-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Prosecutors decline to charge Caitlyn Jenner in fatal crash
- Thread starter SteveO409
- Start date
- Status
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Do you need to see everyone's genitals to make a gender determination? Why not just take their word for it? They know themselves better than anyone else would.
SCReuter
Member
With roughly 1 billion human-operated vehicles on the road today, accidents are bound to happen and lives will unfortunately be lost. Jenner wasn't intoxicated, on her cell phone, or traveling above the speed limit. We don't even know how close she was traveling behind the vehicle in front of her. Maybe she was inattentive for a brief moment -- something we're all guilty of at one point or another whether we like to admit it or not -- and didn't press on the brake quick enough, resulting in the rear-end collision of which there are over 1 million per year. I'm not going to demand her head over that or pretend she's the scum of the earth.
Well I don't see how the speed is important. If you don't leave enough room or brake in time (due to inattention), you're going to crash. The car ahead of me could be going 60 and I'm going 50. If they slow down and I'm not paying attention, I'm going to crash into them. And that seems like exactly what happened.
The victim's car looked like it was at a dead stop by the time it was hit and apparently left no skid marks. Jenner's car is seen flying and did leave skid marks. Seems like Jenner wasn't paying attention when the car began to slow down.
The implication I get from the evaluation is that victim's car braked severely and suddenly, making it impossible for Jenner to avoid crashing. But after looking at the video and hearing about the skid marks, my impression is the exact opposite.
Slayer-33
Liverpool-2
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It's irritating how arguments against her seeing accountability for this keep going to goofy statements like these.
She killed someone. If you're not going to do those wacky things you described, what will you say she deserves?
As for "accidents are bound to happen and lives will unfortunately be lost": nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero We're setting goals for zero traffic fatalities, and it's absolutely possible. But for that to happen, people will need to stop dismissing scenarios like this as "accidents" and instead recognize them as preventable tragedies for which someone has to be responsible and accountable. Give a shit about lives, man.
Not subtle enough
ElRenoRaven
Member
It really does.
It is. You have all the evidence you need with the video yet apparently that isn't enough. Guess you need to have the prosecutors, judges, etc right there the moment it happened so they could have seen it in person.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Kharvey: Since you seem like a law expert, can you comment on:
a) The video's revelence to the case?
b) Does congestion matter when driving the limit in an accident? I thought it did.
a) The video's revelence to the case?
b) Does congestion matter when driving the limit in an accident? I thought it did.
it doesn't matter if she intended it, her pointlessly reckless driving directly caused it.
Storm Chamber
Banned
The immunity
yea she's at fault, we know, but jail time is simply not the answer
StopMakingSense
Member
FWIW, in CA, you need to be shown to have a 'willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property' for reckless driving.
People throw out the old like it has no legal definition.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Also:
Edit: Ignore me I was basing it previous adsumptions. Re read article and the updated report apparently found her innocent.
Edit 2: So the prosecution wrote a one page report vs 161 page investigation report? Weird. Only based on speed limit not road conditions.
Was in the investigative report but does the prosecution have the final say? Because she wasn't going over the limit?TMZ said:
Edit: Ignore me I was basing it previous adsumptions. Re read article and the updated report apparently found her innocent.
Edit 2: So the prosecution wrote a one page report vs 161 page investigation report? Weird. Only based on speed limit not road conditions.
mercenar1e
Member
as long as you can afford an attorney you're pretty much guaranteed a light slap on the wrist.
similar situation in Brooklyn a few years ago
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/no-jail-time-texting-driver-fatal-wreck-article-1.1093870
So what's an example of reckless driving in California? Driving while blindfolded? Because there are plenty of things a person could do that would be considered reckless, but wouldn't fit into California's definition.
You could be checking your email while making sure to keep your eyes on the road, miss a stop sign and kill a pedestrian. But it wouldn't be a willful and wanton disregard because you're trying to keep your eyes on the road.
Didn't some shithead in Texas get away with jail time by claiming to the judge he was a victim of affluence? He killed 4 people and got off with rehab. It's just fucked. Money runs the world. Power runs the world. Jenner has both.
You're confusing assigning fault with having the necessary conditions to charge with a crime. Of course the person needs to first be responsible, but they also have to be committing some kind of violation and acting with negligence. There's no doubt that she caused the accident, but being the cause of an accident that results in a death is not itself a crime. Other conditions must be met, and it's those conditions the prosecutor states were not attainable given the evidence they had.
I'm not a law, expert, I just took the seemingly uncommon steps of reading the actual California law and the declination issued by the prosecutor.
The video is not proof of Jenner meeting the two necessary conditions cited by the prosecutor: violating the basic speed law and acting negligently.
