4-yr-old killed by hit-and-run driver. Driver gets 6 months, mother gets 3 years.

[Lucille]

Gotta love our injustice system.

Georgia Mom Convicted of Vehicular Homicide For Crossing Street With Kids (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14/mother-convicted-of-vehicular-homicide-for-crossing-street-with-children/)


We don’t normally report on vehicle crashes here on the Capitol Hill blog, but this was so outrageous we couldn’t help ourselves.

A 30-year-old woman in Marietta, Georgia was convicted of vehicular homicide this week – and she wasn’t even driving a car. The woman was crossing the street with her three children when a driver, who had been drinking, hit and killed her four-year-old. The driver, Jerry Guy, was initially charged with “hit and run, first degree homicide by vehicle and cruelty to children,” Elise Hitchcock of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “Charges were later dropped to just the hit and run charge.”

The man has previously been convicted of two hit-and-runs – on the same day, in 1997, one of them on the same road where he killed Raquel Nelson’s son.

Guy will serve six months for killing the boy, but Nelson will serve up to 36 months – just for crossing the street with her child...

[squarepusher]

there doesn't appear to be a crosswalk there

I don't know, heres the law

http://peds.org/resources/pedestrian_right_of_way/

[TheViper]

According to the comments, there is a lot of difference in the actual facts of the cases and what this story is reporting.

While I love having access to alternative media, it's always a good idea to double check a few sources just in case.

[pcosmar]

According to the comments, there is a lot of difference in the actual facts of the cases and what this story is reporting.

While I love having access to alternative media, it's always a good idea to double check a few sources just in case.
Lots of other sources. Does not make the prosecution any better.

http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html
http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/07/19/raquel-nelson-was-not-jaywalking-when-hit-and-run-driver-killed-her-child
http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/prosecuting-the-victim-absolving-the-perpetrators

[Lucille]

I should have said "mother could get 3 years." She'll be sentenced on the 26th.

It's insane.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/07/18/prosecutors-and-grieving-parents/


Enter the Marietta, Georgia, case of 30-year-old Raquel Nelson, which has been bandied about in the comments section the last few days. Last April, Nelson was crossing a street with her three children when her 4-year-old was struck and killed by a car. She was crossing at an intersection, but was apparently not in a designated crosswalk. The driver who killed her had been drinking, taking painkillers, and was blind in one eye. He also has two prior hit-and-run convictions. Nelson and her daughter were also struck and injured. Residents of Nelson’s apartment building have complained to the city about the intersection. The nearest crosswalk is a half mile away.

If we have as little to fear from overly aggressive prosecutors as supporters of Caylee’s Law claim, we could expect the prosecutor in this case to show some discretion and mercy for Nelson, right? Yes, she admits to jaywalking. Yes, she erred, and subjected her kids to unnecessary risk. But she just lost her son. It’s hard to fathom a more punishing, heartbreaking sentence. Moreover, the underlying “crime” here was a misdemeanor, one most of us commit every day. So mercy, right?

Of course not. Nelson was charged with second-degree vehicular homicide. Which is insane. She was convicted last week. When she’s sentenced later this month, she could spend more time in jail than the man who struck and killed her son. The prosecutor will say he was just enforcing the law. The jury will say they were just applying it. Both are excuses to duck responsibility (prosecutors can decline to bring charges, juries can nullify). But if both are true, then the time to prevent unjust the unjust application of well-intentioned laws is to anticipate those applications while the laws are being written and proposed. That means interpreting the most ridiculous, merciless, farfetched possible applications of the law, then assuming that somewhere, some prosecutor will attempt to apply the law in exactly those ways.

http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html

http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/07/18/woman-convicted-of-homicide-after-drunk-driver-kills-her-child/

http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/07/19/raquel-nelson-was-not-jaywalking-when-hit-and-run-driver-killed-her-child/

[Anti Federalist]

Of course not. Nelson was charged with second-degree vehicular homicide. Which is insane. She was convicted last week. When she’s sentenced later this month, she could spend more time in jail than the man who struck and killed her son. The prosecutor will say he was just enforcing the law. The jury will say they were just applying it. Both are excuses to duck responsibility (prosecutors can decline to bring charges, juries can nullify). But if both are true, then the time to prevent unjust the unjust application of well-intentioned laws is to anticipate those applications while the laws are being written and proposed. That means interpreting the most ridiculous, merciless, farfetched possible applications of the law, then assuming that somewhere, some prosecutor will attempt to apply the law in exactly those ways.

