(FORBULOUS1 here with a slightly UPDATED, REVISED VERSION of my just-submitted commentary on this case. This UPDATE more correctly expresses what I meant to express): ===================================================  Of course I refer to the case of Ms. Nelson, whose child, according to the story, was killed by a speeding, DWI, partially blind, pain-killer taking, driver, but the prosecutor wants to “throw the book” at the mother, Ms. Nelson and to throw her into jail for up to three years, while the driver has served only several months in jail and is now out on probation.  1. I’ve just read the WIKIPEDIA description of “second degree vehicular homicide” as that term applies in the state of Georgia, where this event is all taking place:  “Second degree homicide by vehicle - This is a misdemeanor, that upon conviction will result in a sentence of up to 1 year (which may be suspended) or a fine of up to US$1,000 (or both). Second degree homicide by vehicle encompasses all other homicides by vehicle, involving any other violation of the laws governing motor vehicles, that are not classed as first degree homicides”.  So, IF that definition is accurate, how can Ms. Nelson be facing — according to her attorney (as reported at http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html) — a jail-sentence of “up to 36 months”?  2. Who was actually “negligent” — or what differing degrees were they “negligent” — in this case? And shouldn’t that difference of degree play a role here?  Certainly neither the driver nor Ms. Nelson wanted ANYONE to be injured or killed.  (a) HOWEVER, the driver, according to news accounts, was DWI and had a host of other problems — PLUS, reportedly, a HIT-AND-RUN RECORD — which should have prevented him from CHOOSING to, and from BEING ABLE to, get behind the wheel that day.  (b) Further, is it unreasonable to also propose that his driving-record, PRIOR TO this current case, should already have REQUIRED the AUTHORITIES to have TAKE AWAY, EVEN TEMPORARILY, HIS RIGHT TO DRIVE? What about the possible negligence of THOSE authorities — their failure to do THEIR duty to SAFEGUARD THE DRIVING-&-PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC — in this case?  (c) Plus, what about the additional responsibility of the local authorities who, perhaps it can be argued, should have long ago recognized — but, IMO, arguably were NEGLIGENT on this point — that with crosswalks maybe a half-mile distant, such non-crosswalk stretches of populated areas were bound to become a potential “death alley”, in which pedestrians, by the need of convenience, would tend to be placed at risk by the town’s FAILURE TO ACT ON THE NECESSITY OF REMOVING THOSE RISKS BY PUTTING IN CROSSWALKS (AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS) ALONG THOSE POPULAR CROSSING-BY-CONVENIENCE LOCATIONS?  (d) Further, it would seem, Ms. Nelson, in attempting to cross the street at that location, may have been not “carving out new ground”, but INSTEAD was perhaps following a PROVEN PATH THAT MANY OTHERS BEFORE HER HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS AN ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF CROSSING THE STREET AT THAT LOCATION. Thus, she would have had every REASONABLE REASON to believe that if she just exercised normal caution, she (and her children with her) could cross the street at that location SAFELY.  Perhaps she should not have jaywalked. But certainly, in her crossing-attempt, I would think that her attorney could reasonably argue that she was most likely exercising what SHE believed were the APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS — following a COMMONLY PEDESTRIANED ROUTE, PRE-CHECKING ON-COMING TRAFFIC — and that she had made an informed decision, to the best of her ability, that to cross at that spot and at that moment would be a SAFE crossing.  It is more than unfortunate that if this was her judgment, it turned out to be wrong. But TO WHAT DEGREE, IF AT ALL, was the result due to her negligence? Should she “have known better”? But on the other hand, as even Presidents and military generals – and people in just about all walks have life – have discovered at one time or another, sometimes the initial informed-decision is the right one – but it can suddenly be “thrown for a loop” when an unexpected, even unpredictable, element suddenly enters the picture and, unpredictably, changes the entire equation.  Perhaps that’s what happened to Ms. Nelson in this case.  I do think that, even if her intentions were the best, and even if she exercised what she believed to be all the correct precautions, if she attempted to cross a busy, heavily-trafficked street, with vehicles rapidly whizzing by in close proximity to her at the time, she inadvertently placed herself and her children at risk. But did she do her best to insure that there would be, in her view, NO risk at the time?  She, I would suggest it could reasonably be argued, most likely DID have EDUCATED REASON to believe that her crossing would be a safe one. I also would suspect that she did NOT INTEND OR HAVE REASON TO FORESEE that this half-blind, half-drunk, already convicted of driving into TWO people, driver would suddenly come careening toward her and smash into her and her children – children whom, I would surmise, Ms. Nelson had EVERY reason to want to PROTECT FROM ALL HARM at WHATEVER THE COST.  But HE, this driver of a machine that could KILL, had NO RIGHT TO be on the road AT ALL!  (e) So, WHOSE negligence is responsible, or primarily responsible, for the death of Ms. Nelson’s child?  MS. NELSON probably should not have subjected herself or her children to ANY danger that an act such as “jaywalking” (if that’s what she actually did; I would explore the Georgia definition of “jaywalking” and see if it does or doesn’t apply) could bring. But, in her crossing-attempt, to what degree, if any, did she act irresponsibly – or did she make every effort, to the best of her ability, to act RESPONSIBLY?  THE DRIVER: To what extent did HE, as a driver, act, or even try to act, responsibly? History of Hit-&-Run. Blind in one eye. Allegedly drunk and also on pain-killers too. (Note: according to the website of the National Pain Foundation, “It is extremely dangerous to drink alcohol while taking opioid medications. Alcohol increases the toxicity of painkillers. The combination can be deadly.”). How responsible was HE in getting behind the wheel, going out on the open road, and careening into Ms. Nelson and her children? Where was HIS “EDUCATED REASON” that told him that to commandeer and throttle-up a KILLING-MACHINE was somehow “all right”?  And the LOCAL AUTHORITIES: They had YEARS to know – and, perhaps one might argue, had YEARS of empirical statistical data that show – (A) that to have an official, painted, crosswalk EVERY HALF-MILE (if even that!) was NOT SUFFICIENT to match THE TOWNSPEOPLE’S NEEDS OR THE TOWNSPEOPLE’S REPEATED REQUESTS for more closely-spaced official crosswalks; and (B) that, without such crosswalks where the townspeople needed them most, it would logically become COMMON PRACTICE for people to choose their OWN most convenient crossing-areas, thus establishing an informal but PROVEN choice of appropriate-to-people’s-needs crossing-locations; and (C) that such a FAILURE by the town authorities to follow that information and create official crosswalks at those locations, could well be considered as an ACT OF NEGLIGENCE BY THE TOWN OFFICIALS which, by extension, would mean that it was, in large part, the NEGLIGENCE BY THE TOWN OFFICIALS THEMSELVES that was PLACING THE TOWN’S OWN CITIZENS AT RISK.  But for the judge to “throw the book” at Ms. Nelson, who – even if the judge deems her to have been totally at fault (which I would hope her attorney vehemently protests) – has already suffered the WORST of tragedies because of – in the judge’s view – her actions, would itself be a tragedy, and a travesty, of huge proportions. In my opinion.  I would therefore hope that E. D. Kain, and Forbes, stay on this case.
Following up on the infuriating case of Raquel Nelson, a mother who was convicted of homicide when her child was struck and killed by a drunk driver in Marietta, Georgia, I think it’s appropriate to bring in a bit of Georgia law. Nelson was charged with jaywalking since [...]