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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

Essentially the same thing. With a learner’s permit you can only drive with someone 21+. He was not licensed to drive around with his friends.

You can call a learner's permit "unlicensed" but that's wrong. He had a license with restrictions. And yes, he was in violation of the restrictions.

A permit is not a license.

+1

A license with restrictions is the graduated license that teens get after being awarded an actual license (ie after having a permit and meeting the requirements to a license). Or when a court says you may only drive to/from work. A permit is just that. A permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can someone explain to me the trend of buying first generation American high school students a BMW, Mercedes, or some other crotch rocket?

I went to high school in Southern California in the 1990s and the ONLY kids with nice fast cars (e.g., BMWs or Mercedes or tricked out & sup'ed up Hondas and Toyotas) were the kids of 1st Generation immigrants. The rest of us (white, African-American, Japanese-American sixth generation Californian, Mexican-American) all had old cheap used cars, if we had a car at all.

Who in their right mind gives a teen boy a crazy powerful vehicle?

I also went to high school in So. Cal in the 1990s and that wasn't my experience. The only student from my class with a new BMW was a white (non immigrant parents) girl.

My first generation boyfriend (parents were from Hong Kong) had a used tiny truck--remember those really small trucks with a bench seat and no cab that a lot of teen boys drove back then?

Yes! They were made by one of the Japanese brands (Mazda, Toyota, or Mitsubishi). It was a relic of the oil crisis when efficient Japanese vehicles were introduced and then retained popularity.

My dad had one, I learned to drive stick shift on it when I was 16. Amazing little truck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

Essentially the same thing. With a learner’s permit you can only drive with someone 21+. He was not licensed to drive around with his friends.

You can call a learner's permit "unlicensed" but that's wrong. He had a license with restrictions. And yes, he was in violation of the restrictions.

A permit is not a license.

+1

A license with restrictions is the graduated license that teens get after being awarded an actual license (ie after having a permit and meeting the requirements to a license). Or when a court says you may only drive to/from work. A permit is just that. A permit.

"A driver's permit, learner's permit, learner's license or provisional license is a restricted license that is given to a person who is learning to drive, but has not yet satisfied the prerequisite to obtain a driver's license. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner%27s_permit

[Anonymous]

Someone recently Tweeted a video of him walking outside of the courthouse with his friends after defense closing. Prosecution has rebuttal. So presumably no verdict today.

Wish they would report on what was said in closing rather than record a video of him walking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

Essentially the same thing. With a learner’s permit you can only drive with someone 21+. He was not licensed to drive around with his friends.

You can call a learner's permit "unlicensed" but that's wrong. He had a license with restrictions. And yes, he was in violation of the restrictions.

A permit is not a license.

+1

A license with restrictions is the graduated license that teens get after being awarded an actual license (ie after having a permit and meeting the requirements to a license). Or when a court says you may only drive to/from work. A permit is just that. A permit.

"A driver's permit, learner's permit, learner's license or provisional license is a restricted license that is given to a person who is learning to drive, but has not yet satisfied the prerequisite to obtain a driver's license. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner%27s_permit

That’s nice. But we’re talking VA licenses and a permit is a not a restricted license in VA. It’s a permit. You receive your license when you complete the requirements to obtain a license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can someone explain to me the trend of buying first generation American high school students a BMW, Mercedes, or some other crotch rocket?

I went to high school in Southern California in the 1990s and the ONLY kids with nice fast cars (e.g., BMWs or Mercedes or tricked out & sup'ed up Hondas and Toyotas) were the kids of 1st Generation immigrants. The rest of us (white, African-American, Japanese-American sixth generation Californian, Mexican-American) all had old cheap used cars, if we had a car at all.

Who in their right mind gives a teen boy a crazy powerful vehicle?

People with more money than sense, that’s who.

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

Jury now deliberating per a reporter 10 mins ago. So maybe a verdict today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jury now deliberating per a reporter 10 mins ago. So maybe a verdict today.

What is your source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jury now deliberating per a reporter 10 mins ago. So maybe a verdict today.

What is your source?

Paul Wagner, NBC Washington reporter on Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jury now deliberating per a reporter 10 mins ago. So maybe a verdict today.

What is your source?

[Anonymous]

LOL jury wants to finish this one before dinner time.

He's toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL jury wants to finish this one before dinner time.

He's toast.

Agree that jury will try very hard to finish this up tonight. They might order dinner into the jury room if they think they need to keep talking. If they don't come back with a verdict this evening, that would be a very good sign for the defendant. I do not expect that. But, that's what Shahid's attys are hoping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I’ve seen it written that he was unlicensed was in that Reddit thread. Even NBC4’s report yesterday didn’t say that. I’m not believing that “fact” until I see it reported on a legitimate site.

He wasn't unlicensed. He had a learner's permit.

a "learner's PERMIT" is not a license. it is a "permit" --- those are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The "permit" means you are PERMITTED to drive ONLY with an actual LICENSED driver in the car. Your insurance company does not increase the rates for having a person with a learners permit using the vehicle because they cannot drive without a licensed driver in the car. Insurance companies do not consider a permit holder to be an actual licensed driver. The legal system makes a distinction.

Shahid was NOT a licensed driver. He did not have a license to drive. He had a permit to use a vehicle ONLY when a licensed driver was in the car.

In Virginia, all drivers are required to have insurance. Usually people with a learner's permit are covered under their parents' car insurance but not always, in which case they need to get their own car insurance. Everyone requires a driver to be a licensed driver, including car insurance, police, etc. Someone with a learner's permit has a restricted license otherwise they would be driving without a license.

Exactly. Someone driving with a learner’s permit without a licensed adult driver in the car is driving without a license. You can’t drive on your own with a learner's permit.

I’m surprised there are people who don’t know this. It’s standard drivers Ed information.