Tesla goes over cliff-pacific-coast-highway-California-miracle survivors

[RayK]

Final (?) update on this story: California radiologist who drove car off cliff with family inside will not face trial

TL;DR Driver of the Model Y pleaded not guilty to three counts of attempted murder and will undergo a "mental health diversion", not serving any jail time.

 

[Tam]

Final (?) update on this story: California radiologist who drove car off cliff with family inside will not face trial

TL;DR Driver of the Model Y pleaded not guilty to three counts of attempted murder and will undergo a "mental health diversion", not serving any jail time.

That's the perk of being somebody in The society. If it was a poor clerk in the same scenario, there's little chance of getting the same sympathy.

 

[vickh]

I think the wife not pressing charges was a factor??

 

[Tam]

I think the wife not pressing charges was a factor??

Yes it is a factor for the judge to decide but legally, the judge doesn't need the wife's permission to take the husband to trial for three counts of attempted murder.

The wife may plead the judge that the three counts are invalid because those are against her will and she doesn't press any charges and husband is as innocent as an angel but that doesn't prevent the judge to let the prosecutor to present evidence in court that he's as guilty as sin.

 

[Tam]

@SageBrush : I have no idea why you disagree. Here's the quote:

"The district attorney’s office “intensely” opposed mental health diversion for Patel and asked the court to bring him to trial on the three counts of attempted murder, District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe told NBC News.

“But under California’s diversion law, the court makes the decision,” Wagstaffe said."

The District Attorney wants to go to trial but in this case, the judge can choose trial or diversion.

The judge is the one who makes the decision, not the District Attorney, not wife.

In other non-divesion option cases, a wife has no say in a criminal case: If cops entrapped a husband who hired the informant to kill his wife. They still bring the husband to trial even when the wife said the cops stopped the crime of murder, she is still alive, she refuses to testify, it's a victimless case...

 

[fholbert]

I say take him back to the cliff and throw him off without the car. If he survives, he goes free.

If he doesn’t survive the state saves a lot of court cost.

I see this as a win / win for everyone.

 

[SageBrush]

@SageBrush : I have no idea why you disagree. Here's the quote:

The judge took the wife's subsequent choices into account. Saying the judge did not have to is a non-sequitur so you can rant. I disagreed with your faux legal argument since your post was simply disagreeing with the judge.

As for your disagreement, I would not give it thumbs down, but I don't think it has any value either. If you had read the judge's reasoning and responded to it directly I would have judged your arguments on their merits. As is, you are a casual observer dishing out a rant.

 

[Tam]

The judge took the wife's subsequent choices into account. Saying the judge did not have to is a non-sequitur so you can rant. I disagreed with your faux legal argument since your post was simply disagreeing with the judge.

As for your disagreement, I would not give it thumbs down, but I don't think it has any value either. If you had read the judge's reasoning and responded to it directly I would have judged your arguments on their merits. As is, you are a casual observer dishing out a rant.

The discussion on the thumb down is centered around how much the wife would be a factor in keeping the husband out of a trial. That question has nothing to do with my position on the judge's right or wrong.

The focus is on the wife, not the judge.

The answer is the wife's refusal to testify against the husband helps but it is still the judge's decision.

However, on the separate previous message, I did comment about the social status as a factor in the judge's decision.

It sounds like I criticized the judge but I didn't.

I was pointing out how the society works.

When a doctor has a criminal accusation, the profession protects a doctor by giving the judge 2 choices: trial or diversion.

On the other hand, if a poor clerk is in the same scenario, there is no diversion option.

That's how being somebody in society works.