emoving

Either you guys are his personal spokspeople or you have smoked a little too much weed yourselves. By the way, I have called no one a name just mentioned that they may be a little ignorant.

chiromikey

i don't smoke weed nor do i have enough facts to be a spokesperson for anyone involved...and neither do you, which is my point. however, i do agree there are some ignorant people posting.

hooleyboy

My family owns a business right across the street from Van Brakel Electrical. Before I had an AMG I would always see him driving around Deer Valley Airport/Airpark. I remember one day talking with Buddy Rice (former IRL driver) outside of his shop about how nice that white E63 was.

Van Brakel would have his car detailed all the time. In fact I once use his detailer to do my S500. Needless to say that guy loved that car and took care of it. What happened in Scottsdale that day made the evening news for many of days.

What is scary about this situation that Van Bakel was in.. Could have been a lot of us. Messing around with another car like a lot of us have done. This could have happened to anyone. What happened to the old guy is truly saddening.

What Scottdale PD along with the prosecution have done is made this very unfortunate incident into a witch hunt.IF the driver of the 70's Camaro wasn't a former town official, the DA's office wouldn't be so pressed to make an example of Van Brakel. One could assume the DA's office and all the media from the accident has pressed them to make that example.

Scottsdale PD arrested him and then charged him with DUI. In scottsdale, for any DUI charge blood is drawn.. You really have no say in the matter. If the charges where dropped for DUI and this being Scottsdale, Than Van Brakel was not DUI. Scottsdale will not drop a charge for DUI if they have test showing you are, even for a plea.

However I've heard stories from my Girlfriend (AZ Lawyer). That Scottsdale is Pleaing almost everyone these days. This is due to the removal of a few Scottsdale Judges that were ruthless. So.. Maybe the DA's office offers a plea, knowing the ruthless, example making, judges are out.
EDIT: I see his trial is in Phoenix, And those guy plea everyone.. However the DUI charge would still come from Scottsdale and they dont plea those there. Well , I guess maybe now they are starting to.

I dont know Van Brakel personally, but If time tells me anything... After his accident it must have scared him a lot. He now drives a Ford Pickup truck. Something 100% opposite of the E63 AMG. So if actions speak louder than words. Driving that truck shows me.. He's scared to get behind the wheel of a high powered car. I know I would be.

In the end there where many people at fault. However some faults trump others. Arizona Law sates.. If you are committing a crime/felony and while in that act some one gets hurt, you are at fault. It doesnt matter if some one was Jaywalking or not yielding. You are responsible and will be charged.

This is a really sad situation for all involved. Someone lost a husband, farther, grandfarther, friend, and so on. While employee's of Van Brakel Electrical may loose their jobs if the company is liquidated for restitution. Most likely there will be some jail time. So its a real sad situation for all.

On the flip side, Its hard to want to hang this man for one mindless decision. Knowing that a lot of people I've come to know on this site have had an altercation with another car. There could have very easily have been a car on those desolate roads you just didnt see. Or the other guy you where racing hand a catastrophic failure causing a fatal crash of his car and now you are at fault for street racing. You just never know... When I was rocking my C55 I turned down a bunch of races I know I could win. I also raced a bunch of cars too.

In the end, we should all hope that we can take something from this. It might save a life, including yours.

slownrusty

Informative and well well written relpy Hooley! Thanks for chiming in and your response.

Gondon

It's not even his fault the accident occurred, the accident is 100% Holman's fault and his(blueMax) driving ability was never put to question. Maybe there's another reason he's driving the truck. The death on the other hand is now his responsibility. Most of the people cant distinguish that. DID people forget about RIGHT OF WAY or YIELDING TO TRAFFIC??

hooleyboy

When street racing that results in an accident its always the street racers fault. Like I said, when you are in the process of commuting an unlawful act, you are responsible for everything that happens around you. If Calvin Holman survived the accident. He would have been ticketed for "Failure to Avoid Collision". That is just a fine, for the local GOV to make money on every accident that happens.

