Hey, there! Log in / Register
Bicyclist's death nets serial bad driver 18 months in county jail
By adamg on Fri, 10/31/2014 - 4:58pm
Michael Ahern of Dorchester was sentenced to 18 months in jail today for killing bicyclist Doan Bui on Morrissey Boulevard in 2012 by ramming him so hard with his pickup Bui's body flew 150 feet, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Prosecutors had asked for six to eight years in a state prison, because evidence showed that not only was Ahern going 20 mph above the speed limit, he had spent a good part of the evening before the crash drinking - in part at a bar he co-owned - and had a lengthy record of driving infractions that included 12 license suspensions.
Judge Christopher Muse sentenced Ahern to 2 1/2 years in a county jail, but with 12 months suspended for six years, during which Ahern must undergo an alcoholism screen, take any treatment that is recommended by that, perform 500 hours of community service and not drive.
In a statement, DA Dan Conley said:
Doan Bui did nothing wrong but ride his bike along the same route this defendant used after drinking all night. As a result of this defendant’s choices to drink and drive, the Bui family lost a father, a husband, and a source of emotional and financial support.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
And did the judge
give a statement on the public record explaining the reasons for his wanton disregard of the prosecutions' sentence recommendations?
What I'd ask the Judge
If his wife, child, or close friend was the person killed would he think that 18 months is considered reasonable justice served? If not then why is OK with this guy?
I agree this seems low, but
I agree this seems low, but prosecutors' recommendations are a terrible point of comparison. For one thing they aim high intentionally, as anyone would with any negotiation. For another thing the prosecutor has one job to do, the judge has another. You can criticize how well either do their job, but it will be a bad day for justice when they become intertwined.
And what is wrong with requiring judges
to publically justify their decisions whenever they impose a sentence that is well below what the prosecutor recommends? It's called accountability, which can hardly be considered a bad thing for justice.
And if judges were required to publically justify their decisions, then perhaps they'd put more thought into them beforehand.
According to the report I read....
... the family of the man who was killed urged the court NOT to impose a long prison sentence on the convicted drunk driver.
Interesting. Did they say
Interesting. Did they say why?
Something like....
The victims wife's position:
“She doesn’t think any more damage should be done to anyone else,” Barrett (her attorney) said. “She has expressed, for the lack of a better word, forgiveness, and doesn’t see any advantage to any lengthy sentencing imposed on the defendant.”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/31/dorchester-man-sentenced-dru...
Want to get away with murder
Want to get away with murder or only get a slap on the wrist?
Use a car
If driver's licenses were as stringent as firearms licenses in this state most bad drivers would be permanently revoked on suitability alone.
to be more specific
Want to get away with murder or only get a slap on the wrist?
Use a car to kill a bicyclist.
We don't do to well in these
We don't do to well in these cases either!
How did he "get away with murder?"
Was he not convicted? Is he not going to be spending time in jail? Would you like to be confined to a location where you actions are restricted for a year and a half, with your actions afterwards monitored for another 6 years, and in the chance you screw up you go back for another year? Do you really think being taken out of society as a whole for 18 months is an easy thing?
Look, I don't want to defend this dickwad. Someone already tried to do so on the Universal Hub, and I gave him whatfor about it. Do I think he should have gone to jail for longer? Yes, but then again, if he received 30 or 36 months, you would probably still claim he "got away with murder."
Heck, I'm even going to leave the "murder" part of this alone. He got away with nothing. If your life ever goes that way, I don't think you would see this as getting away with anything.
This guy was a repeat
This guy was a repeat offender which has obviously no respect for the law based on previous slaps on the wrist.
If a drunk person negligently discharged a firearm and killed someone they would be getting more than a year and half in prison. A car delivers the same if not greater deadly force than a bullet. Why the Hell is killing negligently someone with almost every other object imaginable a big deal but magically NO BIG DEAL when its a car?
WTF is with condoning manslaughter BECAUSE CAR in this state?
Since Michael Ahern was a repeat offender,
there's no question but that he deserved a longer jail term than he received.
Repeat offender what? I didn
Repeat offender what? I didn't see anything about any other OUI's or homicide? I sat in court as a student to hear a lot of not responsible judgement's for inspection sticker, right turn only, etc. Where is that a repeat offender for an OUI vehicular homicide? Just wondering? I think it was the DA's strong arm tactics trying to get a rise out of the judge, which he failed to do, in my opinion.
The mandatory minimum
The mandatory minimum sentence for vehicular manslaughter (disregarding the fact that he was drunk) is five years, so, yes, he did get away with it. I stand by my original prediction that he won't even spend 12 months in the slammer.
But, but, but
According to Adam's previous reporting, the punishment for the crime for which this guy was convicted is 1 to 10 years, so someone doesn't know what he's talking about.
Still, if this is your definition of " getting away with," what do you call it when someone is actually found not guilty, or not even charged?
you might want to do a little
you might want to do a little research on the MGL, Chapter 90 section 24 2.5 years is the minimum here with a one year mandatory
If the victim...
...was someone you loved, you'd be singing a different tune. You just sound like an apologist for the convicted murderer.
This victim's family....
... asked the court NOT to impose a long prison sentence.
Which should be irrelevant
in imposing sentence.
And Mike Dukakis wouldn't care
If Kitty was raped.
If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I think the sentence is a bit on the short side, and if you clicked the link I put in my comment, you'd read the apologist and my retort to him.
At the end of the day, people's definition of "getting away with murder", even discounting the whole "murder" thing, is way out of whack? Again, 18 months away from friends, family, work, and whatnot, followed by 6 years probation, during which one screwup means another year behind bars, cannot be seen as "getting away with murder."
Plus the thing Kerpan said. Aparentally, all of you not knowing the victim are more worked up about the sentence than the actual next of kin.
So what?
The point of jail time isn't just punishment - it is protecting the citizenry from someone with poor judgement who has KILLED PEOPLE and will likely do so again.
18 months is NOT enough time to protect the public from this loser.
Why do you think I disagree with you?
Yes, he should have gotten more time, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how people on UHub thing 18 months in jail is somehow equal to getting off scott free. Is there a subset of commenters who have done 5 or 10 year stints that I don't know about?
Yes, he killed someone, and although I believed in forgiveness and redemption, that fact stays with him for the rest of his life. But, to say it again, since when does being convicted of a crime and being sentenced to possibly two and a half years in jail rank as "getting away with murder"?
I'm guessing you know him
I'm guessing you know him personally and have for some time that you can call him a "loser"!
Well
He did kill someone, according to a jury of his peers. That is a strike against him. I mean, pro athletes are called losers for not making key plays in a game.
Rediculous
I thought MADD had pushed the drunk driving laws to the point where this wouldn't happen.
If the person hit was a little girl walking with her mom...
Do you think he would have only gotten the 18 months?
But is it the child victim that defines the crime and sentence..
or the white male (business owner, developer) drunk driver vs. the non-white female (Babson grad, community board member) drunk driver?
White man kills father of two young children, non-white woman kills young child. Both charged with motor vehicle homicide while drunk. Both have a history of violations. One gets $25,000 bail, the other held without bail. Each has a history of other violations...arson, drugs, etc. etc...
Man released on bail to conduct business as usual, and be at home with his kids. Woman incarcerated, DCF takes custody of her child.
Just find myself wondering about these similar cases with such different outcomes.
Theoreticals
Since both defendants have lengthy criminal records, had either had a history of jumping bail? Did both defendants remain at the scene, or did one hit and run?
Are either defendants single parents, meaning they are the sole caregivers, which would mean alcoholism in the household?
Again, since you didn't cite actual cases, we are left with theoreticals.. In the case discussed here, the driver didn't run, was actually sent home (according to a poster here when the verdict was reached) to be arrested and charged later.
Question
Why does single parent / sole caregiver mean alcoholism in the household? There may be some correlation, but I doubt that it's universal.
First point- drunk driving
If the defendant is charged with driving drunk, that would give evidence that they might have an alcohol problem. In a two parent situation, there is the chance that only one parent is an alcoholic, but if the parent is raising the kid alone, that would indicate a problem in the household.
You gotta trust me when I say that the authorities don't look too kindly in situations where the sole caregiver has such issues.
You seem to be saying
That because the defendant was driving drunk, it indicates alcoholism. Which is probable, but has nothing to do with single-parenthood, so I still don't know why you bring it up.
Upon further review
I read into something, which means I made an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions.
My bad. Still doesn't make sense that DCF would take her kid away "from her" rather than "from her and her husband" or whatnot, but still, what I read into it is not what it said.
Wasn't there a hit and run involved in the other crash?
And multiple witnesses with a 1 year old in the drunks car?
Or am I thinking of a different crash? If it's the same one, those are some added circumstances.
MA courts are basically
MA courts are basically theater, it's all an act and governed by who you know.
the defendant's lawyer is an ex ADA, aka he is probably buddies with everyone in that court. It's all politics. Want to get away with something? hire an ex-ADA for a lawyer, and watch him put on a show.
Let's have mandatory minimums
Oh, wait, people don't want that.
lawyer was former judge
The lawyer was a former judge. I could support this sentence if the defendant sucked it up and acknowledged his guilt, but after trial? No apparent acknowledgement of responsibility? From the start blaming the cyclist and knowing his drinking, declining any testing, etc. He knew he was tanked. And he killed a man. And he was in the business of selling booze, so should have a few years, at least.
Hey anon, do you know there
Hey anon, do you know there was a second car involved? A BPD officer testified that there was one. And where did it say anything about no acknowledgement of responsibility? He didn't flee the scene? He very well could have. And where did anyone blame the cyclist? Everyone is taught don't ever take a Breathalyzer, that's the golden rule. Wait, that's if you get pulled over. If you have been in an accident and hit someone you are traumatized and are entitled to go to the hospital. I think that is what happened here.
Your friend was convicted
If these things didn't come up at trial ...
If you only knew as much about grammar as you want us to know about these other things.
1 and 1/2 years
for killing someone. smh.
This IS NOT justice.
Electing judges is more appealing
When judges don't make good judgement or explain them.
This way they are accountable, unlike now.
No
As someone who grew up in a state where judges are elected, I can tell you the opportunities for corruption and malfeasance are every bit as high as they are in a state where judges have to pass the muster of the dreaded governor's council.
Aren't we lucky?
If we allowed happy hours, this might have happened in broad daylight...and the driver still would have only gotten 18 months.
Yes!
Finally, some justice for cyclists. The sentence should have been stiffer, though. An example needs to be made to get aggressive drivers in line.
shame on you!
Until you know the facts of the case you should not pass judgment! Despite the fact that a Boston Police Officer testified that a second vehicle was involved and it wasn't even investigated. The driver was not arrested until days later after the news reported the tragic accident that this driver stopped for and called 911 and tried to save him. He had no previous DUI but rather violations like expired inspection stickers, etc. Failing on a turn, etc. . Many of the violations the registry indicated as not responsible. A shame that the news isn't properly recorded.
It is truly a tragedy that this man lost his life but a man being convicted and sent to jail and his life being destroyed because all the facts weren't presented is a bigger tragedy! A man larger than life when it comes to decades of support of friends and strangers alike.
Imagine how he feels; no matter the circumstances, he has to live with the replay night after night! Until you know the facts, don't pass judgment until you have walked in his shoes.
I, too lost a family member on a bicycle. I was angry and saddened. I watch cases like this all the time. It seems convenient that it is election time, just saying! Cyclists are angry about the disregard for their safety (one which I agree with) but this time you got the wrong guy!
SHAME ON YOU!
I hope you don't feel too bad when the whole truth comes out! Or maybe you should! There is a big guy who should pass judgment not us!
YOU MISSED SOMETHING!!!!!11!!!1!!
YOUR FRIEND KILLED SOMEBODY.
YOU ALSO MISSED THE PART WHERE HE WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR KILLING SOMEONE.
Your drunk murdering asshole friend is CONVICTED of MURDER. He is now FAIR GAME for being judged!!
Grow up! There are consequences for actions. His are very light, considering that he KILLED somebody.
You both missed something
A trail was held, a verdict arrived at, statements were made, and a sentence was given. Aside from appeals, literally the case is closed.
People are using this case to further their own agendas, and if someone wants to point fingers at me, feel free. I also suspect that with the possible exception of the apologist, few of us have an actual connection to either the victim or person who killed him.
The guy's been judged. Give it up.
agreed
That's what the legal system is for! He has been tried and punished! Using this case as a platform for cyclists is a shame! No one ever wants to see a cyclists, pedestrian or anyone hurt!
Well that's just patently
Well that's just patently false. Plenty of road ragers yell as much at cyclists. I used to ride into work and even a friend of mine would go on about cyclists being a menace and would threaten them with various types of harm out of the window when he perceived one of them was impeding his travels.
Except that it is true
If the victim had be walking on the side of the road, there would be a lot less concern about the sentence. Instead, wild generalization are being made about the sentence in this case.
This has never been presented as an incident as you describe it. The guy was driving drunk (stop right now, defenders, he was found guilty of such) and hit a cyclist, killing him. No hit and run. No intent to kill. No road rage.
Wow.
Did you really type that?
There's a word for this
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enabler
If the defense attorney was a
If the defense attorney was a former DA and judge it just goes to show, the horse and pony show theory is right out the window because the conviction wouldn't have happened if you think that's the case. The facts of this case were underreported and the newspaper seems to leave out a lot of important pieces. I feel sorry that this family lost their family member in this tragic accident.
You ask about the judge's decision in sentencing. I am a student and wanted to know so therefore I listened. If you found it in your best interest, perhaps you would have also made it a point to attend and listen. The judge did speak about his decision and what impacted his decision making. You also made reference to the vehicular homicide statute minimum sentencing of 5 years. Wrong answer! Chapter 90, section 24G 2.5 years with a one year minimum. The original article stated correctly 1-15 years.
I feel sorry that this family
You and the family need to go to Al-anon.