Back in March, 33-year-old Oscar Burell posted dozens of videos he took while driving his large, lifted pick-up truck through the streets Portland.
These weren’t just ordinary videos of him driving; he would be sitting half-way out of the drivers’-side window while steering with his leg and singing, he’d go painfully long stretches without even looking at the road ahead, and in one video he filmed himself while speeding and doing donuts in the grass at a public park on a sunny day.
It’s hard to convey in words what his videos were like. They demonstrated a shocking level of recklessness and total disregard for others — all while operating a multi-ton steel vehicle on public streets.
This morning KATU reported that Burell got his day in court. Here’s the consequence handed out by the judge:
Oscar Burell Jr., 33, got a 90-day license suspension and 18 months of probation.
He’s also getting 80 hours of community service, which can be reduced if he makes a video telling people not to do what he did.
I was hesitant to post anything about this case because I haven’t read the court documents and/or any supporting evidence from the prosecution or Burell’s defense (he represented himself and pled not guilty to the charges). I wasn’t in the courtroom and I have not heard why the judge made this decision.
That being said, this feels like a completely inappropriate consequence for what this man did. I worry that, once again, our justice system is sending a message that crimes and violence committed while using a car are just not that big of a deal. This case seems like a good example of how our car-centric culture isn’t willing to levy significant consequences on drivers until someone is seriously injured or killed by their actions — and even then they’re often not brought to justice. I also wonder if Portland’s lack of good alternatives to driving figured into the judge’s thinking. The inconvenient truth is that having to live without a car in a transportation system where cars are the most viable mobility option for most people, leads to judges who are reluctant to take away that privilege. What that leads to however, is that we trade community safety for one individual’s mobility needs.
I can appreciate that Burell might have been going through a rough patch in life and that perhaps he’s a different person now after this experience. I also don’t think his life should be ruined because of something he did in the past and that he might fully regret and want to move on from. Everyone deserves a second chance.
But I can’t stop thinking about how light of a sentence this is and the message it sends to others.
I watched a lot of Burell’s videos (before his account was taken down) and I can say we are very, very lucky that he never hurt or killed anyone — especially after speeding through a public park! To think that he’ll be driving again in a few months — after doing all that stuff I saw in those videos — is wild to me.
I hope Burell will drive safely in the future. I also hope he takes up the offer to make a video telling folks why it’s important to drive with respect and care for others. We can use all the help we can get spreading that message.
UPDATE, 9/10 at 7:47 am: The Oregonian has published additional information about the trial and the prosecution’s disappointment in the ruling. And Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez issued a press release blasting the ruling.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
He was convicted of three misdemeanors. Two counts of reckless driving and one of recklessly endangering another person. According to the Oregon Suspension Guide these are Schedule 1 offenses which come with a 90 day suspension for the first offense.
I wonder how much discretion the judge has to apply their suspensions consecutively vs concurrently. If they could have done consecutively it would have been as much as 4 years and 90 days. There’s also the habitual offender program which results in a 5 year revocation for three of these offenses.
All that to say harsher punishments for this type of driving will have to start with the legislature. I get that lots of people feel like they have to drive for their livelihood but that’s what the hardship program is for. We could suspend people for longer periods but allow them a hardship permit for work and other activities which comes with a lot of restrictions on their driving. That would certainly be preferable to a 90 day slap on the wrist and then back to their usual awful driving.
Wondering about the judge’s level of discretion is the second thought I had, as well. The first thought I had is that judges tend to be light handed when taking away somebody’s ability to drive because that ability is tied to so many things necessary to be a functioning citizen in our society. If you can’t (legally) drive, maybe you can’t work. Maybe you get kicked out of your home. Maybe you’re (practically) forced to drive without that license, and perhaps you get caught as a reoffender and suffer an even worse consequence. Perhaps your desperation leads to the commission of more and worse offenses. And so on. Ultimately, this is an indictment of our transportation network that makes anyone unable or unwilling to own and operate a personal automobile a second class citizen. Portland is better than most places in North America in this regard, but that bar is ankle-high. If we had proper equity in our transportation network, perhaps we’d see legislatures authorize and judges hand out penalties commensurate to the public danger being created.