In fact as far fetched as this sounds. A person could have ran out in the street naked. If he was hit by a car that was committing an unlawful act, the naked man is no not at fault. Once you set in motion the act of breaking the law, you are now responsible for your surroundings.

What I find to be 100% BS, is if the driver of the Mustang might get a lesser charge. When he is 100% just as responsible. Maybe even more so, pending on if he was the one who instigated or started the race.

Also Van Brakel (Bluemax), is still a member of this forum. He is currently still a free man. Until the court sentences him. I'm not sure we should be talking about it. At any time he could fight the plea agreement. If new evidents or unknowing circumstances come up, Then take trial by jury.

Vic55

This is better than going to court in person except- the DA and defense attorneys' cases are the ones that count and are factual.

Keep the supposition going but dont let it get ugly.

komp55

Actually, the plea agreement has been accepted by the Court:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...0/m4156314.pdf

220S

This is what I've been trying to tell Gondon a million times (see my other posts here, re: case law) but he just doesn't get it.

Gondon, please don't ever think of becoming a lawyer, you'll lose all your cases.

p.s., Hooley, a lot of plea bargaining is going on everywhere (unless it's a high profile case) because of the cost of trials and state budget problems.)

MBH motorsports

Maybe thats whats going on. My lady comes home from work with all sorts of law storys. In all honesty his lawyer did a good job, getting him that deal. its much better than M2.

After this case is over. I would think both of these drivers will be back in court for a wrongful death suit.

Gondon

I'm not talking about who's at fault. I totally understand what your saying. but I'm talking about who caused the accident. Holman is the DIRECT cause of the accident.

Gondon

I got the point from the get go, but I'm not talking about who is responsible for his death. I was just pointing out the direct cause of the accident. THE CAR ACCIDENT itself, not what he is being charged with.

emoving

Wow! Man you are seriously clueless. If you think that over 80 MPH in a posted 45MPH is not a factor in the crash along with smoking weed, I am in serious amazement at your morals and ability to see right from wrong. I am actually very glad you do not drive in my city where my wife and kids commute. Your view is seriously jaded!

P.S. And if you think that damage was cause by speed and lower then 70 MPH.......well, I am not sure what to tell you. At least Chromiley makes valid points. Yours are so off base I wonder if you are even a licensed driver in the USA!

220S

I know what you're saying. But unfortunately it doesn't mean anything because the cause of the accident was speeding (aside from whether they were, in fact, racing or not.) The DA made the argument, and apparently Van Brakel's attorney felt that there was no good option for his client but to choose plea bargaining (or Van Brakel just doesn't want it to go to a jury.)

Without the excessive speeding, the accident (specifically the death, and that's the key) might have been avoided even though the deceased did pull into traffic. So that's the cause of the accident and death: excessive speeding, i.e., illegal street racing. And that's what the DA successfully tried to prove: that the direct cause was speeding. If not, then the case wouldn't have gone to where it is now.

This is what you seem to be failing to fully understand. The speeding was the cause of the negligent death (charge of manslaughter.) No one can truly re-create the scenario of events and the outcome had there been no speeding. And the driver of the Mustang confessed to illegally racing, which clinched the case in the end. Right or wrong, it is what it is.

And yes, next up is the civil case. That will be a no-brainer on the part of the deceased family's attorneys. Unfortunately for both Van Brakel and the driver of the Mustang, there is only the choice of an agreement on a settlement if they want to avoid a jury decision on the dollar amount.

Peter_02AMG

It's sad that someone have to die from their negligence. Van Bakel is an adults not some punk adolescence teenager so he need to accept the consequences for his actions.

We all must take responsibility for our actions and accept the premise that actions have consequences. We all must be accountable for our actions.

Gondon

Everyone seems to think, I don't get why he is charged with manslaughter. I get it, trust me I'm just talking about a chain of events. Manslaughter is a charge it's not the reason for the accident. Speeding or Not speeding, anyone you hit you get the same charge. If some little kid runs into the street and you kill them, guess what your charged with manslaughter. Its your responsibility when your driving, I'm not putting into question why he got charged with manslaughter. I'm not talking about the COURTS or what the courts decided was the CAUSE. I'm talking about the RAW FACTOR in the accident.

