I know, this board really doesn't need another story about a driver that suffers few consequences for hitting a bicycler. But, this one is so outrageous that when I saw it on a friend's FB page, I had to post it here.
Hitting A Cyclist Might Not Matter Much If You Drive a Mercedes
by Jess Leber November 08, 2010 07:27 AM (PT)
When it comes to sharing the road with cyclists, it's scarily common for car drivers to act as if they live above the law.
The case of Colorado wealth manager Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, proves this to the extreme.
Erzinger was driving his Mercedes on July 3rd when, according to The Vail Daily, he allegedly veered to the side of the road and struck a cyclist from behind.
Did he stop? No. Did he call 911? Did he attempt to help his victim, who survived but suffered severe spinal cord injuries and brain bleeding? No and no. Rather, Erzinger fled the scene and later stopped to call Mercedes auto assistance and report damage to his expensive vehicle.
Now, it looks like he could get off with a minor slap on the wrist: Eagle County District Attorney recently said he would drop the felony charges. And the reason isn't because Erzinger successfully proved he wasn't reckless, negligent or at fault for the accident. Nope, Erzinger is getting off because he is rich.
According to The Vail Daily article, the DA is worried that jail time would mean Erzinger can't keep his job at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's Denver office, where he manages more than $1 billion in assets and, according to Worth.com, is "dedicated to ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations.” No, really?
Not only is this raw deal outrageous for the victim, who isn't so concerned about money (Erzinger says he is more than willing to pay his way out of this sticky situation...big surprise, there), it's also outrageous for advocates who want to reduce urban congestion and the polluting emissions that result. Because how many people are really going to ditch their car if they think drivers can run them over and get off without a scratch?
As Change.org tech team member Joe Arasin writes in a petition he started over the issue, "Traffic laws exist to motivate all drivers to act in a manner that is safe for other users of the road, including pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. To those of us who rely on bicycles for transportation and recreation, enforcement of laws that ensure our safety on the road is vital."
Some drivers think bicyclists deserve what they get simply for using the road, and apparently judges often agree. Dropping or downgrading felony charges is a common occurrence for two-wheeled collision victims, and several states lack bicycle homicide laws entirely. In one case, recently, I wrote about the hit-and-run death of U.S. Senate candidate Natasha Pettigrew in Maryland. Ms. Pettigrew lost her life and the SUV driver will likely lose only a few thousand dollars. And that driver wasn't even super rich!
Around the country, bicycle advocacy groups are campaigning to make sure drivers like Erzinger are held accountable to the full extent of the law. Now, some are planning to boycott a major bike race in Vail in protest of the DA's decision.
Join them in speaking out by telling DA Mark Hulbert to keep the felony charges.
Article in the HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/martin-erzinger-morgan-stanley-hit-and-run-_n_780294.html
Petition to sign:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/da_mark_hurlbert_dont_drop_felony_charges_against_hit-and-run_wealth_manager
Sign it in the upper right hand corner.
HuffPost article puts a different spin on it
DA's response here: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101109/EDITS/101109849/1021&ParentProfile=1065
His original comment was still, uh, doubleplusungood.
Ability to make restitution doesn't matter. Erzinger's actions were a crime against society, not merely a tortuous act against Dr Milo. That's why we have criminal law, otherwise all law would be civil law. Had Erzinger stopped to render aid, then arguably his actions would not have been criminal. But he fled, and demonstrated a disregard for human life. People like that do not belong in society, they should be locked up, for everyone's good.
I read the story somewhere else -that had no mention of the fact that the victim was on a bike.
One thing the story above fails to mention is taht the victim was a transplant surgeon in NYC. In other words, his income, which is at risk, is likely in the 7 figures (and there is even a possibility that the first digit might not be a 1).
If (and this is a big IF) the DA believed that the financial manager perp was going to get sued and have to replace the lost income, then it would be worthwhile to keep him employed at a lucrative job.
Now, if this were the case, one would think the DA would discuss this with the victim. No indication of this in the stories.
OTOH, the "fury" of the victim might be posturing for a better settlement.
Side note: Consider that physicians are trying very, VERY hard to limit the punitive/pain-and-suffering awards for medical malpractice suits to sums of money a that are about 3 months what a transplant surgeon or private practice cosmetic surgeon takes home, after all expenses, in 2-4 months.
That being said, +1 Lyle. The perp does need to be locked up.
The income thing might be more compelling if the rationale were not an obscene amount of lost income, but rather something like "victim has 9 kids and no disability insurance."
+1 Lyle. Criminal charges are not pursued solely for the benefit of the victim and their families.
I agree with most comments here, but the underlying issue in my mind is - how does a 'felony' conviction just disappear after a few years of 'good' behavior? The prosecutor makes it sound like his hands are tied if he wants the perp to have a lifelong record. I guess I have to take his word on that. But…
I understand why it might be desirable to wipe a record clean for ‘minor’ stuff like shoplifting, but for FELONIES?
It was a potential plea bargain for a deferred felony, not a plain vanilla felony. Basically, (although I Am Not A Lawyer), a deferred felony means that the dude pleads guilty, does his restitution/serves probation/whatever, and the charge doesn't go on his record.
