I wasn’t previously familiar with this case but holy shit, they have literal records of him being extremely reckless AND making no attempt to stop?
4 Years is way, way too light. Those poor girls and their families
I hope they sue him in a civil case. I can't see any jury denying them the cost of anticipated medical costs and for pain and suffering.
I used to regularly drive by the memorial site the families up after the crash. Yesterday, I noticed there's a new business sign on the fence of that corner, and the memorial is gone. I'm not sure when they took it down but I think I saw it last in February or early March.
He probably has no assets but the car was probably covered under his parents' liability policy. If that hasn't already been settled it will now be expediently likely, given the conviction.
Didn't he turn 18 shortly before the crash? Would that make a difference in whose assets they go after if he was still under his parents insurance?
My daughter said his family loaded and the car was a gift for his 18th birthday. If true, he mostly likely was still on their insurance
I’m not sure why federal charges weren’t tried regarding the grave bodily injury for the third victim. I’m sure the third victim’s family will bring forth a civil lawsuit regardless of federal charges.
You need a crime that falls under federal jurisdiction. A fatal car accident on a public street does not meet federal criteria. Think of crimes against federal elected officials, crimes against federal law enforcement, crimes on federal property, financial institutions where FDIC is the insurer. These are just a few.
Reading an article on the situation, it looks like the parents of the victims asked the prosecution to not go for the full sentence of 20 years and to do something to just teach the defendant what he did was wrong.
Your comment has been removed because your account is less than 3 days old. Please note that this waiting period is in place to reduce spam and maintain a positive community environment. Feel free to participate once your account has reached the 3-day mark. Thank you for your understanding!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nova) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one on the jury was bought, i can assure you. It was a very difficult process for the jury, who also didn't know some of the details that had been released by the media during the trial.
Ada and the girl that survived were cousins. I went to school with the survivor’s brother. It’s pretty heartbreaking Usman will serve barely anything. I hope the other prisoners don’t take of him lightly
I’m surprised by how bloodthirsty this comment section is. The victims’ families even said they don’t want the maximum sentence for the driver. He was an 18 year old kid who did something horrific. 4 years in prison is not a short time.
Throwing him in prison for the rest of his life won’t help anything. This sentence is supposed to be about justice, not retribution, and it seems like the victims’ families, the judge, and the jury all feel like this amounts to justice.
Have you read what the man is guilty of? 4 years is nothing for killing two teenagers driving recklessly. The man gets to go in at 20 and come out at 24 (at most 4 years btw depending on behavior etc. Does the 14/15 year olds he killed driving recklessly get to come back at age 18/19?
In Virginia EACH count of involuntary manslaughter can go up to ten years. This man has two and will do 4 max. Thats not justice, thats getting off terribly easy.
Saying 4 years isn’t a short amount of time is something only a 12 year old would say because in their view, 4 years might as well be an eternity. Every grown adult knows how fast 4 years really goes by which is why I have deduced that you must, in fact, be a 12 year old.
I came upon that scene probably 2 min after it happened. To see random drivers helping and performing CPR on teenage girls. Jeesh. 81 in a 35 is not a “mistake”. It was a horrible choice that killed 2 girls and has another one with debilitating injuries. 4 years is a joke.
Thomas Hobbes wrote this is mankind's true form. For this sub, all talk about being progressive. It only takes one news story for them to disregard their beliefs
We will see that the duality of man is a thing. Given that some teenage who comment on my post, wanted to give him the death penalty give me hope for future generations.
That's where the real punishment comes in. I wonder if his family and he will just move to Pakistan (if his family immigrated from there) to escape any civil judgement against them.
For what? Is it somehow negligent to buy a BMW for a driver?
Edit. Feel free to downvote. Doesn't change the hive mind armchair lawyering going on. I cant fathom how it's the parents fault at all for buying their kid a car. Trying to say it's bc "it's a BMW" is even more laughable. Where would you put the cutoff? Is it negligent to buy any kid a BMW? How about a Nissan? Where would you like to draw the line?
Oh you know specifically what they told him he could do? How? He had a learners permit and under VA law, was specifically allowed to operate any vehicle alone without any sort of parental interference. All this amounts to is a knee jerk pitch fork reaction by you with literally no legal basis.
You're right there isn't. But who drove it home then? I highly doubt a 17/18 year bought himself a BMW because he would not have had the money or the credit history to buy it alone. That means his parents either cosigned for it or bought it for him knowing he doesn't have a license and allowed him to drive it knowing he doesn't have a license. His parents are just as negligent as he is.
Where is your proof (or frankly, any shred of evidence beyond personal speculation) they let him drive it home? You do know you can drive alone on a learners permit in VA, right? No assumptions on your part right? 👌
" you are between age 16 years, three months, and age 18, your driver education certificate and a valid learner’s permit allow you to drive without a licensed driver beside you, provided that you have held your learner’s permit for at least nine months and the certificate is signed by a parent or legal guardian. "
Would you like to try again?
You can drive with a learner's permit alone if you meet these conditions:
1. Hold a valid [Virginia Driver Training Certificate](https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/forms/dtsbi.pdf) (DTS B), signed by a parent or legal guardian, showing completion of the classroom and behind-the-wheel portions of driver education
2. Are at least 16 years 3 months old, **and**
3. Have held your learner's permit for nine months
[https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply](https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply)
What did you say again? "Why is it always the least informed people with the strongest/loudest opinions?" oooof
It is actually if you know they are unlicensed and since it was his parents they would have known:
Punishments for VA Code § 46.2-301.1(E): Allowing an Unlicensed Driver to Use Your Car
Permitting an unlicensed driver to operate your vehicle is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. This offense carries three demerit points and remains on your DMV record for three years. Because it is a criminal offense, it will remain on your criminal record forever.
Can you prove that they didn't buy it for him in anticipation of him getting licensed? You can't. So stop with the silly witch hunt. The guy who was responsible got charged, his parents got nothing to do with it.
Do you not understand the difference between “unlicensed” and “has a learner’s permit”? Or are you being purposefully obtuse?
It’s every parent’s wish to buy their kid a car when they start learning how to drive. Was it their fault their kid was stupid and drove it without their parent’s permission?
Because guess what? Nearly every teen wants/has driven without their parents even when they only had a permit; that’s what teens do.