Driving a car is a privilege. It is not a right.
If you abuse that privilege, it can be taken away, in this case for 90 days.
This guy needs a bracelet around his leg and if observed moving faster than 20mph in a park, it probably means he has not learned much from this lesson.
I’m with you 100%. I’m just saying that a lot of judges will view it as more of a right of necessity than a privilege due to the practical need we as a society have created. It’s an indictment of the past century of urban development we’ve engaged in, not a defense of lenient sentencing.
His actions could easily affect someones life in a way that makes them unable to work, unable to pay rent, unable to continue living. The big difference is they would be an innocent victim. He made very conscious decision to act the way he did and put others at risk while doing so. There should be no leniency in situations like this. Take away his license, ruin his life, I couldn’t care less if he experiences hardship after acting like this. Its not hard to understand that his behavior is intolerable. I am lucky to be alive after being hit by a driver far less negligent than this and it infuriates me we tolerate this on any level simply because his life would be ‘too inconvenient’ to punish him accordingly. Force him to be a vulnerable road user without a car and maybe he’ll figure it out.
Consequences consequences
License suspension is done by DMV and is based on the charge. The timing starts at the date of conviction or guilty plea. I’m not aware of any mechanism for a judge to order additional suspension because suspension is done by the DMV, not the judicial system.
It’s actually both. If you look at the suspension guide I linked it says under the column Ordered by: “Court or DMV”.
Even if you were right then the DMV chose to not suspend his license with consecutive suspensions because he committed three and the second and third Schedule 1 convictions come with 1 year and 3 year suspensions.
According to current Oregon law:
Inciting to Violence (ORS 509.011)
And therein lies the problem.
First — what is “violence” in terms of reckless driving? How is it defined?
Second — If you incite someone to violence, why is that a minor misdemeanor?
The law as it stands is part of the problem. I’ll [generously] assume that it was codified before automotive travel became the societal default. But even if that’s not the case, some detailed clarity is in order.
This man made videos explicitly showing people *how* be dangerous behind the wheel.
In a society where influence by video is so widespread and at least three generations of people are unduly open to such influence, how is this a minor misdemeanor?
“I get that lots of people feel like they have to drive for their livelihood but that’s what the hardship program is for.“
I know this may be an unfair assumption, but something tells me this individual does not have the maturity level to be gainfully employed on a full time or long term basis.
Should have been revoked for a year at the absolute minimum. What a joke.
The NCHRP estimates that 75 percent of Americans who get their licenses suspended continue driving:
https://www.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v2.pdf
License suspensions are also a joke. We have unsafe infrastructure and negligible consequences for driver violence because USAnian society tolerates (and, even, valorizes) CAR-nage (and violence in general).
Okay – but that’s not a reason NOT to suspend the guy’s license. Don’t forget that the penalties for continued malfeasance are progressive – they get more serious with each offense.
What kind of punishment would you hand down in this case?
If I weren’t constrained by the law (which the judge thankfully is), I would have the driver evaluated for mental illness and, if that turned out positive, restrict driving until it had been treated. If negative, I’d restrict driving for a year, or perhaps 5 years with most of that suspended as long as the driver didn’t get any serious tickets. I would not impose jail time unless he continued to drive while prohibited.
What would you do?
Jail time as that is the only thing that would prevent him from driving. Maybe a year inside would also be a good lesson on how not to endanger others.
A license ban is useless since he clearly does not care about social mores.
I think the issue is more about our culture’s normalization of dangerous driving than “punishment”. In societies that are less prone to FYIGM morality, interlock systems, speed limiters, and/or speed cameras are becoming prevalent. A licensing system that treats driving like a dangerous activity that should be highly-regulated is another change I would favor. I do realize that the likelihood of the above happening in ‘murrica is close to zero.