Normal felonies don't evaporate quite so easily.
[edited to add:] Ian? You got the legal-eagle scoop on this?
Take the car, bike, personal stature and large salaries out of the picture. Make it just a Joe Sixpack attacks John Q. Public walking down the street, without provocation, using a big knife, injures him severely, and leaves him to die on the sidewalk. What happens? Joe Sixpack gets his butt thrown in jail for assault with a deadly weapon. Is this really all that different?
Yes, there's lack of criminal intent.
[edit: beforehand, that is. After the impact, when he fled, that was pretty clearly criminal.]
This DA is a real winner. He charged two racers in the Leadville 100 with "Felony Criminal Impersonation" because one sold their entry into the race to another racer.
Rsprake - He charged them with a felony so it will disappear from their records in two to three years.
So have any professional sports players ever been charged with drug use for admitting to using steroids? Or maybe gambling on the game they played? Not as far as I know. I'm not into sports tho so i could be wrong. My point is that sure kick them out of the race and future ones, but should the court be using time and money trying to send them to jail or maybe go after some real crime.
Morningsider, To my knowledge Leadville 100 dealt with it themselves. Why did the DA care?
@rsprake
The DA has some hard choices to make. There are serious crimes that the community cannot tolerate, like impersonating a cyclist, and minor violations that you have to let slide, like running down a cyclist and fleeing.
Just a matter of setting priorities.
(JEEZ. WTF???? I take back my explantioin for what I think a reasonable DA might do in a difficult situation. Colorado has a f**king loon in the prosecutor's office.)
I just hope he doesn't come here and bust my sorry ass for Felony Criminal Impersonation of a bicycler.
I was being (and failing miserably, I guess) sarcastic. Why does he care? I guess we could speculate: maybe "those damn cyclists" are always tearing up his precious slopes during the off season.
Update that was written at the bottom of the HuffPo article (regardless the DA's quote was beyond idiotic).
UPDATE:
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.
What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.
"This is the right plea bargain given the facts of the case, the defendant's prior criminal history and his willingness to take responsibility," Hurlbert said. "We feel this is far more punitive than the felony deferred."
Hurlbert did not offer details on the restitution, except to say it would be "significant."
"As far as employment, in any case where there is significant restitution we certainly take that into account....but it is not the overriding concern. In this case it was not the overriding concern," Hurlbert said. He added that he'd received mixed signals about how a felony or misdemeanor rap would affect Erzinger's ability to do his job.
My interpretation: if you can afford it or if you have a high-enough profile job, you can get away with just about anything in Colorado (And I'm being more ironic than sarcastic this time).
We have to keep in mind two things...
1) The Golden Rule - "The man with the gold makes the rules."
2) In the US we do not have a "Justice" system we have a "Legal" system. The difference is that the latter is based upon expediency and bureaucracy. Of course this could just be my cynical POV.
'some are planning to boycott a major bike race in Vail in protest of the DA's decision'
While I believe I understand the motivations behind such an action I think it is wrong in principle. What signal does it send to the motorists that when you run one of us over we respond by NOT riding our bikes? I think the reaction to events in our area (Don Parker to sadly name one) are a much better way to respond. Ride on
He is an "elected' official. If his actions are demonstrated to be unpopular and cost local businesses money (as much as I dislike that idea), then the "will of the people" shall be the guiding principle.
The idea would be for the more famous or respected athletes to boycott the event. Good or bad, that is who is given the most credence in our society.
My question: How can someone plea bargain a felony to be expunged after a few good years of behavior? That's some BS. I can see maybe 10-15 years depending on the case, but jeez, cleared after three?
At the very least this idiot should be able to perform his job WITHOUT A DRIVERS LICENSE. Ever. Again.
He can afford a driver.
@88MS88
Yes, ordinarily it would be a bad idea to boycott an athletic event to send a message to the DA.
Given what rsprake's article said about the DA's connection to the race and the race's penurious financial policies, boycotting the Leadville 100 races is a good message to a variety of deserving folks.
@ Dan - Criminal charges are not pursued solely for the benefit of the victim and their families.
Indeed. This is why criminals are prosecuted in the name of "the people." The theory is that when a criminal law is broken, it's not just an offense against the victim, it's an offense against all of us, and by means of the state, we impose consequences.
I have no especial insights into the structuring of a plea bargain or conditions attached to other charges.
@ Lyle - Various crimes exist that do not require intent. Involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and many, many traffic-related offenses. This is why, for instance, officers may be unsympathetic to an assertion that a driver didn't mean to run a red light, go over the speed limit, fill in the blank. These are offenses regardless of intent or even knowledge about if you're doing them.
Also: tortious v. tortuous
Ian, good points all. Except for spelling. Sue me.
This story seemed to need posted (yes that's correct grammar in Pittsburgh) on one of these accident/punishment threads:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/nov/06/PMENEWSO12-survivor-of-fatal-wreck-sues-dentist-ch/
This guy survived a auto-vs-pedestrian accident and filed a civil suit 2 days later. An interesting approach. Though criminal charges had already been filed in that case.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would say the judge is going to make them wait anyway. He won't want to schedule any hearings and then have them preempted by the criminal proceedings. It will probably just speed up the insurance settlement.
