Please enlighten us with your wisedom how this seizure induced accident is different from another seizure induced accident which convicts one driver & frees another driver.

ANOTHER SEIZURE, ANOTHER ACCIDENT, ONE KILLED BUT “the cause of the accident was an epileptic seizure so no charges will be filed”.

Ferry Worker Killed -
9/23/2009
A traffic worker at the Port Aransas ferry was killed after being struck by a car. Police say 32-year old Tommy Lee Rubel Jr. was directing traffic at the Harbor Island Ferry Landing Tuesday evening when he was killed. According to officers 23-year old driver Jeronda Shea Horton was exiting the ferry and had a medical attack causing her too lose control of her car. Police say Horton had an epileptic seizure and struck Rubel. She also hit a light pole, and ran into a wooden fence.

Lt. Darryl Johnson with the Port Aransas Police Department says Horton was taking medication for seizures. He also says a blood sample was taken but alcohol and drugs do not appear to have played a role in the crash.

“It’s still an open case, but it appears the cause of the accident was an epileptic seizure so no charges will be filed,” Johnson said.

Action 10 talked to a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of Transportation which owns and operates the ferrys. She says Rubel was a contract worker for the state so she doesn’t have much information on the accident. However, she says accidents at the Port Aransas ferry are unusual because workers are trained and given safety gear.

“I understand that he had all his equipment on, all the reflective equipment he was supposed to be wearing. I’ve been here 7 years and this is the first one since I’ve been here,” Frances Garza said.

Police are now asking the state if Horton should have been behind the wheel with her medical condition.

Action 10 is told ferry operations are back to normal, but traffic on the Harbor side is down to just one lane.

http://www.kztv10.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=9659

I wonder if the same sort of thing happened in the Scarlett case.

Does anyone ever get convicted of negligent vehicular manslaughter while sober?

I think the fact that they had to resort to calling it murder to get a conviction shows how wacked the regulations are.

I would say that Mr. Emerling took a substantial personal risk in sailing alone, and that the outcome didn’t work out for him, and that that’s a shame. But you can’t call it negligence and you can’t call it depraved because he didn’t put anyone else’s person or property at risk. I believe that people are entitled to take all the risks they please provided they are able to compensate others for the consequences. In the case of Mr. Scarlett, of course, no one is able to return the victims to their loved ones.

The “lack of typical justice elsewhere” that I alluded to is the same as that referenced by the title of this article: Most dangerous drivers, including those who kill, do not receive any judicial attention at all unless they are drunk or high at the time of the accident. Even then, penalties are often minimal. The article itself (did you read it?) references directly five such cases. This is the injustice, that so many other crimes go unpunished.

Mr. Scarlett received the justice he deserved; the only injustice is that he is alone in this.

Best,

–Ian

Driving heavy machinery in a reckless manner is depraved. Driving a bicycle in a reckless manner is not. If you can’t understand the difference, I’m not sure we have much to discuss.

–Ian

FYI: See the story below & tell me if this man made, “deliberate, conscious & negligent decesion” to kill himself, by having seizure in a boat.
Thank you,
Gherbe Huwarshek

Man found dead on lake had seizure.
The man who was found dead in his fishing boat on Oneida Lake last week drowned after suffering an epileptic seizure, state police say.

Ronald Emerling, 64, of Hamburg, a village in Western New York, was found on his boat Sept. 15 with the upper portion of his body submerged in the lake, while the lower portion still was in the boat, police said.

The boat was found near the shore of Lake Shore Road in North Bay on the northern side of the lake.

Life-saving efforts were attempted by the North Bay Fire Department before Emerling was transported to Oneida Healthcare Center and pronounced dead upon arrival.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x1789526224/Man-found-dead-on-lake-had-seizure

Running a red light especially in a dense environment is dangerous and is risky and careless no matter what. The law really won’t interpret varying degrees of high recklessness; only juries do.

I understand your point, but it’s still irrelevant analogy because intent was not clearly shown to do harm. Whereas intent to harm is shown by throwing an object whether a spoon, a knife, or a stick of dynamite.

Sure, NY has that crazy law about “recklessness”, but how often is that section of NY’s laws pursued? Probably not too often. It’s best to err on the side of caution, that caution being manslaughter where a homicide occurs but it’s a clear accident.

I find it terrifying that people want prosecutors to have more power in the judicial system! Maybe I read too much news of overzealous make-a-name-get reelected-at-all-cost prosecutors, but a sign of a good prosecutor is one that knows when to not prosecute to the fullest extent. Give prosecutors cruel and unusual punishment and they’d use it – I think that’s telling of many of their mentalities. But sure, let’s not take away from the 95% good prosecutors do in the criminal justice world.

Manslaughter should be the charge, and if he appeals and wins, good for him.

It’s possible that race was a factor in the DA’s decision to prosecute this case, but that is a reflection of the sad typical lack of justice elsewhere. This prosecution and conviction was entirely appropriate and just.