That being said, even in the USA something as simple as a GPS OBDII port monitor and/or ignition lock could be used to discourage driving by people whose license has been suspended and are under patrole.
Included with your license to drive is also a license to destroy and kill at no extra cost!!!
“I can appreciate that Burell might have been going through a rough patch in life and that perhaps he’s a different person now after this experience. I also don’t think his life should be ruined because of something he did in the past and that he might fully regret and want to move on from. Everyone deserves a second chance.”
No. the victims never receive a second chance. The killers always seem to. Fortunately Burell didn’t kill anyone, but other drivers sure have. A good friend was killed a long time ago by a drunk driver so I say “No” again, not everyone deserves a second chance. Prison time was called for by Burell’s reckless behavior. He was brandishing a deadly weapon and threatening people with it. I can’t access the BP fatality tracker, so here is the official Portland one, pedestrians in Yellow.
“No. the victims never receive a second chance. The killers always seem to. ”
What? Of course dead people don’t get a second chance, this is a tautology.
And then you go on to describe… Giving him a second chance. Prison time isn’t the same as life in prison, and the article was in agreement that this was a light sentence.
Why bother drifting when donuts in the park are shown to be legal?
It’s a shame that we live in a society in which privately owned and operated cars are viewed to be an essential tool that is necessary to participate in daily life. Objectively speaking, the disregard and disdain that this man has shown for the lives and well being of others should permanently disqualify him from ever operating a vehicle again. But given the societal context, no judge or jury would ever feel comfortable permanently revoking that privilege until or unless he kills someone. And even then, license suspension would likely only be temporary.
It’s crazy!! If I get red flagged or commit a felony (not even needing to be weapon related) I lose my 2a rights, go in a database, can’t buy a gun (no one will legally sell me one) and if I’m caught with an illegally acquired gun it’s a severe federal crime (technically).
Someone can have their drivers license suspended or revoked and they can buy whatever car they want or drive whatever car they want (and can afford of course) and go out to deliberately menace society at large with terror tactics.
It’s way past time to legally treat POVs as the dangerous weapons that they are.
Same judges with the same light sentences
We are making up for past injustices.
One of the worst things about Mothers Against Drunk Driving is that they seem to have convinced the world that as long as you are sober it’s never really that big a deal. Having watched his videos I think he is a lot more dangerous than someone driving after a couple beers but the punishment he received sends the opposite message. I really like the idea of mandatory interloks for drunk drivers as well as speed governors for folks who receive multiple speeding tickets, in this case if he is allowed to drive it seems like he should be required to have a camera mounted in the vehicle recording him that could be reviewed after the fact to make sure that he wasn’t hanging out the vehicle driving with his feet again…
That’s a great point. In-vehicle camera technology is now so advanced that every unsafe move a driver makes can be recorded instantly and flagged for review, either in real time or later. This level of scrutiny isn’t needed for most drivers but a driver like this guy could have his driving monitored and reviewed regularly.
Not sure I agree with this.
In the next 25 years nearly 1 million people will die on US roads unless we make dramatic changes (based on higher VMT but lower per mile crash rates we can expect total fatalities to stay flat, and 965,000 people died on US road from 2000-2024)
over 330,000 of them will be due to impairment (likely more since sleep deprivation and no-alcohol intoxicants are under-reported). Over 300,000 of them will involve excessive speed. Over 100,000 (likely way more, distracted driving is also under-reported) of them will involve distractions. All of these are not mutually exclusive (a drunk guy going 100 in a 40 while reading his phone is obviously possible).
A truly smart car that could detect impairment, distraction and unsafe driving and shut the car down and would therefore likely save over 500,000 people over the course of the remainder of my life.
