7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

In Virginia, a person with a learners permit is NOT required to be included on your insurance as a driver, and the charges do not go up while you have a permit. The person who is the licensed SUPERVISING driver (supervising the permit holder) and/or the owner of the car carry the insurance.


You are wrong, PP. Just admit it. As far as the law is concerned, in VIRGINIA, Shahid is Not a "licensed driver".

Per the VIRGINIA DMV: "A learner’s permit allows individuals to practice driving with a licensed driver."

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply#:~:text=A%20learner's%20permit%20allows%20individuals%20to%20practice%20driving%20with%20a%20licensed%20driver.

You are both wrong. In Virginia, drivers/owners can pay $500. to NOT have insurance. This will change on July 1, 2024:

https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2024/04/23/all-virginia-drivers-will-be-required-to-have-car-insurance-by-july-1/

Insane. Why did VA ever allow this? People can sue for so much even for a small fender bender. If you don't insure your car you shouldn't be able to sue for future imagined damage to yourself and cars. People file fraudulent lawsuits all the time making up illnesses and counting made up future problems and they don't even have insurance.

Exactly. Thtat is why it is changing, finally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

In Virginia, a person with a learners permit is NOT required to be included on your insurance as a driver, and the charges do not go up while you have a permit. The person who is the licensed SUPERVISING driver (supervising the permit holder) and/or the owner of the car carry the insurance.


You are wrong, PP. Just admit it. As far as the law is concerned, in VIRGINIA, Shahid is Not a "licensed driver".

Per the VIRGINIA DMV: "A learner’s permit allows individuals to practice driving with a licensed driver."

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply#:~:text=A%20learner's%20permit%20allows%20individuals%20to%20practice%20driving%20with%20a%20licensed%20driver.

You are both wrong. In Virginia, drivers/owners can pay $500. to NOT have insurance. This will change on July 1, 2024:

https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2024/04/23/all-virginia-drivers-will-be-required-to-have-car-insurance-by-july-1/

BUT, I imagine since Shahid's family lives in an apartment, the BMW was financed, therefore a lien exists on the vehicle, therefor there is at least some insurance on the vehicle.

And, if the insurance company wants to play hardball, they can deny coverage to the Shahid's, since Usman was not yet a licensed driver, and did not meet the requirements of having an adult in the car with them. There seems to be no house to put a lien on to meet any liability payments.

How is this known? Also, there could be other assets seized. Unless the family used the time between the accident and now to hide them.

One of the newscasts had a reporter knock on the parent's apartment door, but it is extremely easy to find out if there are properties in the family, or if there were at the time of the accident. I did not look that part up, but I imagine people don't leave their existing house to live in an apartment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

In Virginia, a person with a learners permit is NOT required to be included on your insurance as a driver, and the charges do not go up while you have a permit. The person who is the licensed SUPERVISING driver (supervising the permit holder) and/or the owner of the car carry the insurance.


You are wrong, PP. Just admit it. As far as the law is concerned, in VIRGINIA, Shahid is Not a "licensed driver".

Per the VIRGINIA DMV: "A learner’s permit allows individuals to practice driving with a licensed driver."

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply#:~:text=A%20learner's%20permit%20allows%20individuals%20to%20practice%20driving%20with%20a%20licensed%20driver.

You are both wrong. In Virginia, drivers/owners can pay $500. to NOT have insurance. This will change on July 1, 2024:

https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2024/04/23/all-virginia-drivers-will-be-required-to-have-car-insurance-by-july-1/

Insane. Why did VA ever allow this? People can sue for so much even for a small fender bender. If you don't insure your car you shouldn't be able to sue for future imagined damage to yourself and cars. People file fraudulent lawsuits all the time making up illnesses and counting made up future problems and they don't even have insurance.

Exactly. Thtat is why it is changing, finally.

Hopefully they will also mandate subrogation practices, to possibly cut down on lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

In Virginia, a person with a learners permit is NOT required to be included on your insurance as a driver, and the charges do not go up while you have a permit. The person who is the licensed SUPERVISING driver (supervising the permit holder) and/or the owner of the car carry the insurance.


You are wrong, PP. Just admit it. As far as the law is concerned, in VIRGINIA, Shahid is Not a "licensed driver".

Per the VIRGINIA DMV: "A learner’s permit allows individuals to practice driving with a licensed driver."

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply#:~:text=A%20learner's%20permit%20allows%20individuals%20to%20practice%20driving%20with%20a%20licensed%20driver.

You are both wrong. In Virginia, drivers/owners can pay $500. to NOT have insurance. This will change on July 1, 2024:

https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2024/04/23/all-virginia-drivers-will-be-required-to-have-car-insurance-by-july-1/

Insane. Why did VA ever allow this? People can sue for so much even for a small fender bender. If you don't insure your car you shouldn't be able to sue for future imagined damage to yourself and cars. People file fraudulent lawsuits all the time making up illnesses and counting made up future problems and they don't even have insurance.

