TC1

Wow, and I didn't think it was possible for you to embarrass yourself further.

Now go learn thing-one about the topic at-hand, and see if you can figure out who is responsible for learning the identity of those perpetrators. Also, your comment represents a tautology, and is meaningless.

Please, for the love of whatever, seriously reconsider continuing to comment here. You are embarrassing yourself, even if you don't realize it.

tomato coupe

What do you think happens when the DA decides to press charges against someone that is not presently in custody? Unless that person turns themself in to the police, the police go out and arrest them. It happens everyday.

TC1

District attorneys do not investigate. Police do.

tomato coupe

What relevance does that have to the statement that you quoted?

TC1

Apparently I do have to explain our law enforcement system to you. District attorneys do not investigate crimes -- they rely on police to do that. If the cops refuse to investigate and identify the perpetrator, the district attorney can do nothing.

District attorneys do not tell the cops who to arrest. Understand now?

tomato coupe

That's also irrelevant. This is not a case where the police are refusing to investigate in order to determine the identity of the perpetrator. They have a suspect, and they are currently investigating the case. When they finish their investigation, they will hand the results to the district attorney. If the district attorney determines the case involves a felony, they may refer it to a grand jury. Based on the grand jury's finding, the district attorney may or may not proceed with prosecution. If they decide to prosecute, they will inform the police, an arrest warrant will be obtained, and the police will arrest the perpetrator. All of this takes time, so put away your morale outrage that the perpetrator has not yet been arrested -- it's a waste of energy and it reveals your ignorance of how the legal system works.

roadcrankr

Am I the only one who finds it odd that tomato coup continues to argue this matter?
The cops caught and arrested the drunk killer. Hardly differs from him killing somebody with a knife.
In normal times, here's how we ought to expect this scenario to go:
1. Arrest person.
2. Bring him before a judge to set bail on charges.
3. Revoke or suspend license and set fines, without trial.
4. Jail or bail out, with future court date.
5. Assemble all evidence.
6. Go to trial.

Who in their right mind makes excuses for our screwed up justice system?

tomato coupe

It's not making excuses, it's simply acknowledging the way the legal system works.

If there is enough evidence to convict this perpetrator, it will happen. It does not bother me that the perpetrator was not arrested immediately, if it means the odds of a conviction are increased by a thorough investigation.

roadcrankr

The cops arrested the idiot within plenty of time to determine her high alcohol content.
The DA decided to drop charges. That, sir, is not the way our legal system works.

Black wallnut 

TC1 perhaps you've never heard about a fair and speedy trial, yeah it's a thing. With present case loads of courts it is likely that the prosecutor is doing exactly what they should be doing and delaying charging until such a time, still within the statute of limitations, until they can be assured that they will get a trail date within the speedy standards. Instead of outrage due to your likely ignorance of the realities of our criminal justice system perhaps you can seek education. The wheels of justice turn slowly. When things are rushed, mistakes are made, verdicts are overturned on appeal or they run out of time.

Iride01 

That in itself is trolling. So I still stand by my comment that the only point of this thread whether intentional or not is trolling.


I guess you mean this...

That's pretty much a duh! It's nothing new. Now if you'd suggested some action to take to take to help notify or bring about more awareness of how law enforcement and in this case the DA was derelict, then it might be fitting for the Advocacy part of this sub-forum. But you stated it's not your job to tell your representatives what you think. I'm not sure how you expect your representatives to represent you if you don't tell them what upsets you. And give them ideas how to fix it.

TC1

Hey look, someone finally googled before posting nonsense.

Again, though, reading before posting is something you struggle with. The perpetrator was already arrested -- very shortly after the crash, two weeks ago. What she wasn't, is charged, or held.

And again, if you believe that Chicago Police are spending two weeks investigating one traffic crash, you are divorced from reality -- as illustrated by the fact that they've been refusing to investigate the enormous majority of serious traffic crashes for years, which was previously cited.

TC1

I ride lots of fair and speedy trails, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

The statute of limitations which applies here is 3 years, which is more than enough time to bring this case to trial.

More to the point, somehow, someway, the perpetrator who shot up a Halloween party -- one week after the crash that is the subject of this thread -- was charged just two days later, despite that case being vastly more complex.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/us/ch...ged/index.html

Not only that, but Kim Foxx declared him a "threat to those in the community" -- even though he didn't kill anyone -- and filed to have him held in jail until trial. (ibid)

TC1

No, it certainly is not, as demonstrated by a) this forum and b) the constant demand from cyclists for more money to be wasted on infrastructure.

Learn to read. That is not what I said.

Or just stop being a troll.

tomato coupe

Actually, that is how the system often works. It takes some time to build the strongest case against some suspects.

tomato coupe

Reality says otherwise. As an example, Thomas Deters was charged in April in Cook County for killing a cyclist while driving intoxicated. The incident occurred 10 months earlier.