That should be branded with a hot iron, right square into the forehead, of every mouth breathing idiot that goes around bleating:

"Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

[dannno]

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/googleview.jpg

Hmmmmm...

This is a tough one. If the driver wasn't really speeding, how could you not see the car coming before crossing? It does seem like there may be some negligence on the part of the mother. That said, it was an accident and she lost her child. Seems like punishment enough to me.

[amy31416]

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/googleview.jpg

Hmmmmm...

This is a tough one. If the driver wasn't really speeding, how could you not see the car coming? It does seem like there may be some negligence on the part of the mother.

I daresay that any mother with three children in tow is somehow legally negligent, it seems that it'd be impossible to keep them all under control unless they were constantly restrained--which is also illegal.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

[jmdrake]

Well if the state can send you to prison as a felon for spanking then it should be able to send you to prison for putting your child in danger by crossing the street where they could possibly get hit. Of course I think the spanking felony was beyond stupid also.

[jmdrake]

Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

Did you not read the article? From the article.

Guy will serve six months for killing the boy, but Nelson will serve up to 36 months – just for crossing the street with her child. Yes, it’s true: they were not in a crosswalk. Are there any crosswalks on that street at all?

Hitchcock at the AJC says:

The conviction does not sit well with Sally Flocks, president and CEO of PEDS, a pedestrian advocacy organization.

“Invest the money in safe crossings,” Flocks said. “For the costs of the trial yesterday, they could have made a safe crossing. But they don’t want to do that.”

The Atlanta-Sandy-Springs-Marietta, Georgia metro area ranks 11th in the country for most dangerous streets for pedestrians, according to Transportation for America’s recent report on pedestrian safety and street design. The region had nearly 800 pedestrian deaths between 2000 and 2009.

Despite the fact that Atlanta-area municipalities continue to build roads, like the one where Nelson’s son was killed, with inadequate pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, and despite the fact that the federal government continues to vastly underfund pedestrian safety infrastructure on federally-funded roads and highways, the courts have pointed the finger at Nelson, blaming her for the death of her son on a road that was designed with no regard for pedestrian safety.

It's not jaywalking if there isn't a crosswalk.

[Danke]

I daresay that any mother with three children in tow is somehow legally negligent, it seems that it'd be impossible to keep them all under control unless they were constantly restrained--which is also illegal.

Time to add another item to your account wishlist:

http://sportsandmeat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/kid-leash.jpg

[amy31416]

Time to add another item to your account wishlist:

http://sportsandmeat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/kid-leash.jpg

Pfft, I'll just use the actual dog harness. I'm frugal like that.

[Rael]

Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

I leaning toward your way of thinking on this one. I have seen lots of pedestrians who cross busy roads, and they don't even bother to hurry. They just mosey on across the road as if they own it. Pedestrians may have the right of way, but your right of way isn't worth shit if you are dead.

[Rael]

Pfft, I'll just use the actual dog harness. I'm frugal like that.

My mom used something like that with my little brother, except it attached to his wrist. She used it in places like the mall. One time in the mall, some lady muttered "He's not a DOG." under her breath. My mom turned around and said "EXCUSE ME? What was that?" and the lady was like "OH! Nothing!" and quickly moved on. Got a good laugh out of it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Did you not read the article? From the article.

Guy will serve six months for killing the boy, but Nelson will serve up to 36 months – just for crossing the street with her child. Yes, it’s true: they were not in a crosswalk. Are there any crosswalks on that street at all?

Hitchcock at the AJC says:

The conviction does not sit well with Sally Flocks, president and CEO of PEDS, a pedestrian advocacy organization.

“Invest the money in safe crossings,” Flocks said. “For the costs of the trial yesterday, they could have made a safe crossing. But they don’t want to do that.”

The Atlanta-Sandy-Springs-Marietta, Georgia metro area ranks 11th in the country for most dangerous streets for pedestrians, according to Transportation for America’s recent report on pedestrian safety and street design. The region had nearly 800 pedestrian deaths between 2000 and 2009.

Despite the fact that Atlanta-area municipalities continue to build roads, like the one where Nelson’s son was killed, with inadequate pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, and despite the fact that the federal government continues to vastly underfund pedestrian safety infrastructure on federally-funded roads and highways, the courts have pointed the finger at Nelson, blaming her for the death of her son on a road that was designed with no regard for pedestrian safety.

