Man who intentionally ran over Mike Luther found guilty of assault

How is this not first-degree assault? Seemed intentional to me……and that guy sure as sugar does not look remorseful.

‘A Class A felony is used when police suspect there is an intention to cause serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon.”

How does intentionally driving your car over someone not meet the criterion above?

I am stupefied………

This is emblematic of the problem in society. Let’s leave out the obvious example of a gun or a knife. If Luther had performed the assault with a hammer to the skull, or a nailgun, or a chainsaw, would the judge have decided the same? If Luther had dropped a piano on Wayne Thompson, would that have been 3rd degree?

This is such a load of bull – there was obvious intent, and any driver is aware that a car is heavy enough to kill someone – the 40,000+ deaths a year and the media attention many of them garner is proof of that. Cars are tools, and like all tools they can be used with intent as deadly weapons. I would really like to know which judge this was, and what the basis of his ruling was.

Also, for the attorneys out there, why was this a judge and not a jury case? (honest question – I’m not very familiar with Oregon criminal law)

sooo true!

#4 matt picio

Without knowing for sure what the facts are in this case, it nevertheless continues a pattern of court decisions and law enforcement policies that provide little or no deterrent to injuring or killing a cyclist. Running over a young woman in a bike lane and killing her is unfortunate but not worthy of prosecution. Right hooking and severely injuring someone in an intersection is OK because the bike lane doesn’t continue through the intersection. I was recently threatened with what I believe to have been a gun because I was in the traffic lane at a red light waiting to go through the intersection and didn’t get off onto the sidewalk when ordered to do so by the motorist behind me. The police declined to do anything because when I called 911 with his license plate they found he lives in the next town. Where I live, bicyclists are never given the right of way in bike lanes at intersections, sometimes in full view of a police officer. I have been told that it is not an enforcement priority.

While I have no proof, I have to believe that the word gets out and affects people’s behavior. It’s no different than speeding if you don’t think you’ll get a ticket.

I don’t think this will change unless we get organized and committed to demand change from the Oregon legislature. How much do we care?

“andrew”

Really, you called 9-1-1 and an officer told you that because the driver lived out of town, a deadly threat/brandishing a fire-arm would be no big deal?

Thats sounds a bit hard to believe; good thing every 9-1-1 call is a public record and is recorded. Care to provide the necessary information for the all-edged incident to be fully explored? I am not saying it didn’t happen, just that it seems a bit out-there, even for Portland standards..

It’s time the bicycle community started gathering names of DA’s and judges so that they can be voted out of their job. You want to stop this? This is how you stop it.

As far as I can see, there was no jury – sounds like a plea bargain.
Could someone get to the bottom of this to see if it was a plea bargain?

if i am reading the sentencing guidelines grid correctly, http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/GuidelinesGrid.pdf if he has no history he could get as little as sixteen months, with three years’ probation.

Mimi, let us know if we can write letters to the court, requesting proper sentencing, and where they should be sent.

This is just plain wrong. One guy’s life will never be the same and the guy who caused the injuries get’s a slap on the wrist.

How many cyclists at a sentancing does it take to get a reasonable sentance for this horrible act of agression?

Mimi, how do you fee about a bunch of the cycling community showing up and protesting this decision?

can we remake Death Wish (1974) with bikes please?

This is just plain sickening.

You can do just about what you want to do in a car to anyone except, Portland Police, Kendra James.
(did i get the name right on the woman who was shot and killed for backing up on a cop).

It’s not very often I get minutes in the actual game. As such, and without reading much, I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment in-thread. Upon this, apparently, we all agree. I’m especially angry about this. I’m usually frustrated with people here and their lack of capability on public highways. In this though there isn’t a defensive-driving technique, there isn’t a piece of safety equipment, no level of care can be taken, to avoid being victimized by a maniac. As such, I find this crime particularly egregious.

I’m ignorant of the ways of the court. Who makes such a reduction? Is this the jury, or did the prosecutors lower the charge prior to trial? Can the judge do this? If a jury did this then I’m interested to know why. If prosecutors or a judge did this I’m interested in imposing penalties for doing so.

I found this link to a source on sentencing options for a Class C felony in Oregon. Not real sure about the credibility of the source, but in my opinion, it looks legitimate. I was interested in the outcome of sentencing, but now that I see this horrible man will receive nothing but a light tap on the wrist, regardless, I’m only further outraged.

I’d rather be attacked by a knife than an SUV.

To news media:
This was a motor vehicle collision not a motor vehicle accident.
“Collision” describes what happened in any situation where a motor vehicle impacts anything. It does so in a manner that does not place blame on any party involved.
“Accident” by its nature implies that the act of impact, crashing, injuring or killing with a motor vehicle was not the fault of the driver in any way. “It was an accident, ooops.”. Calling these collisions subconsciously places the blame on the victim deservedly or not.

Stop it, stop it, stop it!

In other news:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/813872–prosecutor-why-charges-against-bryant-were-dropped?bn=1

http://www.blogto.com/news_flash/2010/05/charges_dropped_in_michael_bryant_case/

Crazy stuff. If a motorist hit my back wheel 1-2 times I’d be pretty angry too. And somehow that isn’t provocation and Sheppard was determined to be the aggressor. Madness.

Just a very brief and very general lawyer comment in response to a couple of questions that were voiced above:

First, it is clear from the article this was not a plea bargain or “bureaucratic agreement” to reduce the charges. If this had been a plea, the only thing that would have happened is that the defendant would have pleaded guilty to an agreed upon charge – there would have been no need for the court to address the other charges.

