[got mud?]

Originally Posted by greg3564

The bottom line is this: If you falsified your log, you can be cited for that offense. HOWEVER, if the accident caused death you still can only be cited for a log violation. The log citation in NO WAY would lead to a murder charge. A murder charge would be the result of willful and negligent actions.

It's not like a DPS trooper is going to sit there and think "A trucker killed someone and I'm going to let him go. Wait a minute there's a log violation! Holy sh*t now I'm going to arrest him for murder!" :roll:

Now would log violations be prosecuted and used as evidence should a driver have an at fault fatal accident? Yes, just like they would use any past tickets, accidents, etc. as evidence too. But log violations don't automatically equal murder charges.

Dawn, Don, Tom, whatever...can you please offer your opinion when asked instead of randomly posting your "expertise" at will.

actually a good lawyer would be able to use your log to prove a crimainal act. if you lied on your log that means you purposly or knowingly drove beyond the limits of the law these are the coulpable (sp)mental states for a manslauter or murder charge. if you had driven legally you would not have been in that place at that time for the accident to occur and because you chose to break the law if the accident is in anyway found to be your fault then your in big trouble.

[Dawn]

Originally Posted by Dawn

Sorry I did not scroll down far enough when I replied above so please see where I said thanks GotMudd

[kc0iv]

got mud? said:

actually a good lawyer would be able to use your log to prove a crimainal act. if you lied on your log that means you purposly or knowingly drove beyond the limits of the law these are the coulpable (sp)mental states for a manslauter or murder charge. if you had driven legally you would not have been in that place at that time for the accident to occur and because you chose to break the law if the accident is in anyway found to be your fault then your in big trouble.

It would appear you are talking about Civil law not Criminal law. Big difference.

Going back to the start of this nonsense the driver was charged with "five charges of reckless homicide and four criminal recklessness charges". In another article it says "Spencer pleaded not guilty to five counts of reckless homicide, a Class C felony, and four counts of criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, also a Class C felony. ".

Now in the case of Civil lawsuit (which I'm sure there will be several) it is a totally different matter. In a civil case the lawyer will use everything he/she can find to prove his case. Even in the criminal trial they might use this as supporting evidence. But he was NOT charged with this. That has been our argument all along.

Dawn just can not read what the article says without adding to it her own personal agenda.

kc0iv

[got mud?]

Originally Posted by kc0iv

got mud? said:

It would appear you are talking about Civil law not Criminal law. Big difference.

Going back to the start of this nonsense the driver was charged with "five charges of reckless homicide and four criminal recklessness charges". In another article it says "Spencer pleaded not guilty to five counts of reckless homicide, a Class C felony, and four counts of criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, also a Class C felony. ".

Now in the case of Civil lawsuit (which I'm sure there will be several) it is a totally different matter. In a civil case the lawyer will use everything he/she can find to prove his case. Even in the criminal trial they might use this as supporting evidence. But he was NOT charged with this. That has been our argument all along.

Dawn just can not read what the article says without adding to it her own personal agenda.

kc0iv

actually i was refering to criminal law. the prosecutor is going to view a driver running on an illigal log book the same as he would a drunk driver. you are operating a motor vehical (CMV) beyond the limits of the law. in this case beyond how far you are allowed to drive without a break. if the prosecutor can prove that you where tired or that A resonable person would have been tired (that is what you are judged by not by how long a super trucker can go without sleep) and this was a factor in the accident then you choosing to break the law just laid the grounds for a crime and you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter or some form of that. studys have shown that being tired and drinking and driving are about the same. i'm not sticking up for the original poster but anyone that thinks you can run illigal and be in a fatal and only get a log book violation is dead wrong.

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by got mud?

i'm not sticking up for the original poster but anyone that thinks you can run illigal and be in a fatal and only get a log book violation is dead wrong.

You are correct. But the original poster is insinuating that a log violation would automatically lead to manslaughter charges.

Commercial truck driving is no different that driving a regular vehicle when at fault in a fatal accident. If a district attorney feels you were negligent and your crime heinous, you will be charged with manslaughter or homicide.

The point is that just because you have a log violation does NOT determine manslaughter charges alone. Would you be charged for a log violation in a at fault fatal accident? Sure, they will throw any and every charge they can find just to make sure you get convicted of something.

[kc0iv]

I don't disagree what a prosecutor might do. But the discussion at hand involves just one case. As I showed above the driver was charged with five counts of reckless homicide, a Class C felony, and four counts of criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, also a Class C felony."

No where in any of the many articles has it said he was charged with a logbook violation. All the articles have said he had driven longer than was allowed. Dawn added this information without any supporting documents. When in fact the driver returned home and was arrested several days later and returned to Indianapolis. She then went on what I would call a rage about logbook violation.

Only time will tell if he is found guilty of these charges.

I think all driver knows what can happen when they violated the law.

kc0iv

[Malaki86]

Does this discussion mean that if I'm driving 100% legal in my logbook, that if I decide to turn the wheel, cross the median and run over a church bus full of kids, that I won't be convicted of manslaughter or murder?

[yoopr]

I don't know how to spell it but maybe somebody can help me spell Oiy Veh :P

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by Malaki86

Does this discussion mean that if I'm driving 100% legal in my logbook, that if I decide to turn the wheel, cross the median and run over a church bus full of kids, that I won't be convicted of manslaughter or murder?

According to Dawn, no.

[Dawn]

Originally Posted by greg3564

According to Dawn, no.

No according to Dawn: She said if you are in an accident and it causes Death you could be held accountable for your logs alone and spend time in prison! (short version there)
2) if it causes injury you could be held accountable and be sued and all the legal crap

All I can say is I know what I said is true! DOT does not give you stories in the book!
Rev and several others took everything I said and twisted the words and that is how it has gotten out of control!

So if you cause an accident and it is your fault then yeah you are guilty right! But if you think ok not my fault I am clear, well behind the scences (immediately after the accident) the lawyers are asking all the questions of log book, equipment etc! So I know the real world, you live by whats in the book that is fine! I know I don't have to worry about false logs in my book, cause I give false logs, I don't get them! :lol: