Jump to content
GoDuBois.com
  • LOW PRICES
  • LOW PRICES
  • LOW PRICES

Trial Underway For I-80 Wrong-Way Driver Charged In Fatal Crash


Recommended Posts

On 4/22/2021 at 8:30 PM, momtothree said:

If I'm drunk or high and driving the wrong way, then yes, murder should apply.  Nice try though.  

Nice try to you...   Murder requires intent or depraved indifference.  All other homicides are manslaughter.

Words have meanings.

Are you going to tell me that the color orange is now called "blue"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2021 at 7:36 AM, jt85 said:

Ok is the person hitting the kid D.U.I ?? No didnt think so. So ur argument is bullshit. There's definitely a huge difference driving to work on coffee and driving down 80 the wrong way all fucked up on drugs. Your intelligent but that comment was probably the dumbest one I've read from u.. take a nap and try again...

No, it is just as valid comparison as saying that a DUI homicide is murder.   MURDER REQUIRES THAT YOU INTEND TO KILL THE OTHER PERSON, OR THAT YOU ALLOWED THE DEATH TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.

What is so hard to understand?

Are you psychic enough to be able to say that Franco intended to kill the occupant of that other vehicle?   You cannot claim she had depraved indifference because that would require that she wasn't impaired to make a proper judgment.

If you do not believe me, go consult a lawyer.  I am 100% correct on this.

Murder and manslaughter are two different words with two different meanings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PA Title 18, Chapter 25

§ 2502.  Murder.

(a)  Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b)  Murder of the second degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c)  Murder of the third degree.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

(d)  Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Fireman."  Includes any employee or member of a municipal fire department or volunteer fire company.

"Hijacking."  Any unlawful or unauthorized seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence.

"Intentional killing."  Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.

"Perpetration of a felony."  The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.

"Principal."  A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.

------------------

§ 2503.  Voluntary manslaughter.

(a)  General rule.--A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:

(1)  the individual killed; or

(2)  another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed.

(b)  Unreasonable belief killing justifiable.--A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

(c)  Grading.--Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the first degree.

 

-------------------

§ 2504.  Involuntary manslaughter.

(a)  General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

(b)  Grading.--Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Where the victim is under 12 years of age and is in the care, custody or control of the person who caused the death, involuntary manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

---------------------------

PA Title 75

§ 3732.  Homicide by vehicle.

(a)  Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.

(b)  Sentencing.--

(1)  In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed five years' confinement if at trial the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred in an active work zone.

(1.1)  In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) who is also convicted of a violation of section 1501 (relating to drivers required to be licensed), 1543 (relating to driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked), 3316 (relating to prohibiting text-based communications), 3325 (relating to duty of driver on approach of emergency vehicle) or 3327 (relating to duty of driver in emergency response areas and in relation to disabled vehicles) may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed five years' confinement.

(2)  The prosecution must indicate intent to proceed under this section in the indictment or information which commences the prosecution.

(3)  The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing), shall provide for a sentencing enhancement for an offense under this section when the violation occurred in an active work zone or the individual was also convicted of a violation of section 1501, 1543, 3316, 3325 or 3327.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

Nice try to you...   Murder requires intent or depraved indifference.  All other homicides are manslaughter.

Words have meanings.

Are you going to tell me that the color orange is now called "blue"?

Not supposed to say color...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

No, it is just as valid comparison as saying that a DUI homicide is murder.   MURDER REQUIRES THAT YOU INTEND TO KILL THE OTHER PERSON, OR THAT YOU ALLOWED THE DEATH TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.

What is so hard to understand?

Are you psychic enough to be able to say that Franco intended to kill the occupant of that other vehicle?   You cannot claim she had depraved indifference because that would require that she wasn't impaired to make a proper judgment.

If you do not believe me, go consult a lawyer.  I am 100% correct on this.

Murder and manslaughter are two different words with two different meanings.

Yea not going this circle with u. What the law says is murder and what she did should be murder. She intentionally got in that vehicle went and got fucked up and then drove. That is all intentional. I hope that b**** suffers everyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

PA Title 18, Chapter 25

§ 2502.  Murder.

(a)  Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b)  Murder of the second degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c)  Murder of the third degree.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

(d)  Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Fireman."  Includes any employee or member of a municipal fire department or volunteer fire company.

"Hijacking."  Any unlawful or unauthorized seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence.

"Intentional killing."  Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.

"Perpetration of a felony."  The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.

"Principal."  A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.

------------------

§ 2503.  Voluntary manslaughter.

(a)  General rule.--A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:

(1)  the individual killed; or

(2)  another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed.

(b)  Unreasonable belief killing justifiable.--A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

(c)  Grading.--Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the first degree.

