^^^^ Gotcha. It just didn't make sense to me at first. Sad situation.

 

DO you people wanna talk about why he is being charged with manslaugter or ABOUT THE ACCIDENT? I just made a long post and all anyone can say is expalin as to why hes being charged with that count or who's at FAULT(LEGALLY), I ****ing get it, I know why. I'm talking about 2 different things.

Lets make it clear

HOLMAN is responsible for the Car accident
ROBERT and ARONICA are responsible for the DEATH of HOLMAN.

LOL all these responses about what the LAW says, when I made a thorough post depicting the cause of the accident and not what the LAW sees as just or who is responsible. Just a bunch of the same replies explaining why he is guilty of the MURDER. I'm not arguing about that. FFS didn't I just make a long post differentiating the two.

OK, being charged and convicted is 2 different things. Your friend might get charged, but most likely she wont get convicted.

The driver never gets charged? Or the driver never gets convicted?
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/2...-trial-delayed

Here you go, the driver wasn't intoxicated or speeding and is on trial.

You wanna talk about the accident?
E moving your acting like you saw the accident and saying the driver WOULD have made the TURN if they weren't going so fast. Who are you to say what happened? There weren't even any skid marks. For all I know the guy wasn't even looking and turned his steering wheel like an imbecile. He 75 years old, his reaction time is so delayed. Do you know how slow senior citizens drive? