Teen Driver Intentionally Hits Officer on 270 - October 18

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Hardly. Hitting you with a car is a crime, too. If a car going 110mph intentionally hit you, it would still be news.

If intentional, why isn’t this something like attempted murder?

He was charged with attempted murder. It's on the first page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Hardly. Hitting you with a car is a crime, too. If a car going 110mph intentionally hit you, it would still be news.

If intentional, why isn’t this something like attempted murder?

He was charged with attempted murder. It's on the first page.

Not just attempted murder, first degree attempted murder. Maximum penalty is life in prison. This kid is not going to see the outside of a jail cell again and he deserves not to. MD is not DC where we care about b.s. about undeveloped brains for violent criminals and give those under the age of 26 a get out of jail free card.

[Anonymous]

If you drive 136 mph on a busy public highway (which he was arrested for previously) it should be treated the same from a legal standpoint as indiscriminately firing a gun in public place like a shopping mall. This piece of sh*t should have been in prison a long time ago for his recklessness.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say it, but this sounds like a road design issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but this sounds like a road design issue.

What?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but this sounds like a road design issue.

Care to explain your logic?

[Anonymous]

He sounds pretty mentally ill. Like someone that fires gun into a shopping center.
I'm not saying he shouldn't go to jail -- I don't think he's not guilty by reason of insanity or anything. But there is clearly something way off about the way this kid's brain is functioning. It always makes me wonder what the family is like and whether they've been trying to get him help, how he got access to the car (which is a deadly weapon in the hands of someone like him), etc.

I doubt the officer or his family are reading, but if they are, I want to say thank you for your service. You truly were protecting the public and saving lives with your diligence in policing our roadways. You're a hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

No prosecutors would “collectively shrug” if someone hit you intentionally on an interstate.

Do you have proof that they didn't see you? What were you wearing? Well I didn't see it so what do you want me to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you drive 136 mph on a busy public highway (which he was arrested for previously) it should be treated the same from a legal standpoint as indiscriminately firing a gun in public place like a shopping mall. This piece of sh*t should have been in prison a long time ago for his recklessness.

Yes, it should be, but it isn't.

Another question is why it's legal to have cars that you can drive 136 mph. Why aren't cars speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Hardly. Hitting you with a car is a crime, too. If a car going 110mph intentionally hit you, it would still be news.

It would probably not be news, unless it killed you, and even then, it wouldn't be big news.

Also, cars don't intentionally hit anyone. Not even self-driving cars do that. The cars' drivers hit people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haul this creep and his parents in and charge all of them for this disgusting crime. Take away his license to drive (anywhere) forever.

I pray that officer gains use of his legs again.

He hasn’t HAD a license for months. What possible good will it do lose his license forever? You can be 100% certain he’ll continue to drive anyway.


Do you really NOT understand how criminals work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Correct. No press conference for you. At best, the PIO office might put out a tweet seeking any witnesses to call them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Hardly. Hitting you with a car is a crime, too. If a car going 110mph intentionally hit you, it would still be news.

It would probably not be news, unless it killed you, and even then, it wouldn't be big news.

Also, cars don't intentionally hit anyone. Not even self-driving cars do that. The cars' drivers hit people.

DP. Yes, the high speed crashes that involve people are news and also are crimes that end in jail time (sometimes and sometimes not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

No prosecutors would “collectively shrug” if someone hit you intentionally on an interstate.

MaCarthy might go 70/30 for prosecution…..maybe.

DeScanno wouldn’t even make it to 50/50.

Biberaj would probably look for a way to charge you for “interfering with a young POC driving a vehicle”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that hitting a police officer with a car is a crime but if some rando did this to me the police would collectively shrug.

Hardly. Hitting you with a car is a crime, too. If a car going 110mph intentionally hit you, it would still be news.

It would probably not be news, unless it killed you, and even then, it wouldn't be big news.

Also, cars don't intentionally hit anyone. Not even self-driving cars do that. The cars' drivers hit people.

I’m sorry, but that is just NOT possible.

If guns shoot people seemingly on their own with no human involvement- as must be the case based on what I read here daily, then cars definitely run over people on their own. It’s the only scenario that withstands that logical precedent.