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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you demand this for every immigrant accused of a crime? Or just brown defendants?

This thread is so sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure the dad had speeding tickets too per public record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Working for a diplomat” doesn’t mean anything.

[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.

If I’m driving down the road and I see an SUV stopped in my lane for whatever reason, I am going to brake and wait for them to move. Specifically the SUV is perpendicular to the lane I am traveling in and is allowing pedestrians to cross. Plowing into whatever is in front of me is not the choice I would make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting to see how many people on this thread are out for the defendants blood for this crime, and are ready to throw him in jail for 20+ years. But other non-POC defendants who have committed similar or worse crimes, they aren’t so passionate and are ready to play the “mental health” card.

So interesting to see you trying to support someone who recklessly murdered two young women of color.

So interesting to see you trying to support someone who recklessly murdered two young women. (Fixed it for you -I'm not racist)

Pay attention. The poster I was responding to was making it about race.

So if everyone is a racist - you get to be one too?
They were young women. <<<<<<< Period

The point I was making was the poster was trying to make it about race/ poc when the VICTIMS were POC.
My point was not racist. Idiot.

[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.

If I’m driving down the road and I see an SUV stopped in my lane for whatever reason, I am going to brake and wait for them to move. Specifically the SUV is perpendicular to the lane I am traveling in and is allowing pedestrians to cross. Plowing into whatever is in front of me is not the choice I would make.

Everyone knows Shahid primarily is responsible. His best hope is to get a confusing jury instruction and that the jurors misunderstand reasonable doubt or otherwise get tripped up. But yesterday the judge allowed into evidence the learner’s permit fact (which he didn’t have to do), so I’m not sure Shahid will have much luck on jury instructions.

[Anonymous]

So the 4 runner had a yield and went anyway despite there being people in the crosswalks and blocked off a lane? Why are people allowed to cross if both North and southbound lanes can turn onto five oaks?

[Anonymous]

We should have a verdict by the end of the day. Possibly even before lunch (or shortly after if the jury prefers to eat lunch before deliberating). There won't be sentencing today. But the guilty verdict will come today.

[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.

If I’m driving down the road and I see an SUV stopped in my lane for whatever reason, I am going to brake and wait for them to move. Specifically the SUV is perpendicular to the lane I am traveling in and is allowing pedestrians to cross. Plowing into whatever is in front of me is not the choice I would make.

There were multiple factors that caused the crash.

The BMW kid should absolutely be punished for his actions. As should the 4Runner.

Hopefully BMW kid gets jail time and the 4Runner he has to pay out for the civil suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should have a verdict by the end of the day. Possibly even before lunch (or shortly after if the jury prefers to eat lunch before deliberating). There won't be sentencing today. But the guilty verdict will come today.

If it’s not guilty I assume it’ll take a while to get everyone on board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should have a verdict by the end of the day. Possibly even before lunch (or shortly after if the jury prefers to eat lunch before deliberating). There won't be sentencing today. But the guilty verdict will come today.

As a recent juror on a much less serious case, I'd be shocked if it came out today. They have a lot of testimony to review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driver only had a learners permit?! WTF? Did the parents allow him to drive to school and then where ever they were going at the time of the crash? That seems pretty crazy.

If that's true he was breaking the law by driving unsupervised by a licensed driver. The county bears some responsibility for not enforcing that.

No the parents do for giving him their car. But he was 18. Why wouldn't he have his license?

A lot of kids around here do not get their license until they are 18.

I dont know a single one. I have 3 kids - all of them - and every one of their friends - wanted their license as soon as they turned 16.

Very common in DC where the kids walk or take public transportation everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't see the red light until it's too late then you may not slow down in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driver only had a learners permit?! WTF? Did the parents allow him to drive to school and then where ever they were going at the time of the crash? That seems pretty crazy.

If that's true he was breaking the law by driving unsupervised by a licensed driver. The county bears some responsibility for not enforcing that.

No the parents do for giving him their car. But he was 18. Why wouldn't he have his license?

A lot of kids around here do not get their license until they are 18.

I dont know a single one. I have 3 kids - all of them - and every one of their friends - wanted their license as soon as they turned 16.

Very common in DC where the kids walk or take public transportation everywhere.

+1

My kid is 17 and only half of her friends have a permit or license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driver only had a learners permit?! WTF? Did the parents allow him to drive to school and then where ever they were going at the time of the crash? That seems pretty crazy.

If that's true he was breaking the law by driving unsupervised by a licensed driver. The county bears some responsibility for not enforcing that.

No the parents do for giving him their car. But he was 18. Why wouldn't he have his license?

A lot of kids around here do not get their license until they are 18.

I dont know a single one. I have 3 kids - all of them - and every one of their friends - wanted their license as soon as they turned 16.

Very common in DC where the kids walk or take public transportation everywhere.

Yes but then their parents don't buy a BMW and allow their kid to drive to school. There are kids who don't get a license till then but they also don't get a new car before their license either.