When I drive I'm more worried about idiots who will do something stupid. Like cut me off or just switch lanes without looking in the mirrors and fools who are rookies and are caught by blind-spots. I'm confident in my abilities, its others that I'm wary of.

That's the factor of HIS DEATH, What does weed have to do with HOLMAN driving into traffic while on his cellphone. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! How can you say that's the DIRECT CAUSE, that's just a factor in the accident. But its pretty clear HOLMAN driving into traffic is the direct cause.

Emoving it sounds like you like to just make turns in-front of traffic and then when someone hits you, you blame it on them!. OHH HE WAS SPEEDING HE HIT ME, ITS ALL HIS FAULT!. Yea ****ing right. Your argument was that speed contributed to his death(I AGREE too),BUT I'm not talking about his death or do I care about his death. I'm TALKING About THE DIRECT CAUSE of the ACCIDENT. NOTICE I mention ACCIDENT and not DEATH, while everyone here just talks about "WELL AZ courts say the speed was what killed him" So it was the direct cause. Direct cause of what his death or the accident. NO, that's not the damn direct cause of the accident. The direct cause was this guy turning in front of traffic. THEY don't seem to distinguish the accident and his death. I know all of this doesn't mean anything and whats hes charged with is hes charged with. But I'm talking about the ACCIDENT itself, not the circumstances surrounding his death. How can anyone sit here and say him not turning into traffic didn't cause the accident. If he didn't turn his steering wheel, then this incident would have never occurred. Its pretty logical and common sense. This is the only point that I'm trying to make here. I'm not arguing about the MANSLAUGHTER charge or if he was going slower he would've lived. I'm talking about what was the DIRECT cause of the accident.

I know if you hit someone, your at FAULT and its the LAW. I'm not arguing who's at fault, I'm arguing what contributed to the accident. I'm repeating myself 20 times because someone people just don't get it.

So lets give scenarios.

First Grade Questions
---------------------
1.Gondon is driving straight at 40 mph in a 50 mph zone. E moving decides to turn in front of Gondon and since he doesn't give enough throttle and is on the cellphone he gets T-Boned. What was the direct cause of the accident?

Answer: EMoving turning into traffic

Why? Because if he actually was paying attention and didn't drive negligently into traffic the accident would have never occurred.

2.Gondon is driving straight at 60 mph in a 50 mph zone. E moving decides to turn in front of Gondon and since he doesn't give enough throttle and is on the cellphone he gets T-Boned. What was the direct cause of the accident?

Answer:EMoving turning into traffic

Why? Because if he actually was paying attention and didn't drive negligently into traffic the accident would have never occurred.

3.Gondon is driving straight at 60 mph in a 50 mph zone and is intoxicated. E moving decides to turn in front of Gondon and since he doesn't give enough throttle and is on the cellphone he gets T-Boned. What was the direct cause of the accident?

Answer:EMoving turning into traffic

Why? Because if he actually was paying attention and didn't drive negligently into traffic the accident would have never occurred.

Now people are going to argue that well his reaction was slowed. Well if you cut into me at the last second it was inevitable. So genius don't you see all of these factors are beyond my control and have no bearing on the accident since it is beyond my control if someone decides to CUT in-front of you. Are you picking it up. Do you see my point. Nothing really changes from question 1, when Gondon is doing 40mph. According to Emoving Scenario 1, Its ok its not my fault. But Scenario 2 its all my fault . I'm not arguing what is morally correct or anything. All I'm stating is if you never cut me off, there would be no accident. Hence that's the direct cause of the ACCIDENT. The DA is arguing the MAIN cause of the DEATH. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Robert is not on TRIAL for the cause of the accident, if he were the case would be dismissed. He is on trail for the death of Mr.Holman. That is the point I was trying to bring across the whole time.

emoving

True story for ya there Gordon. A girl I work with is on the way to work Sat. night. She is driving 50 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. A guy and his pregnant girlfriend get in a fight and he lets her out. She is wearing dark cloths and walking 2 ft. in the lane on a dark non-lit road. Our employee Kari hits the pregnant girl killing the baby and seriously injuring the girl. In Gordons world, kari would be cited she she was driving a car. DUMB! Not the case, she was not drunk, she was not smoking weed, and she was not speeding. SHE DOES NOT GET CHARGED! Had she been drunk or speeding she would have been charged! If you hit a pedestrian and they are not in a cross walk and there were no outstanding circumstances, the driver never gets charged.