It's not jaywalking if there isn't a crosswalk.


Maybe it's just me, but I won't cross the street if there isn't a cross walk and the street is busy. Unless the car was speeding, I'm not sure how the mother could've missed it.

[dannno]

I daresay that any mother with three children in tow is somehow legally negligent, it seems that it'd be impossible to keep them all under control unless they were constantly restrained--which is also illegal.

Did you see the edit to my post? I don't think she should be held legally negligent, I just think that it is possible they could transfer some of the negligence from the driver onto the mother because it may not have been the drivers fault. Maybe a sober driver would have done the same amount of damage. I have no idea, of course, but it's a plausible scenario.

The negligence that gets transferred to the mother doesn't need to turn into any sort of criminal issue. She wasn't trying to endanger her child.

[dannno]

Maybe it's just me, but I won't cross the street if there isn't a cross walk and the street is busy. Unless the car was speeding, I'm not sure how the mother could've missed it.

What do you do? Setup a tent and camp over there? Build a new house on that side of the road and call it home?

I have nothing against people crossing streets, just be careful and know that the car coming towards you may be going much faster or slower than it appears. Be ESPECIALLY careful if you have kids.

[LibForestPaul]

Who in the government has been tried and sentenced regarding the dangerous road without a crosswalk?

[Carehn]

Poor kid.

[flightlesskiwi]

Sounds to me like the State is trying to make an example of the woman.

Whatever the scenario, maybe she was distracted, maybe the driver was impaired. Regardless, do you really think a mother of a dead child needs to be kicked and beaten by the State when she's already down?

i cannot imagine the amount of grief the woman is already in.

this country is insane.

[Carehn]

Who in the government has been tried and sentenced regarding the dangerous road without a crosswalk?

http://mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Human-and-Economic-Factors-The-P581.aspx

[DamianTV]

Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

Just be careful of what you wish for. A government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything away.

[Lucille]

The mom was on the Today Show this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mom-convicted-son-jaywalking-death-never-end-151356884.html

[fisharmor]

For some reason, I'm reminded that one can get several times the amount of time in prison for selling a plant.
If it's a particular species of cactus or mushroom, that can go up to 20 years, I hear.
So yeah, it makes perfect sense that the mother who crossed the road is going to prison, absolutely.


I don't think the message has ever been clearer than it is here: the state thinks that when you're drunk you're not responsible for what you do.
That is the only reason to have the drunk driving laws to begin with. If you take the booze out of the equation, that guy might be doing some hard time, and the mother would go free.
But since he wasn't in control of his actions, he became an act of God that the woman should have anticipated. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't agree with it, it just makes perfect sense.
Sure, he's getting punished for getting behind the wheel while drunk, but not for anything else.

[squarepusher]

Whoa, the women was black! Now this seems to make more sense on why the hard punishment.

AFAIK, what she did was legal, crossing the road wise. There is no J-Walking rules in that state. I wasn't there, so I can't say if she was really being negligent, or if it was just the drunk driver.

[flightlesskiwi]

For some reason, I'm reminded that one can get several times the amount of time in prison for selling a plant.
If it's a particular species of cactus or mushroom, that can go up to 20 years, I hear.
So yeah, it makes perfect sense that the mother who crossed the road is going to prison, absolutely.


I don't think the message has ever been clearer than it is here: the state thinks that when you're drunk you're not responsible for what you do.
That is the only reason to have the drunk driving laws to begin with. If you take the booze out of the equation, that guy might be doing some hard time, and the mother would go free.
But since he wasn't in control of his actions, he became an act of God that the woman should have anticipated. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't agree with it, it just makes perfect sense.
Sure, he's getting punished for getting behind the wheel while drunk, but not for anything else.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”

Ayn Rand

and, yeah, your "act of God" logic. it's disturbing precisely because it makes sense.:(

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

She isn't being tried for getting her daughter killed. She's being tried for killing a potential taxpayer.

[swiftfoxmark2]

Good news! she gets probation (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15147393/ga-woman-to-be-sentenced-for-childs-accident):


A woman whose 4-year-old son was struck by a van and killed while the family was attempting to cross a busy Cobb County street was sentenced to 12 months probation.