StopMakingSense
Member
Intent. In terms of speed, driving WAY over the limit, or swerving dangerously through lanes, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc. it's driving punishable by up to 3 months in jail.
This is different from being negligent, which has its own defenition. I'm just saying people throw out reckless drivIng to describe her actions when it's just not there.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
so your argument is summed up as "accidents happen lol" eh?
good luck with that excuse in court if you're ever placed in that situation. "i said it was an accident, what do you mean you're going to punish me???" that's not the way the world works (unless your rich/famous of course)
in that case, hey man accidents happen! i was tired/had a long day/didn't have my coffee/thinking about family and work. thank god that grants me immunity, sucks for that pedestrian
partyphone
Banned
yeah prosecutors have to actually work hard when someone doesn't accept a plea bargain because they can't afford a lawyer.
In that case you have an obvious violation (because of using the phone) and negligence (again, using the phone). It isn't reckless driving but it meets the requirements for vehicular manslaughter.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
true, the cell phone (records) would be an easy explanation for that, but what about if I plainly zone-out and ram into someone and kill them? according to some here, jail and/or fines wouldn't be an appropriate punishment because it would fall under the umbrella of an accident not due to obvious negligence.
(not directed at you) the entire point of jail time and/or fines isn't to bring someone back to life, but to add incentive to drive safer and attempt to help prevent accidents. if you are immune to charges/fines plainly because you didn't have your face buried in your phone or weren't driving upside-down pressing the pedals with your face, then that doesn't add any pressure to avoid accidents (like monetary pressure in this case). money/time is a huge motivator for people to drive safely, almost more than safety itself for some I would argue. i know many don't drive drunk not because they think they can't or because they're afraid of killing themselves/someone, but because of the expensive (time and money) repercussions they face
Why are we calling for heads here?
If it's an accident, and this stuff happens, then what would jail time accomplish? There was no intent.
If you can't prove beyond a doubt that she was negligent then you're throwing someone in prison based on an accident.
Yes, somebody died and that is tragic. I feel for that family, but if it was an accident would throwing her in jail make them feel better?
I'm sure she feels horrible for it and has to live with it for the rest of her life.
Is jail really a solution for a split second accident under conditions which were questionable of being dangerous?
If it's an accident, and this stuff happens, then what would jail time accomplish? There was no intent.
If you can't prove beyond a doubt that she was negligent then you're throwing someone in prison based on an accident.
Yes, somebody died and that is tragic. I feel for that family, but if it was an accident would throwing her in jail make them feel better?
I'm sure she feels horrible for it and has to live with it for the rest of her life.
Is jail really a solution for a split second accident under conditions which were questionable of being dangerous?
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Ah, I thought you were in other posts her my bad.
But I wonder if the second part of my statement has any merit. Is there a law regarding congestion and speed limits? I'll try googling later.
Like I said before though, being the cause of an accident that results in a fatality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a crime to have been committed. Specifically in California at least there needs to have been an at-fault accident that resulted in a fatality, some violation of a law and negligence.
Simply zoning out would likely not result in criminal prosecution. If you zoned out because you drove while being too tired after staying awake for 40 hours, that would possibly trigger the conditions for vehicular manslaughter (assuming there's a law against over-tired driving).
I understand the desire to discourage not paying attention, but I don't really know that criminal punishment does that. I mean being at fault in an accident already opens you up to paying damages, insurance rates going up, fixing your own property and, if people are hurt or killed, dealing with all the associated civil repercussions. Yet despite this we see people lose focus or zone out all the time. Anyone who says they never have it happen to them isn't being truthful. We think about our work day or our dying relative or that steak waiting in the fridge and for a few seconds we're mentally distracted. It's not like making a decision to pick up a phone or leaning over to change the station, it's all in our own head. I'm not quite sure how you could discourage that or what benefit society would receive from punishing it.
California's speed law does dictate driving a reasonable speed based on the conditions at the time. The problem there is defining reasonable. And a specific wrinkle in this case is the victim was traveling slightly faster than Jenner was before braking. That's not mentioned so much as a justification but it would make asserting the speed they were traveling at was unreasonable a little harder.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
True. It would also depend on the reasonable distance between her car and the victim's and the the victim's with the car in front. Also whether the victim had come to a complete stop or was still moving would also affect the judgement. I've only watched the video and animations so I don't have the full story.
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Pretty much.
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.
For starters? Justice for the family. Punishment for negligence and holding Jenner accountable for a preventable death. Removing her from the road, as well. A demonstration that money and celebrity status does not absolve one of social responsibility or due consequences for poor choices. That's just off the top of my head.
Intent doesn't matter in involuntary manslaughter cases. Recklessness without intent to harm can still net you jail time. Drunk drivers rarely have any intent to harm either.
