Teen's Twitter After Mowing Down Grandma

[Perknose]

You seem upset.

You're like the wet, smelly fart that lingers in a crowded room. It is annoying.

 

[Scarpozzi]

What in the world do you think that 19 year old will lose in a lawsuit?

Her insurance will have to settle for the maximum liability, but she most likely has no assets.

Have you not seen the picture on her twitter account? She has assets.

 

[destrekor]

And you'd tweet it? If she had thrown herself into the holidays as a way of coping, that's one thing. The fact that she's tweeting about it makes her look like a superficial wise and beautiful woman. I can just imagine it now, "oh my gawd, I broke a nail when I hit that old lady. Oh well, I'm going to eat my lasagna and hopefully daddy can buy me a new car."

Twitter is second nature to some people.
There is no malice or lack of empathy evident from my point of view, which is ultimately what the article is attempting to showcase.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Yes I smell a lawsuit in the works and this is an effort to poison the jury pool. And, it will likely succeed.

If the jury can stay off twitter long enough to pay attention.

 

[dabuddha]

Ok. Thats a traffic citation. Doesnt make it a jailable offense.

Ok since you're being obtuse (either on purpose or by no fault of your own) this traffic citation directly resulted in the death of a person. I'm not discussing the legalities of the issue since I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the people think our justice system is completely fucked up in this country.

 

[FallenHero]

Ok since you're being obtuse (either on purpose or by no fault of your own) this traffic citation directly resulted in the death of a person. I'm not discussing the legalities of the issue since I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the people think our justice system is completely fucked up in this country.

I'm not. I'm pretty sure I know the law better than you and have investigated similar cases. Most recently, this past month where a pedestrian was killed and was the at fault party as well.

Here is how Illinois reads, which I am sure is similar in many states

625 ILCS 5/11-401) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-401)
Sec. 11-401. Motor vehicle accidents involving death or personal injuries.
(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury to or death of any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident, or as close thereto as possible and shall then forthwith return to, and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until the requirements of Section 11-403 have been fulfilled. Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

She did that

(625 ILCS 5/11-903) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-903)
Sec. 11-903. Vehicles entering stop crosswalk.
Where stop signs or flashing red signals are in place at an intersection or flashing red signals are in place at a plainly marked crosswalk between intersections, drivers of vehicles shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk and pedestrians within or entering the crosswalk at either edge of the roadway shall have the right-of-way over vehicles so stopped. Drivers of vehicles having so yielded the right-of-way to pedestrians entering or within the nearest crosswalk at an intersection shall also yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within any other crosswalk at the intersection.
(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)


No where in that section does it read anything about aggravation in regards to death.

Same with this section

(625 ILCS 5/11-904) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-904)
Sec. 11-904. Vehicle entering stop or yield intersection.
(a) Preferential right-of-way at an intersection may be indicated by stop or yield signs as authorized in Section 11-302 of this Chapter.
(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another roadway or which is approaching so closely on the roadway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver is moving across or within the intersection, but said driver having so yielded may proceed at such time as a safe interval occurs.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and, if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection.
(d) If a driver is involved in a collision at an intersection or interferes with the movement of other vehicles after driving past a yield right-of-way sign, such collision or interference shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right-of-way.
(Source: P.A. 76-1739.)


Just because a death occurs does NOT make someone criminally liable for that death. Unless you can prove that she saw grandma, deliberately sped up and/or swerved towards her or said "fuck you grandma" and failed to take action to avoid the accident after having a reasonable amount of time to do so, I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions.

EDIT: Read through more laws. Again, good luck making her criminally liable.

(625 ILCS 5/11-503) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-503)
Sec. 11-503. Reckless driving; aggravated reckless driving.
(a) A person commits reckless driving if he or she:
(1) drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton

disregard for the safety of persons or property; or
(2) knowingly drives a vehicle and uses an incline in

a roadway, such as a railroad crossing, bridge approach, or hill, to cause the vehicle to become airborne.

(720 ILCS 5/9-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-3)
Sec. 9-3. Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.
(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide. A person commits reckless homicide if he or she unintentionally kills an individual while driving a vehicle and using an incline in a roadway, such as a railroad crossing, bridge approach, or hill, to cause the vehicle to become airborne.

