Hey, there! Log in / Register
Pickup driver gets three months in jail for hitting bicyclist in Cambridge road rager
By adamg on Thu, 05/18/2017 - 5:45pm
Cambridge Day reports the guy will also have to take an anger-management class for his role in the 2015 incident. A jury convicted him of guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, negligent operation and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
more here
More
A minor miracle
Usually the most you'd see in a case like this is a $500 fine and a suspended sentence. Maybe we're turning a corner in enforcement of basic decency.
Apparently they didn't even
Apparently they didn't even suspend his license so he'll be back behind the wheel putting people's lives in danger again in a few months. But maybe the cyclist didn't wear a helmet one time or something so he is just as guilty as the driver who tried to kill him, right mayor Walsh?
I must have heard a different
I must have heard a different quote from the mayor than you, please enlighten me?
Surely, he/she isn't being
Surely, he/she isn't being hyperbolic with a heavy anti-car slant. I'll await the response with baited breath.
Hardly satisfied
Only 3 months for being found guilty of 3 serious felonies, which might as well equate to attempted murder? Nah not happy at all.
3 months is 3 months
Would you like to be resident in the Billerica House of Correction for 3 months?
Look, I really don't have sympathy for this guy, but when the Globe ran their piece about suicide in the county jails, one of the stories was about a guy sent away for 30 days for animal cruelty. He didn't make it to day 30.
Plus, any job requiring a CORI check is now out.
Justice is justice. He was found guilty and sent to jail. If the victim wants any more justice, that's what the civil courts are there for.
Still on the road?
My problem is that he's been convicted for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and has not lost his license for that weapon.
So he remains a threat to the public (not just cyclists).
Ok, first you all
stomp and scream that drivers rarely get apprehended when the hit cyclists and if they do they never get charged and here with have that. And you are still not happy. Why am I not surprised.
Really?
Because you've already got your mind made up on any of these issues?
Are you paying any attention at all? This was a deliberate act, not even one of the laughable "accidents". Do you truly believe that a deliberate attempt to injure someone in a way that could easily cause their death merits a mere 3 months in jail?
Original Story On Universal Hub
Weighing punishment versus cost of punishment
The guy will spend 3 months in jail. While the remainder of his sentence was suspended it's still hanging over him for 2 years. Add the legal costs, well deserved civil costs and a CORI hanging over him for the rest of his life he is not getting off easily.
Does he deserve more jail time? Yea. He tried to harm a person. Does more jail time wind up costing everyone more? It does. Jail or prison is expensive. More time behind bars probably doesn't change the man, perhaps encouraging him to be more violent.
Sentencing a person needs to factor in the cost to everyone of warehousing people. Prisons are a net economic negative (except for commercial prisons of course - a whole other issue). So sometimes imprisoning a person has a higher cost with lessor positive results than shorter incarceration with the accompanying costs of a conviction.
Definition:
Justice (n.): an answer which leaves all parties unhappy.
That's the definition of
That's the definition of "compromise", not "justice".
The big question for me
If using one's vehicle as a dangerous weapon, and subsequently being convicted of assault and battery with said dangerous weapon, doesn't result in a revoked license, then what does?
Okay, riddle me this
What if there was no car? What if these two were walking on the sidewalk, bump into each other, words are exchanged, and this asshat throws a punch that knocks the guy down, then he proceeds to kick him repeatedly with a shod foot? Or maybe he's carrying a bat and takes a few swings with it. Same charges. Why would he lose his license over that?
The law is just assault and battery with a deadly weapon. If you think there should be a special section for this involving a motor vehicle, contact your state rep and write a bill to include a period of a suspended sentence along with jail time. Honestly, it doesn't sound like a bad idea.
At the same time, why are people obsessing about this aspect. The griping about the short sentence I can get, but why is the license so important?
BECAUSE HE ATTACKED SOMEBODY WITH A VEHICLE
What part of that do you not get???
Driving is A PRIVILEGE not a right. He abused that privilege and he should lose that privilege.
Why are you being so dim here??
Who's being dim?
What is the section of the MGL where a license suspension is required for assault and battery with a deadly weapon?
When do convicts have their bat or boot privileges suspended?
Why is the custodial sentence less important than the driver's license?
Do people really only get 3
Do people really only get 3 months in prison for beating someone with a bat?
First time offender?
Remember, the whole sentence is 2 years, with most of it suspended. Billy Tibbets got a 42 month suspended sentence for statutory rape, then served 30 months for shooting someone with a BB gun while on probation for that.
Then there was that kid on the Charlestown High School basketball team (the name escapes me, but it is in the book on the program) who I believe spent his summer vacation at South Bay for the same kind of charges (without a car.)
I'm not in the criminal justice system, but it wouldn't surprise me.
So you can just
Remove important context from the crime and then try to say that it's equivalent to all other offenses of A&B with a deadly weapon. Cool.
Maybe you can argue that license suspension doesn't need to be a requirement. I don't think the way to do it is the way you did.
Should it be a requirement?
I mean, commission of a felony using a motor vehicle leading to the loss of driving privileges sounds like a good idea to explore. There could be some arguing against it or just saying that there should be leeway on the matter, but that's what the legislative process is there for.
That said, there's nothing in our legal code mentioning it as a means of punishment, except for DUI cases and habitual motor vehicle infraction offenders.
Well as a deadly weapon...
Actually I think you can lose a handgun license if you are convicted of a felony. And a gun is different from many weapons because it kills so easily. In this sense a car is also very deadly as you would compare to a shoe or a bat. And similarly you need a liscense granted by the state to operate a car.
"Attacked" somebody with a
"Attacked" somebody with a vehicle? It's clear from the video the driver was trying to drive around the bicycle, but did a very bad job of it and hit the bicycle instead.
No
It looked they made an attempt to hit the person without it being overly obvious in hopes the person would suffer pain and they wouldn't be caught.
He had plenty of ways to avoid the cyclist yet chose to hit them instead. That's known as assault and battery.
Wrong
It is clear from the witness testimony, video and other evidence entered into the court case that he attacked the man with his vehicle and did so intentionally.
What part of "convicted" for this do you simply not get?
Yeah, OK, armchair detective.
Yeah, OK, armchair detective. The courts and the jury already disagreed with you.
He attacked somebody - PERIOD
And that's what he was charged with and convicted of. Want to give him additional punishment because - OMG - he was using an evil car instead of a knife or gun. Then get the law changed.
PS - lose the anti-car bias, it's getting very old. In case you've forgotten, bicycles and cars are both VEHICLES under state law and are supposed to be subject to the same rules.
He attacked somebody with a car
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
If you shoot a gun at someone, you can't own one legally ... and gun ownership is a RIGHT.
If you drink and drive or try to kill someone or kill someone with your car, you shouldn't be allowed to drive one.
It isn't "extra punishment" - it is revocation of a privilege which you have abused in order to attack somebody.
You lose your license for drunk driving for the same reason - abused your privilege, get privilege taken away.
You don't have to drive. You have no right to drive. What clue do you need?
OK, riddle me this...
A man uses a firearm in a violent attack. Robbery, kidnapping, firing and missing or hitting a person.
Should that person be allowed to hold a permit to carry a gun? I'm thinking no, but perhaps you disagree.
No
But the law is clear about that. Felony conviction means no guns. Even if your felony doesn't involve the use of a firearm. Mark Wahlberg cannot own a gun in the Commonwealth for that reason.
If people want this, fight to change the law. Heck, at one time you didn't lose your license for DUI.
Mahk cannot on a firearm in
Mahk cannot on a firearm in ANY state in the union. Felony= federally prohibited.
The driver should also be
The driver should also be forever banned from owning or operating pickup trucks, or any vehicle weighing more than 2000lbs.
well
Requiring them to ride a bicycle would indeed be a delicious irony.
Forever? Really? We don't
Forever? Really? We don't do much 'forever' in our society. People who commit actual rape & murder are often released sooner than that. The 2 year suspended to 3 month sentence is actually pretty stiff.
And in case you missed it, there is a movement underway to reform sentencing. That is, unless you're Jeff Sessions.
This guy acted like a jerk. He assaulted & hurt someone and should be punished, but enough with "put him away forever".
MA has a time honored
MA has a time honored tradition of lightly punishing violent crime, and here it repeats itself.
Not always
If he shot the guy in the leg do you think he'd only be getting three months?
Dare I say it, if the driver was black he'd be seeing more time in jail.
Cars are great...
It's just that quite a few drivers are incompetent operators, and a smaller proportion are downright malicious.
I'd rather be hit hard in the face with a pillow than a sock full of ball bearings.
So in the allegorical comparison, incompetent (So many!) and malicious cyclists win.
Um
What?
Cyclists don't kill people - If I rode a bike into a crowd at full speed, I wouldn't kill 2 and injure 20.
Two legitimate questions here
What was the sentence the PROSECUTION recommended, and what was the judge's rationale for a) imposing such a light sentence (2 years) and b) suspending most of that sentence.