The Dane County DA's office has actually aggressively pursued these kinds of
cases.  Aggressive is an understatement; they have unethically pursued them
in order to "win" convictions as a recent Dee Hall series in the State
Journal documents.  Nonetheless, they have often not obtained convictions
after the cases were tried to juries.  I think it comes down to the question
of whether the person was driving like a total maniac and killed somebody or
whether the person simply screwed-up and killed somebody.  Driving like a
total maniac is criminal negligence.  Screwing-up isn't.  And, as much as
don't want to be endangered out there, I don't think it helps us any to as
bikies/peds or as a society to seek any harsher punitive results for others'
screw-ups than the law and good sense otherwise dictate.

Here's the relevant jury instruction:

>
> > 1170    HOMICIDE BY NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A VEHICLE — § 940.10
> >
> >     Statutory Definition of the Crime
> >     Homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle, as defined in § 940.10of 
> > the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who causes the death
> > of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle.
> >     State's Burden of Proof
> >     Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State
> > must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that
> > the following three elements were present.
> >     Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove
> >     1.    The defendant operated a vehicle.
> >     2.    The defendant operated a vehicle in a manner constituting
> > criminal negligence.
> >     3.    The defendant's criminal negligence caused the death of  (name
> > of victim) .
> >             "Cause" means that the defendant's act was a substantial
> > factor in producing the death.
> >     The Meaning of "Criminal Negligence"
> >             "Criminal negligence" means:
> >           •    the defendant's operation of a vehicle created a risk of
> > death or great bodily harm; and
> >           •    the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable
> > and substantial; and
> >           •    the defendant should have been aware that (his) (her)
> > operation of a vehicle created the unreasonable and substantial risk of
> > death or great bodily harm.
> >             IF REFERENCE TO ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IS BELIEVED TO BE
> > HELPFUL OR NECESSARY SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 925.
> >         IF EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF A SAFETY STATUTE HAS BEEN RECEIVED,
> > ADD THE FOLLOWING:
> >             [Evidence has been received that the defendant violated
> > section _______ of the Wisconsin Statutes, which provides that  (summarize
> > the statute) .  Violating this statute does not necessarily constitute
> > criminal negligence.  You may consider this along with all the other
> > evidence in determining whether the defendant's conduct constituted criminal
> > negligence.]
> >                 Jury's Decision
> >     If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three
> > elements of this offense have been proved, you should find the defendant
> > guilty.
> >     If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
> >
> > Copyright 2002, Regents, Univ. of Wis.
> >
>

On 10/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The statement that the degree of injury is a function of the degree of
> negligent is unsupported.
>
> That the driver stopped shortly after striking the victim and then backed
> over her a second time was not in the police report doesn't mean it
> didn't happen.  I heard about it from a staff person at nearby Thoreau
> school.
>
> Mike Neuman
>
> "If you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, you are looking the
> wrong way."
> - Barry Commoner
>
>
> ---------- Preceding message -----------
> ---- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These kinds of collisions happen all the time, but very few people go
> to jail for it.  The only difference here is the degree of injury.
> >
> > I heard that the driver in this case panicked and put the vehicle in
> reverse after first hitting the women, only to backed over her a second
> time.  Tragic, to be sure, but not criminal.
>
> But the "degree of injury" is a function of the driver's speed, and, as
> you describe it (which was NOT in the police report, BTW) his action.
> IOW, the degree of injuy is a function of the degree of negligence.
>
> ---------------
> Paul T. O'Leary
> Chronic Nuisance
> Madison, WI USA
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
>



-- 
Robert F. Nagel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.nagel-law.com
634 W. Main St., #201
Madison, WI  53703
608-255-1501
608-255-1504 fax
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies

Reply via email to