View Full Version : Chavez acquitted of killing 5
DavieD55
06-17-2012, 06:26
Monica Chavez Found Not Guilty in Car Crash That Killed Family of ... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=monica%20chavez&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CC0QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fmonica-chavez-colorado-woman-seizure-killed-family-found%2Fstory%3Fid%3D16584754&ei=qMzdT5GCI4z-8AT27qXYCg&usg=AFQjCNGPa5qQ2Yu5H6gXsOctb85WgDUalQ)
My blood is still boiling over this
BS. Still responsible for your actions if you are behind the wheel. Especially when a pr-diagnosed condition.
Bitter Clinger
06-17-2012, 08:02
BS. Still responsible for your actions if you are behind the wheel. Especially when a pr-diagnosed condition.
EXACTLY! When you are behind the wheel of a car ypu are 100% liable for controlling it. I get wicked bad migraines and my doc prescribe's me fioricet and sometimes oxycontin. If i had some sort of episode while driving.....guess what? Im going to jail.Hate to say it but ahe walked cause shes mexican.
stevelkinevil
06-17-2012, 08:30
EXACTLY! When you are behind the wheel of a car ypu are 100% liable for controlling it. I get wicked bad migraines and my doc prescribe's me fioricet and sometimes oxycontin. If i had some sort of episode while driving.....guess what? Im going to jail.Hate to say it but ahe walked cause shes FEMALE.
Fixed that for ya, although being a "minority" very well may have come into play, its more because she is a she. Women are rarely made to take responsibility for their actions in this country.
wctriumph
06-17-2012, 08:42
Just another case of the "Political Class" taking care of it's own.
TEA
Bitter Clinger
06-17-2012, 08:52
Fixed that for ya, although being a "minority" very well may have come into play, its more because she is a she. Women are rarely made to take responsibility for their actions in this country.
Thanks. Probably a combo of both like ypu say.
You know she was even ordered back in 2006 to see a doctor to release her to drive since her last seizure and didn't. She should be responsible for her own actions. I didn't see but was she cleared of the child abuse charges as well? She should have to answer for her actions. What about the family of 5 that died? [Rant2]
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2012, 09:05
Fixed that for ya, although being a "minority" very well may have come into play, its more because she is a she. Women are rarely made to take responsibility for their actions in this country.
Wrong in both responses.
She was acquitted due to issues the jury had coming to a clearly defined decision.
A real trial is not what you see on tv. There are not always clear lines of testimony and witness's tend to forget, or their testimony is vague. These reasons and the DA's office not being able to convince the jury she was GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT allowed her to walk.
My wife has been called for jury duty a few times. What you read and see is not always what is in fact reality during a trial.
Wrong in both responses.
She was acquitted due to issues the jury had coming to a clearly defined decision.
A real trial is not what you see on tv. There are not always clear lines of testimony and witness's tend to forget, or their testimony is vague. These reasons and the DA's office not being able to convince the jury she was GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT allowed her to walk.
My wife has been called for jury duty a few times. What you read and see is not always what is in fact reality during a trial.
+1
I don't know all the facts of the trial, but I've yet to see anything that suggests this was related to her race or sex.
Wrong in both responses.
She was acquitted due to issues the jury had coming to a clearly defined decision.
A real trial is not what you see on tv. There are not always clear lines of testimony and witness's tend to forget, or their testimony is vague. These reasons and the DA's office not being able to convince the jury she was GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT allowed her to walk.
My wife has been called for jury duty a few times. What you read and see is not always what is in fact reality during a trial.
Ain't that the truth.. I can tell you people are dumb. I've sat through plenty of trials.. It is nothing like TV or the Movies.. it would be nice if it were.. then juries wouldn't be stupid. For the most part it is 12 people not smart enough to get off doing jury duty.
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2012, 10:20
Ain't that the truth.. I can tell you people are dumb. I've sat through plenty of trials.. It is nothing like TV or the Movies.. it would be nice if it were.. then juries wouldn't be stupid. For the most part it is 12 people not smart enough to get off doing jury duty.
Yes & no. My wife while not being able to discuss the trial and still not talk about the ones she has been on, enjoyed being part of it. She was called for one and they asked her "How do you feel about X ?" She told them matter of fact" Fuck them they don't deserve to live"
OK....... How do you feel about animal abuse?
Fuck them. "Ok, we appreciate your time".
If this is the one that happened at 84th and Washington in the Urban Mattress parking lot, we drove by shortly after it happened. I remember seeing the upside down vehicle in the Urban Mattress parking lot, completely surround by crouching firemen, looking into the vehicle. That was a pretty sad event.
BPTactical
06-17-2012, 12:55
Wrong in both responses.
She was acquitted due to issues the jury had coming to a clearly defined decision.
A real trial is not what you see on tv. There are not always clear lines of testimony and witness's tend to forget, or their testimony is vague. These reasons and the DA's office not being able to convince the jury she was GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT allowed her to walk.
