In his front-page story, "Van driver fights a murder charge," News & Record reporter Eric Collins asks, "How culpable should you be if your lack of vehicle maintenance causes a fatal car crash?"
He begins his story by inferring the minivan that plowed into a motorcycle, killing its passenger, is a case of poor vehicle maintenance — bad brakes. Collins wants us to consider if bad brakes warrant a murder charge.
To stoke the debate, Collins chose not to inform us until the very end of his story that after the woman leveled the motorcycle, she kept on going and drove straight home. We also learn in the end that at the time of her hit-and-run, the woman's license had been suspended.
This story was fabricated for public reflection about the charge of murder for poor vehicle maintenance. It wasted our time.
The jury learned in the opening statement that this was a case of hit-and-run vehicular homicide by a woman whose license had been revoked.
If we had been given the real facts early in this story, there would have been no need to ponder the charge for faulty brakes.
Mike Baron
Greensboro
Comments (3)
Mr. Baron,
As you have surmised by now, newspaper articles are usually written to sell newspapers and not necessarily to inform the readers.
Posted by Mad Dog | August 6, 2005 8:50 AM
To respond to the critique, I'm afraid I don't understand Mr. Baron's logic.
There are a number of cases every year where drivers hit people with their cars and drive away. The injured person later dies.
When the driver is later located, the district attorney's office does not typically prosecute for second-degree murder. The driver is usually charged with felony death by vehicle or involuntary manslaughter, two charges that carry a lot less prison time than the murder charge.
In the case referenced in the story, the district attorney's office chose to prosecute for second-degree murder because of the state of the woman's brakes. They claimed she knew how bad they were but chose to drive on them anyway.
The fact that she was driving with a suspended license and engaged in a hit-and-run did not, in itself, cause the district attorneys office to seek the murder charge, to the best of my knowledge. The prosecutor obviously referenced those factors in his argument to the jury.
But at least 90 percent of the trial was spent on the brake issue.
And obviously the mere fact that she was driving with a suspended license and hit-and-ran did not, in the end, persuade the jury to convict her of murder.
So I struggle to understand Mr. Baron's point.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Posted by Eric Collins | August 6, 2005 1:44 PM
Eric,
You are 100% right. A suspended license or leaving AFTER the fact had nothing to do with this being prosecuted the way it was.
They also had nothing to do with the woman dying.
The brakes are what caused her death.
Do I think that warrants a murder charge? No.
Why? Because they proved no malice OR intent.
Posted by truth | August 8, 2005 12:07 PM