Driver Who Hit Race Crowd Was Unlicensed, Files Show

[TahitiNut]

Driver Who Hit Race Crowd Was Unlicensed, Files Show
By Jenna Johnson and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 20, 2008; Page B01

Darren Jamar Bullock was driving on a suspended license Saturday when his Crown Victoria struck 13 spectators, eight of whom died, at a middle-of-the-night street race in Prince George's County, according to public records and two law enforcement sources.

Bullock, whose license was also suspended for a time starting late in 2006, surrendered his license to the state Motor Vehicle Administration on Jan. 23, according to MVA records. The license was still listed as suspended yesterday.

About 3 a.m., Bullock plowed into a large crowd that had gathered on Indian Head Highway in Accokeek to watch the race, police have said. Bullock was not involved in the race, they have said, and investigators are searching for the two drivers who were.

<snip>

The MVA records do not specify the reason for the first suspension, but they indicate that Bullock's second was for accumulating too many points on his license. The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly, said that at the time of the crash, his license was suspended.

According to the records, Bullock was cited for speeding twice in 2005 and in January 2006 was cited for going 30 mph over the speed limit. On May 27, he was pulled over and charged with driving with a suspended license and having a child younger than 16 without a seat belt in a vehicle, Charles County court records show. He is scheduled to appear in court March 27 on those charges.

<more>

:eyes:

[Recursion]

1. It's obvious that we need to ban cars with spoilers and chrome rims

How many street race deaths will it take?

[rfranklin]

2. So you support street racing as good, safe fun?

What's your point?

[TahitiNut]

3. Ban urban assault vehicles and automatic transmissions.

:silly: :dunce:

[Virginia Dare]

5. People don't usually gather around to watch a gunfight these days though..n/t

[slackmaster]

4. I wonder how much jail time he'll get

:argh:

[TahitiNut]

6. I get the impression some DUers want him canonized.

This place gets all "Looney-Tunes" sometimes. :eyes:

[Adsos Letter]

7. I think he should be canonized...

as in "loaded into a canon, followed by a good sharp tug on the lanyard..."

edit: ...spelling... :dunce:

[slackmaster]

8. I think it comes down to binary thinking

Some people are unable to deal with the concept that everyone involved in the incident was at fault. It's either right or wrong, black or white, good or bad. If the people in the road were doing anything wrong (and they clearly were), nobody else could have contributed to the tragic outcome, everyone else is blameless.

Reality is a much more dynamic and blended situation.

[TahitiNut]

12. Agreed.

There seems to be more than a trace of self-interest involved, as well. It seems that the less likely one sees one's self choosing an activity, the more likely to demonize those who do.

Then again ... EVERYONE is a "good driver" (especially those who've been doing it for less than 10 years.) :rofl:

[MindPilot]

9. I wonder too. I'm no lawyer, but I think driving under suspension

just turned that from a horrible accident to multiple counts of vehicular manslaughter.

[slackmaster]

10. It certainly would in California

Under the Basic Speed Law the fastest he should have been driving would be 0 MPH.

[AZ Criminal JD]

24. California would not charge on the facts we know

Driving without a license would not sustain a charge. Prosecutors would have to prove intent to kill. That could be proved by reckless or "willful and wanton" driving but that is not present here. People were in the middle of a highway where they shouldn't have been at any time.

[slackmaster]

28. From the California Vehicle Code

14601.4. (a) It is unlawful for a person, while driving a vehicle with a license suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 14601.2 to do an act forbidden by law or neglect a duty imposed by law in the driving of the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. In proving the person neglected a duty imposed by law in the driving of the vehicle, it is not necessary to prove that a specific section of this code was violated.

(b) A person convicted under this section shall be imprisoned in the county jail and shall not be released upon work release, community service, or other release program before the minimum period of imprisonment, prescribed in Section 14601.2, is served. If a person is convicted of that offense and is granted probation, the court shall require that the person convicted serve at least the minimum time of imprisonment, as specified in those sections, as a term or condition of probation.

(c) When the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of this section in satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original charge of a violation of Section 14601.2, and the court accepts that plea, except, in the interest of justice, when the court finds it should be inappropriate, the court shall, pursuant to Section 23575, require the person convicted, in addition to other requirements, to install a certified ignition interlock device on a vehicle that the person owns or operates for a period not to exceed three years.

(d) This section also applies to the operation of an off-highway motor vehicle on those lands that the Chappie-Z’berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000)) applies as to off-highway motor vehicles, as described in Section 38001.

(e) Upon receipt of the abstract of a conviction under this section, the department shall not reinstate the privilege to operate a motor vehicle until the department receives proof of either the “Verification of Installation” form as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386 or the Judicial Council Form I.D. 100.

Amended Sec. 9, Ch. 1064, Stats. 2000. Effective September 30, 2000.
Amended Sec. 18, Ch. 908, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
Amended Sec. 4 Ch. 835, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007.

Cause an injury accident while driving on a suspended license, you go to jail.

Nice try, bamalib.

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. Not for vehicular homicide

That was the issue in the posts.

Nice try, slackmaster.

[slackmaster]

32. OK, here's the definition of manslaughter from the California Penal Code

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--
(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5,
driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting
to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the
commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
manner, and with gross negligence.
(2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a
vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death,
in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
(3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph
(3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision
or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and
proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision shall
not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime
of murder.
This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the
driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the
commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the
commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
manner.
"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

Driving with a suspended license is certainly an unlawful act, and driving in an unlawful manner. Gross negligence could be an issue, depending on how the facts sort out.