 

-------------------

§ 2504.  Involuntary manslaughter.

(a)  General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

(b)  Grading.--Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Where the victim is under 12 years of age and is in the care, custody or control of the person who caused the death, involuntary manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

---------------------------

PA Title 75

§ 3732.  Homicide by vehicle.

(a)  Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.

(b)  Sentencing.--

(1)  In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed five years' confinement if at trial the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred in an active work zone.

(1.1)  In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) who is also convicted of a violation of section 1501 (relating to drivers required to be licensed), 1543 (relating to driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked), 3316 (relating to prohibiting text-based communications), 3325 (relating to duty of driver on approach of emergency vehicle) or 3327 (relating to duty of driver in emergency response areas and in relation to disabled vehicles) may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed five years' confinement.

(2)  The prosecution must indicate intent to proceed under this section in the indictment or information which commences the prosecution.

(3)  The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing), shall provide for a sentencing enhancement for an offense under this section when the violation occurred in an active work zone or the individual was also convicted of a violation of section 1501, 1543, 3316, 3325 or 3327.

We get it.  We know what the law says. We are saying it should be murder as we believe there was intent the moment she chose to get in her vehicle stoned. That’s intent in my book.  The law needs changed to reflect that.   This wasn’t an “accident”. She knowingly got stoned and knowingly got in her car and went the wrong way.  There’s the intent.  The death penalty should apply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 4:29 PM, pennstater said:

We get it.  We know what the law says. We are saying it should be murder as we believe there was intent the moment she chose to get in her vehicle stoned. That’s intent in my book.  The law needs changed to reflect that.   This wasn’t an “accident”. She knowingly got stoned and knowingly got in her car and went the wrong way.  There’s the intent.  The death penalty should apply. 

Murder is different from vehicular homicide, and different from manslaughter.   

By default, all killings are manslaughter.  All deaths caused by another person are homicides(some are justifiable).  

If you don't like the penalties for vehicular homicide, especially those by DUI - then have the law changed.

How do you know she "knowingly got in her car AND went the wrong way"?  I'm sure the judge would like to hear how you know that.   Intent must be to intent to kill, not to do other things that result in a death.  As you describe is in fact voluntary manslaughter.    If she was drugged up, then she wouldn't have cognitive abilities to formulate intent.   So no matter how you spin it, you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you have a comprehension problem with that.  Manslaughter and Murder have the same penalties.  And only premeditated murder can have the death penalty.

I hope you never have to serve on a jury because your ability to comprehend law would have you sending a shoplifter to the death chamber.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

Murder is different from vehicular homicide, and different from manslaughter.   

By default, all killings are manslaughter.  All deaths caused by another person are homicides(some are justifiable).  

If you don't like the penalties for vehicular homicide, especially those by DUI - then have the law changed.

How do you know she "knowingly got in her car AND went the wrong way"?  I'm sure the judge would like to hear how you know that.   Intent must be to intent to kill, not to do other things that result in a death.  As you describe is in fact voluntary manslaughter.    If she was drugged up, then she wouldn't have cognitive abilities to formulate intent.   So no matter how you spin it, you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you have a comprehension problem with that.  Manslaughter and Murder have the same penalties.  And only premeditated murder can have the death penalty.

I hope you never have to serve on a jury because your ability to comprehend law would have you sending a shoplifter to the death chamber.

 

???? So someone forced her into her car and made her drive. 
I think she got in and drove herself.  
Correct me if I’m wrong. She didn’t get in her car and drive?  The wrong way and killing someone? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

Murder is different from vehicular homicide, and different from manslaughter.   

By default, all killings are manslaughter.  All deaths caused by another person are homicides(some are justifiable).  

If you don't like the penalties for vehicular homicide, especially those by DUI - then have the law changed.

How do you know she "knowingly got in her car AND went the wrong way"?  I'm sure the judge would like to hear how you know that.   Intent must be to intent to kill, not to do other things that result in a death.  As you describe is in fact voluntary manslaughter.    If she was drugged up, then she wouldn't have cognitive abilities to formulate intent.   So no matter how you spin it, you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you have a comprehension problem with that.  Manslaughter and Murder have the same penalties.  And only premeditated murder can have the death penalty.

I hope you never have to serve on a jury because your ability to comprehend law would have you sending a shoplifter to the death chamber.