 

[OCGuy]

Just because a death occurs does NOT make someone criminally liable for that death. Unless you can prove that she saw grandma, deliberately sped up and/or swerved towards her or said "fuck you grandma" and failed to take action to avoid the accident after having a reasonable amount of time to do so, I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions.

You are mostly correct. The other key term is "negligence", where the State does not have to show intent. This is where charges like "involuntary vehicular manslaughter" (California) come in to play.

My guess is unless the car's black box shows her speeding or she tweeted a picture of her driving and you can see her about to hit granny, it would be hard to prove.

People who think throwing a 19 year old in prison for an accident is "justice" are what is wrong with this country.

 

[Scarpozzi]

You are mostly correct. The other key term is "negligence", where the State does not have to show intent. This is where charges like "involuntary vehicular manslaughter" (California) come in to play.

My guess is unless the car's black box shows her speeding or she tweeted a picture of her driving and you can see her about to hit granny, it would be hard to prove.

People who think throwing a 19 year old in prison for an accident are what is wrong with this country.

I see more 19 year olds talking on their cellphones while WALKING and crossing busy streets without looking than anything. They will walk in front of cars without ever acknowledging death was knocking at their door. I don't know how many times I've seen that in the past 2 years.

 

[BudAshes]

I see more 19 year olds talking on their cellphones while WALKING and crossing busy streets without looking than anything. They will walk in front of cars without ever acknowledging death was knocking at their door. I don't know how many times I've seen that in the past 2 years.

It's nice. We've created an entire generation of inferior people that we can dominate.

 

[Brian Stirling]

What in the world do you think that 19 year old will lose in a lawsuit?

Her insurance will have to settle for the maximum liability, but she most likely has no assets.

I don't know what she has, but since when did that stop people from wanting their pound of flesh...

Also, I don't know, beyond and tangible assets, whether she has insurance to go after.

There are two things that wouldn't exist without the other: lawyers and insurance companies.


Brian

 

[KevinCU]

You're like the wet, smelly fart that lingers in a crowded room. It is annoying.

Sounds like you have a lot of personal experience. I hope you have the underwear collection to support your habit.

 

[Brian Stirling]

You are mostly correct. The other key term is "negligence", where the State does not have to show intent. This is where charges like "involuntary vehicular manslaughter" (California) come in to play.

My guess is unless the car's black box shows her speeding or she tweeted a picture of her driving and you can see her about to hit granny, it would be hard to prove.

People who think throwing a 19 year old in prison for an accident is "justice" are what is wrong with this country.

Mostly agree...

The statements made by the police that she hit, and ultimately killed, someone in a crosswalk that had the right of way will, if proven, be the thing that convicts her. Now, unless she did this on purpose or acted with depraved indifference, I doubt we're looking at any serious prison time but I wouldn't rule out some time.

I don't know that we've seen the reports from other witnesses or if they've had the chance to review her cellphone records to rule in/out if she was using it at the time of the accident as that would be aggravating if she were...

But, yeah, there are a lot of people quick to send her to prison or worse...


Brian

 

[Perknose]

Sounds like you have a lot of personal experience. I hope you have the underwear collection to support your habit.

Personal experience stomping slimy, one-trick attack trolls like you? Why, yes, yes I do.

However, your creepy hopes regarding my underwear sickens and alarms me.

 

[z1ggy]

55yo Grandma??? Was she a GILF??

Also 19yo is decent.

 

[smackababy]

55yo Grandma??? Was she a GILF??

Also 19yo is decent.

"You are a G MILF. That is a grandmother I'd like to <guitar squeal>"

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Ok? What is she supposed to do?

I read the title, expecting some nasty gore, looked at the picture and thought damn new Hannibal?

 

[Wreckem]

What in the world do you think that 19 year old will lose in a lawsuit?

Her insurance will have to settle for the maximum liability, but she most likely has no assets.

A judgement lasts for 10 years and can be renewed for another 10 years. So her insurance will pay out and she will have an outstanding judgement against her. Not sure about the state shes in but plenty allow for garnishment of wages. She might never pay much or a full judgement but its very likely she will feel the consequences of a judgement for 10-20 years.

But this also gets into the question of the value of life. Frankly under the system of judging what someones worth, the biggest factors are age in relation to retirement age, and how much they make. Rough figure would be medical expenses + future earnings(67-minus age * salary then discounted to present value). So unless the G'ma was a 1%er its unlikely it would be a multi-million judgement.

