Jury reaches mixed verdict in Benjamin Cope's Mt. Lebanon fatal accident trial.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

It just kind of irks me a bit when I know that if this driver ran over a black guy in the hill district under all the same circumstances there would be no thread about it, but white mother in an affluent neighborhood & suddenly it's front page news.

If this particular person had done that, it might have made news for entirely different reasons. But yes, I agree the widespread interest in this particular accident was driven in part by the nature of the victim.

[groar]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If this particular person had done that, it might have made news for entirely different reasons. But yes, I agree the widespread interest in this particular accident was driven in part by the nature of the victim.

that may be true, but it does nothing to explain why people on this thread feel that this guy was convicted of the wrong crime.

there's a big difference between one story receiving more or less attention than another and people having certain reactions to a story once the details are known to them.

if ukyank wants to claim that the people on this thread advocating for a homicide conviction would not do so if the same guy had killed a black man in the hill district, that would be relevant. wrong, but relevant.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by groar

that may be true, but it does nothing to explain why people on this thread feel that this guy was convicted of the wrong crime.

I mostly agree with that too, although I think a few people in this thread are not so much interested in the legal issues as just wanting to see this person punished more. But hopefully I have been clear about thinking the legal issues are perfectly legitimate.

[rhondee]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But I don't think more punishment would meaningfully add to the deterrent in this case. Not to trivialize the issue, but I don't think a lot of people will be OK with risking involuntary manslaughter convictions, as long as they aren't risking vehicular homicide convictions.

My stance is more of a preemptive solution with the hope of preventing the slaughter from happening in the first place. My thoughts are ramping up the penalties with traffic violations, especially in places where pedestrians are more likely encountered s.a. residential areas, should be an automatic revocation of driver's license at the time of a second offense. The driver should have to be made to go through the paces of driver's ed. classes and retake PennDot's driver's test before they get behind the wheel again.I know we have the current point system, but make it more strict with residential areas equal to work zone violations.

Of course I realize that laws are only good if they are tenaciously and consistantly enforced, and that's where the real challenge lies. It would take great public pressure and support for lawmakers to enact stricter enforcement. Organizations s.a. MADD were able to accomplish this by lobbying for change with the issue of dealing with DUI,and they succeeded in mandating random sobriety checkpoints and lowering the standard for BAC.We now see the positive results of their efforts with a decrease in the number of deaths related to drunk driving nationwide.

In the same way we can adopt a " zero tolerance" for reckless drivers (impaired or not) as well.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by rhondee

My stance is more of a preemptive solution with the hope of preventing the slaughter from happening in the first place.

I think that is a good approach. This particular driver has gone through a lot (and will likely get a significant additional punishment) because he happened to kill someone, but lots of other drivers who created the same level of risk don't face that level of disincentive because they happened not to kill someone. So rather than try to get to those other people through punishing this person even more, I think it makes sense to go after those other people more directly, to the extent possible.

[Wooglin]

I am not passing judgement one way or the other on this, but from reading some of the posts, it is obvious that there is quite a bit of misinformation out there.

First of all, Cope's past record was inadmissable in court, and all information pertaining to his past history was scrupulously kept from the jury.

Secondly, although there was uncontested evidence that he had smoked marijuana the night before, there was no testimony or evidence that he had done so the day of the incident. Even the results of his blood test showed extremely minute traces of the drug in his system, which was consistent with someone who had smoked marijuana anytime in the past, but not that day.

The minute trace, especially when the margin of error for testing was factored in, was almost at the zero, or "baseline" level - nowhere near the amount required for someone to meet the standard of being "impaired". From reading some of the jurors' comments after the trial, it seems that the jury understood this concept.

Thirdly, unless I'm hallucinating, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter - a significant crime. This was based on the Mt. Lebanon police's excellent and dramatic reconstruction of what he should have seen from the driver's seat when Lisa was in the crosswalk. The prosecutor showed this in a "slide show" in court, using the original vehicle and stroller, with a policeman standing in for Lisa. The camera was positioned inside the SUV, on the driver's side at the height where Cope's head should have been. The exact positions upon impact of the stroller and of the victim were easily determined by the expert analysis of the bumper damage on the SUV

Lastly - and no one seems to be focusing on this - he was convicted of two more significant offenses: reckless endangerment of each of the children. (the newsies are erroneously reporting this as "two counts" - in reality, he was slammed with two completely separate charges - one for the little boy, and one for the little girl).

As a result of his inattention, he was convicted of three major offenses - one resulting in the death of a young woman, and the two others placing little children in mortal danger. I don't know when he'll be sentenced, but the judge, unlike the jury, HAS to consider his past record.

Fortunately or unfortunately, this young man will get more than a slap on the wrist.

[groar]

Originally Posted by Wooglin

As a result of his inattention, he was convicted of three major offenses - one resulting in the death of a young woman, and the two others placing little children in mortal danger. I don't know when he'll be sentenced, but the judge, unlike the jury, HAS to consider his past record.

i appreciate your insights on the specifics of the trial and the charges but i have to take issue with your characterization of cope's actions as "inattention". driving recklessly and running a stop sign is not mere inattention, unless he's actually claiming he didn't know there was a stop sign there.

[Wooglin]

Yes, of course. The fact that he was inattentive while driving naturally means that he was reckless, which is why the jury convicted him. Apparently you have very strong feelings about this, but you shouldn't let that cloud your interpretation of other people's meaning.

Also, there was NEVER any conclusive proof in the trial that he "ran a stop sign". The evidence and testimony showed that he hit Lisa as she was crossing the road not because he ignored the stop sign (he might have done that but there was no conclusive evidence that he did), but because he was not paying attention to what was happening to the right of the vehicle.

The expert accident reconstruction witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense agreed that he was not speeding.