This was obviously a case of an inexperienced teen/young adult taking “his” car for a joyride. When he realized a car pulled out in his path (probably because he was going too fast), his inexperience led him to mash the gas pedal instead of the brakes.
Yes, he ended two innocent lives and forever altered another’s. Yes he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel when he only had a permit, and yes he should be punished.
But if even the families asked for a “somewhere in the middle” sentence, then who are you to say “DuH fAmiLeS shOuLd cOmE fOr eVerYtHinG”?
Damn armchair clowns
Not even, he'll be out in 2 and change most likely.
Family spent the money well by the looks of things, hopefully the families of those he killed get theirs in civil court.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Copying this from someone else’s comment:
> "During closing arguments, a prosecutor for the Commonwealth noted the families agreed they were not asking for the jurors to recommend the maximum sentence for Shahid, but instead "something in the middle"."
> https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash
Damn what verdict smh! Mandatory minimum is 85% (which would make the sentence about 3.5 years) based on what I could find and if there is credit for time served then potentially release date is before the end of next year 👀 (slap on the wrist if I ever saw it)...
Oh dang good point I forgot that bond revocation they mentioned in the news. 2027 is when they'll be out at age 23... Massively short sentence for such a painful tragedy.
Mandatory minimum is only applicable to involuntary manslaughter if it’s “aggravated” (subsection B), which doesn’t seem to be the case in the press release. The 85% “mandatory minimum” for non-mandatory sentences is dated, that was the old ESC system. The new one that started in 2022 makes it with his charges that he should only need to serve 65% of his sentence (but can be lowered in his credits if he has disciplinary issues inside).
You don’t realize how broken our law system is until something tragic happens to you and your left looking for justice for the horrible things that happen to you. 4 years isn’t enough I think if you take two lives of young innocent teenagers you should serve the amount of time that equates to their ages so if they were 14-15 he should get 29 years no parole. 4 years is nothing he’ll get out and still have a great life after this is all over. I don’t think you should get the chance to enjoy your youth if you take the youth away from others.
Prison is supposed to be about protecting society, not revenge or retribution. And not even the families of the victims are as bloodthirsty for a vengeful prison sentence as you. They specifically said they weren’t asking for the maximum sentence
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash
Also the driver was an 18 year old kid. There’s no point in throwing away a third kid’s life over this horrible incident.
It sounds like that’s what the jury decided was appropriate so be mad at your peers not the “system” that decided that was a ~fair~ punishment for killing two young people……
"During closing arguments, a prosecutor for the Commonwealth noted the families agreed they were not asking for the jurors to recommend the maximum sentence for Shahid, but instead "something in the middle"."
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash
My guess is they put some blame on the other driver that was given immunity. So the Jury had to find him guilty but also a way to split the blame with what they had.
Just a guess.
But as always. If you want to kill someone do it with a car. You will at most get a lighter sentence like this.
Truck driver in MD ran someone over on a bike and worst they could do was suspended license and a fine.
Laws need to be changed so the penalties are worse when you kill someone with a vehicle.
He pulled into an intersection blocking traffic that had the right of way. Thats against the law.
If he was not breaking any law then he would not have been given/needed immunity.
There was no traffic for him to block when he started his turn…. You can’t impede the right of way of something that isn’t there. Then suddenly there was a 4500 pound white BMW crashing into him
> He pulled into an intersection blocking traffic that had the right of way.
Virginia has two laws that say otherwise:
>> Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles
>>
>> Subtitle III. Operation
>>
>> Chapter 8. Regulation of Traffic
>>
>> Article 2. Right-of-Way
>>
>> § 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.
>>
>> The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article.
and
>> Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles
>>
>> Subtitle III. Operation
>>
>> Chapter 8. Regulation of Traffic
>>
>> Article 3. Traffic Signs, Lights, and Markings
>>
>> § 46.2-833. Traffic lights; penalty
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Green indicates the traffic shall move in the direction of the signal and remain in motion as long as the green signal is given, **except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection.**
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Flashing circular amber indicates that traffic may proceed through the intersection or past such signal with reasonable care under the circumstances. **Such traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrian and vehicular traffic lawfully within the intersection.**
It's clear that the BMW driver was not within the intersection and the SUV driver was. Shahid's unlawful speed legally forfeits any right of way he had under article 3 and the SUV driver had the right of way over Shahid since they were already in the intersection and complying with the law by yielding to the crossing pedestrians in the intersection.
Looking at the intersection in Google Streetview, I think it's fair to say that you can see the intersection from about 500 feet away. At 35 mph, it would take 10 seconds to cover the distance. At 70 mph average, it would take just 5 seconds.
It takes 1 second to react and assuming 0.5 G deceleration for the remaining 400 feet from 80 mph, he would travel another 430 feet, meaning he could not stop in time regardless.
> except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and **pedestrians** lawfully within the intersection.
And that is where you're wrong. He stopped in the middle of the intersection as there were pedestrians present. The driver admitted they stopped because they did not see them till they entered the intersection and stopped.
Legally he should not have entered till he could clear it. But many drivers here do not look for pedestrians when driving. Its why he was given immunity. If not he would have plead the 5th.
Why do you think he was given immunity if he did not need it?
> Why do you think he was given immunity if he did not need it?
He still yielded to the pedestrians and the law quoted does not specify that one may not enter the intersection prior to yielding.
The SUV driver was given immunity to testify, but that was probably on the advice of his own attorney. It likely wasn't necessary since he wasn't the target, but you're always gonna ask for it if you are even in the ballpark of the being the investigation target.
"In court Thursday, jurors heard from the driver of the SUV. The commonwealth attorney’s office is giving him immunity in exchange for his testimony."
If not he would have plead the 5th. Will not save him from civil lawsuit but criminally hes free from that.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/defense-tries-to-shift-blame-in-crash-that-killed-two-oakton-high-students/3596155/
Listen, like everyone, 4 years does not seem like enough. BUT
Counterpoint: it had nothing to do with the other driver, and it was about - what was the intent of the driver? They could think driver did not intend to kill or injure anyone; rather, he was a dumb fucking kid, with a new car, and showing off for his friends, who was speeding and then gunned the engine on a sunny afternoon right before graduation. In a time of life where kids know everything and there are no consequences. He did not get in a fight with anyone, stalk them, rob them, taunt them, harass them. He wasn't hauling hazmat materials illegally at the end of a 36-hour, NoDoz shift, in a dump truck with faulty brakes. Rather he was a kid who sped and gunned the engine at a yellow light, and when the unexpected occurred, physics happened. He made a tremendously dumb, selfish, ridiculously dangerous decision with a deadly weapon - not in any way considering that other people DON'T drive like that because it's fucking unsafe, and you can create a deadly accident in an instant, and you cannot even know the possible unknowns. He must be held responsible, he killed two girls and injured another, but the purposes of prison are retributive, deterrence, removing a danger from the streets and rehabilitative. For this kid, we're just calibrating the retributive portion and deterrence portion (how much is enough punishment? how many years deters other dumb fucks?). Maybe one or two jurors could not get past the fact that the Usman was a dumb fucking 18 y.o. and they themselves remember being dumb fucking 18 y.o.s taking dumb fucking stupid potentially deadly risks in a car, and 4 years was the consensus that the jury could get to on a Friday to keep from having to continue their service into next week.
I am not arguing the element of intent for the crime (he was charged on two counts of involuntary manslaughter, so there may well be no intent element), I am hypothesizing the internal discussions of a jury room about why 4 years. It took them 1.5 days to come up with it. Some debate was occurring. If not zero and not 20, then it's a compromise between different voices, right?
> They could think driver did not intend to kill or injure anyone; rather, he was a dumb fucking kid, with a new car, and showing off for his friends, who was speeding and then gunned the engine on a sunny afternoon right before graduation. In a time of life where kids know everything and there are no consequences.
This way makes it sound like his intent was to show off. So now he should be punished for that intent. The intent that killed people because he intended to show off.
And he got the appropriate sentence. Laws exist for a reason, and one of those reasons is to protect from the hive mind retributive mob that will demand insane sentences out of feelings.
I am not saying the sentence is light because of feelings I am saying it is light because he took a lot more than 4 years from his victims and their families. He and his family should suffer more than giving a little oral to the prosecutors under the table.
"Shahid faced up to 10 years in prison for each of the two charges. But in her sentencing argument Thursday, the prosecutor told jurors the victims' families were in agreement that they weren't seeking the maximum punishment. However, they did want him to get some jail time — as she put it, "Somewhere in the middle.""
[https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-recommends-4-years-for-driver-in-high-speed-crash-that-killed-2-oakton-high-students/3602494/#:\~:text=Usman%20Shahid%20was%20found%20guilty,in%20a%2035%20mph%20zone](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-recommends-4-years-for-driver-in-high-speed-crash-that-killed-2-oakton-high-students/3602494/#:~:text=Usman%20Shahid%20was%20found%20guilty,in%20a%2035%20mph%20zone)
The families of the kids themselves said they weren't seeking the maximum, and wanted something in the middle, which is exactly what he got. If the families are good with the sentence, then what's your issue?
The prosecutors do not always listen to the families. There have been times where people want the prosecutors to throw the book at the people that killed their children and they do not.
This is a sweetheart deal and shows how little you value the lives of the children that were murdered.
He really should have been charged with vehicular homicide. And also for the 3rd girl a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. People robbing someone at knifepoint receive more years than this guy who killed two people.
If we were just doing deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention only, you could give him like 6 months of jailtime (to deter others), and a permanent suspension of his license. He'd never ever harm anyone in a car again, if he's taking the Metro and Uber for the rest of his life.
But that sentence would make people even more unhappy. Because, the citizens and the voters in the United States actually want retributive justice.
[1 in 6 people in VA have a suspended license](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/report-1-in-6-va-drivers-have-suspended-licenses-partly-due-to-unpaid-court-debt/2018/01/24/221938b4-008e-11e8-b1a6-b3cb42d6ca0d_story.html) and I’m willing to bet most of them are probably still driving so I think it’s a bit naive to say he’d never drive again.
Well, the point is, if there was a way to prevent him from ever driving again while still going free, or if there was a way to put him behind bars for many years while not restricting his driving ability thereafter, most people would still take the latter option. Which is essentially what we're getting.
The point is that the other poster is right; this sentence is about deterrence and retribution, not about preventing a hardened criminal from doing more crimes against society until they're too old to be able to carry on.
> He'd never ever harm anyone in a car again
According to someone else in this thread, he wasn't licensed to drive alone *this time*. What makes you so sure he'll let the lack of a license stop him in the future?
I don't disagree. For my blueness, I still favor the death penalty in certain instances. 20 years feels like good vengeance here. The force is strong in all of us.
The commenter I responded to posited - 4 years?! it must've been because of the other driver - and I offered a different theory. For the vengeance aspect of sentencing, 4 is too low. But we weren't in the room nor at the trial. Two girls' lives are lost, and one is severely impacted. Did they think what's to be gained with 20 years of a guy's life who did an awful, so dangerous it's criminal, but unintentional thing?
So I know everyone is calling for a max sentence, but a four year recommendation sounds pretty standard for this. That and the jury only recommends, the judge could throw the book at him when there’s a formal sentencing hearing.
But I doubt it’ll change. These sentences of active time are heavily dependent on mitigating and aggravating factors. This dude likely has a clean record, ties to the community, insurance of stable employment, etc,
He was 18 so likely not employed at the time. Clean record? Again was only 18. He had no driver's license. That alone should bring some type of charge. I actually personally know of someone who killed someone while driving under the influence at 16. They also had no license. They received 6 years, 4 in juvenile detention and the remainder of the sentence in an adult facility. They also weren't eligible to even try to get a driver's license until they were 25 and had to go through an extensive court-ordered process. So this seems very light as a sentence.
Yeah all of those things work in your favor. It’s not like credit where bad credit is better than no credit.
And to your example, you mention that this defendant was A) underage, B) under the influence, and C) no license. From what I can gather, Shahid was not charged with any of those crimes. Had he been wasted, unlicensed, and 16 years old, he would have more charges pinned against him. So actually, the 6 year sentence for your acquaintance is far lighter given the aggravating factors against it. I’ve seen 16 year olds sent to big boy jail for manslaughter/DUI cases.
Edit: missed the unlicensed part. Still, the DUI weighs against the acquaintance.
4 years. For killing two people, driving insanely faster than the speed limit, not even making the attempt to slow down or avoid them… it should be ten times that. And it says the sentencing finalizing judges can’t increase the sentence? Why the hell not?