 

My comprehension is fine dude.  Like most others, I believe our laws are too easy on criminals.  LIKE I SAID IN THE OTHER POST.....WE GET IT.  We just don’t agree with it.    It’s stupid a woman who INTENTIONALLY got stoned and INTENTIONALLY got in her car and killed someone will only get a few years.  Stupid is the only word.  It’s a slap in the face to the family it happened too.  Her act was intentional. Btw.  She took the drugs. She drove.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, pennstater said:

My comprehension is fine dude.  Like most others, I believe our laws are too easy on criminals.  LIKE I SAID IN THE OTHER POST.....WE GET IT.  We just don’t agree with it.    It’s stupid a woman who INTENTIONALLY got stoned and INTENTIONALLY got in her car and killed someone will only get a few years.  Stupid is the only word.  It’s a slap in the face to the family it happened too.  Her act was intentional. Btw.  She took the drugs. She drove.  

Thank you. And she will get out someday and she can only pray she don't come back to this area. She killed a friend and hurt another one and her daughter. We can only pray she gets a bunch of time or fate will take her in prison... I'm a very strong believer in an eye for an eye. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

Murder is different from vehicular homicide, and different from manslaughter.   

By default, all killings are manslaughter.  All deaths caused by another person are homicides(some are justifiable).  

If you don't like the penalties for vehicular homicide, especially those by DUI - then have the law changed.

How do you know she "knowingly got in her car AND went the wrong way"?  I'm sure the judge would like to hear how you know that.   Intent must be to intent to kill, not to do other things that result in a death.  As you describe is in fact voluntary manslaughter.    If she was drugged up, then she wouldn't have cognitive abilities to formulate intent.   So no matter how you spin it, you are wrong.

I'm not sure why you have a comprehension problem with that.  Manslaughter and Murder have the same penalties.  And only premeditated murder can have the death penalty.

I hope you never have to serve on a jury because your ability to comprehend law would have you sending a shoplifter to the death chamber.

 

Again no comparison to killing someone because you are stupid and driving high. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 10:06 PM, dubois_15801 said:

Nice try to you...   Murder requires intent or depraved indifference.  All other homicides are manslaughter.

Words have meanings.

Are you going to tell me that the color orange is now called "blue"?

OMG   Seriously, she was driving under the influence, if that is not indifference, what is???   She intentionally used drugs and got behind the wheel.  She didn't have care or concern.  Period. 

You are trying to make this sound like she isn't at fault and she is 100% to blame!!! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2021 at 10:12 PM, dubois_15801 said:

No, it is just as valid comparison as saying that a DUI homicide is murder.   MURDER REQUIRES THAT YOU INTEND TO KILL THE OTHER PERSON, OR THAT YOU ALLOWED THE DEATH TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.

What is so hard to understand?

Are you psychic enough to be able to say that Franco intended to kill the occupant of that other vehicle?   You cannot claim she had depraved indifference because that would require that she wasn't impaired to make a proper judgment.

If you do not believe me, go consult a lawyer.  I am 100% correct on this.

Murder and manslaughter are two different words with two different meanings.

She could have stopped this by not driving the wrong way while under the influence!!!     

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pennstater said:

My comprehension is fine dude.  Like most others, I believe our laws are too easy on criminals.  LIKE I SAID IN THE OTHER POST.....WE GET IT.  We just don’t agree with it.    It’s stupid a woman who INTENTIONALLY got stoned and INTENTIONALLY got in her car and killed someone will only get a few years.  Stupid is the only word.  It’s a slap in the face to the family it happened too.  Her act was intentional. Btw.  She took the drugs. She drove.  

Thank you.  Someone is too busy doing google searches on law to feel like he's smart to understand what we are saying. 

It is very sad that someone's life has such little value to our court system.  Which, like I said before, is the problem. People know they can get away with murder. Sickening. DUI laws are definitely not strict enough. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 7:54 AM, pennstater said:

My comprehension is fine dude.  Like most others, I believe our laws are too easy on criminals.  LIKE I SAID IN THE OTHER POST.....WE GET IT.  We just don’t agree with it.    It’s stupid a woman who INTENTIONALLY got stoned and INTENTIONALLY got in her car and killed someone will only get a few years.  Stupid is the only word.  It’s a slap in the face to the family it happened too.  Her act was intentional. Btw.  She took the drugs. She drove.  

If you were comprehending what is being said you'd get it. You are just being obstinate and childish.  If you don't like the laws fight to change them.  Otherwise suck it up because YOUR interpretation doesn't mean squat about any law from jaywalking to murder.  I hope you are NEVER are any jury because you will refuse to follow given instruction and are far from impartial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, allboys said:

If you were comprehending what is being said you'd get it. You are just being obstinate and childish.  If you don't like the laws fight to change them.  Otherwise suck it up because YOUR interpretation doesn't mean squat about any law from jaywalking to murder.  I hope you are NEVER are any jury because you will refuse to follow given instruction and are far from impartial.

