If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Obvious headline of the day: Judge: If man had obeyed law, fatal accident wouldn't have happened   (wtkr.com) divider line 18
    More: Obvious, Ronald Quesenberry, ignition interlocks  
•       •       •

3175 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2013 at 8:49 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-17 08:25:59 AM
She also said that the day of the crash, he was driving her car because he sold his car to pay for fines and an ignition interlock system for a previous DUI.

But a prosecuting attorney says she was the one who sold her car to pay for the fees


Oh. Well. In that case.
 
2013-12-17 08:56:18 AM
This article doesnt give us much in the way of useful information.

It implies he was driving without a license for a DUI.... but he's being charged with homicide because he was "driving recklessly".
 
2013-12-17 08:57:25 AM
I'm assuming that the blood test came back proving that his story of stopping drinking 11 hours before the accident was BS.  If so, enjoy catching up with what Junior's been up to when you finally get released from jail.
 
2013-12-17 08:57:58 AM
Quesenberry is charged with felony homicide because of the unintentional death of someone else while reckless driving, which is a felony charge.

Sounds like this Quesenberry character have committed a rather felonious felony.  I certainly hope that this alleged-felon is charged with something more than a misdemeanor.
 
2013-12-17 09:08:27 AM
Ric Romero approves of this judge...
 
2013-12-17 09:12:24 AM
You can be perfectly sober and still be a crappy driver.

I've also woken up thinking I was hung over and realized I was still drunk.
 
2013-12-17 09:25:35 AM
Come on, he wants to be home so he can spend christmas with his young kid.

I wonder what the family of the dead guy think about that....
 
2013-12-17 09:36:11 AM
Way to guarantee your wife and newborn have to go on public assistance.

At least until she finds some other man and leaves your ass.

Maybe this will be the wakeup call you need, Obvious Addict Man.
 
2013-12-17 09:39:00 AM

Alonjar: This article doesnt give us much in the way of useful information.

It implies he was driving without a license for a DUI.... but he's being charged with homicide because he was "driving recklessly".


It sure doesn't give a lot of information, but it does remind me of why some people need to understand somethings so simple as obey the law and you shouldn't cause someone else to die.  A guy I worked with for a very short time, was awaiting trial for this very same thing.  He already had a list of traffic convictions along with DWI and had no license when he plowed into a woman's car killing her.  He was drunk and way over the speed limit, but he felt she shouldn't have pulled out of her driveway when she did and therefore her fault.  He couldn't understand how people usually time when it is safe to pull out based on the speed the other drivers should be going and not someone going 90 in a 55, and how he should have never been behind the wheel or drinking if he was obeying the law.  He was only 19.

MrBeetle: Come on, he wants to be home so he can spend christmas with his young kid.

I wonder what the family of the dead guy think about that....


She used that line to get him out after the first DUI.  Hopefully she can get used to him being gone and can just focus on her kid.  Let him go woman, he is gone.
 
2013-12-17 10:04:00 AM

Alonjar: This article doesnt give us much in the way of useful information.

It implies he was driving without a license for a DUI.... but he's being charged with homicide because he was "driving recklessly".


In Virginia, it's hard NOT to drive recklessly. 81 in a 70? Reckless driving. Didn't use your turn signal? Reckless driving. Class 1 misdemeanor, up to $2500 and/or 1 year in jail.

The guy sounds like a dick, but I don't buy into Virginia's definition of 'reckless.'
 
2013-12-17 10:31:20 AM
A Suffolk Fort Worth, TX judge told a courtroom that if Ronald Quesenberry Ethan Couch would have just obeyed the law, an accident that killed Tommy Rush four people and injured two more on Route 460 a road in Burleson never would have happened.

See...it's not that difficult, Texas.
 
2013-12-17 10:38:03 AM

MrBeetle: Come on, he wants to be home so he can spend christmas with his young kid.

I wonder what the family of the dead guy think about that....


Well, please let him out so he can spend Christmas with the family of his deceased victim.
 
2013-12-17 10:52:01 AM
To be fair, the Judge is right.  There are plenty of collisions that happen despite everyone obeying the laws and their best efforts - mechanical failures, health issues, hazards in the roadway, sudden emergencies, Acts of God, etc....

Sometimes stuff just happens.  Sometimes, someone causes it to happen.
 
2013-12-17 11:40:47 AM
"Suffolk, Va. - A Suffolk judge told a courtroom today that if Ronald Quesenberry would have just obeyed the law, an accident that killed Tommy Rush on Route 460 never would have happened. "

img571.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-17 11:59:35 AM

LawyerBuzz: To be fair, the Judge is right.  There are plenty of collisions that happen despite everyone obeying the laws and their best efforts - mechanical failures, health issues, hazards in the roadway, sudden emergencies, Acts of God, etc....

Sometimes stuff just happens.  Sometimes, someone causes it to happen.


To be fair, accidents caused by uncontrollable circumstances are extremely rare when compared to "accidents" caused by improper judgement.  Virtually non existent, really.

/Wife is a firefighter
 
2013-12-17 03:08:48 PM
He had to have been driving obscenely fast/reckless to cause the amount of damage shown in that video.  I looks like a car went up into the cab of the truck.
 
2013-12-17 03:59:08 PM
IANAL, but doesn't that smack of a prejudicial ruling?  The judge was denying him bail, if I understand TFA correctly.  Is it proper to make a determination if/whether the defendant is guilty of the crime during the bail proceedings?  If not, could the defense lawyer use the judge's statement as evidence that the initial incarceration was de facto punishment and therefore the double-jeopardy rule should apply?

My guess is that the answer is "it doesn't work that way."
 
2013-12-18 08:51:11 PM
It's not a law, it's just a suggestion, therefore he shouldn't have to follow it.

/merica
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report