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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He sped up. Being that the light was yellow, it means he wasn't checking what was in front of him on a yellow.

[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.

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.

It wasn't clear to turn - the pedestrians were crossing.

I never said the 4Runner hit the BMW. ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Glad the judge did this but struggling to see how this could possibly be excluded. It’s relevant AF.

[Anonymous]

Today I had a green light and an emergency vehicle came across my path. I slowed down so that I wouldn't hit the vehicle. That's what people should do especially on yellow lights. Just like the 4 runner did for the pedestrian. If he was going a reasonable speed at most the only person hurt would be the people in the two cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He sped up. Being that the light was yellow, it means he wasn't checking what was in front of him on a yellow.

The discussion was around if there is something inherently dangerous about the current design of the intersection. Poor visibility is generally dangerous.

There are multiple traffic calming solutions the county can implement to reduce risk of future accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he have to post bail (for the past two freaking years while the girls families suffer)? Did he have to surrender his passport?

Didn't he go off to college?

I think I read in this thread or another one that he’s at Virginia Tech.

Is this true? Wouldn’t he have had to report to VT that he was charged with manslaughter? How is that not enough to revoke his admission?

Is he still allowed to drive?

[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

No, the 4Runner should have waited until it was clear to start the turn. AKA don't start turning when pedestrians are blocking your path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He managed to see the yellow light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, the 4Runner should have waited until it was clear to start the turn. AKA don't start turning when pedestrians are blocking your path.

It's hard to predict what pedestrians will do. They will step out after you start turning, against the crosswalk signals. The only thing you can do as a driver, is stop and wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, the 4Runner should have waited until it was clear to start the turn. AKA don't start turning when pedestrians are blocking your path.

Do we know if a pedestrian walked out after the turn was started?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he have to post bail (for the past two freaking years while the girls families suffer)? Did he have to surrender his passport?

Didn't he go off to college?

I think I read in this thread or another one that he’s at Virginia Tech.

Is this true? Wouldn’t he have had to report to VT that he was charged with manslaughter? How is that not enough to revoke his admission?

Is he still allowed to drive?

Charged is not the same as convicted.

I know a (now former) college* kid who was arrested for rape in the summer between his freshman and sophomore year of college. There were a couple court hearings over the summer, but no trial yet, so he returned to his college in the fall like normal. He was on one of the school's sports teams and still participated in that. Over Christmas break he plead guilty to a slightly lesser charge (still a felony sex offense) and is now in jail.

*Not Virginia Tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It wasn't clear to turn - the pedestrians were crossing.

I never said the 4Runner hit the BMW. ??

If the BMW had "only" been going 55 mph (in a 35 mph zone) the BMW would have been able to stop. If the BMW was "only" going 55-60 mph when it made contact with the SUV, it might not have moved so far as to hit the girls, hit a utility box, take out a utility pole and continued down the road/sidewalk.

There are so many ways that this accident could have been just a property damage situation. Or maybe just injuring and not killing the girls. The ONE factor that made it super deadly was the pressure Shahid was putting on the gas pedal to the extent he has going 81 mph at impact. There are a lot of accidents that don't result in anyone being seriously injured -- even when someone is going 20 mph above the speed limit. But, when you are going 81 mph -- well, those are times when the accident is going to kill.

If Shahid has been merely "reckless" in going 55, it would have been a serious accident (or maybe not an accident b/c he could have stopped), but not nearly as bad as it was. That was totally within his control. That's the "wanton disregard" for the lives/safety of others.

[Anonymous]

Especially as a person without a license. Most new drivers are slower, not faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Related, tonight between 6:00 and 6:15 pm, there was another major accident at the same intersection-- Blake Lane and Five Oaks.Half the fire department is there, looks like they're doing a fatal accident investigation.”

This is from Reddit. That intersection is hugely problematic.

Between his mental health issues, confusing the brake and gas pedals as a new driver, and an illegal left turn, now a road design issue.

There is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence that he "mistook" the gas pedal for the brake pedal.
There was no "illegal left turn."
There is no "road design issue." People have accidents. People in this area are not very good drivers. You have no idea what caused the alleged accident today. We DO know what caused the "accident" in 2022.... an unlicensed teen driver, unlawfully speeding over twice the speed limit, unlawfully carrying two other teens in the car. That is what caused the deaths and injuries.

See the video around 1:24 https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/defense-rests-in-oakton-fatal-crash-case/3598460/

You can see how far that BMW traveled FAR beyond the impact with the SUV. He not only hit the SUV and killed three teen girls, he also took out a thick utility pole and STILL Continued to advance down the road!

That particular stretch is a known problem in Oakton. Residents have been trying for a long time to fix it.

I’ve been in the area for a long time and up until this point where people died, it was almost comical how many times people in cars managed to run off of the road and smash into and take down the utility poles.

They’d patch them, graft them, replace them, then at some point they decided to install concrete poles. But that didn’t really fix the problem, since I’ve seen the concrete ones come down too.

Unfortunately a lot of people are dumb and that never changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he have to post bail (for the past two freaking years while the girls families suffer)? Did he have to surrender his passport?

Didn't he go off to college?

I think I read in this thread or another one that he’s at Virginia Tech.

Is this true? Wouldn’t he have had to report to VT that he was charged with manslaughter? How is that not enough to revoke his admission?

Is he still allowed to drive?

Innocent until proven guilty would be my guess.