Alleged Hit-and-Run Driver May Avoid Felony Because It Could Jeopardize Job

At least, that's what this article says. No idea how good Vial Daily is (or how accurate the headline might be) but I got the link from Boing Boing.

Erzinger [defendant] manages more than $1 billion in assets. He would have to publicly disclose any felony charge within 30 days, according to North American Securities Dealers regulations.

Here's what the victim got:

Milo suffered spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula, according to court documents. Over the past six weeks he has suffered “disabling” spinal headaches and faces multiple surgeries for a herniated disc and plastic surgery to fix the scars he suffered in the accident.

Huh.

I suppose it depends on what type of justice Milo is looking for. If Erzinger cops to the felony, he'll lose his career -- which may, as the article points out, affect how much restitution Milo would be able to pull out of him.

So, given that hitting Erzinger with a car is probably out, Milo's looking to ruin the guy's life instead of getting rich off Erzinger's money. Not my choice, but I can see why Milo took it.

Too big to jail? Sigh.

Seth wrote:

So, given that hitting Erzinger with a car is probably out, Milo's looking to ruin the guy's life instead of getting rich off Erzinger's money. Not my choice, but I can see why Milo took it.

Given that Erzinger may have jeopardized Milo's career, I can certainly understand the perspective of "tit for tat".

I don't know what I'd do in the situation.

Any single one of us who has a "financial services career" to speak of will have a huge problem continuing said career after getting a felony record.

Probably shouldn't have run after hitting the guy, then.

He hit this guy and left him to die on the side of the road? F* him. If he had made any effort to help that would be one thing, but the driving off seals it for me. As far as recouping money for injuries, I'm sure between auto insurance, personal wealth, and assets he would be able to recoup a tidy sum.

As a poor student if I did this, I'd be in jail right now.

Just wondering what is going on with the prosecutor's office there. Accross the country someone risks losing his license to nail a lacrosse team to a tree.

Is it just because this same lawyer embarrassed prosecutors before?

They often plea these cases down regardless of the suspects career situation. It would save the county money to not go to trial. This one just pops up cause of the career stuff. Doesn't make it right but he is being treated no different than anyone else. It will drop to a misdemeanor and he will do some jail time.

Danile666 wrote:

They often plea these cases down regardless of the suspects career situation. It would save the county money to not go to trial. This one just pops up cause of the career stuff. Doesn't make it right but he is being treated no different than anyone else. It will drop to a misdemeanor and he will do some jail time.

See, I'd be okay with that, except that they flat out say that it's due (in part) to his career.

D.A. Hurlbert wrote:

The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us. Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.
...
Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it. When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay.

Rexneron wrote:

Too big to jail? Sigh.

Nothing screams "I'm poor" like getting charged with a felony when you've committed a felony. I have to give the local prosecutor's office my Four Star rating for their awesome concierge level of service.

IMAGE(http://theinfosphere.org/images/9/9c/Ron_Whitey.jpg)

The charge is felony hit and run. Now, my caddie's chauffeur informs me that the defendant makes sure my properly invested money grows. Therefore, convicting this man is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes, theft of money.

Stengah wrote:
Danile666 wrote:

They often plea these cases down regardless of the suspects career situation. It would save the county money to not go to trial. This one just pops up cause of the career stuff. Doesn't make it right but he is being treated no different than anyone else. It will drop to a misdemeanor and he will do some jail time.

See, I'd be okay with that, except that they flat out say that it's due (in part) to his career.

D.A. Hurlbert wrote:

The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us. Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.
...
Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it. When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay.

I think they're actually saying it's due to the ability of his career to pay the victim for the damage caused. If this guy pleads guilty, then even though it's a misdemeanor, the victim has the 'did this guy wrongfully hit me with his car' part of the civil suit proven, right?

It's kinda weird to me that a prosecutor has decided he knows better than the victim what is in the victim's best interests, but, that seems to be the story here. It doesn't sound like he's getting off of a felony count because the prosecutor is worried about his career, it sounds like he's getting just a misdemeanor so he can keep getting big paychecks to hand over to his victim. And maybe so this guy doesn't pull and OJ and give all his money to the defense lawyers so after the criminal trial there's no money left there for the victim to sue the guy for.

