Tucson-Pima Bike Advisory Committee Meeting to include County Attorney’s Office Representative
Tomorrow’s Bike Advisory Committee meeting will include Bruce Chalk of the County Attorney’s Office. It was Chalk’s office that declined to prosecute the woman who hit and killed Charles Nystrom, and which has responsibility for most felony assaults, hit-and-run, and auto incidents in Tucson and Pima County.
Here is one reader’s note, submitted earlier as a comment:
This very question (about the Nystrom case –EBR) will be asked of a Pima
County Prosecutor this coming Wednesday at
the TPC-BAC meeting held at 6:00 pm at the
Himmel Park Library, 1035 N. Treat Ave. A
large turnout would be wonderful! All of
these assaults, hit & run, DUI murders on
cyclists are the biggest blot on Tucson’s
bicycle reputation and NO WAY should there
be a platinum rating given until this attitude
is reversed. It makes my stomach hurt to think
about this stuff.
I’ll be there, as will others who are concerned about the less-than-stellar actions by local law enforcement.
–Erik Ryberg
January 14th, 2009 at 8:18 am
At Himmel Park Library, correct? What time?
January 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I’ll see you there!
January 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Anything of note from the meeting?
January 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Bruce Chalk made some enlightening comments about
the prosecution process, but, of course, could not
comment directly about the on-going cases. He did
say, I believe, that a person could be driving
reasonably, even though DUI, and be involved in an
accident resulting in a death and recieve no charge
further than the DUI. The DUI does not broaden the
charge because it’s a misdemeanor. In a felony, the
getaway driver in the car gets charged with a murder
committed by the gunman in the bank. So I guess until
DUI becomes a felony, victims are at the butt end of
this scenario. A point was brought up about the lack
of investigation and/or prosecution and you can imagine
how that went….enforcement won’t investigate if it
feels prosecution won’t prosecute and prosecution can’t
prosecute if there is no investigation.
The presentation was worthwhile for those attending;
however, the take away for me was nothing much will
change as long as police departments skimp and booze
reigns supreme. I don’t understand civil court too
much so maybe that’s where the justice takes place.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Wow. I wonder what legal mind came up with that load of scheis;”… a person could be driving reasonably, even though DUI, and be involved in an accident resulting in a death…” What sophistry! I think any jury would conclude that it is unequivocally impossible to be Impaired, driving a car, and having reasonable reactionary times. And therefore, it is UNreasonable to expect normal reaction times with an impaired cerebellum.
With all the PSA about DUI, one would have to conclude any result while DUI would be above just negligence, but gross negligence; knowingly self intoxicating, its biological consequences of physical impairment and getting behind the wheel AND THEN killing someone.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It would seem DUI is only used to help determine the
level of recklessness and not with the intent or
deliberate bahavior of compromising public safety.
It’s a fuzzy line when an incident occurs, but you
can be charged with DUI whether or not something bad
happens. This is what bugs us because we are among the
most vulnerable ones out there.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I think DUI being illegal should be a bright line of defining reckless behavior. I think if you are already doing something illegal then by definition you are acting reckless and with wanton disregard for your fellow road users. The BAC% that defines DUI was set at a level that shows significant impairment, and driving at that level shows reckless behavior. I can’t think of any more ways to put it, DUI is reckless.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The prosecutor’s point was well made and I
probably have not done it justice here.
Driving 38mph in a 35mph zone is illegal
but probably not considered reckless by
anyone, especially by someone ticketed for
it. But, if you’re going 38 in a 35 and hit
and kill someone, then what? Has that made
the act of driving 38mph any more or less
reckless? If it was 105mph, then no question
about the recklessness. Speed is something we
all like and are guilty of one time or other.
Cyclists, with their butts hanging out there, see
DUI as an intentional disregard no matter what
the BAC%. But the law sees it (the speed & DUI
thing) to be in parallel. And maybe it shouldn’t
be if you want to eliminate the behavior. Maybe
above a certain BAC point it should be a felony.
Then if you kill someone it becomes a murder
punishable by more than a lousy 14 years. (A
sentence, BTW, just over 30% of the maximum)
The stakes have to be really high for people
to stop doing some things. Obviously we’re not
there and seemingly we’re hesitant to go there.