Driver facing cameras are already pretty common with trucking companies
Totally agree that this is way too lenient a sentence. But I do have to take issue with “I also wonder if Portland’s lack of good alternatives to driving figured into the judge’s thinking” In my experience this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact I moved to Portland specifically to live car free. It’s a really easy thing to do. This city is so small in regards to miles wide, and though I think it can definitely be better our bike and transit infrastructure is better than many, car dependent cities in the US. A lot of people who are physically able, don’t ride a bike or take transit because they just choose not to, not because their isn’t any options available, especially if someone lives close in.
I agree with you Jay. I was trying to speak to the majority of folks and to the prevailing cultural conventional wisdom that would consider alternatives to driving not feasible. I absolutely agree it’s not as hard as most people think to be carfree/low-car in Portland, but I also am sensitive to the fact that I’m in a bubble and for the majority of people that idea would see preposterous.
I have to disagree that it’s easy. Driving is easy – that’s why almost everyone does it. If cycling were as easy, more people would do it.
Yes – I know bikes don’t have the infra etc. But cycling has lots of inherent difficulty – climbing hills on a bike isn’t easy, even for experienced riders – and not even on an e-bike.
Living car-free is feasible, but it’s not easy.
I disagree. Inner Portland proper, it is absolutely possible to live car-free. The further out you go, the more you have to kind of curate your life around transit routes and bike infrastructure. There are pockets in the suburbs where it is possible too.
Many people make trips like Gresham – Beaverton for work or school. I think that’s dumb but people are allowed to do that. Going from Gresham to Beaverton takes 40-minutes to an hour by car, but 1 1/2 hours via transit – and that’s if you live within a few minutes walk to MAX. Work in Vancouver? You’re doing at least one transfer or taking an infrequent express bus… that you still have to transfer to downtown. Living & working in Clack or Clark counties, forget about even catching a bus. I genuinely love riding MAX but I’d be hard pressed to spend an extra hour plus commuting each day if the option existed to do it faster.
I get it, I get it, cars bad and I know there’s people on this site who do crazy multimodal commutes like Trike Guy, or people who enjoy the challenge of cobbling together some ungodly Rube Goldberg machine of bus transfers like blumdrew. I used to do a bike + MAX + bike commute from Tabor to Troutdale. Most people are not like us and just want to get home though.
You mean to say that most people are not young, physically-fit, risk-tolerant men with the time and financial-privilege of being able to spend dozens of hours traveling by transit/bike/foot each month.
Impossible.
Thank you so much for calling me young.
With 60 looming, it’s nice to know that.
And not having a car was the way I became financially solid – there is no way given my history of median income or below salaries (I just got the summary in my Social Security statement) that I could have put away enough money that our financial advisor is highly confident of our making our retirement goals if I’d had a car.
Yes, I traveled longer. I also ended up reading a lot more than I might otherwise so it’s a push.
Yes I ride farther, but I don’t have to go to a gym for my cardio, so that’s about a push.
EDIT – *for me* it’s a push, in my personal calculus of time vs. benefits
The travel time part sometimes comes out in the wash if you would otherwise have a fitness regimen. When I commuted to work by car last semester (not a short ride – 12 miles) it usually took 30-35 minutes. The bike ride was about 45-55 minutes. The bus was longer than biking. At four times a week, the time difference wasn’t worse than a few trips to the gym. I also absolutely detest going to the gym, so it was a net positive.
The risk part is of course very real- as I’ve gotten into my late 30s I’ve become way more risk averse than in my 20s, and I can’t imagine doing the same trip without having an off-street path for almost all of the ride.
You’ve probably seen the times: Beavrton to Clackamas early AM.
Option 1 Ride the entire way (20mi, 1:20)
Option 2 MAX to Goose Hollow, ride the rest (15mi, 1:30)
Option 3 MAX to CTC, ride the rest (4mi, 1:40)
Option 4 MAX->72->CCC Industrial Shuttle (0mi, 2:00)
Option 5 A good place became available so MOVE. Now I have a 9mi ride, 35min in the AM if the lights go against me.
