Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dorchester girl IDed; alleged drunk killer held without bail
By adamg on Wed, 11/27/2013 - 12:44pm
The girl who died after being hit by an SUV on Olney Street yesterday was identified today as Brianna Rosales, 7.
Meanwhile, the woman who allegedly hit her, Olivia Mora, was ordered held without bail at her arraignment today in Dorchester District Court on charges of operating under the influence, operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury and driving with an expired registration, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Innocent, etc.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
Bob Leponge is going to be
Bob Leponge is going to be upset by this. The driver was only "allegedly" drunk and only "allegedly" killed this girl.
No BAC yet
Could be the usual medical condition. Fainting more likely given her restricted (vegan) diet. Driving skills also generally lacking. Details at Boston.com
Whatever your point is....
... it sure went right over my head.
I'm sure she'll be giving thanks
for those delicious baloney and cheese sandwiches tomorrow. And the little carton of low fat milk. Meanwhile, Brianna's mother will be just left to wonder why.
No glee here.
I doubt she's a monster--just someone with some troubles who made a terrible mistake. She'll be living with the consequences of this for the rest of her life. Tragic.
You'll forgive me for not being so enlightened....
but my concern for what's left of her life is nowhere as strong as my compassion for her victim. I hope she rots in prison. She made a conscious decision to speed down a street with children on it while intoxicated. She is unworthy of your sympathy and fully deserving of whatever punishment the law hands her and whatever hell she puts herself through personally in the future. She's disposable at this point.
I understand.
And I'm not particularly enlightened. The idea of a child struck down while walking hand in hand with her mother on the sidewalk is pretty much the most horrifying thing I can imagine. But yes--I have to reserve some kind of compassion for this woman (who apparently also has a child) even as I believe that did a terrible thing and deserves punishment.
It's not easy to have compassion for her
A better person than me would have compassion for her. I find it a struggle.
A mess
Ms Mora apparently struggles with some serious issues, but my compassion is tempered by what sounds like a long list of irresponsible decisions, not to mention the alleged fatality:
Keeping her off the streets is unquestionably the right decision -- too bad it couldn't have happened earlier.
How do you suspend....
... a driver's right to drive in Massachusetts under a NH driver's license? Not a rhetorical one -- but a practical one.
State agencies
Share information, similar to criminal records. If someone with a NH drivers license violated a law in MA which is a violation that legally results in the suspension of ones drivers license under MA law. MA will revoke that persons license and NH will honor MA's decision.
If you went on vacation to say CA and you got arrested for a DUI, do you think you would be legally allowed to drive when you got back to Boston! Cuff city, population you.
Cuff city, population you.
Ha ha, good one. Like they actually arrest people in Mass for driving without a license.
Better track record than NH
What was her name, dairycowwe? Not only was she not arrested when she was caught, but she wasn't arrested until a week after she killed two people.
Interesting
This is one of the very few times that a drunk has killed or maimed somebody in MA and actually been held without bail.
This only happened four years ago, and the driver was released despite numerous convictions and not having a license - as if she was just going to stop driving this time: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/BO130831/
Maybe things are changing. We can only hope that this is the start of an era where killing and maiming with impaired or just bad driving isn't brushed off as "just an accident".
Agreed
Our collective tolerance of this issue as a state is sad. Glad to see at least in this case, the judicial system is not messing around.
Not Optimistic
I'd like to agree with you but it seems the reaction to this death (publicly and by the authorities) is an outlier. Had the driver not been abnormal looking, had she not been detained by locals before the police had arrived, and had the victim been an adult as opposed to a child walking home from school this would have barely been mentioned.
Look, THREE DAYS ago there was another person killed by a car in Boston according to the story on UHub. That story only got nine comments and two of them were from a guy who suggested the person deserved to die as he was *near* a liquor store and that we should think about pedestrian deaths the same way we think of deer being stuck and killed.
As horrible as this case is, no changes will come of it. In a few days someone else will be killed by a car in the Boston area. The police won't file charges and the media won't follow up.
Don't blame the rest of us...
> a guy who suggested the person deserved to die as he was *near* a liquor store and that we should think about pedestrian deaths
> the same way we think of deer being stuck and killed.
... for the rubbish Markk02474 spouts.
How is it that drunk driving (and vehicular homicide by drunk drivers) is generally treated with such lenience across most of the USA? (One of my brothers-in-law was killed in Florida by a drunk driver who ran off the road -- and who didn't even get a slap on the wrist -- and who was even impervious to a civil suit because the drunk driver was a local and my b-i-l was a sailor from up North).
Its a fact of pedestrian deaths
That a significant number of pedestrians die by stumbling drunk out into the street, especially at night. Its much like pedestrians being irresponsible and getting hit by trains. Close proximity to a liquor store raises the issue of sobriety. Some people here rant away blaming drivers for every pedestrian death despite the circumstances. They rage on like all motor vehicles should be banned. Well, there are greater causes of unnecessary deaths - about 23,000 people die every year in the US from the flu, where many were preventable if people just got the vaccine. Do doctors and nurses go to jail if they kill a patient by not washing their hands or making drug/medical errors? Not likely and much higher numbers than vehicular accidents.
I'll tell you Michael Kerpan....
1. Juries.
2. When someone refuses a breath test, juries by law never know about it, putting doubt whether the person was actually drunk.
Defense lawyers for crimes like OUIL, and other crimes of possible negligence will ask for jury trials because they have a shot where one person out of a group of persons will tell themselves:
"I could see that happening to me"
Without breath test results, the defense can say that the person only had a few drinks, and that there might be other causes that caused this "accident". All it takes is a little doubt in a juror's mind....
I will add that contrary to public opinion, (including posters on this site), Massachusetts isn't as bad as people think when it comes to jail time for specific cases like this one. Many OUIL's are tough to prove, and don't involve victims and are a result of a traffic stop with a breath test refusal.
People can call their State rep to have them change the statute. Part of the fault lies in the law.
One more thing the State should do. If you get your license seized, the state should seize your vehicle until you get your license back.
Not to Mention
This thing called "intent," which is necessary to be charged with a crime. Not even the most draconian drunk driving laws presume that a driver actually intends to hit and kill someone (this is why no one who understands the law listens to people who call motor vehicle homicide "murder"). Clearly they intended to a) drink and b) drive, but that doesn't get you to the serious punishments that go with deliberately stabbing or shooting someone. Even the most serious driving offense in MA, vehicular manslaughter, means you didn't mean to kill the person.
Driving while drunk....
... means you don't particularly _care_ whether or not you are going to kill or maim someone. This sort of reckless disregard for the safety of others can properly used as an equivalent to "intent", whether or not Massachusetts law (so far) chooses to impose such responsibility.
How about deciding to not wear a seat belt?
Is that intent of self-harm, or harm of others during quick maneuvers leading to loss of vehicle control? Do they not care if they live, die, or hurt someone?
People decide to drink and then operate a motor vehicle producing increased risk of self and other harm. Its much like people deciding to not wear a seat belt, increasing risk of self harm and loss of vehicle control. The difference is that when a drunk is in a crash, it becomes the drunk's fault the other person didn't wear a seat belt!
That's right, it is the drunk's fault.
See "doctrine of the eggshell head."
Victim not in weakened condition, however
The victim was also breaking laws by not wearing a seat belt, thus suffering from the consequences of their own lawlessness.
Say somebody (police or not) discharges pepper spray/mace/ tear gas and somebody with a respiratory condition dies. This is then a homicide?
Say the police were arresting someone and put them in a choke hold, and the person died. So, its still the cop's fault even if the dead person had some weakened condition or something? Much like a cop shooting someone (not breaking any law) in a crowd (of sports fans celebrating) with a "non-lethal" weapon and they died. The cop also murdered them?
Not the same
Reckless indifference, callous disregard, and gross negligence, while they ought to be punished severely, ought to be, in my book (and are, in most legal systems) punished less severely than malicious intent.
Intent is not necessary for OUIL.
Although it is another factor with juries. People tend to sympathize more with someone who might not have a criminal intent to hurt another person.
Possible flight, suicide risk
What was the driver's potential for fleeing the area if she made bail? Does she have strong family, work, and other ties to the area? She never got a MA or NH license. Had a business in NH. Gave police multiple addresses. Had a long driving record. Appealing a larceny conviction from Cambridge. Claims in her Match.com to love international travel. So, yeah, she might flee. She might be a suicide risk and safer locked up. She is against the killing of animals, so likely thinks killing 7 year old girls is also unethical. Or, perhaps they just kept her locked up because she identifies as black.
Her business was promoting rap and hip-hop shows
and she chose NH as a place to incorporate? While living in Boston? There's a lot more to this story.
Maybe she chose NH because it
Maybe she chose NH because it's cheap and close to Boston? Does it have to be mysterious?