Author Topic: Prosecutor: Woman showed 'extreme indifference' in fatal DUI crash...  (Read 2096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CG6468

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11493
  • Reputation: +540/-210
Prosecutor: Woman showed 'extreme indifference' in fatal DUI crash, faces murder charge

Will some liberal judge let her go? Time will tell...  :mad:

LINK to story
Illinois, south of the gun controllers in Chi town

Offline longview

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • Reputation: +224/-34
Odds are there are some nice, decent folks in Boulder, but each and every one I have met has been an arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic jackass.  Kind of like how this heifer strikes me.

Offline vesta111

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Reputation: +493/-1154
Odds are there are some nice, decent folks in Boulder, but each and every one I have met has been an arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic jackass.  Kind of like how this heifer strikes me.

Perhaps this runs in the family, she may be one of Ted Kennedy's illegitimate kids.

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10937
  • Reputation: +540/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
From article: (non AP)

Quote
Nielsen was driving his Nissan sedan west on Nelson Rd. when Norton lost control of her Ford pickup truck

Uber liberals will blame this on the large truck/small car. They say the he would have had a chance if everybody drove those little shit shakers. I say he would have had a chance with 6K pounds of steel.
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline compaqxp

  • The Canadian
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
  • Reputation: +743/-808
From article: (non AP)

Uber liberals will blame this on the large truck/small car. They say the he would have had a chance if everybody drove those little shit shakers. I say he would have had a chance with 6K pounds of steel.

I say there is no point bringing what cars the people were driving into it at this point. It makes no difference however, you need to consider all factors.

For example small cars now are much safer then 10 years ago, it's important to know the age of the car before you slam all small cars. Another thing is how fast the driver of the ford was going.

This big car/small car thing is insane.

Offline CG6468

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11493
  • Reputation: +540/-210
Nonetheless, in a collision contest between a 2000 lb shitbox and a 5000 pound full size pickup, I'll take the pickup any time.
Illinois, south of the gun controllers in Chi town

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10937
  • Reputation: +540/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
I say there is no point bringing what cars the people were driving into it at this point. It makes no difference however, you need to consider all factors.

For example small cars now are much safer then 10 years ago, it's important to know the age of the car before you slam all small cars. Another thing is how fast the driver of the ford was going.

This big car/small car thing is insane.


If this were a discussion at DU, it would be brought up. She would be tried and convicted of 1st degree murder just because she drove a truck.
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline Freeper

  • Topic Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17779
  • Reputation: +1311/-314
  • Creepy ass cracker.
Perhaps this runs in the family, she may be one of Ted Kennedy's illegitimate kids.

Maybe she can move to Massachusetts and replace Scott Brown in the Senate.

 
I may not lock my doors while sitting at a red light and a black man is near, but I sure as hell grab on tight to my wallet when any democrats are close by.

Offline dandi

  • Live long, and piss off liberals.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Reputation: +553/-28
I say there is no point bringing what cars the people were driving into it at this point. It makes no difference however, you need to consider all factors.

For example small cars now are much safer then 10 years ago, it's important to know the age of the car before you slam all small cars. Another thing is how fast the driver of the ford was going.

This big car/small car thing is insane.

*Minor threadjack alert*


You are right, small cars are loads safer than they were 10 years ago.  But, as in everything else, the laws of mass tonnage usually win out.

Case in point:  In an at speed (or higher) crash between our two vehicles, which one would you rather be in?  An 8k pound Silverado or a 3.5K pound (roughly) Jetta?
I don't want...anybody else
When I think about me I touch myself

Offline DefiantSix

  • Captain, IKS Defiant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18669
  • Reputation: +1993/-189
  • "Set Condition One throughout the ship."
Quote from: from the article
On Thursday, prosecutors charged Norton with first-degree murder showing extreme indifference and several other charges, including vehicular homicide, driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident.

I'd have to go to the statutes to see exactly how they read over a DUI-fatality like this, but it looks like the idiots in the Boulder County Prosecutor's Office have chosen a charge they'll NEVER be able to prove, what with INTENT being one of the prime factors they have to prove to get a conviction.
"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
-- Capt. John Parker

"I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission"
-- Capt. Steve Rogers

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."
-- Ronaldus Magnus

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10937
  • Reputation: +540/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
Re: Prosecutor: Woman showed 'extreme indifference' in fatal DUI crash...
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2011, 04:05:12 PM »
I'd have to go to the statutes to see exactly how they read over a DUI-fatality like this, but it looks like the idiots in the Boulder County Prosecutor's Office have chosen a charge they'll NEVER be able to prove, what with INTENT being one of the prime factors they have to prove to get a conviction.

The Prosecutor must be a DU member.
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1280/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
Re: Prosecutor: Woman showed 'extreme indifference' in fatal DUI crash...
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2011, 08:38:17 AM »
I'd have to go to the statutes to see exactly how they read over a DUI-fatality like this, but it looks like the idiots in the Boulder County Prosecutor's Office have chosen a charge they'll NEVER be able to prove, what with INTENT being one of the prime factors they have to prove to get a conviction.

She was already on probation having been sentenced two days before the crash for a previous DUI.  Also consider that being sans license she never should have been behind the wheel in the first place, and intent isn't that hard to formulate.

ETA: From Colorado Statutes:

Murder in the First Degree (18-3-102)

A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
(a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person; or
(b) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault as prohibited by section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first or second degree as prohibited by section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as those sections existed prior to July 1, 2000, or a class 3 felony for sexual assault on a child as provided in section 18-3-405 (2), or the crime of escape as provided in section 18-8-208, and, in the course of or in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or of immediate flight therefrom, the death of a person, other than one of the participants, is caused by anyone; or
(c) By perjury or subornation of perjury he procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person; or
(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another; or(e) He or she commits unlawful distribution, dispensation, or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen years on school grounds as provided in section 18-18-407 (2), and the death of such person is caused by the use of such controlled substance; or
(f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) (b) of this section that the defendant:
(a) Was not the only participant in the underlying crime; and
(b) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission thereof; and
(c) Was not armed with a deadly weapon; and
(d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article, or substance; and
(e) Did not engage himself in or intend to engage in and had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious bodily injury; and
(f) Endeavored to disengage himself from the commission of the underlying crime or flight therefrom immediately upon having reasonable grounds to believe that another participant is armed with a deadly weapon, instrument, article, or substance, or intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.

Murder in the first degree is a class 1 felony.

The statutory privilege between patient and physician and between husband and wife shall not be available for excluding or refusing testimony in any prosecution for the crime of murder in the first degree as described in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 08:40:51 AM by NHSparky »
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford