Driver Kills Rachel Giblin. No Charges.
Rachel Giblin, 15
From the Charlotte Observer:
On Monday, S.C. Highway Patrol Maj. M.L. Howard said no charges would be filed against the driver in the death of Rachel Giblin, 15.The Charlotte Country Day School freshman was killed during a multiple sclerosis charity bike ride Sept. 16 near Society Hill, S.C., after a pickup truck hauling a trailer collided with the tandem bicycle she and her older brother, Tommy, were riding.
The driver, Rudy Robinson, 50, owner of Hartsville Steel, of Hartsville, S.C., declined to comment when reached Monday.
. . .
Investigators determined that the bicycle Rachel and Tommy were riding fell as the pickup truck passed them, Howard said.[Maj. M.L. Howard] also said the truck "was passing a little too close, and the results were tragic." Speed was not a factor, he said.
Solicitor Jay Hodge Jr. did not find malicious intent on Robinson's part, so he didn't file charges, Howard said.
. . .
Hodge, the solicitor, was out of the office Monday and could not be reached for comment.
Maybe Fourth Circuit Solicitor Jay Hodge Jr. should take another look at the statutes he's supposed to be enforcing. If he started with manslaughter, he'd find that malice isn't required.
Here are the statutes:
§ 16-3-50. Manslaughter.
A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.
§ 16-3-60. Involuntary manslaughter; "criminal negligence" defined.
With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years.
Or this one:
§ 56-5-2910. Reckless homicide; penalties; revocation of driver's license; reinstatement of license; conditions; consequences for subsequent violations.
(A) When the death of a person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury received by the driving of a vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person operating the vehicle is guilty of reckless homicide. A person who is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or pleads nolo contendere to reckless homicide is guilty of a felony and must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. The Department of Motor Vehicles must revoke for five years the driver's license of a person convicted of reckless homicide. . . .
Conviction of Mr. Robinson for manslaughter would also get him off the road:
§ 56-1-280. Mandatory suspension or revocation.
The Department of Motor Vehicles shall revoke or suspend the license of any driver upon receiving a record of such driver's conviction of any offense for which revocation or suspension is required by law.
The department shall revoke the driver's license of any person upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person for:
(1) Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle; or
(2) Any felony under the laws of this State in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used.
I first saw the story at Biking Bis.
Comments:
· http://kmaxtrax.blogspot.com I guess I don't really know enough of the details to say whether I would think the person should be put in jail for an extended period of time but he should receive at least some form of punishment for negligence or recklessness. The loss of a life is no small mistake.
Permalink
01/17/07 @ 08:20 · http://www.bikingbis.com Permalink
01/17/07 @ 09:53 · http://freewheelingspirit.blogspot.com/ Permalink
01/18/07 @ 07:09 · http://kmaxtrax.blogspot.com Permalink
01/18/07 @ 14:33 I am 100% convinced the bike was struck by the trailer, pushed forward into the leading bike and the fall occurred as a result. While there was certainly no malice on the part of the State Troopers involved in the investigation, I believe they blew it.
I'm sure people could "Monday morning quarterback" some of MY investigative conclusions over the years and pointed out evidence I may have missed, or statements that I didn't hear correctly. But that's not the point.
I'm saying that Troopers, through no fault of their own, have little training in bicycle specific laws and crash investigation. They went to the one Trooper they thought was an "expert" and it turns out he wasn't, and he was wrong. That led the investigation to a wrong conclusion and prevented the Prosecuting Solicitor from having the true facts upon which base his charging decision.
Some may call it anti-bike bias, and in many cases it is. In this case the wrong conclusion wasn't necessarily a result of anti-bike bias, but a failure to understand cycling laws and cycling dynamics.
Permalink
02/09/09 @ 12:40 · http://www.picktorrent.com/ its realy interesting
Permalink
08/26/09 @ 09:06 