Like I said, weird the prosecutor would decide he knows the victim's best interest better than the victim, but not nearly as nefarious as it sounds at first. Although it is sort of vampiric: don't bankrupt him and put him in jail, keep him on the streets working and keep collecting off of him.

this is certainly making the rounds. I have seen it on Huffingtonpost and Dvorak.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Like I said, weird the prosecutor would decide he knows the victim's best interest better than the victim, but not nearly as nefarious as it sounds at first. Although it is sort of vampiric: don't bankrupt him and put him in jail, keep him on the streets working and keep collecting off of him.

I don't think it's nefarious, so much as incredibly stupid. I can see the D.A.'s point of if they bankrupt him, he can't pay monetary restitution, but that shouldn't overrule the desire to keep a dangerous driver off the road and punish him for such a horrendous act.

One thing to consider here is that when the guy took off, he had no idea whether the victim was dead or not. He didn't stop and call an ambulance. It's one thing to give up a felony conviction because the crime is minor and you want the guy to make up the losses, but here you have the victim saying "Don't worry about the money - punish the guy who hit me and left me to bleed to death alone on the side of the road." It's a serious crime and should be treated as such. This isn't like some two-bit shoplifting case where putting the guy in jail costs the state money and prevents him from making restitution to the store he robbed.

Funkenpants wrote:

One thing to consider here is that when the guy took off, he had no idea whether the victim was dead or not. He didn't stop and call an ambulance. It's one thing to give up a felony conviction because the crime is minor and you want the guy to make up the losses, but here you have the victim saying "Don't worry about the money - punish the guy who hit me and left me to bleed to death alone on the side of the road." It's a serious crime and should be treated as such. This isn't like some two-bit shoplifting case where putting the guy in jail costs the state money and prevents him from making restitution to the store he robbed.

I don't know--there could be some serious medical bills going on here. Also:

“He will have lifetime pain,” Haddon wrote. “His ability to deal with the physical challenges of his profession — liver transplant surgery — has been seriously jeopardized.”

Transplant surgeons make buckets of money over the course of their career, don't they? I mean, the prosecutor still should honor the victim's wishes, but as crazy as it sounds I think you'd have to be some big time earner to make restitution in this case.

That's why people have car insurance.

Stengah wrote:

That's why people have car insurance.

Heh--I know, but insurance is only as good as the policy you paid for

I doubt the state this person lives in requires someone to carry insurance coverage extensive enough to pay for a lifetime of medical bills and the loss of someone's income if the victim can't work as a transplant surgeon anymore. I'm sure this guy had more extensive coverage than the required minimum, but lifetime medical care + a transplant surgeon's lifetime earnings is a pretty big nut.

It doesn't seem to bother the victim that much.

Stengah wrote:

It doesn't seem to bother the victim that much.

Well yeah, but what does that have to do with answering the question of whether car insurance will cover his losses?

That if the guy who incurred those losses would rather have the guy who caused them in jail instead of being let off with a misdemeanor so he can continue to work to pay off those losses, he shouldn't be ignored.

I haven't looked into this enough to really have an opinion, but I did catch a comment that the reasoning is this: if the guy has a felony conviction, he'll never be able to work in his field again. If he can't work, he can't pay restitution.

That may be totally bogus, an excuse to let the rich guy off easy, but that's what I caught just skimming a thread on the subject.

Stengah wrote:

That if the guy who incurred those losses would rather have the guy who caused them in jail instead of being let off with a misdemeanor so he can continue to work to pay off those losses, he shouldn't be ignored.

Well right, and I agree, but that has nothing to do with why people have car insurance.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:

That if the guy who incurred those losses would rather have the guy who caused them in jail instead of being let off with a misdemeanor so he can continue to work to pay off those losses, he shouldn't be ignored.

Well right, and I agree, but that has nothing to do with why people have car insurance.

And why people have car insurance is a tangent to the topic at hand. (admittedly, one I brought into it).
Wether or not the guy has a good enough policy to cover all the medical expenses isn't what concerns the guy he hit. I think they guy he hit should have a say in what the punishment is. He drove away, stopped at a gas station and called a tow-truck for his car, but didn't mention once that he hit a bicyclist and left him for dead on the side of the road. The guy he hit would rather forgo the extra money he could get if the first guy was able to work in order to have the guy in jail and off the roads.