Similar to what I said before, just because someone dies doesn't mean a crime was committed, likewise, just because someone dies doesn't mean there will be a large judgement($1mm+).

 

[OCGuy]

A judgement lasts for 10 years and can be renewed for another 10 years. So her insurance will pay out and she will have an outstanding judgement against her. Not sure about the state shes in but plenty allow for garnishment of wages. She might never pay much or a full judgement but its very likely she will feel the consequences of a judgement for 10-20 years.

But this also gets into the question of the value of life. Frankly under the system of judging what someones worth, the biggest factors are age in relation to retirement age, and how much they make. Rough figure would be medical expenses + future earnings(67-minus age * salary then discounted to present value). So unless the G'ma was a 1%er its unlikely it would be a multi-million judgement.

Similar to what I said before, just because someone dies doesn't mean a crime was committed, likewise, just because someone dies doesn't mean there will be a large judgement($1mm+).

Attorneys don't take cases on contingency that they cannot collect on, and most families aren't going to front money to win a judgment that the girl can BK out of.


Learn the system.

 

[videogames101]

404 outrage not found, why do I give a shit what this chick posts on twitter ever, much less after she killed someone

let's judge based on facts and actions, not twitter posts

 

[Brian Stirling]

Attorneys don't take cases on contingency that they cannot collect on, and most families aren't going to front money to win a judgment that the girl can BK out of.


Learn the system.

You're assuming she has no money, do you know that for a fact?

If she has money then you can expect lots of lawyers will line up for their third...


Brian

 

[OCGuy]

You're assuming she has no money, do you know that for a fact?

If she has money then you can expect lots of lawyers will line up for their third...


Brian

A 19yr old driving a Focus.......


There is no way to know for sure, but based on 19 being the new 16 in today's society, one could imagine that she has not amassed personal assets, and even if her family is old money, they would be in a trust.

Edit: Now if the car is owned or jointly owned by a parent, that could open up a different avenue. One member of my family, who I have purchased vehicles from, does not allow anyone to drive his cars while he is on title for just this reason.

 

[Wreckem]

Attorneys don't take cases on contingency that they cannot collect on, and most families aren't going to front money to win a judgment that the girl can BK out of.


Learn the system.

If there is any insurance involved(and sometimes even when there is not as lawyers are required to do pro bono work), almost always there is some lawyer willing to take the case. There is most likely insurance involved while it won't cover the full judgement, partial lawyers fees will be deducted from the insurance payout. Furthermore, if the girl was driving with permission a car that was titled in another persons name (such as her parents, which is extremely likely, most 19 year olds cannot afford a car by themselves), they can go after the owner of the car. Her parents may or may not have assets or umbrella coverage. Again, just because someone is 19 and has no assets, doesn't mean money isn't there. She could be on her parents $250k/$500k policy(or umbrella policy, etc), and while likely not to fulfill a judgement at trial, most lawyers would pursue a case with said insurance policy.

All I was saying was, before your condescending post, was after insurance pays out she could still have a judgement against her for 10-20 years.

 

[OCGuy]

OK ArmChair lawyer.


If there is any insurance involved(and sometimes when there is not), almost always there is some lawyer willing to take the case. There is most likely insurance involved while it won't cover the full judgement, partial lawyers fees will be deducted from the insurance payout. Furthermore, if the girl was driving with permission a car that was titled in another persons name (such as her parents, which is extremely likely, most 19 year olds cannot afford a car by themselves), they can go after the owner of the car. Her parents may or may not have assets or umbrella coverage.

Wow.....just.....eh.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You are mostly correct. The other key term is "negligence", where the State does not have to show intent. This is where charges like "involuntary vehicular manslaughter" (California) come in to play.

My guess is unless the car's black box shows her speeding or she tweeted a picture of her driving and you can see her about to hit granny, it would be hard to prove.

People who think throwing a 19 year old in prison for an accident is "justice" are what is wrong with this country.

I don't care about "justice" as much as I do preventing dangerous individuals from existing in areas where they can cause damage. I'd feel better if she couldn't cope with having run over grandma and found a way to ensure that she never gets inside a vehicle again. Premeditated killings can at least be predictable to an extent; random and innocent ones? No thanks.

 

[brianmanahan]

Indeed.....she would look just like the food in that picture when I was done with it, too.

At least this wasn't a real tragedy.....like the pedestrian being hot and the driver being ugly. *shudder*

this is incredibly offensive