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

[Anonymous]

So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

[Anonymous]

What did the private investigator say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Since 2017, there have been 11 crashes — not including the fatal crash last week — at the intersection of Blake Lane and Five Oaks Road, according to Fairfax County Police Department. Four of the crashes resulted in injuries.“

https://www.ffxnow.com/2022/06/14/traffic-safety-along-blake-lane-in-oakton-has-been-a-community-concern/

Well...if you actually read the article and LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM where each accident occurred, only ONE of those accidents was in the intersection (Blak and Five Oaks). The rest of the accidents were either before or after the intersection in either the northbound or southbound lanes. That would be a rear-ending type of accident, a lane-change accident, or possible a pedestrian/car accident in the road or crosswalk.

You have to read/analyze more thoroughly than just repeating a headline.

Your big message that the intersection has a design flaw or is dangerous is not supported by the facts nor the diagram. The most that can be said about the 11 accidents over 5 years is that the happened ON Blake Ln in the vicinity of Five Oaks. Rear-endings at a multi-lane stop sign do not mean that the intersection is dangerous for turning traffic.

It does if poor visibility is what is leading to the rear-endings.

That doesn't make sense. When you rear-end someone, the car you hit is directly in front of you. There is no "poor visibility" that would result in rear-ending accidents in that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

Or, in reality... he stopped when it was PERFECTLY CLEAR, and then a rocket going more than twice the speed limit came screaming down the road into the stopped SUV. Again, there is 1 to 1.5 blocks of visibility looking north on that road. In order for the SUV driver to have been the one who hit the BMW, the SUV would have had to turn a second (or less) before the BMW driver entered the intersection. And if the SUV had forward momentum when it (allegedly) hit the BMW, that forward momentum would have pushed the BMW into Five Oaks road. But, that's not what happened, it is?

What happened is that BMW driver had all the momentum (going south on Blake), the SUV WAS, in fact, stationary when the BMW swiped across the front of the SUV and kept going southward. The front of the SUV was turned southward as well due to the BMW's forward momentum (going south).

You can make a lot of stupid comments, but the jury is going to see the truth because the physical evidence makes it obvious what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

Sometimes pedestrians are unpredictable though. Not sure what happened here. The fact that for Shahid the light was turning red for him and there was a car there is problematic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

It WAS clear when he turned and waited. There was only one person out of control here... Shahid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What did the private investigator say

No reporting on it. I’m guessing nothing noteworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lot if kids without a license at 18 where the parents buy them a BMW. If they are waiting that long it usually means they either don't need a car very often or are a bit immature.

Remember, he was graduating just a few days later. So, the car was probably a grad present. Of course, that doesn't mean you get to drive it, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LICENSE! But, maybe it's different in his home country?!

Just a few weeks ago, on a Thursday afternoon around 2:30 pm, I was making a random trip to Wegmans in Fairfax. The van in front of me drove STRAIGHT THROUGH a 4-way stop. The van ended up driving into the Wegman's parking garage, and since I was going there too, I went up to the driver and said, "ma'am, I'm not sure if you realize you drove through a 4-way stop." (I've seen other people miss the stop signs at this intersection before. I assume they miss them because it is a super WIDE intersection with no stop light... just 4 stop signs.) At first the woman denied it "no I didn't." And I said, "yes, you did." Then she defiantly asked "where?" And I explained it was a couple of blocks before the turn into Wegmans. And then she said that it didn't matter and it's perfectly fine to do so! And then she told me it's not my business. ANd I was like -- YES it IS my business because you are going to hit someone.

She was a middle-aged lady. Probably from Ghana or Nigeria.

Point being that there are people driving on these streets who come from cultures/countries where it may be their habit to drive as though the rules are more "suggestion" than actual RULE. It's not an excuse. But when a middle age women driving a VAN (not a BMW) admits that she intentionally drove through a 4 way stop -- well, it's just so out of my way of living -- that it shocks me to be on the same roads as people like that!

He's not from the US? What is his home country, and did he (legally) drive there?
How did he come to the US--were his parents sponsored by a company to come work here?

I'm not familiar with his high school, but at my kid's school you need a permit to park in the parking lot. To get a permit, you have to show your drivers license.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think there’s been any confirmation he’s an immigrant; some people still live in the 1950s and think any brown person named Shahid was born overseas. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. There’s no shortage of dangerous drivers who are U.S. born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

The driver of the SUV should have completed their turn and hit the pedestrians. They were probably crossing against the crosswalk signals given that the light was turning yellow. Remember, there is no duty to yield the right of way to unruly pedestrians. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s been any confirmation he’s an immigrant; some people still live in the 1950s and think any brown person named Shahid was born overseas. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. There’s no shortage of dangerous drivers who are U.S. born.

There was some info at the time of the accident that his parent was working for a diplomat (or something similar). So, you can shove your faux righteousness up your butt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...in summary of the last 10 pages... no updates.

Plenty of trial updates. The BMW recorder data shows Shahid accelerated from 60 to 81 and never applied the brake. Defense tried to blame the 4 Runner driver, but he testified he stopped for pedestrians while making a turn and was struck by Shahid. Shahid only had a learner’s permit and should not have been driving with his friends at all. Defense called only witness, a private investigator.

Sounds like closing arguments are today. Hopefully the jury can reach a guilty verdict soon.

Specifically, he was stopped in the lane of oncoming traffic. He turned before it was clear. He was not blameless. Hopefully he also faces consequences during the civil case.

The driver of the SUV should have completed their turn and hit the pedestrians. They were probably crossing against the crosswalk signals given that the light was turning yellow. Remember, there is no duty to yield the right of way to unruly pedestrians. /s

Please tell me you are a 14 yr old who has never driven a car. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s been any confirmation he’s an immigrant; some people still live in the 1950s and think any brown person named Shahid was born overseas. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. There’s no shortage of dangerous drivers who are U.S. born.

I think it matters. If his parents were sponsored to come here, and then break the law (by allowing their unlicensed kid to drive) then the sponsor should be held responsible as well.