No jail time for female hit & run driver. But 13 months for her boyfriend

[PatrickC]

http://www.kptv.com/story/24602029/no-jail-time-for-teen-driver-who-killed-girls-playing-in-leaves

 

An 18-year-old who left the crash scene after she ran over two young sisters playing in a pile of leaves will not spend any time in prison

 

Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros received a sentence of three years of formal probation and 250 hours of community service. She was found guilty on two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons after the Oct. 20 crash killed 11-year-old Abigail Robinson and 6-year-old Anna Dieter-Eckerdt.

 

During her trial, Garcia-Cisneros testified she drove through a leaf pile on Main Street in Forest Grove and heard a bump, but thought she hit a rock. She learned two children were injured in the crash a few minutes later, according to investigators.

 

Her boyfriend, 18-year-old Mario Echevarria, pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution back in December. He received a 13-month prison sentence after prosecutors said he took the Nissan Pathfinder to a car wash to get rid of evidence and protect his girlfriend.

[dsayers]

That is such a horrifying story. One I don't understand. When I was being taught to drive, I was cautioned to never aim for things like bags and other seemingly harmless objects because of their unseen contents. Just a couple weeks ago I went and helped a friend who punctured a tire after a major pothole. Drove 5 miles before she realized the damage required attention. I don't get how anybody could have a bump like that and not stop to survey the damage. "Thought it was a rock" is not a good enough explanation because cars aren't made to drive over rocks that would make that kind of a bump at any kind of speed.

 

Assuming the story about the boyfriend is true, he definitely needs to be held accountable for his coverup. I'm not sure how him sitting in a hole for 13 months is going to help the parents of the children killed, who will actually be subsidizing the food he'll be fed while in there in order to keep him alive. Not saying he shouldn't be kept alive, just commenting on how this contrast could ever pass as justice even to a non-thinker.

[PatrickC]

Assuming the story about the boyfriend is true, he definitely needs to be held accountable for his coverup. I'm not sure how him sitting in a hole for 13 months is going to help the parents of the children killed, who will actually be subsidizing the food he'll be fed while in there in order to keep him alive. Not saying he shouldn't be kept alive, just commenting on how this contrast could ever pass as justice even to a non-thinker.

 

I don't doubt the truth of the boyfriends actions in this situation. He pleaded guilty after all. But it has to be said, this would be like giving a higher sentence to the getaway driver, compared to the bank robber that threatened the teller with a gun.

[dsayers]

I understand the point made. Though to be fair, a guilty plea doesn't actually mean guilt. We have no way of knowing what kind of interrogation "tactics" or threats were made against him.

[fractional slacker]

Like Stef says, parents are responsible for the mistakes of their children, to a point. Not teaching your children to stay out of the street, let alone hide in a pile of leaves could be considered more negligent than the driver doing what drives do going down the street. Boyfriend is ex post facto. It makes no sense he's the only one being punished.

[ribuck]

The boyfriend's action was against the system, which is always punished more harshly than other acts.

[mick_towe]

Having a dangler = more likely to be convicted, and more jail time. Approximately 60% more in both cases. This does not surprise me in the least.

 

If the boyfriend was guilty of covering up, then the girlfriend is guilty of covering up^2.

[Jorell]

If the boyfriend was guilty of covering up, then the girlfriend is guilty of covering up

 

That must have been an interesting conversation between her and her boyfriend. I imagine her being scared to death and having no idea what to do (I know in my Idaho hometown most legal immigrant families lived in constant fear of being deported at the first sight of an infraction); the boyfriend either convincing her to conceal the situation (cover-up), or possibly even just consenting to her decision to cover-up.Other pressures would be how you might be ostracized from your community for 'ratting' on your girlfriend, especially if your family and community has immigrant ties as well. It's also likely that if he pleaded guilty, he did so without private legal counsel; which means he could also have agreed to it to 'protect his girlfriend' - a common 'masculine virtue' in many cultures. (all speculation of course)Ironically, we seem to have an almost "Emperors New Clothes" blind-reverence for pedestrians - why we continue to indulge the fantasy that paved roads with 2000 pound machines cruising at high speeds are more capable of avoiding obstructions than humans who need little more than to... not be on the road, is absurd and has monstrous consequences in the legal system and pedestrian safety delusions! I find it insulting that the parents made no mention of this in their benevolent 'apology' - where's the ownership? She stole the opportunity to say goodbye to her girls?? How about "If only I had instructed them better about playing in the road", or at the very least "They were in the wrong place at the wrong time".