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/...-Morrow-County

emoving

Its obvious you are very clueless. There are aggravating circumstances, Speed, racing and smoking weed. Had he been doing the speed limit, the closing speed would have not been as great and he would have made the turn. Had he been doing the speed limit, he could of probally stopped enough with Brembro brakes and not done as much damage and probally the injuries would have been greatly reduced.

Gordon, stick to your day job whatever it is because a jury of 12 would laugh you out of the courtroom and you would do no justice for your client.

220S

Gondon, your point is moot. The accident happened and there were extenuating circumstances that led to the accident and death of Holman. Irregardless of the negligence on Holman's part, Van Brakel was the mitigating factor due to his excessive speeding. It doesn't matter if Holman was jaywalking while drunk. The fact is that they were racing at a high rate of speed (we don't know otherwise, it's all hearsay.) Jaywalking and being drunk isn't punishable in the USA by death from automobile.

In your world scenario, emoving would still be alive if you were never born. Or couldn't find the keys to your car. Oh, you found them? Too bad, because the accident wouldn't have occurred if they had stayed lost.

The DA has argued the extenuating circumstances that led to the death of Mr. Holman. And therefore he is being charged for killing some one without malice; i.e., manslaughter. And that's all that matters.

"Manslaughter is a charge it's not the reason for the accident."

What's your point? You're making it sound like you're exonerating everything by trying to say that if it wasn't for dummies on the road, then we should all be able to drink and drive fast.

"If some little kid runs into the street and you kill them, guess what your charged with manslaughter."

That's not true. But if you are breaking the law while you hit that little kid, then yes you could be charged with manslaughter. Speeding, driving while under the influence, etc., are contributing factors to the death of the child; i.e., extenuating circumstances. Many children have been hit by cars and the driver was never charged, because it was an accident.

Speeding (even 10 miles above the speed limit) is not an accident and will be considered a contributing factor. If you hit a child and didn't slow down when you saw a "children at play" sign, then you are the cause of the accident, despite the fact that the child ran out onto the road. That's why the signs are there, to try to keep you from being negligent and not seeing the kid. The area is posted because kids on the street might be negligent and run out in the road. Therefore limits are posted and signs serve as warnings. And since you possess the weapon; your responsibility is much bigger in this instance.

It's why we know that there are laws against speeding and/or racing on busy streets. It helps keeps us from being involved in accidents. Because people will turn into traffic, and people will not be paying attention. That's why they post speed limit signs in the first place. That's why it's 35 on busy streets versus 65 on freeways. You will cause an accident if you drive too fast in those places. Just like you don't speed on the highway when you think idiots are out there not paying attention: "When I drive I'm more worried about idiots who will do something stupid. Like cut me off or just switch lanes without looking in the mirrors and fools who are rookies and are caught by blind-spots. I'm confident in my abilities, its others that I'm wary of."

emoving

He does not get it. Apparently he thinks he has the right to drive like a jackass and everyone needs to stay out of his way or he has the right to run them down. This is why we have laws and jails.