My wife has been called for jury duty a few times. What you read and see is not always what is in fact reality during a trial.
^^^
The prosecution presented a weak case and the Judge damn near threw the whole thing out because of the prosecution.
I have mixed feelings on this case. Ideally if she had a medical condition she should not have been driving.
But on the other hand the day after her seizure in 2006 she did go see her regular Dr and he cleared her with no restrictions on her driving.
She did what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances I believe.
Bottom line, this was a terrible accident that unfortunately destroyed 2 families.
Of course things as this should never happen, but they do.
Was it a criminal act however?
In this case the prosecution did not present a case that set forth without a doubt that it was a criminal act.
The jurors made a verdict on the evidence as presented.
People forget what rides on the jury. Everyone wants justice but the worst possible outcome is for an innocent person to be found guilty ad their life over. If the evidence doesn't clearly show she acted with an intent to do harm or with obvious negligence then how do you decide to ruin her life? The evidence has to be indisputable in my opinion.
^^^
The prosecution presented a weak case and the Judge damn near threw the whole thing out because of the prosecution.
I have mixed feelings on this case. Ideally if she had a medical condition she should not have been driving.
But on the other hand the day after her seizure in 2006 she did go see her regular Dr and he cleared her with no restrictions on her driving.
She did what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances I believe.
Bottom line, this was a terrible accident that unfortunately destroyed 2 families.
Of course things as this should never happen, but they do.
Was it a criminal act however?
In this case the prosecution did not present a case that set forth without a doubt that it was a criminal act.
The jurors made a verdict on the evidence as presented.
I may get flamed for this but I noticed the prosecutor was about to pop one out. She could have been too hormonal to be completely effective in her job, although theirs typically a team working on these cases. About a half dozen women have had babies at my work over the last couple years. They have mostly been emotional wrecks and almost impossible to deal with at times. Then came the endless hours of closed office doors with the subtle sound of breast pump machines. Not saying this is the case here, but I wouldn't discount it either.
Byte Stryke
06-17-2012, 14:33
well the rules in a civil trial are different... and I hope the victims family takes everything she ever hopes to have
theGinsue
06-17-2012, 14:52
I believe the facts of the matter are clear enough.
She has a previously diagnosed condition which had caused her to have a seizure in the past. She failed/refused to seek follow up care to ensure she was not a risk to herself or others.
When you slide behind the wheel of a moter vehicle with the intent to operate that motor vehicle on public streets you assume a great deal of responsibility - to include the consequences for your actions - intentional or not.
This woman KNEW she had a potential condition which should have precluded her from operating a motor vehicle but she chose to disregard it and she acted selfishly by putting her children in the vehicle and driving when she had a known pre-existing condition/propensity for having seizures. She never got checked out to see if there was a chance it could happen again or if it was a one time thing. Because of her actions a family of 5 are DEAD.
I would feel very differently about this case if she had never had a seizure before or had at least gotten follow-up treatment/evaluation, but she did not. At the very least, this woman is responsible for child abuse/endangerment and 5 counts of manslaughter. Realistically though, she committed murder 5 times over and has gotten away with it because, in this country we have no such thing as "personal responsibility".
If you have a pre-diagnosed condition and do not take the proper steps to avoid a seizure or whatever your condition is, your insurance will not cover the damages you do.
Just another thing to think about when you go shopping for insurance and want to get the cheapest coverage possible.
Hope at the very least she is smacked with a civil lawsuit that will take everything she has or will have for the rest of her miserable existence.
I believe the facts of the matter are clear enough.
She has a previously diagnosed condition which had caused her to have a seizure in the past. She failed/refused to seek follow up care to ensure she was not a risk to herself or others.
When you slide behind the wheel of a moter vehicle with the intent to operate that motor vehicle on public streets you assume a great deal of responsibility - to include the consequences for your actions - intentional or not.
This woman KNEW she had a potential condition which should have precluded her from operating a motor vehicle but she chose to disregard it and she acted selfishly by putting her children in the vehicle and driving when she had a known pre-existing condition/propensity for having seizures. She never got checked out to see if there was a chance it could happen again or if it was a one time thing. Because of her actions a family of 5 are DEAD.
I would feel very differently about this case if she had never had a seizure before or had at least gotten follow-up treatment/evaluation, but she did not. At the very least, this woman is responsible for child abuse/endangerment and 5 counts of manslaughter. Realistically though, she committed murder 5 times over and has gotten away with it because, in this country we have no such thing as "personal responsibility".
I agree with you. The fact that she has had seizures is no mystery to her. For her to walk free is wrong. Period.
DavieD55
06-17-2012, 23:31
I just cant believe she wasn't held at all responsible for killing 5 people.
I can see atleast one vehicular manslaughter charge, Even though 5 people died due to her gross negligence.
Atleast 5 years in the clinker, 50,000 hours of community servive, and lose the drivers license forever would've been appropriate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.