You haven’t read my posts. I SAID I GET IT. I know what the law is.  I’m saying it’s crap that she will only get a small sentence for what amounts to murder.   So for the third time....I GET IT.  Still doesn’t make it right. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, allboys said:

If you were comprehending what is being said you'd get it. You are just being obstinate and childish.  If you don't like the laws fight to change them.  Otherwise suck it up because YOUR interpretation doesn't mean squat about any law from jaywalking to murder.  I hope you are NEVER are any jury because you will refuse to follow given instruction and are far from impartial.

wait, aren't you against violence? I would think you would want a stiffer penalty for killing someone, especially a death that would have been prevented by not driving DUI.   This was not someone who suffered a heart attack while driving and wrecked as a result. It was totally preventable and caused by the killers actions. 

I love jury duty, best $12 I ever made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allboys, This was your post on another topic this week about a life taken in prison: 

"I don't care who it is.  I don't care what they did.  I don't celebrate one person taking another person's life.  The moral compass of our society is in the toilet in part because we don't value life.  That includes what the man did to the child.  He didn't value that child's life.  Doesn't mean he had to die by an alcoholic imbecile who used what the man did as an excuse for what he did.  

There is ZERO justifiable excuse for one person to murder another.  Anyone who thinks that is ok is part of the problem in the world today.  "

It looks like you agree with us in part.  I agree, the moral compass is in the toilet because we don't value life. There is not enough value given to the life taken by DUI. They didn't deserve to die by an imbecile who drove DUI on the wrong side of the highway.  There is zero justifiable excuse for killing by DUI. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, momtothree said:

Allboys, This was your post on another topic this week about a life taken in prison: 

"I don't care who it is.  I don't care what they did.  I don't celebrate one person taking another person's life.  The moral compass of our society is in the toilet in part because we don't value life.  That includes what the man did to the child.  He didn't value that child's life.  Doesn't mean he had to die by an alcoholic imbecile who used what the man did as an excuse for what he did.  

There is ZERO justifiable excuse for one person to murder another.  Anyone who thinks that is ok is part of the problem in the world today.  "

It looks like you agree with us in part.  I agree, the moral compass is in the toilet because we don't value life. There is not enough value given to the life taken by DUI. They didn't deserve to die by an imbecile who drove DUI on the wrong side of the highway.  There is zero justifiable excuse for killing by DUI. 

 

Yep.....should be a justification for the death penalty.   And before anyone gets on my back.......I KNOW what the law says. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pennstater said:

Yep.....should be a justification for the death penalty.   And before anyone gets on my back.......I KNOW what the law says. 

Screw what the laws says. Its beyond so screwed up that I'm surprised anyone can make sense of it unless we use hooked on google.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gator11 said:

well murder or manslaughter if it were my family she killed then I have to say she would be dead also by some means and good luck finding out who or how as no one would find the body.

Its a struggle thinking shes gonna get a smack on the wrist and I really hope she gets way more. Like I said and eye for an eye. And she will get hers one way or another. Karma bites hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 5:37 PM, momtothree said:

OMG   Seriously, she was driving under the influence, if that is not indifference, what is???   She intentionally used drugs and got behind the wheel.  She didn't have care or concern.  Period. 

You are trying to make this sound like she isn't at fault and she is 100% to blame!!! 

 

I never said she wasn't at fault, and yes - she is 100% to blame.   If you would scroll way back up you will see me say that.

It is call depraved indifference.   It is when you had the power to stop a murder but intentionally allowed to happen.   

Examples: 

1. You know that Joe Schmo intends to kill someone, but instead of either acting against it or calling the police, you turn a blind-eye to it.
2. You create a situation where under normal circumstances risks death, then someone falls into that situation, you then cognitively decline to help prevent the death from happening.

She did intentionally take drugs, and intentionally drove - but didn't intentionally kill someone, nor intentionally allowed them to die.   That death was a result of being impaired.  She didn't premeditate the killing, she didn't lay in wait to ambush, she didn't kill while committing a forcible felony, she didn't turn a blind-eye with full faculties.   She killed them by accident because she was messed up on drugs and drove in the wrong direction - so she committed vehicular homicide by means of DUI.   The conviction was from the correct law.  If you don't like the penalty, have your state senator and/or representative propose a bill to change the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, momtothree said:

This is where I disagree, she had the power to stop this murder but not using drugs and driving.  She made the choices. 

My problem is that someone's life is worth so little to a judge.  It's sad. 

 

I agree to your first part but not the last. A judge has to follow the law no matter what it is. I'm sure he doesn't like giving out small sentences to scum but he has no other choice. Its not the judges fault the law is screwed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...