|
What is Society Coming To?
In past years, if three bikers frightened an elderly pedestrian and he cussed them out, the parents would have made the bikers go apologize to the pedestrian. In fact, it was the biker's parents who knew who the pedestrian was, and the pedestrian did not know who the bikers were, so the "burden" of communication was obviously on the biker's families, IF they wanted communication rather than retaliation. Call us old fashioned, but if your kids come home and tell you that they were riding motorcycles and an old, disabled pedestrian cussed them out, wouldn't you at least ASK the question: "And what were YOU doing?" and then gone over to pedestrian's home? Stepping outsite the situation, three motorcycles capable of instantly killing at high speed, vs. a lone disabled pedestrian holding a dog, with a cane-- and then putting the pedestrian on trial-- makes the Town look absurd, and a place NO ONE would ever want to live. In anyone's wildest dreams, how could they think the pedestrian was the threat?
Our "political correctness" today means we're telling our youth they are "victims" and that if they lie to police and lie under oath, they can get away with anything. Right before trial, another neighbor called pedestrian and said, "I saw the biker's sister nearly hit you on a quad the day of the incident, and then talk to the bikers. She told them to go up the hill to scare you." When pedestrian asked the neighbor to testify, the neighbor said "No way, (the bikers) parents have sued other neighbors, there is no way I'm getting involved in this." They then said that the biker's sister had been "speeding over the blind hill for nearly a week, and is going to get herself killed." When asked by pedestrian why the witnessing neighbor didn't let bikers parents know about their daughter's risk, they replied, "I told you, they have sued other neighbors." The prosecutor has bent over backwards to keep the daughter out of court, and the events on the road below minutes before out of the record. There is no due process if there is no access to the family or the juveniles before court. The judge is extremely fair in this case, but the judge's hands are tied in the ability to allow pedestrian's polygraph, which immediately solves what really happened and what really was said. Both families refused to let the kids take a poly, and instead are willing to subject them to the stress of court-- anyone doubt what's really going on here?
So, we are no longer our brother's keeper, because neighbors sue each other, and call police on each other? Biker's family may win due to intimidation, wealth, telling bikers they are above the law, coddling and calling them victims, suing and calling police, but look at the consequences-- another neighbor is actually willing to let their daughter be killed on the blind hill on a quad, rather than tell them about it! The law of unintended consequences at its most deadly.
Everyone who hears about this case cannot believe that, with the obvious disparity of force, pedestrian was put on trial. Making bikers seem "innocent youth" can only happen if you remove the deadly force of the bikes. Pedestrian can show his "deadly" cane in court, but bikers will not be in full racing uniforms with deafening bikes for the jury to hear. Will the judge be able to set aside the prejudice of three sympathetic young witnesses to see the deadly force of the bikes? Very doubtful, unless the judge allows an audio simulation or forensic animation, and the prosecutor has indicated he will fight admissibility of such exhibits.
Most importantly, pedestrian is in trouble because he refuses to call the police on neighbors, doesn't believe in suing neighbors, and wanted to handle this with communication rather than the court system. He understands that mother bears don't want their cubs cussed out by some old guy, but being cussed out doesn't even begin to compare with how the mother cubs would feel if they had to go to a funeral when one or more of their kids were hit racing over a blind hill. These juveniles are unlicensed, and driving on Town and private roads. Their inexperience with their force, and lack of training, endangers pedestrians and horseback riders if they hit them, and themselves if they hit a car or truck.
If we look at just the three legal tests for threatening-- 1. Initiation vs. reaction; 2. Intent to prevent and protect vs. attack or retaliate and 3. Disparity of force -- there is no question at all that pedestrian's actions do not rise to threatening. But more importantly, why would the family subject their kids to hours of trial, when a 20 minute polygraph would have cleared this all up, and pedestrian was willing to take (and in fact, did take and pass) a polygraph, with the top testing agency in the State? Defense offered the poly to the family, even allowing the DA to formulate the questions of his choice, and Plaintiffs refused. Why? Because all along, for the family, this has been about winning, not finding the truth. What message has this sent, for the rest of their lives, to the bikers? That they can get away with lying to police, and perjury, to get an old man in serious trouble, at no cost to themselves? Wonder if it was worth it!?
|
|