March 28, 2009

"Lost ... control of the van"? I don't think so.

"A 29-year-old pregnant woman [Ysemny Ramos] was killed Friday in Manhattan when a van driver who was catcalling her and a co-worker lost control and plowed into them, police sources and witnesses said.... Cops arrested Keston Brown, 27, of the Bronx, and charged him with driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. Sources said Brown... was flirting with the women while driving by them. When they spurned him, he lost his temper — and control of the van, they said."

17 comments:

Buford Gooch said...

Lost control, but not of the vn.

Buford Gooch said...

VAN

Peter V. Bella said...

I read this earlier too and found the "ost control of the van" hard to believe. We just have to wait and see of NYPD eventually charges him with two counts murder or vehicular homicides- one for her and one for the unborn child.

Maguro said...

To describe this jackass as "flirting" with the women seems pretty generous too...what he was up to sounded more like "verbal harassment" to me. I hope they lock his ass up for a long time.

Shannon said...

People don't kill people. Vans kill people.

Oligonicella said...

What the drunk was doing is inexcusable on a number of levels. I have no pity for whatever happens to him.

Big Mike said...

For a number of years I've been wishing that the law would treat someone who killed or injured another person while under the influence of alcohol -- or any other drug -- as if they were cold sober and deliberately committed the action that resulted in death or injury. Might crowd up the prisons but would certainly remove dangerous people from the roads.

I suppose the law professor will explain why I am wrong, and perhaps I am. But I've had a son get whiplash while stopped at a traffic light from a drunken female attorney -- at 7:00 AM.

john said...

Big Mike - There is a difference between aggravating and mitigating. Driving when drunk and killing someone is usually an aggravating factor in court, and I certainly expect the city or county attorney would pursue this. Many people mistakenly think drunkeness is a mitigating factor.

traditionalguy said...

There is no excuse for actions taken drunken that are intentional acts. This ramming the van into the victems car was an intentional act. The Involuntary Homocide charge carries 5 years, and applies where the drunken person "had an accident." that is a hard line to find, but the DAs tend to react to the status of the victim's family locally and their complaint level. If they are forgiving, then the DA tends to settle for the Involuntary plea with 5 years which means 3 years served. Why destroy another life totally, if it was stupid rather than Malevolent actions? In this case, the Wm. Zantzinger defense and quick plea to lesser offense probably will not be allowed.The Jury will decide which charge sticks after a trial. Due process of law is in # 14, you know.

Quayle said...

OJ lost control of the knife in his hand.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

The pictures make me want to cry.

But this makes me want to laugh:

"He's about to get married [to his pregnant 'fiancée'] in June," said the sister.... "He was family-oriented. It was always all about the family."

Except that it's so horrifying.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

ust once I want to see a post-event article about one of these scum buckets that doesn't include the infrence that they were 'just about to trun their life around'.

You what I mean; the punk gets shot at 3:00am robbing a quickie mart, and the first words in treh article are "So sad; today was teh day he was going to register for college- he was just about to turn his life around".

Yeah, like any of us buy that crap.

dick said...

This is terrible but at least I hope that this will act as a wake-up call to the girl friend to get rid of this loser. Does she really want to tie her life up with this guy?

Peter V. Bella said...

I suppose the law professor will explain why I am wrong, and perhaps I am.

I can only speak from my experience as a police officer in Chicago. Illinois DUI laws are a sham. They only exist to make the DUI lawyers rich. For every stringent law, there is a very generous loophole. The reports are tailored and designed for defense attorneys so you are handicapped from the get go. Criminal reports are way simpler- a murder report takes about an hour. To process a DUI and write the reports takes about two to three hours. As to felony DUI laws, they are a waste of time as we have felony review; they refuse to approve most felony DUI charges unless there was a serious injury or death from an accident.

blake said...

Big Mike,

I suggested the same thing in the legal marijuana thread. You could clear space in the jails by removing the people who were in for drugs but hadn't hurt anyone.

john,

I think what we're talking about is that if you go out under the influence whatever follows should be considered calculated. (I'm pretty sure that's not the case now since I know people who have killed someone while DUI who didn't get a first degree murder charge.)

john said...

Blake - I partly agree. As a prosecutor told me once, to drive while drunk is evidence to them of a willful disregard for human life. Of course, that doesn't imply killing someone drunk is first degree murder, but it does indicate an aggravating condition and the DA will likely charge on something greater than vehicular involuntary manslaughter.

holdfast said...

Peter - what you write is consistent with what cop friends have told me. You see all those scary commercials but unless you hurt someone, you can usually get away with a fine and maybe a short license suspension.