Posted on 08/16/2006 10:04:23 AM PDT by flutters
Kenton athletes caused wreck that seriously injured 2 others; judge delays 60-day sentences
KENTON, Ohio — Two teenagers who pulled a stunt last winter that left a man physically disabled and his friend brain-damaged will each spend 60 days in juvenile detention, but not before they finish the upcoming high-school football season.
Judge Gary F. McKinley told a standing-room-only crowd in his courtroom yesterday that he knows his decision to allow standout Kenton High School athletes Dailyn Campbell, 16, and Jesse Howard, 17, to play sports before serving their sentences will be unpopular.
Five deputies were on hand during the sentencing hearing in Hardin County Common Pleas Court, and McKinley told the emotional crowd that he would hold anyone who had an outburst in contempt.
"I’m cutting you somewhat of a break here, and the court will get criticized for this," McKinley told Campbell.
The retired Union County juvenile court judge assigned to hear the cases said he had waffled when trying to decide whether to delay any sentence until after football season.
"I shouldn’t even be doing this," he told Campbell, a junior quarterback for the Kenton Wildcats, who won state titles in 2001 and 2002.
At those words, more than a dozen relatives of the two who were injured in the prank began to sob. Campbell’s mother and stepfather, sitting behind the victims’ families, looked relieved.
Campbell and Howard each pleaded no contest last month to two charges of vehicular vandalism. They both also pleaded to juvenile-delinquency counts of petty theft and possession of criminal tools. Prosecutors say Campbell and Howard and three others who are awaiting trial stole a decoy deer last November, painted it with obscenities and then placed it in the middle of a darkened rural road to see what would happen when drivers approached.
Robert Roby Jr., who was 18 at the time, swerved to miss the deer. His car rolled and crashed as Campbell and the other boys watched.
Both victims’ families pleaded with the judge to make an example of Campbell and Howard.
"None of these guys will ever know what our sons have gone through," Roby’s mother, Mary, wrote to the court. "They don’t think they did anything wrong. If they get nothing for what they’ve done, they’ll do something worse later. They need more than a slap on the wrist."
Roby nearly lost his right leg in the crash, and is facing his 11th surgery in the next few weeks, his mother said yesterday.
Robert Roby’s passenger, 17-year-old Dustin Zachariah, was on life support for several days and had broken bones, two collapsed lungs and brain damage. He now has the cognitive ability of a sixth-grader, his mother, Kathy Piper, said.
In addition to the 60-day sentence, which will begin at the Logan County Juvenile Detention Center after football season, Campbell and Howard are on house arrest and will be for six months after detention; must pay fines and restitution; must write a 500-word essay on "Why I should think before I act"; and must complete 1,500 and 500 hours of community service, respectively.
McKinley suspended two, one-year terms of commitment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for both boys, so if they violate their probation those sentences could be invoked.
Campbell was sentenced first. The victims’ families left the courtroom before Howard was sentenced.
"They said they would not attend this hearing as their own way of showing protest to the previous ruling," Prosecutor Brad Bailey told McKinley. Piper had the victims’ advocate read a statement, saying that the judge’s ruling told her "that my son now is not only being pushed aside, but he’s been forgotten."
During their hearings, Campbell and Howard apologized. Campbell, who had two previous juvenile court convictions, showed no emotion and looked only at the judge. During Campbell’s apology, McKinley admonished him for mumbling.
Howard looked into the face of the victims’ advocate as she read the families’ statements. He wiped tears from his cheeks as he said he was sorry.
"I think every day that I hurt someone, and that hurts me inside," Howard said.
In that case, what's wrong with calling it just a plain old accident? I don't understand why we have to find fault with all accidents. There are degrees in which some are unavoidable.
Actually I believe only the younger of the two has had prior juvenile offenses.
...and have just been told that punishment for their current offenses is less important than football.
No, they've been told that they are going to have to pay for their actions. He's under house arrest until the football season ends. He then gets to spend 60 days locked up. After that he has to perform 1500 hours of community service and is on probation.
What they did was really stupid. They put the decoy on the road and then drove up and down the road watching other drivers react by slowing down and going around it.
It was stupid, but mostly harmless though there was a significant risk or property damage, from someone not being able to completely stop in time, they couldn't have expected someone was going to go off the road at a high rate of speed, roll their care, and crash into a fence.
Roby wasn't the first driver to encounter the car.
The news stories about the incident are very vague, and don't tell why Roby wasn't able to slow and avoid the decoy like the others were.
However, Campbell who was 15 years old at the time, couldn't have been able to predict that there was a serious chance of someone recking their car in this way.
The pranksters definitely have a good deal of responsibility in this incident, but under Ohio law you are required to drive at a speed in which you can stop in the assured clear distance. I posted the actually code in another post.
The driver was not in control of his car and was driving too fast, and shares some of the responsibility as well.
What they did wasn't assault, but emotions ran high due to the severity of the accident, though the severity of the accident was in a large part due to the driver not driving safely.
You can blame the driver and call him reckless but the long and short of it is had they not pulled their stunt the passenger would not have been injured and had his future destroyed.
Bull! I'm not displacing blame, you are.
I'm holding each responsible for their own actions. I'm not holding the pranksters blameless, but I'm not trying to shift the blame for the actions of others on to them either.
If they didn't place the decoy on the road, the accident wouldn't have happened. However, if Roby was driving his car within the bounds of how he was legally required to drive, the accident also would not have happened.
Roby wasn't the first driver to come across the decoy the pranksters put in the road. He was the first to have any kind of accident due to the decoy being on the road.
Roby didn't just have trouble stopping in time (being able to stop in time is what is explicitly required in the Ohio code). He didn't just hit the decoy at a low rate of speed and have damage done to his car. He didn't slide off the road a little because he wasn't quite able to slow down enough to avoid the decoy.
He swerved around the deer, went off the road at a high rate of speed, and rolled the car avoiding a stationary object that was there before he approached.
You have no sympathy for him but plenty for the jerks who did it to him.
I have an incredible amount of sympathy for him. I have even more sympathy for the passenger. I don't see any reason to punish Roby any more for his part in the accident, but that doesn't mean that the pranksters should be punished for his role in the accident.
Putting an obstruction in the road just to see what happens in criminal, not irresponsible.
Yes it is. I didn't say it wasn't. They should be held responsible for that criminal act and the consequences resulting from that act. However, how much of the accident itself was the result of their unlawful actions and how much of it was the result of the driver's unlawful actions?
Both were in violation of the law.
Each deserves to be held accountable for their own actions.
At the very least these two should never be near the high school football team for their prior offenses alone, not to mention their current criminal acts.
I have no idea what Campbell's prior juvenile offenses were, and I suspect that you don't either.
Are you suggesting that those offenses interfered with him contributing to the football team? Have there been problems with his actions as part of the team? When this incident happened he was 15 and had already let the football team to two back to back state championships as quarterback.
Is taking away the one thing he's good at going to make him less likely to do things that are criminally stupid?
It's not uncommon for work releases to be permitted so that people can maintain their job while serving their sentence. They are allowed to leave jail, go to work for the day, and return to jail after work.
When these people have finished serving their sentences, they need to be able to have hope of being a contributing part of society.
How is this teenager going to football practice and playing football that different? Football is what he is good at, and he is very good at it. Football practice and games are vocational training for him.
He's going to have to learn about a lot more than just football to be able to be a contributing member of society in the future. He's going to have to learn responsibility, maturity, and some common sense.
He deserves to be punished. He needs to do his time in detention and his 1500 hours of community service. However, taking away his chance to make something of himself by doing what he is really good at doing is just foolish and vindictive.
Keep him under house arrest through the end of the season. Keep him on probation until he's 18. Make it very clear that his actions are being watched carefully and that his suspended sentence can easily be reinstated.
Maybe they can sue the driver for what happened to them?
To sue beyond the extent of the driver's insurance policy, I believe you have to practically prove that the driver intended to do the harm. I suspect that the driver's insurance policy is already going to be paying the passenger's medical expenses up to the maximum covered by the policy.
I agree.
However, if the driver was driving the vehicle within the bound of the law, the accident also would not have occurred.
Ohio Code 4511.21. Speed limits.
(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
According to an earlier AP story, Roby wasn't the first driver to come across the decoy. The others were able to avoid the decoy without mishap.
The kids "prank" was criminally wrong. I even agree that their actions were likely to cause damage to someone's car, but for an accident of this severity to result, the driver had to be driving well outside the boundaries of safe driving.
Both parties share some responsibility in the result.
The driver is already suffering enough. Adding additional penalties seems pointless if not cruel. However, it's not justice to lay all the blame on the pranksters either. The deserve to be held accountable for their part in the accident, but not for overt negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver.
I'm basing my opinion that such recklessness or negligence existed on the legal requirements for drivers, on the reports that others were able to safely avoid the decoy, and on the fact that the decoy was stationary and present before the driver approached.
It appears that improper cations on the part of both parties existed which means they share in the responsibility for the results, but neither if fully responsible for the results.
No he did not the coaches son Ben Mauk did.
He swerved around the deer, went off the road at a high rate of speed, and rolled the car avoiding a stationary object that was there before he approached.
Officers said the car, a 2005 Dodge Neon, was traveling eastbound on County Road 144 and swerved to miss an object in the roadway. The vehicle traveled off the left edge of the roadway, reentered the roadway, then traveled off the right edge, overturning, striking a fence and coming to rest in a field.
At no time was it said by the police that he was traveling at a high rate of speed as I said before the road this happened on has some deep ditches.
So you're placing the entire blame on the kids because the accident wouldn't have happened if they had not placed the decoy on the road.
For them to bear 100% of the blame the converse would also have to be true. The accident would have to be a highly likely result of placing the decoy on the road.
According to an earlier AP story, Roby wasn't the first driver to come across the decoy on the road. The pranksters placed it there and then drove up and down the road watching other drivers avoid the decoy. None of them collided with the decoy or had accidents.
What is the responsibility of the driver in such a situation?
Ohio Code 4511.21. Speed limits.
(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
They must drive so that they will be able to stop within the distance that they can see is clear ahead of them. That's the driver's legal responsibility.
Would the accident have happened if they were driving within the bounds of that part of the Ohio code? No.
What if they were close to living up to that responsibility. After all we all drive a lot and fail to meet that requirement from time to time.
If the driver was going a little too fast or not doing quite a good enough job of assuring that the road was clear, they might not be able to stop in time. They might collide with the decoy, or have to drive around rather than stop. Maybe they might even lock up the breaks and slide off the road a little bit due to being a bit careless in their driving.
Is it reasonable to say that someone making a reasonable attempt to drive within the bounds of being able to stop within the assured clear distance, might have to swerve off the road at a high rate of speed and roll their car to avoid a stationary object? No. That's not reasonable, yet that's what people keep telling me on this thread.
The "prank" was a criminal act and obviously played a role in this accident, however if Roby was driving as required by law, or a bit worse that required by law, there would have been no accident, or a pretty minor accident.
Therefore it only seems reasonable to me that both the driver and the idiot pranksters played a roll in this being such a horrible accident.
(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
You are required by law to operate your vehicle in such a way that you can stop within the distance you can see it clear.
People fail to do that pretty regularly, but failing to do so by a little bit means hitting an object at a low rate of speed, or having to swerve around it after already slowing down considerably.
Or possibly skidding off the road at a reduced rate of speed after locking up the brakes if you are being abit careless or reckless.
He swerved and went off the road at a high enough rate of speed to roll the car and take out a fence.
That's not just a little outside the reasonable range of operating a motor vehicle as required by law.
I'm not saying the persons placing the decoy on the road didn't break the lay and don't share in the responsibility for the accident.
However, the driver also shares in the responsibility for the accident.
Putting the entirety of the blame for what happened on the "pranksters" is being driver by emotion, not by logic or by justice.
According to an earlier AP story, Roby wasn't the first driver to come across the decoy that they put in the road that night. The previous drivers were able to avoid the decoy without mishap.
Not that I know of. It's about an hour from where I live, but I don't head over that way much.
I am guessing you have not it is where the deer was placed that was the problem and it was placed where it would be not seen until the last second.
According to an earlier AP story, Roby wasn't the first driver to come across their decoy deer in the road, the others avoided it without mishap.
While I agree that putting the deer where it can't bee seen until the driver gets close would add to danger, according to the Ohio Code, drivers are responsible to drive so that they can stop within the distance they can see is clear, though it's a requirement few live up to all the time.
Ohio Code 4511.21. Speed limits.
(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
However, even though most of us fail to do this to some extent, there's a big difference between failing to be able to stop in time, and swerving off the road at a high enough speed to roll the car while trying to avoid a stationary object.
The law holds them to the same responsibilities, but applies lighter penalties, and no permanent record to minors.
However, this particular discussion on age seemed to start with discussing the skills of the driver, who was 18 and not a minor.
According to the a.p. story it does not say which way the other drivers were driving no stories ever have.
If everyone can just walk away with the lessons that they learned, finding fault is often unnecessary.
In this case, the pranksters were charged with a wide array of felonies, not just related to stealing the decoy deer, but to the accident itself.
If placing blame is necessary, then the factors need to be weighed and the blame needs to be laid at the feet of all those responsible so that the results are just rather than simply driven by emotion.
I don't place blame on the driver that was untrained skeptic I place the blame on the Juvenille delinquints.
That road is not a road that anyone flies down really due to all the amish in the area. I would not be suprised to see quite a few deer signs and other such things used by the other schools at the games personally I will not see it. I will not be at any games.I used to live out that way and used that road every time I went into Kenton.
It said they watched the other cars slow down and swerve around the decoy. You don't swerve around something in the other lane.
I'll probably get criticized for agreeing with you but what the hell? Running off the road to avoid an animal is nuts, assuming the driver did it intentionally. If he went off the road because he lost control of the vehicle there is a good chance he was driving at an unsafe speed. Too bad the kids pled guilty. It would have been interesting to see the police reports regarding speed and alcohol.
http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=27320
My, my. Look what we have here.
"Prosecutors also have filed motions trying to keep records showing the level of marijuana in Roby’s system and his vehicle speed, along with Zachariah’s blood-alcohol level, from being admitted into evidence. But Rogers’ attorney, Maria Santo, of Lima, has filed a written argument saying the level of marijuana and speed of the car should be allowed into evidence. Other motorists driving within the speed limit and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol did not crash, she argued in court records. Traveling at a high rate of speed, 72 to 79 mph, while under the influence of drugs and alcohol must be considered when the case goes to trial, Santo argued."
I can see what you're getting at, but I'm going to have to say you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The judge apparently agrees with me, because he found these two guilty in this case. This particular (fake) deer in the middle of the road was only there because these two idiots decided to put it there. If they had thought about it at all, what did they think would be the result of this? In fact, there's good reason to believe they thought it would result in some type of accident, which apparently they thought would be entertaining. Same kind of moronic mentality as punks dropping rocks off overpasses just to see what would happen. I did a lot of stupid things in my youth, but even at my most booze and testosterone addled worst I never would have considered doing something so stupid.
The only real issue up for debate here is whether or not their sentences should have been delayed until after the football season. My instinct is to say no, they shouldn't have been.
Hmmm, speeding and under the influence - that does cast a somewhat different light on the incident.
"Don't veer for deer." A common sense warning given by every entity involved in safe driving promotions. Too bad the driver was not clear headed enough to heed such a warning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.