 

Even if she hadn't swerved to hit the leaf pile, if I have 2 children within 5 feet of imminent traffic then I feel I've exposed them to harm well before the consideration of a reckless driver.To be fair though, I don't know the circumstances of where this accident occurred or any potential variants in the layout of this leaf pile and it's proximity on the road... but I really resent the accountability for people to respect the danger of staying off of roads is completely ignored over and over.

(At the risk making light of this topic, I couldn't help but have this scene come to mind ... tee hee)www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jWH46rYOUE

[mick_towe]

Ironically, we seem to have an almost "Emperors New Clothes" blind-reverence for pedestrians - why we continue to indulge the fantasy that paved roads with 2000 pound machines cruising at high speeds are more capable of avoiding obstructions than humans who need little more than to... not be on the road, is absurd and has monstrous consequences in the legal system and pedestrian safety delusions!

 

This is valid IF you assume that cars are the only kind of traffic that should be on roads, which I don't subscribe to (bicycles, horses, pedestrians ...etc.) . Just pointing that out in case you hadn't thought of it, a lot of people haven't, because so many people exclusively use cars. One could say if you choose to ride around in a 2000 pound machine it is your responsibility not to wreck it into any of the rest of us. Obviously there is grey area to this, if I jump out in front of your car ... etc, but the road is full of all sorts of pedestrians, crossing the street, getting into their cars, loading things into their cars. I don't know that I can agree with the idea that humans "need little more than to... not be on the road".

[Jorell]

I don't know that I can agree with the idea that humans "need little more than to... not be on the road".

 

You don't have to agree to it, but you may be wise to. Trying to make pedestrians, cyclists and motorists play nice on the road simply like oil and water. I approach my safety as a pedestrian, in the same manner as a typical HR department instructs new employees in a factory / heavy-machinery environment - they show gruesome videos and even bring in employee's whose carelessness has cost them dearly - not because they are anti-social, but because they want people to realize that the human body does not compete well with machinery. Perhaps it's because transportation is so commonplace we feel this should be an exception?It's possible I may be jaded to this arrangement as well; I live in a Metro area where the precedent of pedestrian awareness has reached some unhealthy norms, where a persistent culture of demonizing motorists for with no thought of pedestrian accountability has become the standard. People walking blindly across non-crosswalk areas, people dressed in dark clothing at night, people glued to their smartphones with headphones, cyclists with no reflectors; these are regular interactions for motorists in Metro areas and it is not organic. These are people that have been assured time and time again that the threat of State enforced legislative repercussions to motorists will protect them... I have difficulty seeing how trying to marry these transportation mismatches safely can result in anything but broken bodies.Of course, we could take it to it's inevitable State-inspired solution and suggest that restraints to motorists finally be imposed to make altercations with automobiles less fatal. Perhaps State-imposed speed limits that universally do not exceed 5mph? Cars fitted with State-mandated bubble-wrap perhaps; I'm not trying to by snarky, but bringing these themes together is very similar to most central planning social ideals - how can we take things that appear unfair, and equalize them? Well, lets reduce them to the lowest common denominator - how fast can a pedestrian walk?I prefer approach my own pedestrian safety with self-interest; I will be teaching my children a very healthy respect for the laws of physics - and a very healthy skepticism of societies conventions to the contrary. Life is just too short and fragile to put faith in imaginary boundaries that arbitrate between life and death. 