Second, yes, it possible to waive your right to a jury and be tried by the court. When the issue involves drawing fine legal lines between grades of offense, a defendant may prefer the court to make the call. Indeed, sometimes a defendant may even stipulate to the facts upon which the court will base its decision. I have no idea whether this particular trial was on stipulated facts – I am just noting that some bench trials are.

Third, according to the news report, the court’s decision to acquit on the greater charges was based on the court’s determination that the state failed to prove that Luther acted with the requisite intent (or mens rea, as we show offs like to say), and not on a general idea that a car is not a dangerous weapon. Indeed, in Oregon it is settled law that a vehicle may be a dangerous weapon. State v. Hill, 298 Or 270, 692 P2d 100 (1984) (Automobile operated “recklessly,” as defined by ORS 161.085, can be “dangerous weapon” for purposes of assault statute). Intent is always very difficult to prove, and almost always involves making a series of inferences from circumstantial evidence. Without a transcript, I have no idea what evidence the state offered to prove intent.

Fourth, if Thompson dropped a piano on Luther and the state could prove that he had intentionally dropped it and that he had done so with the intent to injure Luther, and Luther was seriohsly injured, then the level of assault for which Thompson could be convicted would come down to whether the state could prove that a piano, as it was deployed in this hypothetical, was a “dangerous weapon” as defined by ORS 161.015(1) (a “device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury). Frankly, I do not suggest anyone test the hypo to find out.

Finally, I know Judge Kantor and, as anyone who knows him will tell you, he is exceedingly intelligent and fair, and not likely to base a decision on bias for drivers or against cyclists.

#35, I’ll take your word on Judge Kantor for a while, but honestly, this guy supposedly slammed his vehicle in reverse, hit the bicyclist and went over a curb in his aggression. What more evidence is needed? Weren’t there witnesses? I seem to recall there were.

Who was the DA on the case and why didn’t they have enough of the burden of proof?

There are more questions than answers. It would be nice if bikeportland can get more on this.

In other news:

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/265944-motorist-guilty-of-vehicular-manslaughter-in-cyclists-death

wsbob:
The article identifies the driver’s gender by 1) name, 2) picture of driver, 3) referring to driver as “she”… exactly what more do you want? Her gynecologist to go on the record? Does her gender even matter? For the record, per the article, the DA pressing the charge and the law enforcement officer providing expert testimony are also women.

More noteworthy is that the collision occurred in October 2008 and the maximum jail time is one year.

Driving a motor vehicle has a thin threshold between safe and dangerous operation. Far too many people misunderstand–or ignore–the sheer carnage capacity of motor vehicle.. its sad.

Marcus #41…you don’t have to be a sophomoric smart mouth about it…but since you asked…I would have liked the Morgan Hill Times story to have included more information about how the DA was able to prove the defendants guilt to the jury; what were some of the 40 pieces of evidence…what testimony there may have been in terms of witnesses, etc..

Velo…#44, you’re not obligated to, so why are you reading my comments if you don’t like them?

If you really feel they’re ‘pedantic: (Marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspect.)’, maybe that’s a cue for you and others following stories and comments here on bikeportland, to respond with something more substantial, based on yours and their knowledge and research. Instead we too often have retorts like the one you’ve posted in comment #44.

If Marcus wanted to know what more I wanted from the Morgan Hill Times story in terms of information about the case, all he needed to do was ask…politely. There wasn’t any need to introduce some offensive sexual slant into his question.

In fact, I wonder if Marcus even thought about what I’d written and was asking about in comment #40. This just now occurred to me or I’d have addressed that in the earlier comment. He seems to think I had questions about her gender. Not so. That’s one of the details the story clearly establishes.

I realize the story may have been from just a small town newspaper with modest staff and resources, but still…a couple hundred words more about how the DA was able to prove this case, when strong or incontrovertible evidence was probably required for it to be accomplished, would have been welcome.

Note Cecil’s comment #35.

I sometimes disagree with the ranting of some that “blah cars are weapons blah”

But in this case, it’s pretty clear. He used it with intent to harm. He used it as a weapon.
He should get the harshest penalty for attempted manslaughter.

While touring country roads and state highways, I’ve had people throw stuff at me and intentionally try to run me off the road. I think that a lot of drivers do not consider how badly they can hurt someone on a bike. Maybe that seems an outrageous statement, but why else would people try to run someone off the road? I can’t believe that those people spend other parts of their day trying to hurt people in other ways. I can’t speak for Mr. Thompson, but I think it’s quite possible that he really didn’t consider how badly he could hurt somebody. I think the judgment in this case is a travesty, but I’m not sure heavier sentencing alone is going to change incidents like this. There needs to be a a widespread cultural shift about whether bikers are worthy of the same respect and protection from needless collisions as pedestrians.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/southeast_portland_man_who_str.html

Mimi…I admire you and your brother for keeping up the good fight, and Mike also, for having the integrity of character to forgive the guy that hit him.

The O story reports some interesting things, such as how Thompson claims “…he never intended to strike Michael F. Luther…”, and how investigators determined he was driving in reverse through the parking lot for 250 feet at 15-29mph. Thelma and Louise did that in the movie of the same name.

Conscious or not, a statement is made by the use of the mug shot of Thompson chosen by the O chose to accompany their story. Compare it to the sober faced one above accompanying this bikeportland story. Thompson’s face in the O story has that big grin.