It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pedestrian convicted of vehicular homicide in own child's death

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I get so disgusted reading this crap day after day, victims repeatedly violated while the real criminals are given a pat on the back, a food stamp card, "free" healthcare and rewarded for their behaviour. From the cops to the judges the whole system needs to be burned to the ground. One more nail in the coffin of this country and I will not be sorry to see it go.



Raquel Nelson, 30, could be sentenced to up to 36 months at a hearing July 26, said David Savoy, her attorney. She was convicted Tuesday of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk and reckless conduct, said Savoy.

Jerry L. Guy, the driver who admitted hitting the child when pleading guilty to hit-and-run, served a 6-month sentence. He was released Oct. 29, 2010, and will serve the remainder of a 5-year sentence on probation, according to Cobb court records.




Guy confessed to having consumed "a little" alcohol earlier in the day, being prescribed pain medication and being partially blind in his left eye, said David Simpson, his attorney.

"This still effects [Jerry] to this day," Simpson said. "It is tragic all around."

Guy was originally charged with hit and run, first degree homicide by vehicle and cruelty to children. Charges were later dropped to just the hit and run charge.

Court records show that Guy was previously convicted of two-hit-and-runs on the same day, Feb. 17, 1997.

www.ajc.com...
www.grist.org...

Now not only has this "a$$hat" killed a small child due to his inability to control himself, ripped apart a family, but may very well be responsible for tearing a mother away from her other children. Every player on the side of the state should be fired, brought up on charges of contempt of victim and placed in the bottom of a portapot for a week at the local carnival.

The state is at war with the poor, not, as they say against poverty, but against the poor person. Feed the poor goto jail, ride a bus and have the gall to cross the street where you get hit by a drunk, get convicted of murder.

Who do I blame the most? The cop, the one who we are told from birth are here to protect us from harm, who risk their life out of a sense of honour to god and country to prevent the weak from being taken advantage of. Its all a load of crap and the sooner the people wake up and put an end to this charade can't come soon enough.

I do not associate with anyone that works for the state, and that includes family members. I don't care about feelings, I don't care that they think they are doing the right thing, I just don't care anymore.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
That makes me want to snap on someone
How can she get MORE time then the man that actually killed her child? What must she be thinking. What are the lawmakers thinking.
I wish everyone were thinking along the same lines, then people would realize that the government is at war with them, this kind of crap happens everwhere
edit on 21/7/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


I assume that it may be due to your anger and rage, that caused you to overlook the fact that you do not even address the subject within the title of your own thread.

Why was this woman convicted?

Nelson was attempting to cross at the intersection of Austell Road and Austell Circle with her three children when her son was struck by a car, said Savoy. The child later died from his injuries. Nelson and her younger daughter suffered minor injuries and her older daughter was not injured.

www.ajc.com...



When that bus stopped across from their apartment building, it was [color=CFECEC]the first time Raquel had to cross the high-speed divided highway with her children after dark.

the family crossed two lanes and made it the median safely. When 4-year old A.J. Nelson saw one of the other adults attempt to finish her crossing, he broke away from his mother and ran into the road.

www.grist.org...


Yes, it does seem that this is a very poorly designed area for pedestrians.
However, she was not innocent, and did play a large role in this accident.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


I assume that it may be due to your anger and rage, that caused you to overlook the fact that you do not even address the subject within the title of your own thread.

Why was this woman convicted?

Nelson was attempting to cross at the intersection of Austell Road and Austell Circle with her three children when her son was struck by a car, said Savoy. The child later died from his injuries. Nelson and her younger daughter suffered minor injuries and her older daughter was not injured.

www.ajc.com...



When that bus stopped across from their apartment building, it was [color=CFECEC]the first time Raquel had to cross the high-speed divided highway with her children after dark.

the family crossed two lanes and made it the median safely. When 4-year old A.J. Nelson saw one of the other adults attempt to finish her crossing, he broke away from his mother and ran into the road.

www.grist.org...


Yes, it does seem that this is a very poorly designed area for pedestrians.
However, she was not innocent, and did play a large role in this accident.

Yes, ignore the fact he was drinking, on pain pills and blind in one eye. He was "impaired" and had to other hit and runs the same day. Im sure had the child "broken" away in a cross walk it would have made the situation oh so different. It is the responsibility of someone driving a 2 ton vehicle to control it, regardless of the location.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
She was crossing the street illegally. She didn't have the right of way. She is responsible for the death of her child, and put her other children at risk of being killed too. I just wonder if she saw the vehicle approaching and assumed it would stop for her or if she wasn't paying attention. Either way, her fault. How close was the next intersection where she could have crossed legally? Where was she going in such a hurry that she neglected the safety of her children? I don't care how drunk, drugged, or blind the driver was. Ultimately, the mother had a responsibility to protect her children and she didn't.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   


Who do I blame the most? The cop


How is this in anyway a police officers fault?

