Judge Michael Johnson just sentenced an 89 year old man to ONLY five yerars probation for driving his car at freeway speeds into a crowd of people at a farmer's market and killing 10 of them while injuring 70+ others. He stated that it would serve no purpose to jail him while his health was failing him. --Not even house arrest! Sheesh!
I am stunned at this ruling. I believe that this man should have been made an example of, reminding ALL SENIORS that when you can no longer tie your own shoes and your motor skills are worse than a person with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more, then you need to give up the wheel and start taking public transit!
At the same token, I believe this would have served the younger generation well to know that we need to step up to the plate and drive these people ourselves in order to keep them off our streets.
With our Senior population exploding before our eyes, we need to ACT NOW or we will have a lot more accidents like this in the near future!
2006-11-20 12:14:39 · 9 answers · asked by NONAME 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you agree with me then write this lame judge and tell him what you think. He needs to hear a few words on this matter.
Judge Michael M. Johnson
Criminal Courts Building
210 W. Temple Street #108
Los Angeles, CA 90012
2006-11-20 12:21:54 · update #1
Sherryn: Do you know what is happening to our Senior population right now? It is exploding owing to the baby boomers. I do believe I addressed the
COMPASSIONATE aspect to this situation by calling the "younger generation" to make themselves available to these incompetent drivers.
If this man is "TOO ILL FOR JAIL" then HE WAS "TOO ILL TO HAVE BEEN DRIVING" in the first place. It is as simple as that.
2006-11-20 12:30:41 · update #2
As for him "not doing this on purpose" GIVE ME A BREAK! When this man can barely tie his own shoes and his response time is as slow as a slug, HE CHOSE "ON PURPOSE" TO DRIVE HIS CAR!
He may not have intended to kill while doing that, but neither have most of the drunk drivers who got in an accident while their motor skills were impaired and ended up killing someone.
You are responsible for the condition you are in when you get behind the wheel, this includes a SENIOR CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO RESPOND WELL in a difficult situation.
PS There are plenty of people behind bars for what is called INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER and they most likely only killed one or two people, THIS GUY KILLED 10, T-E-N!
2006-11-20 12:37:49 · update #3
He should be locked up. He is dangerous. Are you writing from the U.S.? Aren't the jails overcrowded there? Maybe this is why he couldn't be jailed.
2006-11-20 12:18:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I sure hope our population (Senior or otherwise) is not exploding, that would be messy!
I have not read any details of the ruling, but I assume that one of the conditions of the probation is that he NOT get behind the wheel of a car. So, if he does, he would be in violation of the parole and WOULD go to jail. That would serve all the purpose which is to get the man off the road.
Clearly, he had no intent to kill or injure anyone and intent is what differentiates between accidents and crimes.
I think most Seniors would take transit if it went where they wanted to go, like the grocery store, etc.
I certainly hope I will be able to identify the time when I should not drive anymore, but I expect it is very hard for the individual to be able to identify that time.
2006-11-20 20:26:21 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I live in L.A. & you only have SOME of the facts of this case. I'm guessing that you are in your early 30's & from your statements, you probably don't know what it's like to live in a multi-cultural city with all types & ages of people. You are just over-reacting & I doubt that we will start to see an increase in this type of an accident. What we need is a more compassionate society & to get people off their cell phones, so that they can pay better attention to the road & the people who are driving on that road. Perhaps if some younger driver or person had noticed this man having a bit of a problem, they could have averted the incident by assisting him, instead of yelling at him & making things worse! He has agreed to never drive a motor vehicle again, what more could you ask out of him in the shape he is in? You people are heartless. He didn't do this on purpose. Get real, he's traumatized for the rest of his life.
2006-11-20 20:26:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why are you stunned? He is an 89 year old man, who has very little time to live, with NUMEROUS health conditions that will probably end up killing him.
IT'll cost the STATE more to incacerate this man for whatever years he has left of his life, than to let him live the rest of his days, and his health care be paid by his family than that of the tax payers of the county and state he lives in.
Why burden the tax payers with his medical bills
he also isn't going to harm anyone since he can NO LONGER DRIVE!
He has already been made " an example of ". of how senior citizen should be tested constantly to see if they are capable of driving.
And the families of those who were killed, also found that Santa Monica may be at fault for having inadequate "protection" of the area (only a wooden barracade instead of stone ones) to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
2006-11-20 20:57:10 · answer #4 · answered by arus.geo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I disagree with the sentence, but understand the logic behind it.
It's always tough to find a balance between allowing the judge too much discretion in sentencing and taking away that discretion by imposing mandatory minimums for everything.
If you don't like the result, don't just write the judge. Contact your state legislature, and get the laws changed. Just think about the consequences and the results of mandatory minimums.
2006-11-20 22:26:39 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At 89 y/o he would lose his drivers license, and insurance. So he won't be driving. Seniors involed in injury accidents become uninsurable with lose of drivers license in all states I have lived in. Jail sentence at 89y/o is pretty unnecessary since they will be pretty much homebound without "wheels"
2006-11-20 20:27:40 · answer #6 · answered by longroad 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He should have gone to jail although I do believe that it was an accident and not intentional. He wanted to brake and instead accelerated. Nevertheless, he did kill so many people.
2006-11-20 20:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by wizehuman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ridiculous and I agree with everything you've stated.
2006-11-20 20:18:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let he, or she, who is without sin, cast the first stone!
2006-11-20 20:28:22 · answer #9 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