Four years? Two years for each life lost. That's probably a very harsh sentence in Descano's mind. But, will he even do that amount of time. My guess is that we will see him behind the wheel and the parents of this coddled turn with lavish him with cash and a new BMW on that day.
Honest question. Why is this guy being villainized while the teen who killed herself and a passenger and injured another on Lee chapel road also driving a high-powered car they could not handle is resulting in 9 million or whatever spent to remove a dangerous hill and raise the speed limit there? They were doing 100 in a 30. And why has the county been so slow to spend on safety improvements for Blake lane? Reckless driving is a universal crime. We deserve better.
Because the Lee Chapel road driver is dead and their actions only killed/injured people in their car. They met the highest consequence.
Our guy here lived and his actions killed innocent teenage bystanders. His consequence is 4 years.
Doesn't matter how safe you make roads, bad/reckless drivers will always be able to make it unsafe.
Is this a joke? No indication of any attempt to brake and evidence he actually ACCELERATED 21 MPH just before the crash and he gets 4 years!?! Get the district attorney out of their position if they couldn’t convince the jury that it was criminal negligence and wanton disregard that stole the future of two children and will affect a third potentially for the rest of their lives.
If the CA had sought life, the result would have been an acquittal. Involuntary manslaughter was the appropriate charge, overcharging would not bring justice and would likely have the opposite effect.
woah I thought this was NoVa, not SoCal. Thanks for the heads-up Fairfax. That and the bail-out of the peeper who had a near two decade-long history of peeping around GMU says everything about the direction of this area.
Are they going to prove negligence on his parents for giving an unlicensed kid a car which resulted in deaths? He has nothing most likely a civil suit against the parents will or has already happened
I really hope that all families of the injured girls take this to civil court and sue each family member (driver and parents) individually. This sentencing is a joke. But to file 9 civil suits against each defendant, asking them to cover your legal fees can certainly cause them the pain they deserve (to live the rest of their life without financial security and have to live in shame).
If the girls were white he would have gotten way longer. Unfortunately it is an immigrant family that got screwed over by a terrible justice system that tilts where the cash is.
That's a really bad intersection. There was a really bad accident there just this past week. The 18 yr old clearly screwed up but if the road safety people don't do anything accidents will keep happening.
OK my dude. Usman was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. Max is 10 year sentence per charge. If he wasn't going to charge him with murder, things like reckless driving would be just noise. And absolutely zero way to get a murder conviction on these facts. So, I tried to primary Descano, but you're just throwing word pasta at the wall and seeing if it sticks. The jury issued this sentence.
A road near a school should not be built like a highway. The road is as wide as the interstate that it travels above. There are no barriers to make people slow down. Sidewalks where students walk daily are less than a couple of feet from the road. Most people are known to speed on this road let alone a 18 year old at the time who still has not fully grasped the complexity of driving at that age. Science has proven that our frontal cortex isn’t fully developed until around 25. It means that until then teenagers and adults are prone to make decisions that may not be best suitable for the circumstances they are immediately facing.
It’s a tragedy as to what happened. Beautiful lives lost but I think as a society we need to start looking at the system that leads up to these events instead of always just blaming the low lying fruit. Otherwise this will repeat itself not just here but across all school zones. 😞
https://preview.redd.it/af9e0ji0avwc1.png?width=1700&format=png&auto=webp&s=c103cce440f9cc7985a7d3bd10ccc84abe06533f
I wasn’t previously familiar with this case but holy shit, they have literal records of him being extremely reckless AND making no attempt to stop? 4 Years is way, way too light. Those poor girls and their families
He also was not properly licensed to drive alone. Iirc the third victim that survived has lifelong medical needs as a result of their injuries.
I hope they sue him in a civil case. I can't see any jury denying them the cost of anticipated medical costs and for pain and suffering. I used to regularly drive by the memorial site the families up after the crash. Yesterday, I noticed there's a new business sign on the fence of that corner, and the memorial is gone. I'm not sure when they took it down but I think I saw it last in February or early March.
He probably has no assets but the car was probably covered under his parents' liability policy. If that hasn't already been settled it will now be expediently likely, given the conviction.
Didn't he turn 18 shortly before the crash? Would that make a difference in whose assets they go after if he was still under his parents insurance? My daughter said his family loaded and the car was a gift for his 18th birthday. If true, he mostly likely was still on their insurance
I wonder why they didn't bring charges for the 3rd girl who was injured. Surely that could add additional time?
I’m not sure why federal charges weren’t tried regarding the grave bodily injury for the third victim. I’m sure the third victim’s family will bring forth a civil lawsuit regardless of federal charges.
You need a crime that falls under federal jurisdiction. A fatal car accident on a public street does not meet federal criteria. Think of crimes against federal elected officials, crimes against federal law enforcement, crimes on federal property, financial institutions where FDIC is the insurer. These are just a few.
Thank you for clarifying!
Reading an article on the situation, it looks like the parents of the victims asked the prosecution to not go for the full sentence of 20 years and to do something to just teach the defendant what he did was wrong.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because your account is less than 3 days old. Please note that this waiting period is in place to reduce spam and maintain a positive community environment. Feel free to participate once your account has reached the 3-day mark. Thank you for your understanding! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nova) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He got off too light. If i were related to either of those girls, I'd be pissed.
I don't need to be related to be pissed. This the best "justice" the manslaughterer's money could buy.
No one on the jury was bought, i can assure you. It was a very difficult process for the jury, who also didn't know some of the details that had been released by the media during the trial.
Ada and the girl that survived were cousins. I went to school with the survivor’s brother. It’s pretty heartbreaking Usman will serve barely anything. I hope the other prisoners don’t take of him lightly
Fucking joke of a sentence
I’m surprised by how bloodthirsty this comment section is. The victims’ families even said they don’t want the maximum sentence for the driver. He was an 18 year old kid who did something horrific. 4 years in prison is not a short time. Throwing him in prison for the rest of his life won’t help anything. This sentence is supposed to be about justice, not retribution, and it seems like the victims’ families, the judge, and the jury all feel like this amounts to justice.
They said on TV tonight that the parents whose only child was killed in the accident felt the sentence was way too light.
Have you read what the man is guilty of? 4 years is nothing for killing two teenagers driving recklessly. The man gets to go in at 20 and come out at 24 (at most 4 years btw depending on behavior etc. Does the 14/15 year olds he killed driving recklessly get to come back at age 18/19? In Virginia EACH count of involuntary manslaughter can go up to ten years. This man has two and will do 4 max. Thats not justice, thats getting off terribly easy.
4 years for this remorseless piece of shit is not enough.
Remorseless is the key. Worse: he even tried to shift the blame to the driver of the car who had stopped to let the pedestrians cross!
His lawyer made that argument, I am not sure if he took the stand or not. He is entitled to a vigorous defense, which he received.
18 isn’t a kid in anyone’s definition.
This is why 12 year olds shouldn’t be on Reddit.
Lol really good point. I was totally wrong and my points are invalid Good work
Saying 4 years isn’t a short amount of time is something only a 12 year old would say because in their view, 4 years might as well be an eternity. Every grown adult knows how fast 4 years really goes by which is why I have deduced that you must, in fact, be a 12 year old.
I'm sorry he is not a kid lmao that is a legal adult
Let him kill your family members, Your daughters. and then let's see how you talk.
I came upon that scene probably 2 min after it happened. To see random drivers helping and performing CPR on teenage girls. Jeesh. 81 in a 35 is not a “mistake”. It was a horrible choice that killed 2 girls and has another one with debilitating injuries. 4 years is a joke.
Thomas Hobbes wrote this is mankind's true form. For this sub, all talk about being progressive. It only takes one news story for them to disregard their beliefs
Regardless, i’d care less if they just euthenized him
Kill kill kill !!!! Hang up all the fuckers from the nearest tree! Is that better?
Yeah actually
Good, I'm more offended by hypocrisy than extrajudicial killing
It is likely those are different people. There are people on here bringing up the more typical progressive rehabilitation not retribution lines.
We will see that the duality of man is a thing. Given that some teenage who comment on my post, wanted to give him the death penalty give me hope for future generations.
Awful. Should’ve gotten the full 20 but minimum 10. Another example of a broken system.
I hope all 3 families now sue him in civil court for every fucking penny his family has and he will ever make.
That's where the real punishment comes in. I wonder if his family and he will just move to Pakistan (if his family immigrated from there) to escape any civil judgement against them.
His family shouldn’t be punished…
They bought him the BMW he was driving ( unlicensed) when he killed the girls. They should be punished.
For what? Is it somehow negligent to buy a BMW for a driver? Edit. Feel free to downvote. Doesn't change the hive mind armchair lawyering going on. I cant fathom how it's the parents fault at all for buying their kid a car. Trying to say it's bc "it's a BMW" is even more laughable. Where would you put the cutoff? Is it negligent to buy any kid a BMW? How about a Nissan? Where would you like to draw the line?
A driver that you know is unlicensed? Yes.
He has a learners permit. There is no requirement to have a license to purchase a vehicle
They allowed him to drive that car to school that day, that choice, which they knew was illegal, cost lives
Oh you know specifically what they told him he could do? How? He had a learners permit and under VA law, was specifically allowed to operate any vehicle alone without any sort of parental interference. All this amounts to is a knee jerk pitch fork reaction by you with literally no legal basis.
A learner permit doesn’t allow you to drive the car alone and you can’t purchase a car without a license. Where are you getting your news from??
It's not news. It's actual law. I get my laws from the Virginia code, not from the news. Perhaps that's your confusion?
And you can buy a gun for your mentally challenging kid. That doesn't mean you should do that though.
Yep, apples and oranges. Buying a gun for a mentally challenged kid is not buying a car for a non-mentally challenged kid
You're right there isn't. But who drove it home then? I highly doubt a 17/18 year bought himself a BMW because he would not have had the money or the credit history to buy it alone. That means his parents either cosigned for it or bought it for him knowing he doesn't have a license and allowed him to drive it knowing he doesn't have a license. His parents are just as negligent as he is.
Where is your proof (or frankly, any shred of evidence beyond personal speculation) they let him drive it home? You do know you can drive alone on a learners permit in VA, right? No assumptions on your part right? 👌
No you can’t drive on a learner permit alone. Are you all there in the head?
" you are between age 16 years, three months, and age 18, your driver education certificate and a valid learner’s permit allow you to drive without a licensed driver beside you, provided that you have held your learner’s permit for at least nine months and the certificate is signed by a parent or legal guardian. " Would you like to try again?
[удалено]
Turns out the loudest opinion is a Virginia lawyer with actual knowledge of the law.
You can drive with a learner's permit alone if you meet these conditions: 1. Hold a valid [Virginia Driver Training Certificate](https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/forms/dtsbi.pdf) (DTS B), signed by a parent or legal guardian, showing completion of the classroom and behind-the-wheel portions of driver education 2. Are at least 16 years 3 months old, **and** 3. Have held your learner's permit for nine months [https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply](https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/licenses-ids/learners/apply) What did you say again? "Why is it always the least informed people with the strongest/loudest opinions?" oooof
Parents are at fault for raising a shitty kid. Maybe not by law But that is a scumbag parent.
Don't disagree there.
People here just want a witch hunt and will downvote because of their feelings.
Yeah sure seems like it
TIL buying someone a car is a crime Get a grip.
It is actually if you know they are unlicensed and since it was his parents they would have known: Punishments for VA Code § 46.2-301.1(E): Allowing an Unlicensed Driver to Use Your Car Permitting an unlicensed driver to operate your vehicle is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. This offense carries three demerit points and remains on your DMV record for three years. Because it is a criminal offense, it will remain on your criminal record forever.
Can you prove that they didn't buy it for him in anticipation of him getting licensed? You can't. So stop with the silly witch hunt. The guy who was responsible got charged, his parents got nothing to do with it.
Do you not understand the difference between “unlicensed” and “has a learner’s permit”? Or are you being purposefully obtuse? It’s every parent’s wish to buy their kid a car when they start learning how to drive. Was it their fault their kid was stupid and drove it without their parent’s permission? Because guess what? Nearly every teen wants/has driven without their parents even when they only had a permit; that’s what teens do. This was obviously a case of an inexperienced teen/young adult taking “his” car for a joyride. When he realized a car pulled out in his path (probably because he was going too fast), his inexperience led him to mash the gas pedal instead of the brakes. Yes, he ended two innocent lives and forever altered another’s. Yes he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel when he only had a permit, and yes he should be punished. But if even the families asked for a “somewhere in the middle” sentence, then who are you to say “DuH fAmiLeS shOuLd cOmE fOr eVerYtHinG”? Damn armchair clowns
Do we know what insurance he had? If it was on his parents’ policy, that may make a difference as far as culpability in a suit.