I really get why people drive.
I have a co-worker who is not driving currently (I didn’t pry as to reasons/duration) and she lives in Gresham (180ish and Division ish IIRC). We really want her to keep working for us (she’s one of our best night crew employees).
She *literally* can not use a purely transit option because the buses from here to CTC stop running hours before the end of her usual shift. She’s 15years younger than me and pretty fit, but has gone through cancer treatment – the only option I can see is an E-bike/multi-modal style trip TBH, and I’m not sure if she’s that committed to the job.
As good an employee as she is (and we’d give her a really good recommendation) she can easily get as good a job closer to home, which is likely her best choice (even though she really likes working for us).
100% with you. Once upon a time I lived in West Haven-Sylvan and commuted to work in the Hazel Dell area near Vancouver. I was actively trying to make ditching my car and taking a combination of bike and transit work out. It’s about a 30-40 minute drive both ways (a little longer in the afternoon because of the Fremont Bridge traffic), while the absolute best I could make it was slightly under an hour, and that was under ideal conditions: I and the buses are on time at a very specific time slot, and biking between transfers is entirely unimpeded. Kid dragging in the morning or late meeting in the afternoon to slow me down? The bridge is up or there’s a crash on I-5? Operator shortage or “mechanical issues on the MAX? suddenly I’m more reasonably looking at 1 1/2 to 2 hours one way, and it’s indefensible to my family that I spend 3 to 4 hours, triple to quadrup the time by car, every day for my commute.
Now, obviously that’s a very specific scenario, and there are compromises I could have potentially made to optimize for my commute. But the plural of anecdote is data, and the data bears it out: mode share in the Portland metro as of 2019 is 68% driving alone, with another 9% carpooling. People gravitate towards what makes most sense to them in terms of cost, reliability, safety, and convenience, and it’s quite clear that by far the best option for most people is driving. It’s certainly feasible to be low-car or no-car in Portland, but it’s by no means the best option for a majority of residents and workers in the region.
This is an absolute joke.
Let’s break this down from the standpoint of driver behavior. It was dangerous, it was deliberate, and it was relentless (the incidents are a reckless driving spree on 3 different dates in late March.)
A 90-day license suspension is laughable. If there’s any history of unsafe driving in this person’s history, then, as related to the license suspension, one could argue it’s a punishment that’s positively demented.
I wonder if his license has been suspended since his arrest through court date. So perhaps the effective suspension has been much longer and is effectively “time served” + 90 days?
No idea if that’s what’s happening, but it would make more sense.
As I understand it, a driver’s license reinstatement for such is NOT automatic: the next steps – post criminal offense / Class A misdemeanor being found – that this suspended driver will need to accomplish BEFORE OR reinstate’s his permit to legally drive in 91 days along with completing their alternative sentencing…(1) pay a $75 reinstatement fee; (2) submit proof of insurance; etc. There is a third step (optional) on the list – complete a driver improvement course – does anyone know if the judge included it in this sentencing or spoke as to why it was not added? It will be interesting to see if he is able to find (and now afford) MV insurance especially ‘high risk’ level coverage per SR-22.
My favorite part is the “make a video” requirement. Judge seems as addicted to social media as we are to cars. Some real “Hello mass shooter! Part of your punishment is taking a gun and showing people how to be safe with them!” energy.
Does he get longer probation if he doesn’t get enough likes?
I took that as rectified the past bad behavior. If you’re some kind of influencer telling your audience that it’s okay to do something, then a subsequent public mea culpa on the same platform can work to prevent copycats.
My question is how Mr. Burell is supposed to do that when his account has been suspended for violating terms of service.
