Daveinet wrote:
Beaker wrote:
I don't believe you get an accurate perception of what really happened.
I know what happened. He ran over an officer on duty while 100's or thousands of cars did not.
The only real question is was he doing anything out of the ordinary. If he was traveling the same speed as the rest of the traffic, then the rest of the traffic is just as guilty as he is.
NO!!
The rest of the traffic did not kill a policeman on duty.
So you have concluded that his speed was not a problem. So where is the criminal act? At what physical point did he become a criminal? You must pinpoint the moment in time when he acted criminally.
You do understand the death of the officer was only a byproduct of what preceded it.
\
My guess is that the prosecution will show that the criminal act occurred when the driver of the RV did not pull over to merge with other traffic, or stop in his lane. The RV driver admitted that he saw the signs saying that the lanes were blocked but he made a conscious decision to stay in those lanes until he killed the officer. The decision was out of the ordinary for what the other drivers were doing at that time and that is what the Grand Jury decided when they decided to indict him for RECKLESS homicide, instead of some lessor offense like careless driving, failure to yield, etc.