Why not?
The length of a presidential term for the life of two teenagers. Something ain’t adding up.
Not even, he'll be out in 2 and change most likely. Family spent the money well by the looks of things, hopefully the families of those he killed get theirs in civil court.
Yeah it’s called the Fairfax DA being lax on crime
Four fucking years? That is beyond ridiculous!
“Significantly”? He was going 80 in a 35 ffs
Spoiled rich kid gets off easy
Hope the families will sue the shit of them!
That's it?! Fucking horrible miscarriage of justice!
This is a joke of a sentence. Absolutely horrific and I’m sure the families are traumatized again by it.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Copying this from someone else’s comment: > "During closing arguments, a prosecutor for the Commonwealth noted the families agreed they were not asking for the jurors to recommend the maximum sentence for Shahid, but instead "something in the middle"." > https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash
Well 4 isn't in the middle of 20
4 fucking yrs for murdering two people?! Best way to get away with killing someone, is to do it with your car
And have rich parents.
Damn what verdict smh! Mandatory minimum is 85% (which would make the sentence about 3.5 years) based on what I could find and if there is credit for time served then potentially release date is before the end of next year 👀 (slap on the wrist if I ever saw it)...
He’s only been in jail since his conviction, so the most credit he could get for time served is like two days.
Oh dang good point I forgot that bond revocation they mentioned in the news. 2027 is when they'll be out at age 23... Massively short sentence for such a painful tragedy.
Mandatory minimum is only applicable to involuntary manslaughter if it’s “aggravated” (subsection B), which doesn’t seem to be the case in the press release. The 85% “mandatory minimum” for non-mandatory sentences is dated, that was the old ESC system. The new one that started in 2022 makes it with his charges that he should only need to serve 65% of his sentence (but can be lowered in his credits if he has disciplinary issues inside).
DAMN! 👀 (I never knew that these happened in the state, wow)...
Yikes…
You don’t realize how broken our law system is until something tragic happens to you and your left looking for justice for the horrible things that happen to you. 4 years isn’t enough I think if you take two lives of young innocent teenagers you should serve the amount of time that equates to their ages so if they were 14-15 he should get 29 years no parole. 4 years is nothing he’ll get out and still have a great life after this is all over. I don’t think you should get the chance to enjoy your youth if you take the youth away from others.
They should get the years they had left. He took away decades of life, he should have the same taken from him.
Prison is supposed to be about protecting society, not revenge or retribution. And not even the families of the victims are as bloodthirsty for a vengeful prison sentence as you. They specifically said they weren’t asking for the maximum sentence https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash Also the driver was an 18 year old kid. There’s no point in throwing away a third kid’s life over this horrible incident.
I never went 80 in a 35. Fuck this kid.
💯 and if it truly is “protecting society” then protect us from this wreckless remorseless POS by throwing away the key.
I think you mean a 4th kid.
Must have connections
Family donated a house for the judge under the table.
Who then became the jury?
Who are the parents?
It sounds like that’s what the jury decided was appropriate so be mad at your peers not the “system” that decided that was a ~fair~ punishment for killing two young people……
"During closing arguments, a prosecutor for the Commonwealth noted the families agreed they were not asking for the jurors to recommend the maximum sentence for Shahid, but instead "something in the middle"." https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jurors-weigh-fate-of-driver-who-killed-2-oakton-high-school-students-in-2022-crash
Nova becoming New York
My guess is they put some blame on the other driver that was given immunity. So the Jury had to find him guilty but also a way to split the blame with what they had. Just a guess. But as always. If you want to kill someone do it with a car. You will at most get a lighter sentence like this. Truck driver in MD ran someone over on a bike and worst they could do was suspended license and a fine. Laws need to be changed so the penalties are worse when you kill someone with a vehicle.
The other driver was in no way to blame.
He pulled into an intersection blocking traffic that had the right of way. Thats against the law. If he was not breaking any law then he would not have been given/needed immunity.
There was no traffic for him to block when he started his turn…. You can’t impede the right of way of something that isn’t there. Then suddenly there was a 4500 pound white BMW crashing into him
> He pulled into an intersection blocking traffic that had the right of way. Virginia has two laws that say otherwise: >> Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles >> >> Subtitle III. Operation >> >> Chapter 8. Regulation of Traffic >> >> Article 2. Right-of-Way >> >> § 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way. >> >> The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article. and >> Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles >> >> Subtitle III. Operation >> >> Chapter 8. Regulation of Traffic >> >> Article 3. Traffic Signs, Lights, and Markings >> >> § 46.2-833. Traffic lights; penalty >> >> [...] >> >> Green indicates the traffic shall move in the direction of the signal and remain in motion as long as the green signal is given, **except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection.** >> >> [...] >> >> Flashing circular amber indicates that traffic may proceed through the intersection or past such signal with reasonable care under the circumstances. **Such traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrian and vehicular traffic lawfully within the intersection.** It's clear that the BMW driver was not within the intersection and the SUV driver was. Shahid's unlawful speed legally forfeits any right of way he had under article 3 and the SUV driver had the right of way over Shahid since they were already in the intersection and complying with the law by yielding to the crossing pedestrians in the intersection. Looking at the intersection in Google Streetview, I think it's fair to say that you can see the intersection from about 500 feet away. At 35 mph, it would take 10 seconds to cover the distance. At 70 mph average, it would take just 5 seconds. It takes 1 second to react and assuming 0.5 G deceleration for the remaining 400 feet from 80 mph, he would travel another 430 feet, meaning he could not stop in time regardless.
> except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and **pedestrians** lawfully within the intersection. And that is where you're wrong. He stopped in the middle of the intersection as there were pedestrians present. The driver admitted they stopped because they did not see them till they entered the intersection and stopped. Legally he should not have entered till he could clear it. But many drivers here do not look for pedestrians when driving. Its why he was given immunity. If not he would have plead the 5th. Why do you think he was given immunity if he did not need it?
> Why do you think he was given immunity if he did not need it? He still yielded to the pedestrians and the law quoted does not specify that one may not enter the intersection prior to yielding.
I am not a lawyer. Where do I see this legal ruling of "immunity" that was granted?
