Hulk Hogan's son should be tarred/feathered

[Dr Mordrid]

I'm sure most of you have heard that Hulk Hogans son Nick was sentenced to 8 months in prison for a 100 mph accident where a friend of his, John Graziano, was severely injured. Nick has a long history of speeding infractions, many over 100 mph.

In subsequent conversations the whole Hulk Hogan family has made fools of themselves by saying Johns injuries were "karma" etc. Enough to make one scream....

Let's do a little truth telling here....

News story for background)....

Video released by Johns family (WARNING - GROSS!)....

IMO the SOB should have been put in for all day.....

[Evildead666]

RE the video.

They should have let him die.

You don't be twat driving when there is someone else in the car.
You don't be a twat driving in ANY case ....

[Dr Mordrid]

RE the video.

They should have let him die.

First note that so far Nick has only been charged and sentenced for reckless driving and nothing to do with Johns injuries. This is a strategic move on the part of the prosecutors.

Also note that it may well be the case that the portion of John's autonomic nervous system that controls breathing and the heart may not have been affected enough to kill him if the machines are removed. Many people like him have survived years once the plug has been pulled. I've seen it many times. Of course pulling his feeding tube would certainly work, but in either case pulling the plug could present legal issues;

Charging Nick with anything related to the injuries while John is alive prevents more serious charges from being brought in the event of John's death because of "double jeopardy" - per our Constitution you can't be charged for the same event twice. Charge him with a lesser crime related to those events now and they could well lose the opportunity to charge him with a more serious crime later.

I don't think double jeopardy exists in Napoleonic Law, but it's constitutional law in the US, Canada, Mexico and India. There is no prosecutorial appeal as with many other countries.

Pulling the plug, however it's done, could make prosecution of Hogan's kid harder as the case could be made that the death was precipitated by the family's decision and not necessarily what Nick did. Don't laugh; I've seen such defenses work, especially where jury nullification is common (you did the crime but the jury gives you a pass).

OTOH if John dies "naturally"; as a direct cause of his injuries & without outside intervention, then prosecutors could charge him with vehicular manslaughter or even murder in the 2nd degree and make it stick. Depending on the state that could mean 10-30 years for vehicular manslaughter and up to life for murder 2.

Bottom line: without the ambiguity of the "actual cause" of Johns death such a conviction is far more likely.

More on jury nullification;

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
—John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

In other words a small town jury can overrule the government, the prosecutors, the whole legal system and all their collective powers.

[Gurm]

He's a spoiled brat, he might be a jerk... but he's 17.

[Dr Mordrid]

In fact juveniles can be charged as an adult starting at age 10 in most states and as low as 6 in others. In Federal court juveniles can be charged with adult crimes as young as 10.

That said juveniles cannot be executed unless the crime was committed after they reach 18.

[Evildead666]

Is there no time limit ?

AFAIK in England, if the person dies over a year and a day after the incident, it is considered unrelated...

[Dr Mordrid]

Because we are a federal system most criminal law is set by the individual states, which in many ways are like independent countries under the umbrella of a Federal government. Unless jurisdictions cross the states can do as they will. Where they do; foreign policy, interstate conflicts etc., the Feds hold sway. That's a bit simplistic, but illustrative of the relationship.

There is no statute of limitations for murder in any state. If you skate under the system for 50 years and they finally get evidence enough for trial, it's over - you're toast.

Some states have a statute of limitations for lower forms of homicide, some don't. In Florida where this took place it's 4 years for 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and the various forms of manslaughter.

Even if John does not die you can bet your ass that at 3 years, 364 days the prosecutor will hit Nick with whatever charges he can under Florida law.

[Umfriend]

Re. Double Jeopardy under Napoleonic Law: Yes, [provisions against] double jeopardy exist and are based on Roman Law (ne bis in idem) although the DA may appeal against an acquital within a certain timeframe (3 months in the Netherlands). Submitting the appeal however is a procedural thing, it does not mean the appeal must actually start within that time, I'm not sure about that or who decides (I think the court does). New evidence may be brought during the appeal.

AFAIK in England, if the person dies over a year and a day after the incident, it is considered unrelated...

There is no statute of limitations for murder in any state. If you skate under the system for 50 years and they finally get evidence enough for trial, it's over - you're toast.

I suspect these are two different things: Evil is wondering whether dying after a certain time would preclude the DA from charging someone with murder, not becuase of a statute of limitations but because, by law, the death of someone is no longer to be viewed as relatable to the event.

[Gurm]

Frankly, anyone considering inclusion of any "murder" charge is cracked.