One thing to take into account of the victim's wishes is that he might not be thinking clearly. Sometimes revenge isn't the best or long-sighted thing. Sure, he might want complete destruction of this guy's life.... but 10 years down the road when he's living off benefit and is struggling and wants to kill himself because of his quality of life will he feel the same way?

You see this sort of thing in other cases too where someone accidentally kills someone else (or whatever) and their parents or family members want that person killed as well rather than spend the time in jail.

Personally, i think the guy should still be able to work in his profession for an unrelated felony. I think it's stupid that he can't but, hey, i didn't make the rules.

Duoae wrote:

Personally, i think the guy should still be able to work in his profession for an unrelated felony. I think it's stupid that he can't but, hey, i didn't make the rules.

The financial services industry is supposed to be staffed with people who can be trusted to handle large sums of money and not engage in risky behavior. Or at least, that was the idea back when we didn't think financial services should be filled with giant risktakers who suffer no consequences when they lose billions of dollars. These days we've kind of made it an ethos that they SHOULD flee after an accident if by doing so they can potentially escape a conviction. And if they get caught? Let 'em off because in the end they're high earners who we need to get back on the job as soon as possible. This is a very modern American view.

Back in the old days, running someone down in the road and then fleeing the scene was the sort of thing that made someone untrustworthy. For a job with less fiduciary responsibilities it wouldn't be as big a deal.

Funkenpants wrote:

Back in the old days, running someone down in the road and then fleeing the scene was the sort of thing that made someone untrustworthy. For a job with less fiduciary responsibilities it wouldn't be as big a deal.

Except that some people panic in those sorts of situations. Often hit and run incidents aren't malicious or premeditated. Just because you acted like a pr*ck doesn't make you less trustworthy any more than someone who's scared of spiders and freaks out (which really angers me) is when asking them to bake you a cake - the two situations are completely unrelated and are emotionally and mentally separate.
Some people will accidentally kill someone by pushing them and hitting their head on something sharp etc.... they then run away or try to hide the fact - even if it was self defence. Sometimes rational thought isn't able to be used.

Thank god we're getting away from the old days where people were sentenced to life in an asylum for any number of very treatable and often minor conditions.... some of them even for just being a woman with some thoughts of her own! I have very little trust those sorts of 'judgements'.

Like i said, i think he should have been booked and sentenced like everyone else - but it shouldn't preclude him from working within the industry because it has no real bearing on his character in that industry or situation.

Duoae wrote:

Some people will accidentally kill someone by pushing them and hitting their head on something sharp etc.... they then run away or try to hide the fact - even if it was self defence. Sometimes rational thought isn't able to be used.

He drove to a gas station and called for someone to service his car. This isn't a compulsive, panic reaction. He had time to reflect on his actions. And what did he do?

Just because you acted like a pr*ck doesn't make you less trustworthy any more than someone who's scared of spiders and freaks out (which really angers me) is when asking them to bake you a cake - the two situations are completely unrelated and are emotionally and mentally separate.

Panic tends to involve very strong reactions that interfere with other, rational actions. Panic fades. Once he was away from the scene, why was he still functional enough to call someone to deal with his dented car, but not functional enough to notify the police that someone may be dying and in need of assistance?

Also, your version is in conflict with what the driver says, which was that he didn't know he hit someone. Yet now he's willing to cop a plea, indicating that he lied to investigators initially.

Funkenpants wrote:

He drove to a gas station and called for someone to service his car. This isn't a compulsive, panic reaction. He had time to reflect on his actions. And what did he do?

Exactly. Does anyone think that this guy would have ever come forward if the biker hadn't survived? Or would he have been content to repair the damage to his car and be on his way? I understand a felony conviction for something like this would effect his career, but who wouldn't be impacted by having a felony on their record?

Duoae wrote:

Like i said, i think he should have been booked and sentenced like everyone else - but it shouldn't preclude him from working within the industry because it has no real bearing on his character in that industry or situation.

I think leaving someone to die alone and in pain is a pretty good indicator of your character in ANY industry under ANY situation.