Drunk driver kills kid, but mom faced more jail time for son's death

[aGameOfThrones]

Our friends at HLN are discussing a story out of Marietta, Georgia about a mother who is facing two years of jail time after her 4-year-old son was hit and killed by a drunk driver while she and her children were crossing the street. Now, hopefully you're asking yourself how it is that the mother of a boy slain after being hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street could be facing jail time at all, and the answer is because "she chose to cross the street at the bus stop, instead of the nearest crosswalk, three-tenths of a mile away.

In July 2011, the mom in question, Raquel Nelson (pictured left with her now deceased son), "was convicted of … three misdemeanors: second-degree homicide by a vehicle, crossing roadway elsewhere than a crosswalk and reckless conduct." She received a sentence of one year probation and 40 hours of community service, but has chosen a retrial which begins today. According to HLN, "She now faces up to two years behind bars."

The driver, Jerry Guy, "fled the scene after the accident but later admitted being involved, according to CNN affiliate WXIA-TV. He was sentenced to five years in prison but served only six months. He is serving the remainder of the sentence on probation," CNN noted in July of 2011. Nelson's son A.J. died in April 2010. This woman has been on trial for three years while grieving for the death of her son in what was an accident caused by a drunk driver. If Nelson were to be ticketed at all, to be made an example of (because she's a black single mother and American society loves to make an example of black single mothers), the only charge that seems reasonable in this case is "crossing roadway elsewhere than a crosswalk." There's no doubt that pedestrians need to obey rules and watch out for their own safety, but as Nelson's attorney, David Savoy, suggested, "the white stripes of a crosswalk are not impenetrable walls of steel that could have prevented a driver from striking someone crossing the street."

The idea that Nelson could be convicted of second-degree homicide by a vehicle makes me truly nauseous, because that is passing the buck from Guy to Nelson. Guy was driving the car, Guy was drunk, Guy struck the child and Guy fled. These charges are so, so sadly reflective of America's victim-blaming culture. A child runs out into the street while crossing from the bus stop and is struck by a car and killed. How does it possibly serve anyone to put his mother in jail? She has two other children to take care of.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/mom-faces-more-jail-time-drunk-driver-killed-135900784.html

[Czolgosz]

Every mistake or accident is punishable w/ fines or imprisonment. Love this society.

[dannno]

You know, it's entirely possible that this guy would have hit the child whether he was drunk or not. The mom didn't cross with her child at a crosswalk so it's hard to say how the whole thing played out. Not a huge fan of demonizing somebody who happened to be involved in a traffic incident and also happened to have alcohol in their system when the two COULD POSSIBLY be unrelated.

On the other hand, I don't think this woman should be in prison either. 3/10th of a mile is a long way to walk with a 4 year old and other siblings in tow. Also, it very well could have been the driver's fault, and it could have been because he was drunk. Who knows. Either way, I don't think you could say whose fault it was for certain, I'm pretty sure the mother has already been punished enough though.

[kcchiefs6465]

You know, it's entirely possible that this guy would have hit the child whether he was drunk or not. The mom didn't cross with her child at a crosswalk so it's hard to say how the whole thing played out. Not a huge fan of demonizing somebody who happened to be involved in a traffic incident and also happened to have alcohol in their system when the two COULD POSSIBLY be unrelated.

On the other hand, I don't think this woman should be in prison either. 3/10th of a mile is a long way to walk with a 4 year old and other siblings in tow. Also, it very well could have been the driver's fault, and it could have been because he was drunk. Who knows. Either way, I don't think you could say whose fault it was for certain, I'm pretty sure the mother has already been punished enough though.
This.

[jclay2]

You would think suffering through the death of your own son from an involuntary event would be "punishment" enough.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

You know, it's entirely possible that this guy would have hit the child whether he was drunk or not. The mom didn't cross with her child at a crosswalk so it's hard to say how the whole thing played out. Not a huge fan of demonizing somebody who happened to be involved in a traffic incident and also happened to have alcohol in their system when the two COULD POSSIBLY be unrelated.

On the other hand, I don't think this woman should be in prison either. 3/10th of a mile is a long way to walk with a 4 year old and other siblings in tow. Also, it very well could have been the driver's fault, and it could have been because he was drunk. Who knows. Either way, I don't think you could say whose fault it was for certain, I'm pretty sure the mother has already been punished enough though.

Good points.

Crosswalk laws are bullshit anyway because they presuppose that people are too stupid to cross a street. The possibility of a car killing you is waaaay more of a deterrent than some law about how and where to walk.

[tod evans]

Another prosecutor added to "The-List"..:mad:

[heavenlyboy34]

Good points.

Crosswalk laws are bullshit anyway because they presuppose that people are too stupid to cross a street. The possibility of a car killing you is waaaay more of a deterrent than some law about how and where to walk.
That^^ Plus, pedestrians have the right-of-way anyway (at least they do in my state).

[Christian Liberty]

I don't care whether the alcohol was related or not, if you're driving drunk, and somebody dies... this is why we NEED DWI laws. Not checkpoints everywhere, mind you, but if you have alcohol in your system and you kill somebody on the road, this is textbook case of why that law should in fact exist as long as we have public roads.

Alcohol clearly makes you an inferior driver and if somebody dies because of that, its on you.

I'm usually pretty hardline on actual criminals who attack people or property, and I don't think it should be illegal to kill in order to stop theft. But for jaywalking? Sorry, that's just ridiculous. There's no excuse for that to ever happen.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't care whether the alcohol was related or not, if you're driving drunk, and somebody dies... this is why we NEED DWI laws. Not checkpoints everywhere, mind you, but if you have alcohol in your system and you kill somebody on the road, this is textbook case of why that law should in fact exist as long as we have public roads.

Alcohol clearly makes you an inferior driver and if somebody dies because of that, its on you.

I'm usually pretty hardline on actual criminals who attack people or property, and I don't think it should be illegal to kill in order to stop theft. But for jaywalking? Sorry, that's just ridiculous. There's no excuse for that to ever happen.
Who's to say alcohol played a role in the accident?

[tod evans]

I don't care whether the alcohol was related or not, if you're driving drunk, and somebody dies... this is why we NEED DWI laws.

I wholeheartedly disagree!

There were plenty of charges that reflect the crime of involuntary/negligent homicide without specific DWI laws that can be twisted and manipulated by unscrupulous prosecutors and cops, not to mention played by politicians.

There is absolutely no need for DWI laws whatsoever!

[TheTexan]

That^^ Plus, pedestrians have the right-of-way anyway (at least they do in my state).

I'm more of a subscriber of "the bigger object has right of way" school of thought.

[Origanalist]

I'm more of a subscriber of "the bigger object has right of way" school of thought.

That works pretty well for me too.

[TheTexan]

On the other hand, I don't think this woman should be in prison either.

She shouldn't be in prison because it was clearly an accident. It was a dumb accident, for sure, but I don't think people should be thrown in jail for stupidity.

[kcchiefs6465]

Freedomfanatic.. check this out.


She and her three children had just stepped off a bus at a stop in Marietta late on the night of April 10, 2010 to return to her apartment complex across the street. Nelson led her children to a median instead of walking to a crosswalk three-tenths of a mile away, according to court records, when her daughter darted safely across the street and her son tried to follow.

That's when he was fatally struck by an oncoming van driven by Jerry Guy, who had been drinking earlier in the day while taking pain medication, was partially blind and had two previous hit-and-run convictions from 1997, records show.

The decision to prosecute Guy, who fled the scene, was an easy one. He pleaded guilty to hit-and-run charges and was sentenced to six months in prison. But the move to charge Nelson, the grieving mother devastated by her son's death, struck many as an overreach.

Prosecutors didn't make any arguments at Tuesday's hearing, an unusual move that surprised observers. But the Cobb County Solicitor's Office said in a motion that Guy wasn't to blame for A.J.'s death and that he was only charged because he fled the scene after the accident.

"The officers determined that A.J. was killed because his mother walked with him into the roadway under unsafe conditions," the filing said. "Another driver could have just as easily been the one that hit A.J. In fact, there is evidence that another driver did almost hit the group after the collision."
hxx p://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/raquel-nelson-jaywalking-death-charges-georgia_n_1432177.html


That other article is biased bullshit. (not this one isn't either, just less)

For instance: Now this is from "babble.com", the link in the OP,

If Nelson were to be ticketed at all, to be made an example of (because she's a black single mother and American society loves to make an example of black single mothers), the only charge that seems reasonable in this case is "crossing roadway elsewhere than a crosswalk."
GTFOH.

[kcchiefs6465]

She shouldn't be in prison because it was clearly an accident. It was a dumb accident, for sure, but I don't think people should be thrown in jail for stupidity.
Yes, it was a very unfortunate accident. I am sure the mother suffered enough with the loss of her son.

This case reminds me of when you are waiting to cross a busy road and an opening opens up. One of your friends takes off to make it across and you kind of hesitate. Sometimes you run behind your friend or sometimes you wait til the next opening. The four year old ran behind his sister after she ran from the median to the other side of the road and he got hit. All around tragedy. That drinking had nothing to do with, I'd add.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I'm more of a subscriber of "the bigger object has right of way" school of thought.



Me too. I accept the same at crosswalks. Right of way and other legal stuff means nothing while a car is running over you.

[Christian Liberty]

I wholeheartedly disagree!

There were plenty of charges that reflect the crime of involuntary/negligent homicide without specific DWI laws that can be twisted and manipulated by unscrupulous prosecutors and cops, not to mention played by politicians.

There is absolutely no need for DWI laws whatsoever!

Yeah, I disagree with you on this. Although I don't necessarily agree with the DWI laws as written. I don't have any particular opinion on what the limit should be since I have no idea how much alcohol affects a person in what ways. I do think that if you kill someone while under the influence of alcohol you should be charged with murder, because you were an absolute total idiot who didn't consider the danger to human life when you got behind a wheel.


Yes, it was a very unfortunate accident. I am sure the mother suffered enough with the loss of her son.

This case reminds me of when you are waiting to cross a busy road and an opening opens up. One of your friends takes off to make it across and you kind of hesitate. Sometimes you run behind your friend or sometimes you wait til the next opening. The four year old ran behind his sister after she ran from the median to the other side of the road and he got hit. All around tragedy. That drinking had nothing to do with, I'd add.

I don't know how you can possibly know that the drink had nothing to do with it.. Apparenty he was "Partially blind" as well, whatever that means.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't know how you can possibly know that the drink had nothing to do with it.. Apparenty he was "Partially blind" as well, whatever that means.
I don't know how you can possibly know that the drink had anything to do with it, but still the law is justified in your eyes by this case.


Prosecutors didn't make any arguments at Tuesday's hearing, an unusual move that surprised observers. But the Cobb County Solicitor's Office said in a motion that Guy wasn't to blame for A.J.'s death and that he was only charged because he fled the scene after the accident.

"The officers determined that A.J. was killed because his mother walked with him into the roadway under unsafe conditions," the filing said. "Another driver could have just as easily been the one that hit A.J. In fact, there is evidence that another driver did almost hit the group after the collision."
It was most likely a six lane road. (divided by the median) Cars were coming, his sister ran out knowing she could beat the traffic. The brother hesitated (probably) then followed. It is a tragedy. Not the fault of the man who had a few drinks earlier.

[kcchiefs6465]

In fact if he hadn't fled the scene he wouldn't have been charged with anything.

[kcchiefs6465]

Babbling, Mother Jones, MADD propaganda.

You can tell how they say the mother faces more time than the man who'd been drinking that hit her child. Not to mention some lame excuse that America tries to demonize black women. Huh?

[John F Kennedy III]

Why are the crosswalks so far apart?

[John F Kennedy III]

Yeah, I disagree with you on this. Although I don't necessarily agree with the DWI laws as written. I don't have any particular opinion on what the limit should be since I have no idea how much alcohol affects a person in what ways. I do think that if you kill someone while under the influence of alcohol you should be charged with murder, because you were an absolute total idiot who didn't consider the danger to human life when you got behind a wheel.



I don't know how you can possibly know that the drink had nothing to do with it.. Apparenty he was "Partially blind" as well, whatever that means.

I don't know how you could possibly know the drink DID have something to do with it.

[tod evans]

Yeah, I disagree with you on this. Although I don't necessarily agree with the DWI laws as written. I don't have any particular opinion on what the limit should be since I have no idea how much alcohol affects a person in what ways. I do think that if you kill someone while under the influence of alcohol you should be charged with murder, because you were an absolute total idiot who didn't consider the danger to human life when you got behind a wheel.