He simply opens other accounts. Like the one where he is apparently already mocking the court.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/09/prosecution-fumes-as-judge-sentences-portland-stunt-driving-scofflaw-to-probation.html
Not that Meta actually cares, but that’s almost certainly against their terms of service, making him liable to be banned again. In any case, Mr. Burell should be careful about how he mocks the police and the court on his new account, lest he find himself in violation of the terms of his probation.
Woody Allen had a great bit (back when he was a stand-up comedian) about wanting to get divorced from his wife and not being able to unless he met certain requirements. “The Bible says ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ but the state of New York says you have to.”
The state (or whichever jurisdiction this case fell under) is basically saying the same thing: We’ll wait til this driver kills or maims someone before we impose meaningful penalties on him.
On top of his wild behind the wheel antics, my favorite, possibly most unhinged video of him is when he stopped in the tunnel on 26, middle lane I think, and danced around his truck. Wild that the system here is like, “yeah, I don’t know, he’ll probably do better in the future and figure his shit out”. Dude needs help, not a drivers license.
I wish a permanent revocation of a driver’s license was part of the consequences with reckless driving, excessive speeding, or driving while inebriated.
This is disappointing and frustrating. It is comparable to shooting a gun randomly in public.
Guess we will be hearing more about this guy in the future. One can only hope his next weapon is as easy to identify.
Oregon live reported today that he has new social media accounts and that he is posting all kinds of material that makes him sound completely unrepentant and unrelenting. I have no doubt that he is going to seriously injure someone real soon.
Sickening.
Enough said.
I can only hope that there’s conditions of his probation that are more serious (and potentially rehabilitative) than what’s initially being reported in the media about his sentencing.
It’s possible that participating in intensive outpatient mental health treatment or directly observed medication administration will be included as a condition of his probation with failure to participate being a probation violation. This can be fairly compelling in situations where the high threshold for involuntary commitment isn’t reached but the offender has a treatable mental health condition.
The sheer recklessness of Burell’s behavior — joyriding through parks, hanging out of his truck, using his vehicle like a toy — was outrageous. That kind of behavior is a serious threat to public safety, and the fact that he walked away with just 90 days of license suspension and probation is beyond frustrating.
Even DA Nathan Vasquez, who’s been painted by some progressives as some kind of hard-right boogeyman, called the judge’s decision ‘bewildering’ and said, ‘I strongly disagree with Judge Von Ter Stegge’s evaluation of the facts in this case.’
Funny how fast the narrative changes — a year ago Vasquez was supposedly the second coming of Trump, now he’s the only one in the room saying what everyone’s thinking. Maybe it’s time for some folks to admit they misjudged him — and that wanting accountability doesn’t make you a fascist, it makes you a functioning adult.
It is possible for both things to be true – he’s right here and he’s a facist.
It is possible for people who’s values I find morally repugnant to also be right sometimes.
As the old adage goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Vasquez is a fascist?! I’ve missed something in the news I guess!
I didn’t call him afascist, just pointing out that even if you think he is (not something I’ve researched enough to comment on) he can still be right abotu any number of things.
And maybe conservatives are not 100% wrong when they criticize judges for being too progressive.
Anybody know where this guy works or lives? Someone who takes this much joy in terrorizing local communities shouldn’t be able to exist in peace and quiet when they’re not seeking attention through their reckless behavior.
Not advocating we hurt the guy or anything, but if he has a yard I wouldn’t be mad if somebody showed up and started driving through it.
No need to dox this guy or encourage others to do so.
you don’t get anonymity when you choose to film yourself recklessly endangering others in a public space. Again, not advocating violence, but forget getting to live your life peacefully after terrorizing people like that.
No, you don’t get anonymity, but nor should you get “do gooders” showing up at your house and trashing your yard (as you suggested) because they feel you are sentence was too lenient.
Vigilante justice is ugly, no matter how seemingly just the cause.
And yeah, you’re not advocating violence. “Forget about living peacefully…”
“going through a rough patch in his life”. Sorry but really tired of that being used as an excuse to victimize others. Take a look around the city and see how that’s been working out.
Matt P,
That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not saying that would give him a right to victimize others. I’m simply trying to extend some grace to a person I don’t know. Yes, given the facts at hand perhaps I’m being too generous but I don’t want to live in a world where we throw anyone away for what might be a transgression they regret and want to move on from. The more I learn about this guy, however, that might not be the case. But please, spare me your lecturing about looking around the city. I know what’s going on here.
Do you? Because you sure love being a bleeding heart for bad actors. People who are really hurting the city you claim to love.
Yes I do. I don’t “love being a bleeding heart for bad actors.” I’m just trying to do what feels right to me in bad situations. I feel like if we turn on people and stop extending grace that takes us to a dark place. It’s also why I never will be mean or insult political folks or others online and I try to maintain a shred of respect so that maybe – just maybe – we can pull ourselves out of this moment without having to go all the way into the darkness. Don’t misinterpret this as me being a pollyanna or naive to the seriousness of threats or the fact that some people just don’t give a shit and will gladly tear everything down. When push comes to shove I have no problem ostracizing or criticizing someone. But I wait until I know 100% that is the best move before I make it.
Also, did you notice that this op-ed and my video clearly show how bad of a decision I believe this judgment to be? And how I am clearly stating Burell deserved more consequence?!
Matt P, I’m gonna tell myself that maybe you’re going through a rough patch yourself, because the insinuation that Jonathan’s affection for the city of Portland is bogus – and the implication that you get to decide how people ought to express their civic pride – it comes off as pretty mean-spirited and egotistical. It really feels like a certain subset of readers here skim the articles looking for “gotchas” or excuses to go on the attack.
i just wrote the judge, expressing my surprise and outrage, at Katharine.vonTerStegge@ojd.state.or.us
with a copy (requested) to Briana.S.Falcon@ojd.state.or.us
I urge people to write the judge, respectfully.
Googling her name I came up with her good past work like defending same sex marriage, being president of Queen’s Bench, (an association of women lawyers), serving as a citizen-member of the Independent Police Review Board for the City of Portland and as a volunteer lawyer for the Oregon Crime Victim Law Center. In my Email I expressed my hope that she can extend that community concern also to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers.
Personally, I want to withhold judgment until I see a written opinion or court transcript. This could be a situation in which her hands were more or less tied.
Given DA Vasquez’ comments on his bewilderment of the light sentencing it’s unlikely her “hands were tied”.
It seems as if this person is fueled by the drug of social media likes. It’s a well-studied dopamine high, and seems if the judge had the discretion to prohibit the use of social media by him that would be a helpful punishment.
Do the judges have that sort of discretion in this case? And if found violating, imprisonment or impoundment of cars and phones?
If I recall correctly, a judge in Washington ruled that the Belltown Hellcat must abstain from social media as a part of his probation. Not sure if that worked, though.
If you do further reporting can you look into what the DA recommended for sentencing? The statement from the court said the DA didn’t ask for jail time. It sounds like someone might be talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Here’s an article about DA Nathan Vasquez’ take on the verdict:
Spoiler: He’s not a fan.
https://katu.com/news/local/multnomah-county-da-criticizes-judges-leniency-in-viral-reckless-driving-case-district-attorney-portland-oregon-crime-local
This kind of thing makes one wish certain cases could be passed off to the Chinese justice system, where they could come up with an individualized charge such as “Disrupting the Harmony of the Public Sphere Through the Destruction of Collective Property With Intentions to Incite Online Anger,” resulting in a 100 year ban from being inside a car
This is, IMO, a pretty unhinged take. If we can throw our rule book out the door in any single case, then the rules no longer exist for all cases.
Imagine being convicted of 3 separate misdemeanors, and just getting probation and 3 month suspended sentence? If you want to do multiple crimes, be convicted, and for all general purposes get away with it, just use a car (or be the current president of the United States)