Cobb County show total distain for pedestrian safety. (Nelson: appointed, attorney)

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by erick295

Both Nelsons broke a law, both knowingly put their children and other bystanders in danger and ultimately got one of them killed, and both did it to save a few minutes.

She did not break a law. That is a common misconception. The term "jaywalking" appears nowhere in Georgia law. See my earlier post:


The fact remains that what she was doing is NOT illegal. In the state of Georgia, according to code 40-6-92,pedestrians have the right of way even if they are not in a crosswalk, as long as the adjacent intersection does not have a crosswalk. Confused? Look at this:


Crossing there was absolutely legal.

[jp01358]

I don't know if anybody here is/was trying to make this into a racial/class type of scenario, but apparently charges like this aren't uncommon in Cobb County. I think this Nichols kid was white, although I'm not sure if he was prosecuted in the end or not. I think the DA and Solicitor here are pretty aggressive in prosecuting vehicular homicide.

Cobb police charge teen driver with mother's death *| ajc.com

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by shivtim

She did not break a law. That is a common misconception. The term "jaywalking" appears nowhere in Georgia law. See my earlier post:


The fact remains that what she was doing is NOT illegal. In the state of Georgia, according to code 40-6-92,pedestrians have the right of way even if they are not in a crosswalk, as long as the adjacent intersection does not have a crosswalk. Confused? Look at this:


Crossing there was absolutely legal.

I thought it was just the opposite. That code 40-6-92 says:

((a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway.

(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway if he uses the roadway instead of such tunnel or crossing.

(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

(d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices. When authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.

[jp01358]

Well she got probation. I hate to say it, but I told you so. Anyway, and I can't figure out why (seems unusual), the judge gave her a new trial and she said she wants to proceed with the new trial. Very interesting.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I thought it was just the opposite.
((a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway.

(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

She was in what is considered an "unmarked crosswalk."At any intersection with sidewalks, even if a crosswalk is not painted on the ground, pedestrians have the right-of-way, as long as adjacent intersections don't both have marked crosswalks. Part (c) does not apply because the adjacent intersections did not have traffic control signals. Thus there is no Georgia law prohibiting pedestrians crossing at that point.

If you don't consider where she crossed to be an "unmarked crosswalk," show me where in GA law it says she can't cross there? It is perfectly legal to cross as long as adjacent intersections aren't both signaled, which in this case they weren't.

Luckily the judge realized this and didn't give her any jail time.

[PKCorey]

Originally Posted by jp01358

Well she got probation. I hate to say it, but I told you so. Anyway, and I can't figure out why (seems unusual), the judge gave her a new trial and she said she wants to proceed with the new trial. Very interesting.

The principle of clearing her name.

[jp01358]

Originally Posted by PKCorey

The principle of clearing her name.

Well yeah, why not take her chances again. Probably can't hurt her to make them try her again. Wouldn't be surprised if they just dropped it after all of this publicity.

What puzzles me is that the judge granted her a new trial at sentencing. This is pretty much unheard of. Usually the defendant files a motion for new trial, which is usually denied after the defendant actually argues that there were errors in the trial. I think the judge here probably got a little bit nervous about all of this publicity, and he's trying to wash his hands of it so that the voters won't have him down as the judge that punished this lady.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jp01358

What puzzles me is that the judge granted her a new trial at sentencing. This is pretty much unheard

I think they do that to show leniency or as part of an agreement with the prosecutor so that you can say you don't have a felony conviction on your record.

The lady was clearly jaywalking and had done something incredibly reckless, but I'm sure the judge felt like she'd suffered enough. Not to mention sending a message to overzealous prosecutors.

[PKCorey]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I think they do that to show leniency or as part of an agreement with the prosecutor so that you can say you don't have a felony conviction on your record.

All 3 counts were misdemeanors.

[oakhurstlauren]

[quote=arjay57;20187636
The lady was clearly jaywalking and had done something incredibly reckless, but I'm sure the judge felt like she'd suffered enough. Not to mention sending a message to overzealous prosecutors.[/quote]

Someone has explained to you at least 3 different ways why what she was doing IS NOT illegal, It WAS NOT an adjacent intersection. What don't you understand about it?