One Year Anniversary of Oakton Girls Killed Walking Home From School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People speed all of the time. The recent fatalities have two things in common - people in the path of oncoming traffic. While they didn’t *cause* the accident they certainly contributed to it.

The speed limits are calculated based upon oncoming traffic having time to respond to other vehicles. If you’re traveling so fast that other drivers do not have time to react to your speeding, you are going way too fast. Traveling at highway speeds in areas with homes, schools, pedestrians, etc. should lead to some mandatory jail time.

The other cars were doing something unexpected. A truck paused in the lane of ongoing traffic. A car making a u-turn on a main road/intersection.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you understand the sequence of events or the reasonable expectations of a driver on a 35 mph road.

The turning driver had no reason to expect that a car that could not be seen when he started the turn would be coming at such a rate of spped that it would crash into him (the turning driver) before he could finish the turn. Note that the police did NOT charge the turning driver with failure to yield ...why?...because you can't yield to a car that you can't see coming when you start turning. There wasn't a flaw in the design of the road. The only flaw was the idiot driving 80+ mph on a road that has normal tjings lime other cars and people on sidewslks.

Usman's speed left him unable to navigate the road safely, and he was going SOOOO fast that other drivers had no opportunity to avoid him.

[Anonymous]

...normal things like...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People speed all of the time. The recent fatalities have two things in common - people in the path of oncoming traffic. While they didn’t *cause* the accident they certainly contributed to it.

Sociopath much????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand the sequence of events or the reasonable expectations of a driver on a 35 mph road.

The turning driver had no reason to expect that a car that could not be seen when he started the turn would be coming at such a rate of spped that it would crash into him (the turning driver) before he could finish the turn. Note that the police did NOT charge the turning driver with failure to yield ...why?...because you can't yield to a car that you can't see coming when you start turning. There wasn't a flaw in the design of the road. The only flaw was the idiot driving 80+ mph on a road that has normal tjings lime other cars and people on sidewslks.

Usman's speed left him unable to navigate the road safely, and he was going SOOOO fast that other drivers had no opportunity to avoid him.

+1 There are posters here who seem unfamiliar with the basic facts. They’re covered in this thread: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1062886.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People speed all of the time. The recent fatalities have two things in common - people in the path of oncoming traffic. While they didn’t *cause* the accident they certainly contributed to it.

When are we finally going to get single-use roadways like other countries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 months in jail, 3 years of no driving. According to google.

Absurd and awful. Virginia needs to start treating reckless driving like the crime it is.

He missed a year in college!
He was going to a good school he has 3.61 GPA unweight

A good GPA outweighs killing to people? What is wrong with you? Why would you even mention this? He should go to prison.

[Anonymous]

Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

And I heard he got a VERY expensive criminal defense attorney so he's not looking to back down. He has to be looking to to pin it on the SUV driver. Otherwise, why blow money on an expensive defense attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

And I heard he got a VERY expensive criminal defense attorney so he's not looking to back down. He has to be looking to to pin it on the SUV driver. Otherwise, why blow money on an expensive defense attorney.

He is spending money on an expensive lawyer b/c JAIL is a real possibility when 2 people died. His lawyer(s) will of course try to get the jury to sympathize with being a young person and making a single mistake. They only need ONE juror to feel sorry for the nice young man with so much in his future. Just one juror refusing to convict means a hung jury and the CA will give him a deal that involves a lot of "community service" and probation. They are paying a high priced (and presumably experienced) lawyer to pay his way out of jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

And I heard he got a VERY expensive criminal defense attorney so he's not looking to back down. He has to be looking to to pin it on the SUV driver. Otherwise, why blow money on an expensive defense attorney.

He is spending money on an expensive lawyer b/c JAIL is a real possibility when 2 people died. His lawyer(s) will of course try to get the jury to sympathize with being a young person and making a single mistake. They only need ONE juror to feel sorry for the nice young man with so much in his future. Just one juror refusing to convict means a hung jury and the CA will give him a deal that involves a lot of "community service" and probation. They are paying a high priced (and presumably experienced) lawyer to pay his way out of jail.

Yup, all of this. If the family has the money, it's worth the gamble. The driver of the SUV actually did something illegal and dangerous (pulling into opposing traffic and stopping in the middle of the road), so the defendant's lawyer is going to argue contributory negligence.

Sadly, I think he has a very good chance at getting away with this. You only need one sympathetic male driver on the jury who probably speeds a little much. If you're the defense attorney, you are trying to get the jury to be composed of young men. You're tossing moms and grandmas off the jury.

[Anonymous]

There is this petition circulating, which makes infuriating claims about the prosecution. Does anybody know anything about this?

https://www.change.org/p/money-buys-powerful-attorneys-but-doesn-t-bring-back-victims-of-crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

And I heard he got a VERY expensive criminal defense attorney so he's not looking to back down. He has to be looking to to pin it on the SUV driver. Otherwise, why blow money on an expensive defense attorney.

He is spending money on an expensive lawyer b/c JAIL is a real possibility when 2 people died. His lawyer(s) will of course try to get the jury to sympathize with being a young person and making a single mistake. They only need ONE juror to feel sorry for the nice young man with so much in his future. Just one juror refusing to convict means a hung jury and the CA will give him a deal that involves a lot of "community service" and probation. They are paying a high priced (and presumably experienced) lawyer to pay his way out of jail.

Yup, all of this. If the family has the money, it's worth the gamble. The driver of the SUV actually did something illegal and dangerous (pulling into opposing traffic and stopping in the middle of the road), so the defendant's lawyer is going to argue contributory negligence.

Sadly, I think he has a very good chance at getting away with this. You only need one sympathetic male driver on the jury who probably speeds a little much. If you're the defense attorney, you are trying to get the jury to be composed of young men. You're tossing moms and grandmas off the jury.

Sexist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he going to trial? I don’t know how these types of cases usually play out, but can’t imagine many juries are sympathetic to someone driving a BMW going 80 in a 35 near a school…

And I heard he got a VERY expensive criminal defense attorney so he's not looking to back down. He has to be looking to to pin it on the SUV driver. Otherwise, why blow money on an expensive defense attorney.

He is spending money on an expensive lawyer b/c JAIL is a real possibility when 2 people died. His lawyer(s) will of course try to get the jury to sympathize with being a young person and making a single mistake. They only need ONE juror to feel sorry for the nice young man with so much in his future. Just one juror refusing to convict means a hung jury and the CA will give him a deal that involves a lot of "community service" and probation. They are paying a high priced (and presumably experienced) lawyer to pay his way out of jail.

Yup, all of this. If the family has the money, it's worth the gamble. The driver of the SUV actually did something illegal and dangerous (pulling into opposing traffic and stopping in the middle of the road), so the defendant's lawyer is going to argue contributory negligence.

Sadly, I think he has a very good chance at getting away with this. You only need one sympathetic male driver on the jury who probably speeds a little much. If you're the defense attorney, you are trying to get the jury to be composed of young men. You're tossing moms and grandmas off the jury.

I don't think that it serves the purposes of justice for the victims or discipline for the violator to make up things which are not even remotely true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is this petition circulating, which makes infuriating claims about the prosecution. Does anybody know anything about this?

https://www.change.org/p/money-buys-powerful-attorneys-but-doesn-t-bring-back-victims-of-crime

I'm all for this driver being punished but this statement is ridiculous...

"Failure to stop after the first crash with the truck seems to indicate he had intention in his actions just as driving 81 mph was voluntary, and intentional."

How did the driver fail to stop? I doubt he hit the SUV and then tried to drive his way out of it and he "intentionally" hit the girls? This is a bad take.