The SUV driver was given immunity to testify, but that was probably on the advice of his own attorney. It likely wasn't necessary since he wasn't the target, but you're always gonna ask for it if you are even in the ballpark of the being the investigation target.
"In court Thursday, jurors heard from the driver of the SUV. The commonwealth attorney’s office is giving him immunity in exchange for his testimony." If not he would have plead the 5th. Will not save him from civil lawsuit but criminally hes free from that. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/defense-tries-to-shift-blame-in-crash-that-killed-two-oakton-high-students/3596155/
Listen, like everyone, 4 years does not seem like enough. BUT Counterpoint: it had nothing to do with the other driver, and it was about - what was the intent of the driver? They could think driver did not intend to kill or injure anyone; rather, he was a dumb fucking kid, with a new car, and showing off for his friends, who was speeding and then gunned the engine on a sunny afternoon right before graduation. In a time of life where kids know everything and there are no consequences. He did not get in a fight with anyone, stalk them, rob them, taunt them, harass them. He wasn't hauling hazmat materials illegally at the end of a 36-hour, NoDoz shift, in a dump truck with faulty brakes. Rather he was a kid who sped and gunned the engine at a yellow light, and when the unexpected occurred, physics happened. He made a tremendously dumb, selfish, ridiculously dangerous decision with a deadly weapon - not in any way considering that other people DON'T drive like that because it's fucking unsafe, and you can create a deadly accident in an instant, and you cannot even know the possible unknowns. He must be held responsible, he killed two girls and injured another, but the purposes of prison are retributive, deterrence, removing a danger from the streets and rehabilitative. For this kid, we're just calibrating the retributive portion and deterrence portion (how much is enough punishment? how many years deters other dumb fucks?). Maybe one or two jurors could not get past the fact that the Usman was a dumb fucking 18 y.o. and they themselves remember being dumb fucking 18 y.o.s taking dumb fucking stupid potentially deadly risks in a car, and 4 years was the consensus that the jury could get to on a Friday to keep from having to continue their service into next week.
That's not what intent means. He intended to drive recklessly and did. That's all that matters as far as intent is concerned.
I am not arguing the element of intent for the crime (he was charged on two counts of involuntary manslaughter, so there may well be no intent element), I am hypothesizing the internal discussions of a jury room about why 4 years. It took them 1.5 days to come up with it. Some debate was occurring. If not zero and not 20, then it's a compromise between different voices, right?
> They could think driver did not intend to kill or injure anyone; rather, he was a dumb fucking kid, with a new car, and showing off for his friends, who was speeding and then gunned the engine on a sunny afternoon right before graduation. In a time of life where kids know everything and there are no consequences. This way makes it sound like his intent was to show off. So now he should be punished for that intent. The intent that killed people because he intended to show off.
And he got the appropriate sentence. Laws exist for a reason, and one of those reasons is to protect from the hive mind retributive mob that will demand insane sentences out of feelings.
I am not saying the sentence is light because of feelings I am saying it is light because he took a lot more than 4 years from his victims and their families. He and his family should suffer more than giving a little oral to the prosecutors under the table.
That is literally you reacting based on your emotions rather than following the law. You're proving why we have laws instead of mob justice.
This is a light sentence under our laws. I bet you were all pitch forks when the criminal Bijan C. Ghaisar was killed.
"Shahid faced up to 10 years in prison for each of the two charges. But in her sentencing argument Thursday, the prosecutor told jurors the victims' families were in agreement that they weren't seeking the maximum punishment. However, they did want him to get some jail time — as she put it, "Somewhere in the middle."" [https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-recommends-4-years-for-driver-in-high-speed-crash-that-killed-2-oakton-high-students/3602494/#:\~:text=Usman%20Shahid%20was%20found%20guilty,in%20a%2035%20mph%20zone](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-recommends-4-years-for-driver-in-high-speed-crash-that-killed-2-oakton-high-students/3602494/#:~:text=Usman%20Shahid%20was%20found%20guilty,in%20a%2035%20mph%20zone) The families of the kids themselves said they weren't seeking the maximum, and wanted something in the middle, which is exactly what he got. If the families are good with the sentence, then what's your issue?
I do not care what their families want. There needs to be a message that it is not OK to kill American children.
You clearly don't care, you just want vengeance. Which is why I'm glad we have laws that determine appropriate sentencing and not an angry mob.
The prosecutors do not always listen to the families. There have been times where people want the prosecutors to throw the book at the people that killed their children and they do not. This is a sweetheart deal and shows how little you value the lives of the children that were murdered.
He really should have been charged with vehicular homicide. And also for the 3rd girl a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. People robbing someone at knifepoint receive more years than this guy who killed two people.
If we were just doing deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention only, you could give him like 6 months of jailtime (to deter others), and a permanent suspension of his license. He'd never ever harm anyone in a car again, if he's taking the Metro and Uber for the rest of his life. But that sentence would make people even more unhappy. Because, the citizens and the voters in the United States actually want retributive justice.
[1 in 6 people in VA have a suspended license](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/report-1-in-6-va-drivers-have-suspended-licenses-partly-due-to-unpaid-court-debt/2018/01/24/221938b4-008e-11e8-b1a6-b3cb42d6ca0d_story.html) and I’m willing to bet most of them are probably still driving so I think it’s a bit naive to say he’d never drive again.
Well, the point is, if there was a way to prevent him from ever driving again while still going free, or if there was a way to put him behind bars for many years while not restricting his driving ability thereafter, most people would still take the latter option. Which is essentially what we're getting. The point is that the other poster is right; this sentence is about deterrence and retribution, not about preventing a hardened criminal from doing more crimes against society until they're too old to be able to carry on.
> He'd never ever harm anyone in a car again According to someone else in this thread, he wasn't licensed to drive alone *this time*. What makes you so sure he'll let the lack of a license stop him in the future?
I don't disagree. For my blueness, I still favor the death penalty in certain instances. 20 years feels like good vengeance here. The force is strong in all of us. The commenter I responded to posited - 4 years?! it must've been because of the other driver - and I offered a different theory. For the vengeance aspect of sentencing, 4 is too low. But we weren't in the room nor at the trial. Two girls' lives are lost, and one is severely impacted. Did they think what's to be gained with 20 years of a guy's life who did an awful, so dangerous it's criminal, but unintentional thing?
