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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most the 4 Runner driver committed a traffic infraction. That's not something the CA ever would prosecute. Good luck finding a jury to convict him for having the misfortune of being hit by an unlicensed driver going 81.

There is no universe in which one could reasonably conclude that the turning driver committed an infraction, or even drove in a hazardous way. That's just a hare-brained scheme cooked up by a dumb defense attorney who's apparently gotten rich finding common ground with dumb juries.

What amazes me is how the defense's closing argument basically boiled down to "My client isn't just guilty, he's effing guilty. My hopes are that you will be so impressed by his audacity that you, like him, will become underwhelmed by the value of the womens' lives that he prematurely ended."

He was granted immunity so they certainly could have charged him with something.

Hopefully he’s held accountable in the civil case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

No, you don’t.

Hello, anonymous poster! Think what you wish!

DP. (That means different anonymous poster.). You don't understand. That's okay, you don't have to understand, and many people don't.

Exactly. She can’t, “understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense” and also “completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime.”

Defense lawyers HAVE to try and get the least punishment possible for their clients- which often means pinning the blame on others.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

Not all are dishonest and shady ethically. Trying to get murderers, rapists, and child abusers off lightly is reprehensible.

Maybe. I wouldn’t put a reckless kid in the same category as a child abuser, but then again my emotions about this aren’t clouding my judgement.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Okay. Unless s person is intellectually deficient, he or she should be aware that driving 80 mph in a 35mph zone is very likely going to result in someone's injury or death. Same for DUI drivers.

That's exactly why it is so reckless and wanton and shows a complete disregard for life....which is what is necessary for involuntary manslaughter.

[Anonymous]

A lot of times when the light is yellow and there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk often who just started after you started the turn, it's difficult for the turner to decide what to do. They are possibly getting hit as well, but it would be from the oncoming traffic from the other road crossing that would also be waiting for this pedestrian, not from the oncoming traffic of the road they are leaving. I guess without being there or knowing the facts, we don't know how long he was waiting to turn and how far apart the cars were. I'm not that invested in the case to find out. I just want more people to understand basic facts like what speed limit is considered safe when there is a speed limit sign on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

No, you don’t.

Hello, anonymous poster! Think what you wish!

DP. (That means different anonymous poster.). You don't understand. That's okay, you don't have to understand, and many people don't.

Exactly. She can’t, “understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense” and also “completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime.”

Defense lawyers HAVE to try and get the least punishment possible for their clients- which often means pinning the blame on others.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

Not all are dishonest and shady ethically. Trying to get murderers, rapists, and child abusers off lightly is reprehensible.

Maybe. I wouldn’t put a reckless kid in the same category as a child abuser, but then again my emotions about this aren’t clouding my judgement.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Okay. Unless s person is intellectually deficient, he or she should be aware that driving 80 mph in a 35mph zone is very likely going to result in someone's injury or death. Same for DUI drivers.

1) it’s not “very likely to result in injury/death”
2) that doesn’t mean it’s intentional

This is not an intentional criminal case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most the 4 Runner driver committed a traffic infraction. That's not something the CA ever would prosecute. Good luck finding a jury to convict him for having the misfortune of being hit by an unlicensed driver going 81.

There is no universe in which one could reasonably conclude that the turning driver committed an infraction, or even drove in a hazardous way. That's just a hare-brained scheme cooked up by a dumb defense attorney who's apparently gotten rich finding common ground with dumb juries.

What amazes me is how the defense's closing argument basically boiled down to "My client isn't just guilty, he's effing guilty. My hopes are that you will be so impressed by his audacity that you, like him, will become underwhelmed by the value of the womens' lives that he prematurely ended."

He was granted immunity so they certainly could have charged him with something.

Hopefully he’s held accountable in the civil case.

Held accountable for what exactly? I am shocked at how many people are focusing on the 4 Runner driver here. If Shahid was driving at the speed limit and hit the 4Runner bc it was in his lane, it would have been a 2 car collision in the roadway.
Instead, Shahiid was driving 81 mph - 46 miles above the speed limit - and hit the 4Runner that was in his lane. And that's why there were fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

No, you don’t.

Hello, anonymous poster! Think what you wish!

DP. (That means different anonymous poster.). You don't understand. That's okay, you don't have to understand, and many people don't.

Exactly. She can’t, “understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense” and also “completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime.”

Defense lawyers HAVE to try and get the least punishment possible for their clients- which often means pinning the blame on others.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

Not all are dishonest and shady ethically. Trying to get murderers, rapists, and child abusers off lightly is reprehensible.

Maybe. I wouldn’t put a reckless kid in the same category as a child abuser, but then again my emotions about this aren’t clouding my judgement.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Okay. Unless s person is intellectually deficient, he or she should be aware that driving 80 mph in a 35mph zone is very likely going to result in someone's injury or death. Same for DUI drivers.

1) it’s not “very likely to result in injury/death”
2) that doesn’t mean it’s intentional

He is charged with Involuntary Manslaughter[b]. Meaning that he didn't intentionally set out to kill anyone, but his unlawful act led to deaths anyway. Would be the equivalent of someone running a red and killing someone.

[Anonymous]

I think his family is on here. I saw them in court the day I attended for a GMU assignment. They were in the corner off to the side talking and laughing the entire time.

[Anonymous]

So what is the verdict ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the verdict ?

Guilty in the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think his family is on here. I saw them in court the day I attended for a GMU assignment. They were in the corner off to the side talking and laughing the entire time.

Hope they were dumb enough to behave like that in view of the jury. I would think the lawyer they’re paying for would shut that down though.

[Anonymous]

The 4Runner was not blocking Usman if Usman had control of his vehicle, but he did not have control at that speed or with his lack of experience behind the wheel, especially of this brand new car.

I have lived near this intersection for over 20 years and there have been accidents. This was the worst I have ever seen and I walked up soon after the accident before the vehicles were moved. The 4Runner had inched into the land but there are 2 lanes. Usman could have slowed, and still stayed on the road in the other lane. Instead he sped, swerved, hit the 4 runner and ricocheted onto the sidewalk, still accelerating till he was halfway down the block. All while there were many students walking along Blake and five oaks.

The left turn used to be a green arrow. Even if the 4 runner wasn’t inching forward to turn, driving 81 on Blake was reckless and put people in danger. Kids often jaywalk there too.
Fairfax county needs to do much more and stop dragging their feet on controlling speeds and making this area safer.

He should never be allowed to drive again. And I believe he should spend years in jail, and that the victim’s families should receive substantial (several million+) for their loss and suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think his family is on here. I saw them in court the day I attended for a GMU assignment. They were in the corner off to the side talking and laughing the entire time.

Hope they were dumb enough to behave like that in view of the jury. I would think the lawyer they’re paying for would shut that down though.

I hope they are all smart enough to have learned something and to drive better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the verdict ?

Still waiting

[Anonymous]

His speed wouldn’t have mattered if he hadn’t been illegally driving to begin with. I’m still stunned he was driving at all with only a learner’s permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the verdict ?

Guilty in the court of public opinion.

Please, these comments are not helpful.