Karlson

I didn't want to post in this topic, but I couldn't say any better. why does someone thinks that he is better than the rest....

snail45

Quick question. If Holman would have been cited for "Failure to avoid collision", that would mean that he was in the act of breaking the law. Shouldn't Holman be responsible for his surroundings? When an accident happans while both parties are breaking the law, who decides which one is responsible for their surroundings? The one who is breaking the law worse or started breaking it first? Not taking any sides, just wondering how that law works.

bnzuovr

I don't even understand why there is a disgustion about this. Its horrible that he might have to spend avery long time in prision but a crime is a crime and a crime on a drug or alcoholic substance makes it even worse. 3 simple points that from what i read are FACTS. 1. He was speeding well over the speed limit 2.He was dragracing & 3 HEE WASSSS HIGH OF OF WEED HELLOOOOO how can anyone defend the obvious. Not a lawyer or even close to it but last i checked those 3 things and someone losing there live means your a reckless driver and your screwed for a very long time.

TheVazha

+1,000,000,0000,000,000

GOD forbid. Its funny everyone is quick to jump in and fight for him. They would be singing a different tune if again, GOD forbid, it was one of mine or ours or theirs. He was racing. Speeding. Maybe (no one has proof but speculate) high. Unfortunately, he deserves what he gets.

I wish you guys supporting this guy would stop, close your eyes, picture the crash, and then picture one of your loved ones in the car that was hit. I get chills typing this let alone thinking it.

To the rest of you, STOP street racing. Life is way to precious and short to be ended over who's car puts more power to the pavement.

This is just my opinion, I do apologize to the family of the accused.

hooleyboy

This is tricky, I wish my lady was home to help me answer this one. Maybe I will let here use my account to write up something in the eyes from an Arizona Attorney.

As far as I understand it both or all parties or all parties in an accident receive the "Failure to avoid" civil infraction. But that just it, this guys failure to yield, was only a civil infraction.

However street racing in Arizona that results in an accident or death, now becomes a felony charge. The felony charge would trump the civil infraction. As this person died as a direct result of the impact from the illegal street race. Now if a race was not happening and this guy died from failing to yield and just got clipped by another car. Than thats the fault of the failing to yield drive.

Because there was a street race going on, it makes the racers responsible for their surrounding even if someone is committing a civil infraction.

I could be **** drunk and stumble into the street. Even though I'm publicly intoxicated and I got hit by a drunk driver. The drunk drive is at fault. Its kinda like that.

This is the Arizona revised statued
28-708. Racing on highways; classification; exception; definitions

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle or participate in any manner in a race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance or exhibition of speed or acceleration or for the purpose of making a speed record on a street or highway.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. If a person is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section within twenty-four months of a first conviction, the person is guilty of a class 6 felony and is not eligible for probation, pardon, suspension of sentence or release on any other basis until the person has served not less than ten days in jail or prison.

C. A person who is convicted of a first violation of this section shall pay a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars and may be ordered by the court to perform community restitution.

D. A person who is convicted of a subsequent violation of this section shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and may be ordered by the court to perform community restitution.

E. On pronouncement of a jail sentence under this section and in cases of extreme hardship, the court may provide in the sentence that if the defendant is employed or attending school and can continue employment or school the defendant may continue the employment or school for not more than twelve hours per day nor more than five days per week, and the defendant shall spend the remaining days or parts of days in jail until the sentence is served. The court may allow the defendant to be out of jail only long enough to complete the defendant's actual hours of employment or school.

F. If a person is convicted of violating this section, the judge may require the surrender to a police officer of any driver license of the person and immediately forward the abstract of conviction to the department. On a first conviction, the judge may order the suspension of the driving privileges of the person for a period of not more than ninety days. In the case of a first conviction and on receipt of the abstract of conviction and order of the court, the department shall suspend the driving privileges of the person for the period of time ordered by the judge. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for an offense committed within a period of twenty-four months and on receipt of the abstract of conviction, the department shall revoke the driving privileges of the person.

G. The director may authorize in writing an organized and properly controlled event to utilize a highway or part of a highway even though it is prohibited by this section. The authorization shall specify the time of the event, the highway or part of a highway to be utilized and any special conditions the director may require for the particular event.

H. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Drag race" means either:

(a) The operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other.

(b) The operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course and from the same point for the purpose of comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of the vehicle or vehicles within a certain distance or time limit.

2. "Racing" means the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to outgain or outdistance another vehicle or prevent another vehicle from passing.