Exactly. Thtat is why it is changing, finally.

They need to change the cap as well. Any extra fees incurred that are not verifiable by a doctor need to be managed relative to the amount of risk you took to insure yourself or relative to a standard and should be capped based on the injury. Cars don't get totalled at exorbitant prices based on future worth. The max fine is the cost of the car.

[Anonymous]

It's gotten out of control with people trying to cause accidents just so they can sue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

In Virginia, a person with a learners permit is NOT required to be included on your insurance as a driver, and the charges do not go up while you have a permit. The person who is the licensed SUPERVISING driver (supervising the permit holder) and/or the owner of the car carry the insurance.


You are wrong, PP. Just admit it. As far as the law is concerned, in VIRGINIA, Shahid is Not a "licensed driver".

Per the VIRGINIA DMV: "A learner’s permit allows individuals to practice driving with a licensed driver."

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply#:~:text=A%20learner's%20permit%20allows%20individuals%20to%20practice%20driving%20with%20a%20licensed%20driver.

You are both wrong. In Virginia, drivers/owners can pay $500. to NOT have insurance. This will change on July 1, 2024:

https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2024/04/23/all-virginia-drivers-will-be-required-to-have-car-insurance-by-july-1/

Insane. Why did VA ever allow this? People can sue for so much even for a small fender bender. If you don't insure your car you shouldn't be able to sue for future imagined damage to yourself and cars. People file fraudulent lawsuits all the time making up illnesses and counting made up future problems and they don't even have insurance.

Exactly. Thtat is why it is changing, finally.

They need to change the cap as well. Any extra fees incurred that are not verifiable by a doctor need to be managed relative to the amount of risk you took to insure yourself or relative to a standard and should be capped based on the injury. Cars don't get totalled at exorbitant prices based on future worth. The max fine is the cost of the car.

That is not exactly how it works, but I know what you are saying - You can thank CarFax for that.

Good insurance companies know how to scrutinize claims (including "injuries)), and subrogation literally helps prevent excessive lawsuits (checks and balances, as regulated by many states) - but consumers need to lobby the state to mandate subrogation practices. That is one of the only ways excessive lawsuits will be discouraged.

That, and there need to be punishments mandated against those with excessive claims. How many times have you seen someone "fake rear end" another car at a yield/stop/light? Free money for everyone!

[Anonymous]

Ok Channel 4 did just confirm that he only had a permit. Yikes.

In closing arguments, his attorney apparently said that when he saw the light was yellow, his only choice was to accelerate to get through the light. What a bunch of BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense attorney, "Usman had no choice but to speed up to 81 mph in a 35 mph zone to beat the yellow light - its the 4Runner driver's fault and that is all there is to it!" This sounds like a high school mock trial defense - he needs to rot in jail for a long time.

Wait. Is that an actual quote from the defense atty? Or are you just mocking the ridiculousness of Shahid's position. I hope the defense atty did not actually say what you put in quotes.

DP. That is how Channel 4 is reporting the statement made by the defense. Sickening. Had NO choice but to speed up? No f*ck you hit the brakes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok Channel 4 did just confirm that he only had a permit. Yikes.

In closing arguments, his attorney apparently said that when he saw the light was yellow, his only choice was to accelerate to get through the light. What a bunch of BS.

A news article has also been posted twice on this thread confirming this. It wasn’t a Reddit theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok Channel 4 did just confirm that he only had a permit. Yikes.

In closing arguments, his attorney apparently said that when he saw the light was yellow, his only choice was to accelerate to get through the light. What a bunch of BS.

A news article has also been posted twice on this thread confirming this. It wasn’t a Reddit theory.

Correct. A Reddit thread also claimed the parents bought him the BMW four days prior, which I have not seen in any news report.

[Anonymous]

Welp, seems pretty cut and dry if someone is going over FORTY miles over the speed limit AND is driving on a permit with no adult in the car.

Those poor families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok Channel 4 did just confirm that he only had a permit. Yikes.

In closing arguments, his attorney apparently said that when he saw the light was yellow, his only choice was to accelerate to get through the light. What a bunch of BS.

A news article has also been posted twice on this thread confirming this. It wasn’t a Reddit theory.

Correct. A Reddit thread also claimed the parents bought him the BMW four days prior, which I have not seen in any news report.

Unless the lien is in Usman's name (possibly with the parent having cosigned), the car is owned by his parents.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't there a car in the intersection that he hit? How far into the intersection could he have gone with a car there? Can the attorney be disbarred for wasting everyone's time and money on such a shoddy reason?

[Anonymous]

Is it possible he never got his license as an effort to keep the family's car insurance rate lower? Just speculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he never got his license as an effort to keep the family's car insurance rate lower? Just speculating.

WTH kind of reasoning would that be?? So they can be sued ??