The most one could shoot for is "manslaughter in the first degree" (man 1), although in all likelihood we're looking at "depraved indifference" or perhaps man 2.

The "victim" here chose to ride in a car with the defendant. He chose this, despite knowing the defendant was going to drive too fast and prone to being a vehicular jackass.

It's like those guys on the show "Jackass". If Johnny Knoxville is screaming "hit me! hit me! hit me with a baseball bat! it'll be fun! c'mon!" and Steve-O hits him... it's not MURDER if it results in death. It's "you're both retarded"... but legally it's probably depraved indifference, perhaps man 2...

The key is intent. Little Hogan didn't INTEND to maim/kill his friend. Murder requires intent and premeditation. Manslaughter requires momentary intent, although oftentimes juries award man 2 or "vehicular manslaughter" without clear intent.

[Helevitia]

I agree with Gurm on this one.

[Jammrock]

Murder 2 does not require premeditation. I think vehicular manslaughter is about all he'll get though.

[Dr Mordrid]

Murder 2 does not require premeditation.

Correct. In fact premeditation is what defines Murder 1.

Frankly, anyone considering inclusion of any "murder" charge is cracked.

Maybe if Nick had kept his mouth shut and acted with contrition, but his post-incident behavior could well spur the prosecutor to go for the highest charge possible under Florida law.

Since a 1998 appellate court decision we've seen murder 2 charged n Michigan where passengers, pedestrians or people in other cars are killed in an "accident" caused by reckless driving, drunk driving, ignoring traffic signals etc., drunk or sober, with the theory being that that those provide the malice* element required for a murder charge.

*mal·ice (mal′is) noun

1. active ill will; desire to harm another or to do mischief; spite
2. Law; evil intent; state of mind shown by intention to do, or intentional doing of, something unlawful

(Example link....)

May 02, 2008:

Dunham Sentenced to 34-60 Yrs for 2nd Degree Murder in Double-Fatal Crash

Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey L. Sauter announced that, earlier today, Circuit Court Judge Thomas S. Eveland sentence Russell Percy Dunham, Jr., 31, of Lansing, to 34-60 years in prison on each of two counts of Second Degree Murder from a two-vehicle crash on May 24, 2007 in Eaton Rapids Township. These sentences will run concurrently. Dunham was convicted by a Circuit Court jury on April 02, 2008, concluding a three-day trial in which 24 witnesses testified.
>
People v Dunham was the first Eaton County case in which murder charges were filed in a motor vehicle death case where alcohol was a significant factor. Previously, a less serious charge like OWI Causing Death would have been filed. However, since 1998, Michigan appellate courts have approved Second Degree Murder charges involving factors like high blood-alcohol levels, high speeds, reckless driving, disobeying traffic control devices, driving when the defendant knew he was too drunk to drive, etc. This conduct, in total, can prove the 'malice' element of murder ("knowingly creating a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result").

While Eaton county waited 10 years to file its first case against a drunk driver under the new dictum (no mercy for sober drivers though) Wayne county and others started lowering the boom on them years ago.

[Umfriend]

How "likely" is death or great bodily harm from speeding/drunk driving? I assume most make it home safe. What is a "very high" risk?

Over here I've had "likely" explained (in the context of legal opinions by lawyers concerning financial transactions, other ballpark of course) as > 50%.

[Dr Mordrid]

Anyone who has worked a US emergency room could tell you that drunk drivers make Thursday through Sunday a virtual war zone, and that most of the people killed are not the drunks.

According to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 42,642 people died in traffic crashes in 2006 (latest figures available), including 17,602 people who died in alcohol-related traffic crashes.

So; 41.3% of all US traffic deaths involved alcohol abuse, all this caused by the ~13%, on average, of drivers who are drunk (meaning a blood alcohol level of .08). In my experience; on weekends double that percentage.

Now add in the speeders and those that ignore traffic devices and you have the vast majority of those 42,642. It all comes down to a traffic fatality every 30 minutes in the US.

[Umfriend]

But how many drivers are there? If there are 1,000,000 drivers, then 130,000 drive drunk and they cause 17,602 deaths => drunk driving has a probability of 17,602/130,000 x 100% = 13.54% causing a death.

Non-drunk driving: (42,642-17,602) / 870,000 x 100% => 2.88%.

Now I am very willing to accept that drunk driving is a serious issue that should be punished severly, but to argue that drunk driving is "likely" to cause death or great bodily harm is, well, stretching it IMO.

To be sure, I guess the number of drivers is closer to 100million than 1 million. p(death&drunk) is about 0.14% then.

This is all semantics of course. Drunk driving can not be excused and should be punished, more so in case of accidents.