Jumping Jehoshaphat! Wut in tarnation is this world coming to? (Nice Title Edit Mods)

[CexMashean]

I still fail to see how the driver was at fault. How would this be any different than a non-drunk/non-impaired motorist hitting the child?

[Silverback]

I still fail to see how the driver was at fault. How would this be any different than a non-drunk/non-impaired motorist hitting the child?

There's two major differences here.

First, even if the driver was sober, he'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Because of the alcohol in his system, involuntary becomes voluntary.

Second, jaywalking does not place fault on the jaywalker if they are hit, it only makes them a jaywalker, punishable by a citation and a fine. She would have had to jump in front of the moving car, leaving the driver no ability to avoid hitting her in order for it to be her fault.

Most of all of this we are discussing is speculation, since none of us were in the court room to hear all of the evidence provided. It sounds like a strong case was made against the mother, strong enough to sentence her.

[CexMashean]

First, even if the driver was sober, he'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

only if he was deemed at fault, which, he wasn't. Court decided that the situation of the jaywalking would have prevented any driver from 100% successfully avoiding the accident the mother initiated with jaywalking.

She would have had to jump in front of the moving car, leaving the driver no ability to avoid hitting her in order for it to be her fault.

And this appears to be what the ruling ended up being, which is why i'm confused at the anger directed at the dui driver. Would we see the same anger at the driver with the same ruling and no dui involved?

Most of all of this we are discussing is speculation, since none of us were in the court room to hear all of the evidence provided. It sounds like a strong case was made against the mother, strong enough to sentence her.

Agreed, but most of the people instantly going after the driver appear to be in the few with %100 knowledge of the incident, and their blatant disregard for the fact that the court has already decided that evidence was against the mother is disturbing. Tons of jaywalking accidents occur with 100% sober and alert drivers, it just happens that the driver this time wasn't. They somehow think that it should be different in this case, when it isn't.

[Silverback]

seems like the Yahoo article is missing some info.

Here's what I found:

"Nelson, 30, was convicted earlier this month of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk and reckless conduct in the April 10, 2010 incident. Judge Katherine Tanksley sentenced Nelson to 12 months probation for the first two counts and 12 months probation for the third count, to be served concurrently."

Here is what Homicide by Vehicle in the Second Degree states:

"Second degree vehicular homicide encompasses all vehicular homicides without intent to kill that involve any other violations of the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles. For example, a death resulting from a failure to yield to oncoming traffic, speeding, or driving too slowly, unless such constituted reckless driving, could be charged as a homicide by vehicle in the second degree.

Second degree vehicular homicide is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment or other confinement for up to 1 year, a fine of up to $1,000.00, or both. However, at the judge’s discretion, punishment may be suspended or a probation sentence may be received."

"Jerry L. Guy, the driver who admitted hitting A.J. when he pleaded guilty to hit-and-run, served six months in jail, despite having been convicted in 1997 of a similar offense. He was released in October and will serve the remainder of his five-year sentence on probation."

While the other article stated he admitted to drinking earlier, no one knows how much, when, nor was it able to be proven he was drunk when the crime was committed.