That's the point of a trial, to determine that. Jenner isn't even making it to a trial. The police reports and surveillance video we have already give grounds to at least taking it to TRIAL. A trial doesn't automatically mean a conviction, but they won't even take that step either.
According to this family in multiple interviews? YES. It absolutely would. They've had to sit there watching a nation celebrate her as a "hero" and shower her with awards and praise, while they knew she was the one responsible for putting their loved one in the dirt.
So, yes, it would make them feel better.
A lot of people who accidentally, and intentionally, killed others felt horrible for it and had to live with it too. "I feel really bad about it" isn't a good argument for someone not to be prosecuted or convicted.
Considering this split second accident was entirely her fault and cost the life of another human being, it's worth at the VERY least taking it to trial to determine this. Both the police reports and video evidence should be enough for that.
And if she would be found fully responsible for a preventable death, then, yes, absolutely, jail time really is the solution.
Tornado Condor
Member
Wow, this cunt should be in jail. People get jailed for much less.
AuthenticM
Member
terrible decision
The potential charge was a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 1 year in a county jail. Few people actually go to jail for it regardless of who they are, and even given that the prosecutor still identified that there were elements of the charge they would not be able to prove. Once again merely being at fault in an accident involving fatalities is not a crime.
I already understand this (for example: if her brakes suddenly stopped working for whatever reason and she slammed into the victim, it's not her fault).
Following too closely or not braking at an appropriate time are certainly part of the "other conditions" you refer to. There was plenty of evidence that demonstrated that she may have contributed to the crash more so than not. And that at the very least should warrant a trial where you sort all of that out.
You don't need enough evidence for a conviction to bring a charge.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Image is meant as a joke, but you would be wrong, you have to refer her as a female, regardless of how you think otherwise. But celebrity status screws over another family, civil case will go through though.
There is a lack of refinement in nomenclature here.
Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, but she is also a male. I'm on board with tallying sex separately from gender, but then one has to be consistent and reserve male/female for biological sex and man/woman for outward social projection.
DOWN
Banned
Sort of surprised by the reactions in this thread. The evidence they pulled from Jenner's phone and car showed she was going just under the speed limit and that she wasn't using her phone when the accident occurred, correct? So I guess I'm wondering how they would prove Jenner did anything besides have a rather unanticipated accident? For a normal citizen under those conditions would they still manage a manslaughter charge, and what's the full basis for pursuing that charge given the evidence indicates this was an accident and not under reckless conditions on Jenner's part?
It is really sad someone died in the accident, but when it is this kind of accident, is it really celebrity status that leads to no charges?
It is really sad someone died in the accident, but when it is this kind of accident, is it really celebrity status that leads to no charges?
No, that doesn't meet any of the "other elements" for the charge. The prosecutor very clearly stated the only violation possible in this case was speeding, and also that there was no way to show negligence. Following too closely wasn't a factor and "not braking at the appropriate time" isn't a violation of any law, or necessarily the result of negligence.
DAs decide not to go to trial because of a lack of evidence all the time. It's a huge waste of money to go through all of it when you know you can't get a conviction.
DOWN
Banned
You don't just go to trial anyway if your investigation doesn't yield evidence suggesting you need a charge or trial. And since when do they charge people based on (the very hard to show) poor braking time in a sudden accident? Jenner was going at or below the speed limit according to the investigator's previous comments. What did she get off the hook with in a car accident that normal people wouldn't?
Trying to drive cross-eyed isn't a violation of any law, but it is certainly unreasonable, which is negligence. You don't have to commit any one specific act to be negligent.
BTW, TMZ already reported that they found that Jenner's conduct was "negligent, but not criminal" (whatever that means)
But it isn't enough to just be negligent, you must be negligent and breaking a law to qualify for vehicular manslaughter.
The declination says they did not find her to be acting negligently.
sir_kevith
Member
Not surprising.
People just dont goto jail for shitty driving. Some old dude in Salem, OR ran a red light, killed 3 children and put the mom in critical condition and didnt even see jail time. Just a little fine is all. You dont need to be famous to get away with killing someone you just have to be in a car.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/06/driver_sentenced_to_fine_commu.html
People just dont goto jail for shitty driving. Some old dude in Salem, OR ran a red light, killed 3 children and put the mom in critical condition and didnt even see jail time. Just a little fine is all. You dont need to be famous to get away with killing someone you just have to be in a car.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/06/driver_sentenced_to_fine_commu.html
According to the evaluation sheet, she was in violation of the "Basic Speed Law" (VC 22350), and I found this about California's vehicular manslaughter charge:
So basically if you're driving like she was and then kill someone, you're guilty of that charge under California's law.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked