Teenagers to serve time - after football

The Columbus Dispatch ^ | August 16, 2006 | Holly Zachariah

[weegee]

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 agree it should be considered a factor when the case goes to trial.

It should NOT be a factor in when the punishment is served.

If it was a professional athlete who was convicted of a serious offense, should he be permitted to play in the big game or go directly to jail?

What about a CEO with a big product announcement?

Can a nobody wait until his child's birthday or graduation before going to jail?

[untrained skeptic]

Thanks for posting that link. It was obvious that what I was reading in the AP articles did not add up, but I couldn't find any article with details.

It appears that AP prefers to only present half the facts.

[RGSpincich]

It should NOT be a factor in when the punishment is served.

I believe it was a package deal as in a plea bargain. The players had grounds to fight the charges but relinquished their right to a trial in exchange for the plea bargain. The judge was torn over going along with the portion of the plea bargain that included the delay in sentencing. The prosecutor did not object, in court or in the press, he merely said that the parents of the injured objected. He did what he had to do to get a conviction knowing that the injured had contributed to their own injuries.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

They pled no contest in a plea bargain. They had been charged with four counts of felonious assault, among other charges. The case did not go to trial. I'm also not disagreeing that the committed a serious crime by what they did.

This particular (fake) deer in the middle of the road was only there because these two idiots decided to put it there.

I agree. They created the situation through their own criminal acts. RGSpincich pointed me to an article that had more information.

http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=27320

According to this article, the deer was placed in such a way that it couldn't be seen from a ways off. The first few drivers were able to slow down and avoid the decoy.

It seems strange that none of them stopped.

However, the article also sheds some light on why Roby was unable to safely avoid the deer and why the crash was so severe.

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.

Same kind of moronic mentality as punks dropping rocks off overpasses just to see what would happen.

Yea, this does have a lot of similarity with that.

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.

I think the major factor in that was that these two didn't actually put the deer on the road. They didn't stop those that did and didn't try and remove it, so they definitely share in the guilt, but it appears their role was a passive one rather than an active one.

This was also part of a plea deal in exchange for their testimony against the others.

However, the Associated Press is being very selective in how they report this story and making Roby look entirely innocent and making these two look like the direct perpetrators who placed the decoy on the road.

The facts still paint a picture of some criminally irresponsible teens who deserve to be punished. However, they couldn't have expected Roby to come flying down the road going 20 miles over the speed limit while under the influence.

It does appear the teens intended to damage someone's car, and they should have expected that someone might be injured by their actions. However, this accident went well beyond what they could have expected because the driver was going way to fast and appears to have not reacted in time due to being impaired.

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.

I actually did have a "friend" that tossed a small rock off of an overpass over a rural highway when we were kids (maybe early teens).

The rock fortunately didn't hit any cars. I don't remember what I said to him but I think I called him a lot of names that were appropriate at the time, told him he could kill someone doing that, and then got the heck out of there.

He ran off as well, and to my knowledge never did it again.

I fortunately found better friends to hang out with.

[untrained skeptic]

Here's some additional information on the incident from another article in a local paper.

The information it provides makes both parties look worse.

It appears to indicate that the teens placed the decoy in such a way that it would get hit and damage someone's car, and should have been aware that could cause an accident in which people were injured.

However, the driver was apparently going between 72 and 79 mph and was under the influence of marijuana at the time.

[untrained skeptic]

http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=27320

This article indicates that the prosecutor felt that the decoy was purposefully placed so that it would be hard to see.

It also indicates that Roby was under the influence of marijuana and driving between 72 and 78 mph at the time of the accident, and that the prosecutor moved to suppress that evidence.

This is a really ugly situation all around.

My sympathies to those who were injured, and their families.

I hope all those involved learn learn from their mistakes.

It's a shame that Dustin Zachariah, the passenger in the car, who's underage drinking didn't play a role in the accident, is the one paying the highest price. He's the most innocent person involved.

[steve-b]

If I was in the courtroom, I would have said something and then found in contempt.

"Yo! Before I tell you what I think of your idiot decision, I'd like to request that my punishment for contempt be deferred until after football season...."

[steve-b]

There's a certain amount of sense to this decision. Not letting them play ball would also penalize their teammates, and their fans.

What a BS excuse. By that "logic", no judge could ever send anyone to jail because their absence would have bad effects on spouses, co-workers, etc.

[steve-b]

As for delaying the sentence. Team sports can have a positive influence on many people, and while they are busy with practice and games, they aren't out getting into trouble.

Oh, yeah, it clearly worked really well on these two hooligans....

[steve-b]

Far better to let the players meet the commitments they have made, and then, after the fact, serve their sentences

By this "reasoning", I can commit any crime I want and defer punishment until after I retire, lest it affect my previous committment to my job.

[SmoothTalker]

An absolute joke but not a terrible surprise. You often see trials delayed till after the seasons for athletes in major college basketball and football programs.

[SmoothTalker]

Very well said. I agree with you 100%. The blame should lie solely on the shoulders of these idiots.

[reflecter]

are you one of the kids that did this, how can you reason this? do you have nothing inside you that puts these two reckless teens at fault? My heart bleeds at these two teens who will have to not only live with what they did, with little tangible punishment, but live scorned the rest of there lives by their peers and hometown folk. It isn’t a matter of arguing for them, but giving them that which would have been more humane to them in the first place. Please rethink how you are approaching this, if not for me, for those involved, for all sides.

[reflecter]

I think what your really saying is that being safe is the law then? That would make driving one of the safest modes of transport, by law terms...which ummm....it isn’t, words sound nice, reality is ugly. What if they didn’t actually avoid it on purpose, but because you are on a rural country gravel road hit your brakes, and maybe hit loose gravel, and therefore swerved, producing your so called victim induced accident. The thing is maybe this wouldn’t have occurred if it had been on paved roads, but your on gravel, don’t forget that. Your words would say this should have been avoidable, yes in a picture perfect directions sense, I guess. But reality seems to shake things up a bit, throw in a bone or two, and that is why we see accidents all the time. I’ll give you error some of the time, but in this case....NO....i will not. Your reasoning would have me believe that all accidents and deaths should not have happened because guns are illegal, underage drinking is illegal, etc, etc, where do you live? clearly not in reality.