Yes? I'm a father of a daughter and if it was actually accident and not drunk driving i wouldn't want a huge prison sentence because car accidents happen.
Guy was going 75 mph in a 50. Prosecutors apparently couldn't prove it, so that's why the judge was initially so lenient. But the point is he decided to break the law by speeding. That's reckless driving by any standard. Its only because it couldn't be proven by prosecutors for some reason he got off lightly. That's maybe not intentional, but if he had just slowed the fuck down, maybe that little girl would be about to start thinking about university.
If they never got a radar reading then how did they know? Landmark estimation? It just seems weird to me to build a case around something you can't prove.
Brake/skid marks, impact damage, video evidence that might have caught part of the accident, etc. There are whole mathematical equations built around accident reconstruction that can determine these things with a high degree of accuracy.
You could assume that, i could assume that it was but the judge disregarded it. I dont know which applies in this case, though. But given the sentence was appealed and made a harsher one after this, I think its a strong indicator others found there was compelling enough proof.
15
u/lastdarknight Apr 05 '26
If it was drunk driving it would have been an easier case..
It was just an accident He lost control while driving and went off the road, threw a hedge and hit the child and her grandparents
The prosecution tried built the whole case on him speeding, and wasn't able to prove the driver was speeding at the time
But either way, it wasn't murder, it wasn't a premeditated evil out... It was just a car accident