All we do is make an arrest as directed by the State Attorney.

This is all about the courts which I will gladly and freely admit need some serious overhauling.

Also while I think the charges against the mother are somewhat extreme in my opinion, the simple fact is this

Pedestrians have the Right of Way on "Crosswalks"

Else where they are "Jaywalking" and breaking the law.

She, the mother, committed a crime and the end result was a death.

I see tragedies like this all the time and I just can not see the criminal justice system helping in anyway. While it is a truism that the law has to be followed, I think the courts should look at the results of their actions and consider the psychological impacts on those involved. She lost her child. Should that not be her punishment, should that not be enough? I just don't see how charging her will help society in anyway.

Yes she is culpable, but in my opinion, she has paid a high enough price already.

Semper



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lacyisarobot
She was crossing the street illegally. She didn't have the right of way. She is responsible for the death of her child, and put her other children at risk of being killed too. I just wonder if she saw the vehicle approaching and assumed it would stop for her or if she wasn't paying attention. Either way, her fault. How close was the next intersection where she could have crossed legally? Where was she going in such a hurry that she neglected the safety of her children? I don't care how drunk, drugged, or blind the driver was. Ultimately, the mother had a responsibility to protect her children and she didn't.

Im sorry, but the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way when you are in a 2 ton machine. The next intersection was 1500 feet, 3 city blocks, I assume you dont have children as you would understand trying to get home quickly. And its obvious you didn't bother to read that the child tried to follow an adult across the street. the child bolted across the street and the mother went after. so callous its disgusting this idea that the victim is the problem. Since you think the victim is the issue and give the driver a pat on the back, i include you in the as being part of the problem.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
And Casey Anthony is a free woman...

This is nothing less than the misuse of our Justice system by an over-zealous prosecutor.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


The Officer's don't pursue an indictment, the District Attorney does.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Crosswalks are irrelevant. Where does a pedestrian not have the right of way?

Besides, an accident is an accident. Somebody is just out for blood and vengeance. That's all our "justice" system is. A vehicle for vengeance.

Accident or not. Innocent or not. The public and the system doesnt care. They just want to spread more suffering.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


The Officer's don't pursue an indictment, the District Attorney does.

Yes, i understand this, while i went to public school, i am not stupid. But it is the cop that is the strong arm of the state. It is the cop that people expect to protect them. It is the cop that "we the people" expect to stand up to the state and say "no, you are not going to do this". but do they? no, they stand by, and let it happen.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam It is the cop that "we the people" expect to stand up to the state and say "no, you are not going to do this". but do they? no, they stand by, and let it happen.


Sorry, that's not what they teach in Civics 101. What do you expect the Officer's to do? Arrest the D.A.? I'm not following your argument here and your anger is clearly misplaced with regard to your original post. I can join your outrage for this poor mother's prosecution but I'll leave you to your own ravings against LEOs.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 



Yes, it does seem that this is a very poorly designed area for pedestrians.
However, she was not innocent, and did play a large role in this accident.


But what is the point of criminal charges? She did something stupid, she lost her 4 year old son for it. Is there any worse punishment than that? What is the point of additional criminal charges? Is the state "protecting" the other children by incarcerating their mother for a simple mistake that anyone could make?

Last night, my 3 year old broke away from me and ran across a Waffle House parking lot. It was dark, and there was no traffic, but it happens from time to time.

Imagine being a single mother, riding a bus, and trying to wrangle 3 children into being good and staying out of traffic, and then one slips away, and is dead instantly. No reset button, no takey backeys, just DEAD! I'm pretty sure the horror of that moment is plenty punishment enough, what possible good can come from spending money on a prosecution and taking a mother away from her remaining children?



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 



Yes, ignore the fact he was drinking, on pain pills and blind in one eye. He was "impaired" and had to other hit and runs the same day. Im sure had the child "broken" away in a cross walk it would have made the situation oh so different. It is the responsibility of someone driving a 2 ton vehicle to control it, regardless of the location.


Yes, ignore those facts, because it probably had nothing to do with the death. The child broke away and ran into the street. The driver probably had no possibility of avoiding the child.