[TahitiNut]

11. Careful. I was attacked when I postulated that on Sunday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2876838&mesg_id=2880041

[MindPilot]

14. I remember that--which is why I chose to stay out of that thread.

I also notice there are not many of the "spectators were asking for it" crowd showing up here.

[TahitiNut]

20. Yep. Just where ARE the Driver-Did-No-Wrong bots? Hmmm?

:rofl: Maybe they don't have an appetite for crow.

[AZ Criminal JD]

25. He did no wrong beyond driving on a suspended license

That, in and of itself, is not enough for any charge other than that. This is based on the facts that have been reported so far.

[slackmaster]

27. Other than possibly driving too fast for the conditions

:hide:

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. Correct, but we don't know the facts.

[Captain Hilts]

13. That's quite a rap sheet he's got. nt

[TahitiNut]

16. Yep. It's far more than I have ... after nearly 50 years of driving.

But we all know that 20-something drivers are "experts" for whom the normal rules just don't apply. :eyes:

[MindPilot]

18. Yep and a classic example of how the laws fail to work.

Most of the cases when there is a horrible tragic accident like this, the driver is someone with multiple convictions, suspensions and, if drunk, waaaay over the artificially low limit of .08.

I don't have any good answers, but clearly what we are doing now is not working. This guy had proven on several occasions that he is fundamentally incapable of competently operating a motor vehicle. And despite having his "privilege" to drive revoked, he was driving anyway.

[countryjake]

15. That poor kid is toast, now...

and it'll be interesting to see how many of your slur-meisters come in here to defend him and his big fast car.

Your other tongue-in-cheekiness topic on this was quite the riot...I'm just waiting for it to come out that this driver was actually involved in that race, as several of the witnesses claimed on the very first reports that were on the tube about this, right after it happened that night. That'll really turn the wrench for the drag-race haters.

[TahitiNut]

17. I think it takes an especially thick skull (and heavy foot) to ignore the warnings.

Every time a driving thread appears on DU we have the "experts" show up and defend their exclusive privilege to blow those with "lesser skill" off the roads. Driving is one of those activities where 80-90% of folks seem to think they're "above average." We're all driving on the Lake Wobegone Expressway, it seems.

[countryjake]

19. Speaking of woe be gone, this story reminds me...

when I was a kid, my mother used to send me out on our flat, straight, strip of country road with roofing nails, to stand them up in little rows, just as soon as we heard the roar of the draggers start up down a'ways at the line they had painted. We almost got smacked several times and she never saw the idiocy in her efforts til one day, without the benefit of any of our tacks, a racer lost control and smacked headlong into a tree in our front yard. We had to hold the flashlights while they tried to unwrap that poor kid from the metal...it was ghastly and from then on, our apron pockets weren't used to pack around weapons of mass deflation. Not long after that wreck, they did open up a real drag race track in our county, tho it was no-charge, unlike the high-price facilities they have going these days, which pretty much exclude the average speed-on-the-brain folk from using them.

The fact that this tragedy occurred the night before the Indy seems to have escaped many who are so quick to condemn the by-standers.

[RamboLiberal]

21. Ok I'll eat some crow - so we have one moron hits a bunch

of other morons standing at 3am on a 4 lane watching 2 other morons race cars illegally. Sure is a lot of lives ruined. Where are the car banners? After all this moron shouldn't have been behind the wheel of a car any more than the other whack job shooters should've had a gun.

Ban cars for everyone to prevent morons like this and the racers from having a car and killing someone.

Yep all these DMV laws sure work?

But I still say we have a few arrogant clairvoyants here who can see all and know all.

[TahitiNut]

22. Let's try to remember ...

... it's doubtful that all eight killed and five injured were actually ON THE ROADWAY. That Crown Victoria covered a LOT of grassy ground besides.

There are circumstances that might cause a person to be on foot on the highway - disabled vehicle, accident, etc. - and it seems clear to me that the Crown Victoria would still have hit them. The drag races may have been why they were there but it sure wasn't why the Crown Victoria hit them. There's a difference.

[RamboLiberal]

23. The Crown Vic probably lost control when he slammed on

the brakes and went up in to the grass. So the idiots who were there and went in to the road started the chain of events.

Every idiot there had to know this was illegal!

[AZ Criminal JD]

26. He may have hit others on foot on the highway

And under the law he would not be at fault. If you are on the highway at 3 a.m. and you are hit it is an accident and nothing more assuming the car was being operated properly.

[LisaL]

31. By the way, weren't you the one questioning as to who exactly

the driver is, and making certain claims about him being locked up where no lawyer can find him in a certain case?
What have you got to say now?

[TahitiNut]

33. Yeah, well ...

Relatives of Milton Pinkney, 41, feared the worst from the start, when friends told them he was one of the first hit by the careening sedan. Only in the late afternoon did family members learn he was among the dead, his body taken directly from the roadway to the medical examiner's office in Baltimore.

Bill O'Leary - The Washington Post





Denee Hines, left, and Ashley Burnette watch the crime scene from the door of a nearby hair salon.

Bill O'Leary - The Washington Post






Joseph Reeves of Brandywine says a prayer over the spot where his nephew Darrell Wills was killed.

Bill O'Leary - The Washington Post


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/02/16/GA2008021602416.html


Thanks for your concern. :eyes: