sanjuro
Rider
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/0...-highway-84-fatal-collision-sunday-in-newark/
Rest in peace, Michael.
Rest in peace, Michael.
Rider murdered by DUI driver in Fremont
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
sanjuro
Rider
I thought about my word usage. I could have written it as "collided by a driver" too.
I think murder is closer, but feel free to defend the driver here.
Coffae
Crash Test Dummy
Imma going to have to agree with Sanjuro. If by itself the driver was driving drunk, it is murder. If the driver was endangering folks by driving over 100 MPH, and hit the motorcycle so had that it was pushed into the engine block, then it is manslaughter through reckless driving aka vehicular homicide.
fraz
Well-known member
Oh no need to jump to conclusions there. I ain't defending a DUI piece of shit. I truly hope he gets max sentence and fines and all.
The word murderer is pretty specific in the English language and it is getting tossed about very loosely nowadays, that is all. Murder implies intent, so unless there is more info to the story, that is incorrect usage. Even "killer" would be more accurate to use in this case.
Gabe
COVID-fefe
You are correct. You need not just intent in California, but "malice," either express or implied. Basically, "express" is first degree, and "implied" is second. Implied malice is found when the state can prove the defendant had a "depraved and malignant heart." That means they were doing something so horribly wrong and dangerous it goes beyond simple negligence.
By the way, intent isn't intent to murder--it's just intent to do the thing that caused the death.
In fact, you can get hit with 2nd-degree murder if you've had prior DUI with injury convictions. More commonly, you were shooting a gun and it accidentally hits and kills someone. In this case, speeding at 100mph at night drunk and killing someone makes you a murderer, if only a second-degree one. But the OP was 100% correct (if you ask me)
The sad reality is if this was a poor person, he will probably plea to a lesser charge and spend 3-5 years in prison. If it's a rich person, he will probably pay about $250,000 in legal fees and get off without more than a day or two in jail, if that. He'll probably be driving (drunk) again in 1-5 years.
byke
Well-known member
+1
This ain't 1950. With what we've known about drinking and driving for a half century, I don't think it's a stretch to argue intent anymore. I'd say your usage is more accurate than any other.
Climber
Well-known member
It's why you always have to watch your 6, you just never know, I don't trust anybody else on the road when I'm riding.
scootergmc
old and slow
You don't need a prior DUI w/ injury. A standard DUI gets a Watson admonishment (murder).
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
In the thread Drunk driver sentences in fatal motorcycle crashes I mention several cases where a drunk driver with a previous DUI killed a motorcyclist, was convicted of second-degree murder, and got a 15-year sentence. Sometimes, though, they'll use the murder charge as leverage to get a guilty plea to DUI manslaughter and 6 years.
RIP, Michael Thomas. :rose
RIP, Michael Thomas. :rose
duck_rider
Well-known member
2:20am is quite late but it's too bad we don't live in society where we can trust each other to use the road at anytime of the day and feel safe.
Insane to me that people still drunk drive. If you can't afford to Uber to/from then you can't afford to drink... especially in the Bay Area. Obviously it's not great to Uber during a pandemic but what the hell are you doing if you need somewhere to go to drink at 2:20am during a pandemic?
Gixxergirl1000
AFM #731
I hope the driver gets to spend many years in jail.
I hope the family of the rider find peace...
I hope the family of the rider find peace...
gixxerjeff
Dogs best friend
You are expecting logical thinking from someone with an addiction.
That is a recipe for fail pretty much every time.
Last edited: