“This was not reckless driving. This was murder,” the judge said before she read out Mackenzie Shirilla’s verdict Monday afternoon.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    320
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The reason why they say this was murder:

    Two weeks before the crash, she allegedly threatened to crash her vehicle when she was driving with Russo because she was upset over a disagreement they had. Russo called his mother and asked to be picked up, and a friend ended up retrieving him. In a phone call with Russo, the friend allegedly overheard Shirilla say, “I will crash this car right now,” prosecutors said in court documents.

    This isn’t a drunk driver, or a thrillseeker, this is someone with murderous intent.

      • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In most US jurisdictions if you’re “just” trying to commit a felony, like purposely crashing your car at 100+ MPH (160+ KPH) to cause grievous bodily harm to others, and someone dies as a result that’s automatically elevated to murder.

      • JoBo@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’ll depend on the jurisdiction. But ‘intent’ for murder does not mean “pre-planned”. Heat of the moment intention to do serious harm is enough for a murder conviction in the UK (and, I believe, the US).

        In this case, the prosecution accused her of pre-planning as well as intent, and the jury agreed with one or both arguments.

        Russo, the judge, delivered a scalding description of the case before she read out the verdict, saying Shirilla had a “mission” she executed with “precision” that fateful day — and “the mission was death.”

        “The [crash] video clearly shows the purpose and intent of the defendant. She chose a course of death and destruction that day,” Russo said.

        “She morphs from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels as she makes her way down the street,” Russo said, saying Shirilla made a calculated decision to drive that morning, when not many people would be around, on an obscure route she did not routinely take.

        Prosecutor Michael O’Malley told NBC affiliate WKYC of Cleveland that the crash video was damning, saying, “The intent was obvious upon seeing that video that there was only one goal.”

        • Professorozone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I recently read that a 70mph accident is considered “unsurvivable.” Regrettably I don’t recall the source. Because people survive accidents that happen on 70mph speed limit highways all the time, I assume two things. 1. That the accident has to happen AT 70mph. And that 2, most people are able to slow down or perhaps the vehicle hits something first, glancing blow, that sort of thing, which brings the speed down, making it more survivable. So yeah, I think that makes 100mph suicide/murder.

          • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            crash testing is done between 35 and 40 mph. At those speeds the car is usually undrivable after the test. Over that speed you risk damage to very expensive test equipment.

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Murder laws can vary by country.

        She murdered two people with the intent to at least cause significant harm. That’s enough on the state she was in, thank God. She deserves life in prison.

          • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You can’t consent to murder, the best you could do is indemnify someone/an organisation against accidental death.

            • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can’t consent to murder

              Genuine question - why not? If someone wants to be murdered, for whatever reason, would that not be them consenting?

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You could try to argue some suicide/euthanasia case, but “murder” by definition is intentional death without the consent of the victim.

          • Fuck_u_spez_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are cases of mutual murderer/suicide pacts where there’s shared responsibility and actions taken by each party but that wouldn’t have been possible when she was the only one in control of the car. Even if the boyfriend was suicidal, and there’s no reason to think he was from this article, the other passenger clearly wasn’t. IANAL either but I think that’s what the above comment was trying to get at.

      • JoBo@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds much more like an abusive relationship. She was trying to punish him, regardless of the risk to herself.

        • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          51
          ·
          1 year ago

          …no, no, no… only WOMEN can be in abusive relationships.

          At least that is the utter bullshit you would believe if you listened to the feminist/white knight rhetoric out there.

            • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              24
              ·
              1 year ago

              Clearly you don’t want to hear the truth of the general bias of the internet and society as a whole.

                • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We don’t have good feminists. The ones we have left don’t want equality, they want favoritism. There is a massive difference between the two.

          • JoBo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly, it’s very very similar. AFAICT she was trying to punish him. It has all the hallmarks of an abusive relationship. And an all too common outcome.

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re trying to kill others along with you, it’s not just suicide, it’s also murder.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why suicidal people are dangerous, it’s a relatively small change from killing yourself, to killing others.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is why pastry chefs are dangerous, it’s a relatively small change from baking your bread, to baking others.

          • Yepthatsme@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is why being baked while baking with a baker is dangerous. You get too baked and you might get baked by the baker for making bad cakes.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            As such, it is clear that suicides tend to have high levels of aggressive–destructive impulsive behaviours, generally referred to as impulsive–aggressive behaviours. These have been operationally defined in suicide studies as a tendency to react with animosity or overt hostility without consideration to possible consequences, when piqued or under stress.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277022/

            • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Did you read anything else in that paper…? The words around that statement? Even the abstract?

              Or did you google what you wanted to see and post the result, because that paper is not about people harming others whilst attempting suicide. It is barely tangentially about that.

              (it’s about the impact of aggressive-impulsive tendencies on the suicide…r themselves)

        • quicksand@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          No there may be a small chance of collateral damage, such as this case. But suicidal thinking does not make you think of killing others. You’re clearly lucky enough to have never had suicidal ideation, but it never comes near the kind of thoughts that want to kill others

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            It changes when it comes to acting. If you have the gun to your head, shooting someone telling you to stop is also highly likely.

            • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let’s see some stats on that one because being an abusive murder is a lot different than suicidality.

              There is no correlation between her wanting to kill people and her potential suicidality. They just coincidentally line up in this case.

        • Case@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have a relative who was recently given a DUI.

          They went to the store, sober, and bought a handle of vodka (1.75 liters) consumed the vast majority, and drove around.

          He wanted to die in a head on collision. Selfish fuck.

          I don’t have a problem with people having the freedom to decide enough is enough, but don’t harm others in the process, at least more so than the death would cause. Especially innocent unrelated people.

  • 18-24-61-B-17-17-4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fucking hell that is horrible. And of course she’s the only one to survive. 100mph into a brick building has probably left her pretty physically fucked up and in constant pain. Hope she enjoys feeling that way in prison for the rest of her life.

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      54
      ·
      1 year ago

      She’ll spend 8 months in prison and appeal for a reduced sentence and get out on “good behavior” before she’s even served a quarter of her term. Don’t you know how the American legal system works?

      • Angry_Zombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Murder is a felony, so I believe you have to serve 80% of a sentence before being able to be eligible for parole

        • snorkbubs@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The bullshit sentences are the ones we mainly hear about, and many people have a bit of a confirmation bias because of it. But, you don’t have to look further than your own community to see that slaps on the wrist are not typical.

          US citizens are the most incarcerated people on Earth, by an uncomfortable margin.

            • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s possible that this wasn’t intentional if her intention was to put her bf in the hospital, not literally kill him. But at 100 mph I doubt it.

              Though I could see a psychotic 17 year old not thinking it through and assuming the boyfriend would survive, albeit crippled.

          • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’d likely the families of those she killed will be at every single parole hearing kicking up a fuss.

  • Kyden Ulrik@l.cackl.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am truly sorry for the passengers. Lost life because of teenage perceived hardship is tragic.

    From a different perspective, it seems incredibly impressive that anyone survived a deliberate head on collision with a brick wall (that appears to have barely buckled) at 100 MPH / 161 KMH.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the Christianization of the speed units, God bless you

      Survived and still standing on her feet…

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not just survived, but with everything intact. No missing limbs or massive head trauma. She’s wildly lucky in that reguard.

    • kozy138@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Gotta get them teens to work. And no public transit options please, they make my money pile smaller.”

      -CEO’s everywhere

      • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right? I honestly can’t wait until self driving cars take up enough of the market share that manual driving cars will be outlawed (or at least getting insurance on them will be astronomically expensive)

          • CoderKat@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What dumb is that we can improve public transit today. Unlike self driving cars, there is no technological barrier. The only thing stopping us from improving public transit is that fact that humans (especially in North America) are selfish, greedy, easily manipulated, and apathetic.

            Public transit doesn’t improve because not enough people don’t want to use public transit and not enough people want to use public transit because it doesn’t improve.

          • visak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not the cars themselves but I think it’ll happen like this: self driving cars will eventually get good enough that they will have a lower accident rate in certain conditions, like highways. Insurance companies will push for self-driving-only lanes on the highway, while not lowering your rates but charging you extra for manual driving. Then it will be segments of highways, then certain surface streets, etc. Eventually you’ll only be driving the “last mile” if it’s a personal car or relying on a service that sends self-driving cars and drops you off on the corner. Manual driving on public streets will mostly disappear.

          • havokdj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention that self driving cars will be the destruction of the environment.

            If you don’t want to drive, try to use public transportation or possibly human powered vehicles such as bicycles. Cars are bad enough as is. The only reason I even drive is to go to work and the grocery store in my town with basically no public transportation other than taxis.

            • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no clue how you came to the conclusion that self driving cars would be more harmful to the environment than human driven ones, but even if the number of cars on the road remained the sane (it would actually drastically decrease), and even if all self driving cars were ICEs, vehicle emissions would still drastically stop.

              If every car was self driving, then every car would know the position of every other car around it and be able to communicate to every other car. Traffic jams would cease to exist, and potentially even stopping at intersections would go away too.

              But, the reality is that once self driving cars reach that critical mass, owning a car won’t be a thing anymore. You’ll pay a service to shuttle you around. Hell, if the service was a public utility then it would be trivial to set up ride sharing for a reduced rate. That would be what drastically decreases the amount of cars on the road.

              • havokdj@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because self driving cars would allow people who otherwise couldn’t drive for themselves to own yet another car on the road. Teenagers, elderly, people with chronic alcohol addiction, you get the idea.

