.

Hopefully she gets cleaned out in a civil lawsuit.

 

[Matt]

Well then enlighten me, because you mentioned throughout this thread that "she wasn't on her phone" when this point was never in question.

We're not at the trial stage. There is ample evidence for a charge.

That's not how it works. If the prosecutors doesn't think there is enough for a conviction, they don't press charges.

 

[DOWN]

Well then enlighten me, because you mentioned throughout this thread that "she wasn't on her phone" when this point was never in question.

We're not at the trial stage. There is ample evidence for a charge.

This:

That's not how it works. If the prosecutors doesn't think there is enough for a conviction, they don't press charges.

You seem aware they don't believe they have proof of criminal wrongdoing, yet you seem to think they should act like they do because maybe in a trial they will find something. That's not what a trial is for. Trial's aren't investigations "just to make sure" everyone agrees on the lack of evidence in this case in the first place. They are to present when prosecution believes they can show evidence to support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutors here say there isn't evidence for that, so they appropriately are not filing a charge. You don't have a trial for something you don't even think is shown by evidence.

Fucking scary that you can just be driving along, minding your own business when some asshole behind you who isn't paying attention can just run you off the road or into oncoming traffic and kill you. Reminds me of a recent story where a lady was waiting in a line leaving a church parking lot and someone rear ended her, sent her out onto the road where she was hit by a semi and killed instantly.

There should be stricter laws for idiots driving like idiots. There is clear evidence she caused the accident with bad driving, whether she was on the phone, following too closely, speeding, or just not paying attention.

Hopefully she gets cleaned out in a civil lawsuit.

You say there is clear evidence, then list a bunch of things that are factually incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, then call for her to get wrecked by civil court anyway.

 

[DoktorEvil]

2 of the first things I was ever taught when learning to drive:

1. ALWAYS leave enough space between you and the car in front to brake if they stop dead in their tracks
2. NEVER turn your wheels until you're ready to actually turn becaus if you get rear-ended, you're stuffed

This. Driver's Ed emphasizes leaving space between your car and the car in front of you by 1 car's length, on the high way it's about 2 car lengths.

I don't know if jail time is appropriate for what seems like an unfortunate accident, but she definitely should have been prosecuted at the very least. I mean, the whole damn thing is on tape from two different angles. That's the opposite of a "lack of evidence."

It's not an unfortunately accident if she was driving negligently. You can clearly see the flow of traffic in that video is not at a breakneck rate. Jenner, if she was paying attention to the road and following the rules of the road, would've been already slowed down by that point.

According to the prosecutor's office, she wasn't negligent. That footage tells a different story.

That's what happens in the US when you've got money.

This dude killed someone while he was driving drunk and got off with 30 days in jail. If that was a normal person they'd be in jail for life.

Donte Stallworth, man. He got away with some shit.

 

[MIMIC]

This:


You seem aware they don't believe they have proof of criminal wrongdoing, yet you seem to think they should act like they do because maybe in a trial they will find something. That's not what a trial is for. Trial's aren't investigations "just to make sure" everyone agrees on the lack of evidence in this case in the first place. They are to present when prosecution believes they can show evidence to support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutors here say there isn't evidence for that, so they appropriately are not filing a charge. You don't have a trial for something you don't even think is shown by evidence.

I'm aware of what the prosecution is "saying", but it does not match up with what evidence is currently available. You mentioned what ISN'T present in this case, all the while ignoring what IS present (such as the skid marks), as if it doesn't mean anything...and my issue is that the prosecution is doing the same thing: ignoring the present evidence.

They know down to the tenth of second when both the victim and Jenner engaged their brakes, but not whether Jenner's speed and car positioning was dangerous given the flow of traffic? That seems very odd, since the latter is much more obvious.

 

[DR2K]

You serious? A person was killed here because Jenner was driving at an unsafe speed.

What was the unsafe speed and much over the limit was it?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Terrible stuff.

Yup.

 

[Matt]

They know down to the tenth of second when both the victim and Jenner engaged their brakes, but not whether Jenner's speed and car positioning was dangerous given the flow of traffic? That seems very odd, since the latter is much more obvious.

I mean, they got that data from the onboard computers, so that was the easy part...

 

[Two Words]

I feel like TMZ alone should have gathered every last detail of this incident.



This should probably be treated as an isolated incident from the sex change thing.

