"Blueskies" wrote in message
news:x1a6e.29$bc2.10@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I see a quote that says the car was going 53 in a 35 speed limit zone - I
suppose that timing had nothing to do with it.
> How about this: The kid saw the car coming, assumed (bad thing!) that it
was going at the 35 limit, and bolted. If the
> car was going 35 then it would not have gotten there when the kid was
there. Going at the illegal 53 mph caused the car
> to arrive at the scene much sooner, thus killing the child.
If he saw it coming, he made an incorrect assessment of it's speed - the
other kids made the correct determination and tried to warn him.
Your theory sounds like someone who makes a left turn in front of oncoming
traffic, resulting in a collision, and then claims the other car was
speeding as it approached the intersection. Well, if you knew it was
speeding, why did you turn in front of it?
Nothing in the articles says he won;t get charged with another, lesser
offence. The prosecutor is not bound by the jury's finding, and could even
lay the originally contemplated charge. it seems clear the guy should get a
speeding conviction, at least, on the evidence.
Who here hasn't gone 10 miles over the limit in a school, or playground
zone? And on those times when you did, if a kid popped out from behind a
parked car and you had no chance to stop, even if travelling at the posted
speed, would you expect to be charged and convicted of vehicular homicide,
or whatever, based on the speed factor alone?
|