                I don’t fully buy the “no traffic jams or accidents” thing either. There is definitely the potential for there to be less, but what you are talking about is something that isn’t going to happen for ateast another decade. Surely you remember the Tesla crisis from the last year?

                I can see ride sharing becoming a thing for the people under the poverty line, but realistically speaking, everyone is going to buy a car. There is no incentive for a billions of dollars company to put less cars on the road using ride sharing, some of them already sell you heated seats in the form of a monthly subscription.

                • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re making the mistake of applying the behavior of people today with the behavior of people over a decade from now.

                  Truly autonomous vehicles would fundamentally change the way the world views transportation, it will just take a while to get to that point.

                  By the time we get to a critical mass of self driving cars, it’s very likely that owning cars won’t be a thing outside of the wealthy.

                  The organizations that will be running the transportation services will have a vested interest in keeping as few vehicles in a fleet as possible, thus removing vehicles from the road (if we haven’t reached that point by the time self driving cars are a real thing)

                  Also the idea that the people who couldn’t otherwise own a car would suddenly have $50k+ to go out and buy an autonomous vehicle is silly.

      • dragoness@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At risk of angering the vast majority of the fuck cars community, it’s generally because I live 30 minutes from my job by highway, and can’t afford to live within walking distance. And they won’t let us telework. I really really want to actually live close enough to bike.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        So we have a large reoccurring expense that forces us to always have a job and stay productive in a modern society where this really isn’t necessary?

    • krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because the vast majority of them don’t use the 3ton vehicle to commit murder.

      You do know that adults use vehicles as murder weapons also, yeah?

    • _wintermute@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same reason we all have a personal 3 ton vehicle: to ensure we remain bound to a culture of sprawling roads and fossil fuel consumption.

    • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      When I think back to how immature and reckless I was as a teenager I can’t believe I was legally allowed to drive and considered a full grown adult at the age of 18.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Awesome. Judge all teenagers because of a deranged one.

      What’s your stance on 27 year olds with driver’s licenses?

      • acutfjg@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong. Being able to drive by 16 so that you can start working is the capitalist way.

    • sulfate7016@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      A Camry weighs half of that, and regardless, she could have done this in any vehicle

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Bcs we lack the infrastructure for them not to require a car & obviously want car companies, roadworks, and petrol industries to continue having huge profits.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol which vehicles weigh 3 tons. Aside from EVs. You mean 3 tons as in 6600 lbs right?

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Prosecutor: What gear were you in at the moment of impact?

    Defendant: Gucci sweats and Reebok Classics.

  • kite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are a lot of people in this post spouting their opinion on an article they very clearly did not read.

  • Nyanix@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus, I sympathize, this is awful…i was t-boned by a teen going 85 mph, I wish my attorneys had the same teeth this judge does

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry that happened… but that’s not why she said it. This girl accelerated full speed, without attempting to slow down at all, straight into a brick wall. Those teens probably weren’t trying to hit you, this girl very very very likely was trying to hit that wall and kill everyone in the car.

  • Saturdaycat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow the way she’s crying is disgusting, she’s just sorry for herself not for the deaths she caused. No remorse, only regret for getting sentenced

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow the way she’s crying is disgusting, she’s just sorry for herself not for the deaths she caused. No remorse, only regret for getting sentenced

      How do you know that? I don’t know about you but I’ve done things in anger that I felt genuine remorse for later.

      Never killed anyone though, I suppose.

      • Saturdaycat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because of her intent and crimes- she had genuine murderous intent as the judgement said. She seemed very cruel and unhinged according to the article and presented evidence and the video showed her crying due to the judgement.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s been two years since she murdered those people. She could easily feel true remorse now.

          I’m in no way trying to excuse her actions, I just think it’s worth trying to do some level of empathizing for people. Not that what she did was in any way justified, but I can’t imagine trying to live with myself if I got angry enough to murder someone.

          • Saturdaycat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s all speculation and assumptions anyway ! We can see different things. I feel disgust and see regret and you may see someone possibly showing remorse. We just don’t know for sure either way.

            Have a good day fellow fediperson

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Crying when the sentence was read doesn’t say anything one way or the other about her feeling or not remorse because that specific moment is about what’s going to happen to her, not about others, so she’s crying for herself.

            She almost certainly feels regret (which is entirelly about the consequences for herself), but it’s unclear that she feels remorse (which is about the consequences for others of her actions).

        • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean legitimate tears from someone who had trauma from successfully defending himself against attackers? Did you watch any of the trial?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Boo hoo I murdered two people boo hoo. Can I get medal now? Boo hoo boo hoo.

            There, that is what I think of your bestie. Go Rittenhouse about it to your family and “friends”.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s been two years since she made that video, regardless of whether it was made before or after the crash.

          I’m not trying to say that she is remorseful, only that we cannot say that she isn’t based solely on her actions two years ago.

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sure seems like she had a lot of issues at 17, that’s for sure. Most 17-year-olds don’t murder their friends and boyfriends.

              I find her family’s attitude toward the whole thing troubling. I know my family, if I were in this situation and they had the same evidence, would be telling me to plead guilty and take responsibility. I have a feeling that concept was never big in her upbringing or her family’s.

              It’s tragic all the way down.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again it’s tragic for the victims, not for her. Saying it’s tragic all the way down, is a false equivalence.

                • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again it’s tragic for the victims, not for her. Saying it’s tragic all the way down, is a false equivalence.

                  I don’t want to be argumentative, but there is no false equivalence in my position. I never tried to apply any equivalence. Things can be tragic without being equivalently tragic, and one thing being tragic does not take away the tragedy of something else.

                  I think one could argue that you’re falling prey to the fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so we shouldn’t care about Y.”

                  Tragedy is not a zero sum game. It is absolutely tragic that those young men were murdered. It is tragic that their families lost their loved ones. It is also tragic that this young woman thought the proper solution to her problems was to attempt murder-suicide. It is tragic that she threw away any promise her own life held along with theirs. It is perhaps not tragic, but certainly sad and troubling, that her family seems to think she did nothing wrong.

                  Yes, it’s more tragic for the victims, but it her story is still a tragedy.

                  It is important to note that I am in no way trying to excuse her actions or argue for leniency. She murdered two people in a horrible and reckless action. There are consequences for that action beyond the direct ones.

                  But empathy is important even for those we may hate.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s something that people often forget (because they aren’t like that themselves and have normal human reactions) is that narcisists, sociopaths, psychopaths and people with similar psychological disfunctions that make them act in “cold hearted” ways do feel.

      However they feel only for themselves, never for others.

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a bit unfair, though I didn’t watch the trial in full. We have no idea if she cried for the other lives or not.

      • Saturdaycat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s unfair of me, but it is my perception and my opinion which is only based in observation yup.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone with a legal background able to help me understand how two deaths resulted in 4 murder convictions and 2 vehicular homicide convictions?

    • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I can say she was convicted of two counts of both R.C. 2903.02(A) & (B)—basically “normal” murder and felony murder. Clearly they thought she did it on purpose and because she was committing another felony. I can’t say why those don’t merge together under Ohio law or if they are supposed to. Ohio is a fairly statutory state, so maybe they overwrite that common law rule?

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, felony murder makes sense as the other charges would be felonies. I don’t care much for felony murder laws because I feel like they deincentivize careful action in law enforcement, but I definitely understand where if that law is in place she caught murder for the actual murder then felony murder subsequent to the assaults.

        Still feels weird that two dead people produced 6 homicide convictions though. Like, you killed them, that’s 2 crimes. You killed them with a car, that’s two more crimes. In the process of killing them with a car, which is a felony, you killed them. That’s two more crimes.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you, but that’s a lot of reading for a simple question.

        Statistical analysis was by χ2 test; a p value of less than 0.05 was assumed to correlate with a significant difference in rates of injury.

        Oh yes it’s all clear to me now.

        I know it used to be like that before air bags and safety belts, because the steering wheel takes some of the blow in frontal collisions. But such dramatic difference I suspected she might have made the collision worse for the passengers on purpose.

        PS She is probably a narcissist: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12417047/Mackenzie-Shirilla-TikTok-doing-drugs-not-dying-jailed-murdering-boyfriend-friend-drugged-100mph-crash.html

        PPS: The article I found describes that her survival was miraculous, and she had surgery.

        • Sciaphobia@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh yes it’s all clear to me now.

          The p value is effectively the % chance something happened by coincidence, and not because of a real effect. Like flipping a coin and getting the same side several times in a row. P value is an assessment of that likelihood. Less than .05 means a less than 5% chance of that. I don’t know what the other bit is, except it was likely a method of statistical analysis.

          It’s a way of saying that the results they found were very unlikely to be due to chance.

        • girlfreddy@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @Buffalox

          tl:dr version is always the conclusions …

          Conclusions: Front seat passengers are at increased risk of injury relative to drivers in actual road traffic accidents as recorded in the STAG database. This contradicts crash test data, which suggest drivers are less well protected than front seat passengers in laboratory conditions.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes but that could for instance be due to traffic coming from the passenger side that the driver is less likely to see in time. That would be irrelevant to this case.

  • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an unbelievable tragedy, for all of them. She just turned 18, I wonder what her sentence will be like. I assume that in the US - unlike the situation over here in Europe - there is no special “juvenile justice” for young adults, so she might face multiple lifetimes in prison after being convicted for murder. If I remember correctly you can get separate sentences for each victim, which will sum up to your total sentence.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder of she cried this much too for the two kids she killed. I think she needs a psychiatric institution instead of jail