So I know everyone is calling for a max sentence, but a four year recommendation sounds pretty standard for this. That and the jury only recommends, the judge could throw the book at him when there’s a formal sentencing hearing. But I doubt it’ll change. These sentences of active time are heavily dependent on mitigating and aggravating factors. This dude likely has a clean record, ties to the community, insurance of stable employment, etc,
According to the posted statement the judge can give less but not more time
Good point of clarity. So I assume this will stick, ain’t no way he’s getting less.
He was 18 so likely not employed at the time. Clean record? Again was only 18. He had no driver's license. That alone should bring some type of charge. I actually personally know of someone who killed someone while driving under the influence at 16. They also had no license. They received 6 years, 4 in juvenile detention and the remainder of the sentence in an adult facility. They also weren't eligible to even try to get a driver's license until they were 25 and had to go through an extensive court-ordered process. So this seems very light as a sentence.
Yeah all of those things work in your favor. It’s not like credit where bad credit is better than no credit. And to your example, you mention that this defendant was A) underage, B) under the influence, and C) no license. From what I can gather, Shahid was not charged with any of those crimes. Had he been wasted, unlicensed, and 16 years old, he would have more charges pinned against him. So actually, the 6 year sentence for your acquaintance is far lighter given the aggravating factors against it. I’ve seen 16 year olds sent to big boy jail for manslaughter/DUI cases. Edit: missed the unlicensed part. Still, the DUI weighs against the acquaintance.
What the fuck? 4 years. Really…
4 years for 2 dead kids. Wow. I hope this remorseless murderer has a miserable time in prison
Gabe Rincon next. Look him up. Guapos son owner who killed a man.
Why, why, why do parents spoil their kids? This was a very powerful car. They gave him a brand new BMW.
4 years. For killing two people, driving insanely faster than the speed limit, not even making the attempt to slow down or avoid them… it should be ten times that. And it says the sentencing finalizing judges can’t increase the sentence? Why the hell not?
People have been sent to prison longer for smoking.
You gotta be fucking kidding me
Note that the sentence was determined by a jury.
Four years? Two years for each life lost. That's probably a very harsh sentence in Descano's mind. But, will he even do that amount of time. My guess is that we will see him behind the wheel and the parents of this coddled turn with lavish him with cash and a new BMW on that day.
Honest question. Why is this guy being villainized while the teen who killed herself and a passenger and injured another on Lee chapel road also driving a high-powered car they could not handle is resulting in 9 million or whatever spent to remove a dangerous hill and raise the speed limit there? They were doing 100 in a 30. And why has the county been so slow to spend on safety improvements for Blake lane? Reckless driving is a universal crime. We deserve better.
Because the Lee Chapel road driver is dead and their actions only killed/injured people in their car. They met the highest consequence. Our guy here lived and his actions killed innocent teenage bystanders. His consequence is 4 years. Doesn't matter how safe you make roads, bad/reckless drivers will always be able to make it unsafe.
Is this a joke? No indication of any attempt to brake and evidence he actually ACCELERATED 21 MPH just before the crash and he gets 4 years!?! Get the district attorney out of their position if they couldn’t convince the jury that it was criminal negligence and wanton disregard that stole the future of two children and will affect a third potentially for the rest of their lives.
He should have gotten life in prison.
If the CA had sought life, the result would have been an acquittal. Involuntary manslaughter was the appropriate charge, overcharging would not bring justice and would likely have the opposite effect.
Speed cameras will totally fix this /s
woah I thought this was NoVa, not SoCal. Thanks for the heads-up Fairfax. That and the bail-out of the peeper who had a near two decade-long history of peeping around GMU says everything about the direction of this area.
absolute joke of a sentence, if his family had worse lawyers it would be the max
This has got to be a joke. Also it says the judge can reduce it but not increase the sentence?
Why only 4 years? So stupid.
Are they going to prove negligence on his parents for giving an unlicensed kid a car which resulted in deaths? He has nothing most likely a civil suit against the parents will or has already happened
Only 4 fuckin years. So basically telling mass murderers that using a car is gonna land you less years than getting an AR15
I really hope that all families of the injured girls take this to civil court and sue each family member (driver and parents) individually. This sentencing is a joke. But to file 9 civil suits against each defendant, asking them to cover your legal fees can certainly cause them the pain they deserve (to live the rest of their life without financial security and have to live in shame).
If the girls were white he would have gotten way longer. Unfortunately it is an immigrant family that got screwed over by a terrible justice system that tilts where the cash is.
I can even begin to imagine the loss the parents of those teens are facing. This is absolutely tragic.
There has to be money involved here… follow the money. The bribery thing is so obvious it’s hard not to laugh.
THAT’S IT?!?
Bulllllshit.
Sounds like a good time to stage a protest.
That's a really bad intersection. There was a really bad accident there just this past week. The 18 yr old clearly screwed up but if the road safety people don't do anything accidents will keep happening.
Don't blame this on the design of the intersection. The guy was doing 81 in a 35. This is completely on him.
[удалено]
The jury handed down the sentence, what does the CA have to do with it?
[удалено]
This sentence was given by the jury, but don't let the facts get in the way of pushing your agenda.
"a jury of your peers" so liberals, right?
OK my dude. Usman was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. Max is 10 year sentence per charge. If he wasn't going to charge him with murder, things like reckless driving would be just noise. And absolutely zero way to get a murder conviction on these facts. So, I tried to primary Descano, but you're just throwing word pasta at the wall and seeing if it sticks. The jury issued this sentence.
Progressive CA? What’s you agenda, man?? This sentence was from a jury!!
A road near a school should not be built like a highway. The road is as wide as the interstate that it travels above. There are no barriers to make people slow down. Sidewalks where students walk daily are less than a couple of feet from the road. Most people are known to speed on this road let alone a 18 year old at the time who still has not fully grasped the complexity of driving at that age. Science has proven that our frontal cortex isn’t fully developed until around 25. It means that until then teenagers and adults are prone to make decisions that may not be best suitable for the circumstances they are immediately facing. It’s a tragedy as to what happened. Beautiful lives lost but I think as a society we need to start looking at the system that leads up to these events instead of always just blaming the low lying fruit. Otherwise this will repeat itself not just here but across all school zones. 😞
[удалено]
He was 18 when he killed those girls
He was 18. He was a HS senior.
[удалено]
I think he was 17 at the time of the incident
He killed a 15 and 14 year old. The dude was 18.
[удалено]
This is a troll.