Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671
An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law...It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit...The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident...It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..
|
"Hit-and-Run" was NH-legal.
He wasn't proven drunk, but a judge allowed the jury to consider witness' testimony—and was upheld.
He would be in technical violation of the speed limit and that would be weighed by the jury when such testimony is allowed by the judge. Juries will also be weighing the testimony of court experts in speed determinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties...As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.
|
Somebody said "massive"?
It's a jury that would be weighing his speed, his lack of proper lookout and all other illegal and anti-social behaviors. (See above).
My point was that eleven years ago, BWI was a very serious charge. Take the 84 years in prison and divide it by the number of victims, and you see that 16 years (for each victim) was adjudicated for a
successful BWI prosecution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
"...If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime..."
|
You make my point: no speed law—no speed prosecution—no invocation of felonious behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
"...Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime..."
|
Yes, thanks to the NH Supreme Court and a judge who saw a travesty unfolding in his courtroom.
Yet in another jurisdiction, 16 years was delivered for an analogous collision—even without a determination of actual speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida..."
|
I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!
While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.
Speed limits in canals? Who knew?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk
"...This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense...the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license..."
|
"The worst" would be the technical violation of the speed limit law being considered by a jury who has already heard witnesses describing his pre-crash attitude, after-crash attitude, flight to avoid prosecution and aberrant behavior. (See above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671
"...Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court..."
|
Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!
BTW: Isn't someone familiar with courtrooms going to suggest that a post announcing intent to become a lawbreaker is a seriously bad idea?
While it's enormously high in cult value, I wouldn't want
my insurance company to have
that in print in a courtroom.
