Today’s Headlines

“To charge Mr. Himon, prosecutors would have had to show that he intended to crash into Mr. Olivo, Mr. Marchese said. But they told Mr. Marchese that they did not feel they had sufficient evidence of such malice, he said.”

Can an attorney explain how this is true? I understand that it may be hard to get a jury to convict a driver for his actions, since the public may feel sympathy based on their own driving habits, but this claim seems to defy belief. Isn’t this why the legal system has such charges as criminal negligence or, in the case of a death, involuntary manslaughter?

Disregard the cabbie’s own statements to the press about his road rage. What does intent have to do with anything other than the severity of the charge?

Here are the charges I think the DA had a reasonable chance of winning a conviction on, third Degree Assault and Second Degree Reckless Endangerment. Neither require any showing of “intention”:

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when…With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of
serious physical injury to another person.
Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states.
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter…
1. “Intentionally.” A person acts intentionally with respect to a
result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his
conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such
conduct.
2. “Knowingly.” A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to
a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance
exists.
3. “Recklessly.” A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.
4. “Criminal negligence.” A person acts with criminal negligence with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

I believe I’ve seen taxi stands (lines, really) in Manhattan, outside of train stations and such.

I don’t know if I want to see even more taxis clogging Midtown.

Exactly correct. The city should set the number of medallions and then auction them off each year.

But that will never happen unless the current owners are compensated.

The NYT article mentions that Sian Green’s attorney will try a FOI request. I guess there’s nothing to stop us/Streetsblog/TA doing the same thing?

Yes, anyone can.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/freedomfaq.html

Because MADD isn’t about victim’s rights; they see alcohol as the evil, not cars. It’s basically the temperance movement transplanted forward a few decades.

What I wrote in the Dnainfo comment box regarding bioswales versus parking spaces:

“The advantages of a network of bioswales far outweigh the complaints of a few auto-centric NIMBYs. Their mosquito complaint holds no factual weight, it’s all about them. In this city it’s about us, and working to solve problems that effect NYC as a whole such as excess water runoff and the resulting negative effects.

Worried about parking spaces? Go pay for a lot. This is NYC. Why should a city where most people do not own a car subsidize your luxury at the expense of the environment and fiscal concerns?”

Stay away from my bike. It can control your mind and cause you to do things you never would have done on your own.

Port Authority of course. We’d probably see more of them except — parking!

Current owners could get an automatic right to a share of additional medallions. Say, expand the total number of medallions by 10% and each current medallion owner gets a certificate for 1/10th of a medallion. The only thing he can do is sell the certificate for cash money to someone who is buying 10 of these 1/10 certificates. With 10, he registers for a new medallion and presto, another taxi on the streets. At the end of the process, you get more medallions added to the pool, but each owner who had a medallion when the process begins gains something as well. That something determined by free market.

Of course, if you add too many medallions at one time you’d knock the bottom out of the market. But this process could allow increasing the pool by 10% a year for several years, accompanied by a gradual decline in medallion prices.