Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver who ploughed into Michigan cyclists charged with 5 counts of murder (+ video)

Four other riders remain in hospital after Tuesday's tragedy in Kalamazoo...

A driver who killed five cyclists in Kalamazoo, Michigan on Tuesday afternoon when his pick-up truck ploughed into them has been charged with five counts of second-degree murder.

Charles Pickett Jr, aged 50, who was arrested by police after trying to flee the scene on foot, was also charged with four counts of reckless driving causing serious impairment of body function, reports NPR.org.

> Five cyclists killed in Michigan as pick-up truck driver ploughs into group ride

Prior to Pickett crashing into the group of cyclists, police had been searching for a blue pick-up truck after receiving multiple reports of one being driven “erratically” in the area.

Under Michigan state law, second degree murder is defined as an unplanned, intentional killing, or a death caused by a reckless disregard for human life. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Unlike first-degree murder, the prosecution does not have to prove premeditation on the defendant’s part.

The victims were all members of a group who went out for rides each Tuesday evening. They have been named as Debra Ann Bradley, aged 53, Melissa Ann Fevig-Hughes, 42, Fred Anton "Tony" Nelson, 73, Lorenz John "Larry" Paulik, 74, and Suzanne Joan Sippel, 56.

Four other riders – Jennifer Lynn Johnson, 40, Paul Douglas Gobble, 47, Sheila Diane Jeske, 53, and Paul Lewis Runnels, 65, remain in hospital, with the condition of the last three described as serious.

On Wednesday evening, hundreds of cyclists gathered in Kalamazoo to pay tribute to the five who died, with footage of part of their ride posted to Facebook.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

15 comments

Avatar
Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences.

I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter.

If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

Avatar
BBB replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
2 likes

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

In the UK the guy would obviously get suspended sentence for careless driving... Blinded by the sun, distracted by the spider etc...

 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to BBB | 7 years ago
0 likes

BBB wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Stroke. Heart attack. Epileptic seizure. Catastrophic mechanical failure. Driver unlawfully attacked by furious spouse causing a loss of control. Passenger grabbed the wheel or other control .... that is just a start.

Quote:

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

There is still going to be a trial where the driver will be considered innocent until the prosecution prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a jury. Until then, no conclusions can be drawn.

Avatar
BBB replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
0 likes

L.Willo wrote:

BBB wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Stroke. Heart attack. Epileptic seizure. Catastrophic mechanical failure. Driver unlawfully attacked by furious spouse causing a loss of control. Passenger grabbed the wheel or other control .... that is just a start.

Quote:

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

There is still going to be a trial where the driver will be considered innocent until the prosecution prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a jury. Until then, no conclusions can be drawn.

Obviously duh...

I assume the situation in which the accused is unable to produce any solid explanation of their actions during the trial.

As we've seen in the UK, ridiculous excuses like infamous"blinded by the sun" were enough to get someone acquitted.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
1 like
vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

All you have to do is clearly define negligence in this instance.

For example:

Driving a car when you know you are not licensed to do so.

Driving at a speed that is 20mph above the legal limit.

Driving a car that you are aware is not roadworthy.

All these are objective measures that easily could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I would also add;

Driving a vehicle when a reasonable person would realise they were physically incapable of doing so safely.

That would be harder to prove but would cover drink drivers and those who continue to drive despite knowing they have poor eyesight etc.

Avatar
LegalFun | 7 years ago
3 likes

We need the legal system to actually hand out sentences for motoring offences comparable to other offences.
We also need to force people to be responsible for the fact that they are driving round a 1000kg+ hunk of metal (and that is before you reach buses trucks and lorries).

 

When overtking it is your responsibility to make sure you give the slower vehicle enough room, that the other carriageway is clear etc.
Sadly even tractors, which travel at the same speed as a fit cyclist, get overtaken in extremely dodgy overtakes despite the fact that the overtaking car is the more vulnerable road user!
Perhaps we have made cars too safe? Hence the term "cager"
 

 

Avatar
Yorky-M | 7 years ago
3 likes

RIP to the lost

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 7 years ago
1 like

Life sentence. Now there is a fair punishment (if he gets it). Death penalty would also be acceptable.

Sadly no sentence will bring back those lives lost.

Avatar
zanf replied to Christopher TR1 | 7 years ago
3 likes

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Death penalty would also be acceptable.

Albert Camus from "Reflections on the Guillotine" wrote:

“But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared?

For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months.

Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”

Avatar
tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
12 likes

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
4 likes

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
1 like

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
1 like

oldstrath wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

The latter is sounding more attractive to me as time goes on for cases like these. It should be the wrong thing to do, but increasingly i'm not so sure....

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
4 likes
oldstrath wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

Or vetting them to ensure they don't consist largely of people who see the world only through a windscreen? If its a driving-offence it should at least include a number of non-drivers, and possibly cyclists.

Latest Comments