The link you posted indicates a large percentage of hit-and-run accidents go unsolved. Claiming that the police refuse to investigate those unsolved cases is baseless.

TC1

In reality, Hoffman Estates is not Chicago. Try again -- or don't, actually, you've embarrassed yourself plenty. And, for the record, those Hoffman Estates cops were not investigating that crash, either, they were stalling and trying to avoid work.


Learn to read. The article specifically mentions that in many cases, cops are provided with sufficient evidence to locate the perpetrator -- but they refuse to do so. As noted previously, cops in most or all American cities are currently engaged in illegal work slowdowns to protest being held responsible for events like the murders of George Floyd and Laquan McDonald and so many others.

Seriously reconsider continuing here. You are doing nothing but humiliating yourself and wasting my time.

FBinNY 

Part of the problem is that we've evolved a binary approach to law enforcement. There's a potential for severe sentences, but we're not willing to put "nice" people in jail.

As it is we already have one of the highest prison populations percentage wise, and it's obviously not working. It's not only about cases like this, we're losing the battle against lawlessness on all fronts. Staying on topic, let's look at cases like this. There is no personal responsibility. Insurance protects bad drivers from financial responsibility, and we're not willing to actually apply prison sentences, and there's nothing in between.

We need to think hard about alternatives so judges have options they might apply. Maybe 52 weeks of "weekend jail", meaning 2 days per week for some term. Serious community service, meaningful --- painful--- fines, possibly proportional to earning power, "Double or nothing" suspended sentences and parole, whereby a new violation doubles the remaining original sentence. These are just ideas, and probably need more time in the oven, but the point is that we need to start thinking.

But that's only half. We've become a "rights" based society, which is OK as far is it goes. But when is the last time any leader spoke about responsibility. IMO, rights without equal emphasis on responsibility is poison for civil society.

As much as I hate drunk drivers and those who leave accidents, I'm not sure that harsh prison sentences don't cause ripple effects that more than offset any possible deterrent effect. Nor do I want to live in a police state where we're watched full time. I believe that free societies can only work if the vast majority are willing to do what's right, not out of fear of punishment but simply because they're supposed to. Unfortunately, we are not headed in that direction.

jon c. 

Leaders used to talk about it until the last decade or so. They weren't necessarily good at practicing it, but they talked about it. Even the pretense seems now to have gone by the wayside.

TC1

This isn't even close to accurate. There exists a plethora of punishments -- so many that laws had to be passed setting minimum sentences for various crimes, because judges were so inconsistent in sentencing.

This already exists: https://www.vice.com/en/article/exqb...ekend-jail-828

The crimes you refer to here are not related to the issues inherent in police surveillance. A big part of the problem with drunk drivers is that they are not punished -- severely enough or at all in many cases -- so the recidivism rates are obscene. Locking those criminals up for many years might not cure them of their alcoholism, but it would stop them from killing and maiming other road users, and at some point ( which we've long-since passed ) that has to be the priority.

In more than half of US states, drunk drivers are convicted again within 3-years more than 40% of the time. (ibid)

FBinNY 

There's half the problem. Folks are more interested in ranting and screaming for action, yet quick to criticize ANY and every suggestion, while offering none of their own.

BTW- I believe it's still early to get worked up about this specific case. Illinois law and procedure is different from how we do things here in NY, but there are similarities. There may be reasons why no immediate arrest was made, but the police did gather and secure evidence, and the prosecutor has PLENTY of time to indict based on whatever charges he feels warranted. So, it's probably useful to let them know that you (the public) is waiting to see what he does.

Here in NY, the refusal of blood test is automatic is an automatic suspension and possible revocation of the driver's license. Even without a collision or injury, the driver would be facing a $5-10,000 legal bill, with more serious consequences if there''s injury or death.

Polaris OBark

It is totally reasonable to release this person without charges. Just because she fled the scene of the crime is no reason to assume she might be a flight risk.

jon c. 

You can't blame her for fleeing. It's hard to exercise good judgement when you're drunk.

TC1

Again, this is not close to accurate. I, and many other observers of this case, have precisely suggested our own solution -- charge this women with at least some of the crimes that she committed. This is not difficult for you to understand.

If you are going to pontificate on this situation, at least become slightly familiar with it, first. Again, your description here is not even close to accurate. An immediate arrest was made.

Again, not accurate. The district attorney has already declined to charge the perpetrator with anything.

Per Illinois law, she is facing 4 to 15 years in prison -- just for leaving the scene, without a kicker for being intoxicated -- but again, as I originally explained, laws don't matter when the people we pay to enforce them are in complete dereliction of duty.

SW84

I would recommend having a moderator move your thread to the politics & religion forum, because that's where the ultimate answer lies. To discuss the obvious reasons why she hasn't been formally charged, being that this is in the advocacy & safety forum, will go against forum rules.