Do you harbor the same views for people who accidently kill another while under the influence of prescription drugs?

How about sleep deprived?

Emotionally unstable?

Anger issues?

Authority defiance issues?

Marijuana?

Other "illegal" drugs?

Legal "drugs"?


Or is this irrational obsession with government propaganda limited to booze?



[edit]

Come to think of it you and I have had this conversation before.

It's apparent that MADD literature is the only research you done, if any, since we last spoke..

Please do yourself a big favor and step out of the box and try looking at things in a different light..

[John F Kennedy III]

I know someone who would drive while so drunk they would literally fall down and pass out before taking 2 steps out of the car. Totally SHITFACED he would drive better than you'd think a sober person would be capable of.

Drunk driving laws are BULLSHIT.

We're not picking on you FreedomFanatic. Please stick around and learn why we feel the way we do. I can tell you mean well.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you harbor the same views for people who accidently kill another while under the influence of prescription drugs?

How about sleep deprived?

Emotionally unstable?

Anger issues?

Authority defiance issues?

Marijuana?

Other "illegal" drugs?

Legal "drugs"?


Or is this irrational obsession with government propaganda limited to booze?

I've never been in favor of legalizing driving while under the influence of drugs. Sleep deprivation, anger, that sort of thing is clearly different. Caffeine (Technically a drug) actually makes you more awake and so is also different.

To be clear, I'm not saying they should be randomly checking people to see if they are drunk. I'm saying if you drive in such a way that harms or endangers (reckless driving) others, and you do that because you're drunk to the point where you're not in proper control of your actions, there should be additional sanctions for that careless endangering of others.




[edit]

Come to think of it you and I have had this conversation before.

It's apparent that MADD literature is the only research you done, if any, since we last spoke..

Please do yourself a big favor and step out of the box and try looking at things in a different light..

I haven't really done any.

I know someone who would drive while so drunk they would literally fall down and pass out before taking 2 steps out of the car. Totally SHITFACED he would drive better than you'd think a sober person would be capable of.

Drunk driving laws are BULLSHIT.

We're not picking on you FreedomFanatic. Please stick around and learn why we feel the way we do. I can tell you mean well.

If she was driving fine, she SHOULDN'T have an issue. Random checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment.

My ultimate belief is that roads should be privatized and owners should make their own rules. So if you take the typical libertarian position on the issue, we really only disagree on what is the least bad option under a regime of public road ownership, not what should actually be done as a final solution.

For the record, I'm not particularly tied to this issue. I'm much more afraid of government than I am of anyone else. But pretty much the first question I'm asked whenever I say anything about legalizing drugs is usually something about "At least you agree with us that it should be illegal to DRIVE while using drugs." To say no to that one is to pretty much lose the debate.

I will also say, to both of you, I don't know everything. Not trying to be cocky, but I honestly do know more than any other 18 year old I've ever seen. But not nearly as much as I'd like to. I still have far more to learn than I will ever have time for in a lifetime, and I'm still learning every day. I could well be wrong on this or any other topic.

[TheTexan]

I've never been in favor of legalizing driving while under the influence of drugs. Sleep deprivation, anger, that sort of thing is clearly different.

Driving sleep deprived is just as if not way more dangerous than drunk driving. How's it different?

Why is that if you choose to consume two alcoholic beverages and then choose to get behind the wheel, you are a threat to public safety and should be thrown in jail,

but if you choose to go without sleep for two days and then choose to get behind the wheel, you are FAR more a threat to public safety, but "it's ok, that's different"

[tod evans]

Hell man I'm old enough to be your grandpa and I'm still learnin'...

Keep on, but please never vote for more laws...

[Christian Liberty]

Driving sleep deprived is just as if not way more dangerous than drunk driving. How's it different?

Why is that if you choose to consume two alcoholic beverages and then choose to get behind the wheel, you are a threat to public safety and should be thrown in jail,

but if you choose to go without sleep for two days and then choose to get behind the wheel, you are FAR more a threat to public safety, but "it's ok, that's different"

First, I didn't say "jail". I don't support the prison-industrial complex. I said some form of "punishment" for lack of a better word.

