BCR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Heart of Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
A jury convicted Lee of criminal vehicular homicide in 2007, and he was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Lee had always maintained his innocence, saying the 1996 Camry accelerated uncontrollably before it crashed into two vehicles, killing a man, his 10-year-old son and a 6-year-old girl.
Man freed after fatal Toyota crash 'tried everything' to stop car - CNN.com
This kind of makes my blood boil, Juries seem to be way too trigger happy when it comes to convicting people. I hope he gets a nice compensation for his prison time and wins the law suit against Toyota.
Man freed after fatal Toyota crash 'tried everything' to stop car - CNN.com
This kind of makes my blood boil, Juries seem to be way too trigger happy when it comes to convicting people. I hope he gets a nice compensation for his prison time and wins the law suit against Toyota.
Man freed after fatal Toyota crash 'tried everything' to stop car - CNN.com
This kind of makes my blood boil, Juries seem to be way too trigger happy when it comes to convicting people. I hope he gets a nice compensation for his prison time and wins the law suit against Toyota.
You haven't seen anything until you have seen the legal system and jury pools here in Texas, also known as the nation of Hang 'em High.
Juries are just using common sense. How were they supposed to actually believe that a vehicle magically started accelerating on its own?
This kind of comment just makes my blood boil. People seem way too trigger happy to become outraged at people, after the fact, for using common sense to make a seemingly sound judgement call.
Yep, jump on Toyota.
U.S. Study Indicates Driver Error in Most Toyota Crashes - WSJ.com
"A government safety examination of Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles involved in crashes attributed to sudden acceleration so far has not yielded evidence of flaws in Toyotas while pointing instead to driver error. "
When the issue of sudden acceleration hit the news, many jumped on Toyota. Seems that in the majority of cases the driver was in error and not the vehicle. Wonder in this case if the vehicle had the "black box" that records info prior to impact. It it does, it will be interesting to see if this person actually did everything possible.
Well, in my case is was a combination of two things: driver error and faulty design. The snow mat was meant to be fastened down to the floor. Managing the fastening system was awkward and rather difficult. My fiance' did it for me when I put the winter mat in the car. I suspect that when I had the car washed (any number of times B4 the incident) the mats were pulled out, washed, and then just thrown down on the floor. (Operator error.) The mat itself was too thick. If it DID slide (which they DID) it interfered with the operation of the gas pedal -- causing insane acceleration. The fix from Toyota on the recall was a MUCH thinner mat.
No disagreement on the floor mat issue. The mats should have been secured and made thinner from the start.
I remember reading Popular Mechanics and other car magazines that tested Toyota when they were in the news. Every test done showed that the brakes could stop the car even at full throttle. This started my thinking that most drivers just don't apply the brakes hard enough or long enough. Most safety tips were to brake like hxxx, put it in neutral, or even turn the ignition off.
This thread could also spin off into a discussion of juries, as well. I have served on several, and it's the problem that people are coerced into being members of a jury. They just want to get the trial over so they can go home and get on about their lives. If they can do anything to end the trial, then a conviction of the poor acused is the quickest way out, especially if it involves something like a far-fetched story as this one. No one knew about run away Toyotas a few years ago.
This thread could also spin off into a discussion of juries, as well. I have served on several, and it's the problem that people are coerced into being members of a jury. They just want to get the trial over so they can go home and get on about their lives. If they can do anything to end the trial, then a conviction of the poor acused is the quickest way out, especially if it involves something like a far-fetched story as this one. No one knew about run away Toyotas a few years ago.
Why exactly is he being released, other than because some people bought the hype about Toyota's accelerating on their own? Is there any new evidence that he wasn't at fault?
Why exactly is he being released, other than because some people bought the hype about Toyota's accelerating on their own? Is there any new evidence that he wasn't at fault?
The article posted also states that the reviewing judge found that his defense was inadequate due to mistaking his own client's testimony in relation to his foot being on the accelerator.
I think I read something like that in there, too lazy to go re-read it.
The judge cited that as a reason, but it seems like he's just throwing that in in order to justify his reversal of the verdict. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a very high threshold to meet, and is normally raised right after the trial is over. Here, nobody brought it up until after a reporter heard about the Toyota hype and made a big stink about it a full three years after the conviction.
Ummmmm..... okay... Your state needs to be investigated for improper practices then.
In order to convict a person the trial must go to completion and then be decided upon by a jury.
The jury cannot hand down a guilty verdict before the trial has completed.
Thus juries convicting to end the trial quickly is a non-point, and just an excuse as to why juries convict people.
Im sorry, but its not logical that a 10 year old car with no seriously known to that point problems would run away on its own. We are talking about REASONABLE. I feel its not a REASONABLE doubt to have that the vehicle ran away on its own, especially when the defense attorney screwed up and said that the defendant has his foot on the accelerator when it was not the story that the defendnat wanted to try to get off on. It is not the job of a jury to determine whether or not a defense attorney is doing a good enough job and rule based upon that. It is the job of a jury to take the evidence, either direct or constructive, and make a decision based upon the evidence, and whether or not the evidence presented shows that the defendant met the elements of a crime.
I don't blame the jury, I blame the evidence, and the representation of the evidence through the work of the prosecution and defense attorneys.
Why exactly is he being released, other than because some people bought the hype about Toyota's accelerating on their own? Is there any new evidence that he wasn't at fault?
I don't know where you get that assumption from my post that the jury decides the case before the trial is over, but the jury members don't want to be there. Making $30 a day is hardly enough money when several hang sheet rock for a living and can make $200 a day or more and then they are coerced into being a juror. The crap about that it's their civic duty in a free country doesn't fly with most, and definitely doesn't fly with me. If you will check with Niel Boortz, he doesn't think much of coerced jury duty, either. It then becomes a crap shoot on whether the defendant ever receives a fair trial. The jury members want to go home so they deliberate a little bit and convict him. They go around the room and poll their fellow members, and it's unanimous. If he's here in the court, he's guilty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?