TL;DRStates perpetuate unrealistic safety expectations between motorists and pedestrians that threaten the safety of the very pedestrians these conventions claim to protect by creating a false sense of security.

[dsayers]

This winter, I turned out of my driveway onto my very low-traffic side street. The kind that when there 6-8 inches of snow on the road (as there was this night) is very low priority in plowing order. It was after dark, but the amount of snow on the road made it anything less than dark. I had my headlights on all the same and the two people choosing to walk in the middle of the street towards me had no way of missing me coming their way.

 

I do not fault them for walking wherever was easiest to walk. However, to continue walking in the center of the road while a car is coming, with 6-8 inches of snow in the road, is absolute suicide.

 

If you ask me, it stems from a belief that people won't hit pedestrians. It's not limited to the disparity of flesh vs machine either. I've seen a number of motorists do really stupid things out of the belief that somebody else won't hit them, even if it wouldn't be their fault, if only to protect themselves. But won't isn't the same as can't. A yellow line or a red light has no way of physically prohibiting vehicles from traveling.

 

Simply put, complacency in matters of life and death is very dangerous and can be lethal. This would normally be a self-correcting issue. However, with a State in play, we cannot count on careless people simply not surviving to pass on their genes.

[PatrickC]

I will be teaching my children a very healthy respect for the laws of physics - and a very healthy skepticism of societies conventions to the contrary. Life is just too short and fragile to put faith in imaginary boundaries that arbitrate between life and death. 

 

This seems like a thoroughly responsible approach to raising children.

[mick_towe]

I agree with all of you that pedestrians need to have a healthy respect for the laws of physics, and that children need to be taught all of this as well. I totally agree.

 

But if you look at human behavior and how it responds to laws and "rules of the road" you can see that humans will do very stupid things if they think it is their right to do so. Jorell you mentioned people blindly walking into crosswalks ... etc, and I can tell you that where I live in certain parts of the city it is actually well known that there are a number of people that will walk out in front of you in traffic crosswalk or no. I think they do this because the laws are "pro-pedestrian", and as an expression of power, in the face of feeling powerless. Now a pedestrian behaving in this way for whatever reason is not going to do much damage to anyone but himself. Now imagine if the the laws were the other way around and they were "pro-motorist". I have to assume that there would just as many foolish self centered people, doing stupid things, and justifying it with "the rules of the road". But in this case you would have almost no damage to the person making the stupid decision, and death and maiming for the person on the receiving end.

 

For the record I am an avid bicyclist, so I might be just as Jaded about motorists.

[Jorell]

Now imagine if the the laws were the other way around and they were "pro-motorist". 

 

I hope my statements weren't intended to exclude the value in being a considerate and conscious motorist! It can actually be kind of difficult (without a lot of bloating verbiage) to delineate a point without passing along the assumption that you're using an "either/or" argument. If I did come off that way, I'll gladly correct myself - I am in NO way any less skeptical about Motorists endangering other Motorists, Pedestrians or property... Sweet mother of God, that deserves an entirely separate thread - heheIn fact, John Stossel cites an interesting scenario in his book "Give me a break" about a freshly developed community that because of some lengthy delays in conflicting county ordnance's didn't receive any funding for public transit utilities. One of the only instances where a modern community was developed without traffic lights or signs. According to the case-study he cites, in this community (in the first year) they experienced more accidents per-capita than any other in the state of California. However, in less than 4 months their rates of automobile accidents went to the least accidents per-capita in the state and continued to decrease to the lowest in the continental US before the year was through. Not a very popular study however, as it begs some very intriguing questions - namely do safety conventions actually make us safer? Or do they merely dull our senses, become a sensory 'crutch'?I felt the most intriguing question about it though, was simply that if a community of can improve their road safety by the mere permission of spontaneous order, what else could they have achieved for other traffic needs; logistically, etc? As I remember though, the dispute between the bordering counties was resolved within 4 years and traffic implements were funded and installed.