The difference between a negligent bicyclist and a negligent motorist is in the risks that each takes; the difference is at least an order of magnitude in size, possibly two orders of magnitude. It’s the difference between throwing knives at someone and throwing spoons. Yeah, it’s possible that you’ll kill with a spoon, but it’s a hell of a lot less likely and therefore does not meet the standard of “depraved”.

As to the idea that epileptics should be allowed to drive because it might be a hardship otherwise: This is insane. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and it should not be extended to those who are likely to do violence in the process. Just as we should not allow alcoholics to drive, so we should not allow untreated epileptics. If that is a burden, then I would encourage epileptics to move to a place where a car is not a necessity of life. That includes all of New York City, by the way.

As for the question of public support, it’s not obvious to me why it should be the public’s responsibility to enable someone to live in a place where they are unable to hold a job, when they could do so just fine elsewhere.

Cheers,

–Ian

The issue for the court in a case like this is: “could a reasonable juror conclude that the defendant, ‘Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, . . . recklessly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby cause[d] the death of another person….’” Even if the judge personally believes that there has been no murder, the judge s required to consider objectively the community mores and determine whether under those mores a murder conviction could be reasonable. I think the Judge in this case made the right decision, and that decision does serve as a precedent (though not a binding one) for other judges that future, similar murder 2 cases should sent to the jury.

As far as the DA is concerned, they have tremendous discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute and what charges to bring, but this case should demonstrate to NYC DAs that murder 2 is not a per se unreasonable charge to pursue against a sober driver who kills, depending upon the facts.

You want to be the first one to get on a plane being flown by a narcoleptic and a quadriplegic, be my guest.

1) On the failure to take his medication: Well, the issue here is that this individual consciously disregarded medical advice in failing to take his medication–not while hanging out in his house and watching TV–but rather while operating a several thousand ton motor vehicle in a dense urban environment. I think it is fair to assume that he was aware of how his body would physically react when not taking his medication; namely, experiencing a seizure which would render him unable to physically operate a motor vehicle. So, knowing all of this, did he show a depraved indifference to human life? Clearly, the men and women of the jury, after listening to far more information than any of us have been privy to, decided that he had.

2) On the banning of all epileptics from driving: You have conveniently misrepresented and muddied the issue. The driver was not prosecuted for driving a vehicle while being an epileptic. Rather, a central element of the case turned on the issue of an adult’s conscious decision to disregard medical advice by operating a motor vehicle (a several thousand ton truck at that) while not taking his medicine, the results of which could leave the individual incapacitated and clearly unable to retain control of the motor vehicle.

3) Regarding the wide world of murder statutes in other states: That is quite the assertion and I’d be interested to know what research you have to support it. To be honest, I suppose I’m being a bit sarcastic here, because I’m guessing that this is simply an unsupported statement based on your personal opinion. Which of course, is fine, but not necessarily a good way to support a policy position on how a state’s murder statute should be worded. Finally, I’m unclear as to why you continue to associate murder in the second degree, in any of its different statutory forms, with negligence. One is not charged with murder in the second degree in New York State for negligent behavior because negligence is a different mental state than recklessness. If you are maintaining that the driver’s actions were negligent and not reckless and thus he should not have been charged with murder in the second degree, then so be it. And of course, if you were on the jury, you would have been free to judge accordingly.

By all means, the bicyclist in my hypothetical should be charged with murder in the 2nd degree (while rare, bikes have killed pedestrians before). I do not agree with such a charge for a bicyclists, car driver, or any other person who is truly negligent. I also do not agree with NY state law regarding second degree murder.

I only bring up the hypothetical bicyclist because idiot lawmakers, voters, etc. always rule to have “tougher” laws on crime – but they always end up backfiring or unfairly punishing and castigating people in society (i.e. draconian drug laws). Tough laws might make sure that 9/10 people receive proper justice – but what’s left is that one person who is unfairly thrown under the bus of an overpowering judicial system.

Not all homicides are created equal, and some gang-banger thug who shoots to kill (without premeditation, of course) is thrown into the same camp as a truck driver who didn’t take his meds and ran over unfortunate pedestrians.

This case of course occurred in NYC, but NY is a big place, and there’s plenty of people (with epilepsy) who do not live in the city nor do they have access to reliable transit. They are at a great disadvantage for employability if they do not have reliable transportation. Care to subsidize them moreso so everyone can get disability payments with epilepsy?

The truck driver is not a murderer, he was very negligent. Period.

Also, while setting up your straw man argument, let’s please note that hitting someone with a bicycle is far less likely to maim, let alone kill, someone. A garbage truck is far, far more deadly, as indicated by the annual death toll this city witnesses.

New York City is a place where most people don’t even own a car, much less need one in order to make a decent living. There is no reason that Mr. Scarlett could have gotten work in any number of other fields which do not require the operation of heavy machinery. He was aware of these facts, and acted in the way that he did because of a corrupt indifference to the lives of others.

Best,

–Ian

Point taken on the class issue, and I’m pleased to hear that he received a multiracial jury. However, it’s still possible that the decision to prosecute was subject to racial influences. This case is justice done, but the notability of that fact is disappointing.

Cheers,

–Ian