Raquel Nelson was sentenced in Cobb County Superior Court on Tuesday on a vehicular homicide charge, but was also given the opportunity to request a new trial instead.

An attorney for Nelson, 30, said she and her children were crossing a street last April after getting off a bus in the city of Austell, three-tenths of a mile from a crosswalk. The attorney says Nelson's daughter and son bolted from a median as a van approached.

All three were struck by a van, slightly injuring Nelson and her daughter but killing her son, AJ Newman.

The driver, Jerry Guy, pleaded guilty to hit-and-run and served a six-month sentence.

Guy previously spent time in jail nine times, mostly on traffic charges. In the late 90s he was sentenced to two years in prison for two hit-and-run accidents, neither of which were fatal.

Nelson said she would not decide today whether she'd ask for a new trial.

The Solicitor General's office also wouldn't say if it would prosecute the new case, should Nelson decide to ask for the trial.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/googleview.jpg

Hmmmmm...

This is a tough one. If the driver wasn't really speeding, how could you not see the car coming before crossing? It does seem like there may be some negligence on the part of the mother. That said, it was an accident and she lost her child. Seems like punishment enough to me.

Agreed. No prosecution is necessary. The "punishment" is already built into the equation by nature.


Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

I don't agree with prosecuting her for jaywalking, but I agree with your venting. It's a pet peeve of mine how people with children seem to think that because they have kids it's some kind of special privilege, an indestructible shield. I have had people with strollers, both men and women, walk right out into traffic in front of me, without making eye contact first, without even looking both ways. What if I just happened to be glancing at something else at that moment? Maybe a cop car or fire truck with lights flashing? Their special privilege won't save them in that case. Not to just pick on parents, old folks do it all the time too. They probably just don't care anymore. Teenagers also like to do it, but they tend to keep a sideways eye out, just in case someone calls their bluff.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think the message has ever been clearer than it is here: the state thinks that when you're drunk you're not responsible for what you do. But since he wasn't in control of his actions, he became an act of God that the woman should have anticipated. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't agree with it, it just makes perfect sense.

It is almost an act of God. What if she walks out in front of a big rig that can't stop? How about a freight train? Is stepping out in front of a driver at night any different than those cases? Is it unreasonable to anticipate that the driver might not see you?

[brushfire]

Good thing there's a prosecutor there - to really show mommy what happens when you let your kid get killed by a car.

Give me a freak'n break... Prison time should definitely augment the punishment of having your child killed before your very eyes. I'm sure those lessons will also serve the surviving children as well.

Way to go... more government win... /sarcasm

[HOLLYWOOD]

I'm wondering if the state is protecting the Insurance companies? If everyone's guilty, no payments to anyone.

[junkmonkey]

Forgive me for what may seem cold hearted. GOOD!

As someone who has to deal with people jaywalking with absolutely no regard for traffic EVERY DAY, it's about time something is done about it.

The amount of people crossing a 5 lane road with a 45 MPH speed limit with BABY STROLLERS IN FRONT OF CARS is insane here in Charlotte.

Maybe if someone is convicted of being ignorant, it may change the entitlement mentality of those who think they can cross what amount to highways any place they want.

Should I get started on how many cars have tried to run me over at crosswalks? You folks are just as irresponsible. Cars feel entitled to go where they want, when they want. And it doesnt matter whats in the way. SUV drivers are even more arrogant.

[AFPVet]

CNN just posted the sentencing today. The mother will not be serving any jail time; however, it did not say what punishment she will receive in lieu.

[Lucille]

Good news! she gets probation (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15147393/ga-woman-to-be-sentenced-for-childs-accident):

Thanks for the update! I'm glad to hear it.



The possibility that Nelson could have spent more time in prison than the driver outraged many in Cobb and across the country.

Nelson shared her story to CNN and NBC's Today Show before the sentencing. A petition was circulated requesting Nelson not be sentenced to jail time.

The Facebook page for the Cobb County Solicitor General's office contains dozens of comments critical of the solicitor Barry Morgan.

"You should hang your head in shame, Mr. Morgan," wrote Tina.

Robert wrote, "As a lawyer I'm embarrassed for the mockery you have made of our profession and the concept of justice."

The Solicitor General's office wouldn't respond to the comments or say if it would prosecute the new case, should Nelson decide to ask for the trial.

Nelson said she would not decide today whether she'd ask for a new trial.