There's a ratio for how much bad you can do until it actually DOES discredit any good that you did but she probably hasn't reached it.

Killing somebody from reckless driving should probably reach that point. Especially if she is going to act as if it wasn't her fault.

 

[E92 M3]

Rich celebrity gets to walk away from a crime. I'm honestly shocked.

 

[not psycho]

You serious? A person was killed here because Jenner was driving at an unsafe speed.

Hard to say that for sure. She was driving slower than the car in front of her and may well have been appropriate for the flow of traffic, but not for the physical condition of the road. She may have caused the crash anyway if she was going a little slower but still took just as long to react to the cars ahead slowing.

The question seems to be: why did she take so long to hit the brakes? But since she was not on drugs or on the phone or distracted by any known item, it is hard to prove negligence. We don't know why it took so long. All the experts I've read comments from agree that it would be unlikely for a non-celebrity to be charged in this case.

If it was up to me there would be harsher laws in place and her license would be taken away. I tentatively agree with the prosecutors that there isn't enough evidence to support vehicular manslaughter or jail time.

 

[DOWN]

Killing somebody from reckless driving should probably reach that point. Especially if she is going to act as if it wasn't her fault.

There's no indication in the report that they believe she was driving recklessly. She was going legal speeds, not using a phone, not on substances, etc. There's nothing showing criminal negligence, hence no charge. It looks like a tragic car accident, which doesn't mean someone is automatically a criminal. Generally, car accidents without any broken laws like this one do not result in criminal charges because it is an accident with no signs of legally inappropriate activity. Should she have gone slower? Perhaps. Was she at criminal speeds? Absolutely not.

 

[MIMIC]

So I'm reading from the SF Chronicle that the investigation concluded that Jenner did indeed violate the vehicular manslaughter law. It goes on to say that Jenner was going way too fast for road conditions:

Howe was killed and details of a newly-completed report compiled from months of investigation into the accident, obtained by TMZ.com, suggest Jenner, “set off a chain of events” that led to Howe’s death by driving at a speed deemed unsafe for road conditions.

Although the former Olympian was reportedly driving under the speed limit, officials have declared she should have been “barely rolling” as the traffic came to a near standstill.

Anyone with eyes could see that in the video, but there it is.

Apparently, a 6-month investigation into the event just wasn't enough evidence for the prosecution. It's interesting how the prosecution highlighted the fact that she wasn't going over the speed limit, even though the report concluded 1) that that was irrelevant, and 2) that they believe that she did violate the vehicular manslaughter law.

 

[Zultan]

So I'm reading from the SF Chronicle that the investigation concluded that Jenner did indeed violate the vehicular manslaughter law. It goes on to say that Jenner was going way too fast for road conditions:



Anyone with eyes could see that in the video, but there it is.

Apparently, a 6-month investigation into the event just wasn't enough evidence for the prosecution. It's interesting how the prosecution highlighted the fact that she wasn't going over the speed limit, even though the report concluded 1) that that was irrelevant, and 2) that they believe that she did violate the vehicular manslaughter law.

It's hard to classify a rear-end collision as vehicular manslaughter, in my opinion, without evidence of texting, driving drunk etc. Sometimes you just don't notice the traffic in front of you slowing down. It's happened to me before.

I'm most apt to have this problem when gauging a lane change. Need to take my eye off of the car in front of me to see if a lane change is safe. A second later, look ahead again and all of a sudden the car in front of me is going 10-15 MPH slower than before. Happens a lot in California, where speeds can vary a lot and by drastic amounts even on a highway.

So I can understand classifying this as a tragic accident.

 

[No Love]

This. Driver's Ed emphasizes leaving space between your car and the car in front of you by 1 car's length, on the high way it's about 2 car lengths.



It's not an unfortunately accident if she was driving negligently. You can clearly see the flow of traffic in that video is not at a breakneck rate. Jenner, if she was paying attention to the road and following the rules of the road, would've been already slowed down by that point.

According to the prosecutor's office, she wasn't negligent. That footage tells a different story.



Donte Stallworth, man. He got away with some shit.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffi...afe-following-distance-the-3-second-rule.html

It's actually the 3 second rule and it's determined by speed.

 

[Give War A Chance]

What a brave decision by LA prosecutors. So brave. Heroes, the lot of them. <insert other stupidly hyperbolic adjectives the media loves tossing around lately>

 

[YoungHav]

All of OJ's 80s friends got bodies on them now.