Second of all, here's the thing, I guess. Accidents do happen on the road, and that's unavoidable, but there are some risks you just shouldn't take with someone else's life. Its impossible to really regulate sleep deprivation. But it is possible to test for drunkenness.

There are some accidents where someone is responsible, and others where noone is responsible. If you're driving drunk, you're automatically at least having some degree of responsibilty since you chose to drive with an altered mind.

[Christian Liberty]

Hell man I'm old enough to be your grandpa and I'm still learnin'...

Keep on, but please never vote for more laws...

I don't think I can. Drunk driving is already illegal anyway. Ideally, it wouldn't be because the roads would be privatized. The only "New" law I can think of that I support other than laws that regulate politicians are anti-abortion laws, and even then that should be state level and won't happen.

I oppose the vast majority of laws and government that we have today.

[TheTexan]

There are some accidents where someone is responsible, and others where noone is responsible. If you're driving drunk, you're automatically at least having some degree of responsibilty since you chose to drive with an altered mind.

Are you not choosing to drive with an altered mind when you choose to drive sleep deprived?

[tod evans]

First, I didn't say "jail". I don't support the prison-industrial complex. I said some form of "punishment" for lack of a better word.

Second of all, here's the thing, I guess. Accidents do happen on the road, and that's unavoidable, but there are some risks you just shouldn't take with someone else's life. Its impossible to really regulate sleep deprivation. But it is possible to test for drunkenness.

There are some accidents where someone is responsible, and others where noone is responsible. If you're driving drunk, you're automatically at least having some degree of responsibilty since you chose to drive with an altered mind.

It's possible today to test for a plethora of "drugs" not just booze, and what with the new genetic stuff out there predisposition for anger issues could even be argued effectively in court...

That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do!

[Christian Liberty]

Honestly, the solution to all of this is to privatize the roads and let the market figure it out. Without that, we're really just trying to figure out a market outcome without a market incentive, which is really just a waste of time. That's ultimately the bottom line...

[TheTexan]

Honestly, the solution to all of this is to privatize the roads and let the market figure it out. Without that, we're really just trying to figure out a market outcome without a market incentive, which is really just a waste of time. That's ultimately the bottom line...

Agreed

[parocks]

That works pretty well for me too.

In Maine, if someone wants to cross the street at a crosswalk, cars have to stop for them. Not at a stop sign or a light, but anywhere there's a crosswalk. When you're driving, you have to pay attention to the sidewalks where there's a crosswalk, because pedestrians will, and do, walk right out in front of you. It is not an unusual occurrence to see stopped cars when someone is crossing at the sidewalk.

[noneedtoaggress]

For the record, I'm not particularly tied to this issue. I'm much more afraid of government than I am of anyone else. But pretty much the first question I'm asked whenever I say anything about legalizing drugs is usually something about "At least you agree with us that it should be illegal to DRIVE while using drugs." To say no to that one is to pretty much lose the debate.

It sounds like one of the reasons you're holding that position is due to social pressure. Don't worry about pleasing people so much, just worry about how your principles fit in with your view. Don't worry so much about debating people or choosing your views based on whether people will listen to you or not. It's better to have integrity, and debating is confrontational and you shouldn't really worry about trying to convince the person you're arguing with so much as building a better understanding of your own conceptual framework.


There are some accidents where someone is responsible, and others where noone is responsible. If you're driving drunk, you're automatically at least having some degree of responsibilty since you chose to drive with an altered mind.

There are a million things that can "alter your mind" to some degree. Caffeine is a "mind-altering" drug, the issue is reckless driving.

You're making the case that driving perfectly fine while having either caffeine or alcohol in your system, that if someone who simply wasn't paying attention ran a red and crashed into you, you're "automatically" responsible to some degree.

[LibForestPaul]

First, I didn't say "jail". I don't support the prison-industrial complex. I said some form of "punishment" for lack of a better word.

Second of all, here's the thing, I guess. Accidents do happen on the road, and that's unavoidable, but there are some risks you just shouldn't take with someone else's life. Its impossible to really regulate sleep deprivation. But it is possible to test for drunkenness.

There are some accidents where someone is responsible, and others where noone is responsible. If you're driving drunk, you're automatically at least having some degree of responsibilty since you chose to drive with an altered mind.

Why do you believe, falsley, that is not possible to really regulate sleep deprivation?