The crime for "hit and run" is appropriate, but the death was just a tragic accident. Accidents happen.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
while i certainly feel that the driver defiantly deserves more time in jail, i actually have to applaud the government/court system for nailing someone endangering her kids as well as everyone else around her. it needs to be done MUCH more often in cases like this. in fact i just bet part of the reason for the drunk moron got such a light sentence is he "may" have done the right thing even while being drunk. remember we DON'T KNOW all the facts.

whenever a person jaywalks they put their lives at risk, as well as anyone else who happens to be around be they a driver, passenger or a PEDESTRIAN following the LAW. any jaywalker that causes an accident SHOULD be nailed. if they are dumb enough to take their kids with them, and they die, or anyone else does. then they SHOULD be nailed with manslaughter at the very least.

i have seen far too many accidents caused by jaywalkers, and i am sick and tired of trying to avoid them, (both the jaywalkers and the accidents that they CAUSE! i have seen cars take out pedestrians on the sidewalk while trying to avoid someone who ran out into the street. i have seen multi-vehicle pileups with multiple injuries due to the same thing. pedestrians have no reason or right to be out in the street if a sidewalk is there. UNLESS properly crossing at a light, stop sign or cross-walk.

a few years back there was a case of a couple pushing A BABY STROLLER trying to cross an EXTREMELY BUSY 16 lane highway with the speed limit of 100kph, (about 60mph). its amazing that they and many others weren't killed. who do you think should take the blame if it happened? not the drivers! in fact what would have been extremely likely is that some driver would have caused a 20 car pileup trying to avoid them. thank god the cops showed up to get them off safely. as harsh as it is in a situation like that, just as with an animal it is safer for EVERYONE else, to NOT even attempt to avoid them.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by NuroSlam It is the cop that "we the people" expect to stand up to the state and say "no, you are not going to do this". but do they? no, they stand by, and let it happen.


Sorry, that's not what they teach in Civics 101. What do you expect the Officer's to do? Arrest the D.A.? I'm not following your argument here and your anger is clearly misplaced with regard to your original post. I can join your outrage for this poor mother's prosecution but I'll leave you to your own ravings against LEOs.


Maybe not in your civics class, They didn't "have" "a civics class" in my school, perhaps in just to old. I was raised by a peace office, who made it clear to me his job was to protect the innocent and weak. Yes, if a cop can find a reason to arrest someone for jaywalking then the chief of police should be able to find a reason to arrest this DA. My anger is at the state, and as cops are the face of the state on the street, then, well, so sorry for them, they are the brunt of it.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by NuroSlam
 



Yes, ignore the fact he was drinking, on pain pills and blind in one eye. He was "impaired" and had to other hit and runs the same day. Im sure had the child "broken" away in a cross walk it would have made the situation oh so different. It is the responsibility of someone driving a 2 ton vehicle to control it, regardless of the location.


Yes, ignore those facts, because it probably had nothing to do with the death. The child broke away and ran into the street. The driver probably had no possibility of avoiding the child.

The crime for "hit and run" is appropriate, but the death was just a tragic accident. Accidents happen.

How am I suppose to ignore the fact that the drive was unable to control his vehicle on two previous occasions that day, once on the same street just prior to the accident? His inability to control his vehicle has everything to do with it.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


The pedestrian does not always have the right of way. Right of way laws vary by state and although I have not researched every state's laws, I know my state's laws and it is illegal to cross where there is no crosswalk unless you are at an intersection. If you think pedestrian's have automatic right of way then you should probably stay off the streets or you'll be the next one to get hit by a 2 ton truck. I did read that the child ran out into the road, and I attribute that to poor parenting. I do have a child, and she knows better than to run into traffic because I have taught her better than that. I know that when dealing with children in possibly hazardous situations you need to maintain a constant narrative, "Okay kids we're going to cross the street when I say. Everyone needs to have one hand on me. Look both ways...okay now, let's go." Also, if I knew that I would have to cross a busy highway with three kids I would be sure to plan my trip better. Wal-mart can wait until the morning. Let's make it home before dark. I do a lot of walking and use public transportation with my child and when I do I am alert, aware of my surroundings, and my child knows what's going on, and what the rules are.

And I don't know where in my post you think I gave the driver a "pat on the back". How closed minded of you to assume because I don't share your viewpoint that I must be a part of the problem. This problem has nothing to do with me. I have never been involved in any way with any kind of incident in which a child was killed, but that doesn't take away my right to an opinion about it.
edit on 21-7-2011 by Lacyisarobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't?

The police could determine the cause. If the kid ran out 10 feet in front of a vehicle doing 50 mph, then it would have been entirely unavoidable, and the driver's condition had nothing to do with it. Maybe the driver was impaired, and maybe the other 2 accidents were entirely his fault, but we can't just assume that is the case for this accident.

DUI statistics are very skewed. They list "alcohol related incidents." That means, if I am drunk and sitting at a red light, and some sober idiot rams into the back of me, it is counts as an "alcohol related incident." I get a DUI for just sitting there, and he gets a small ticket for smashing into me.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join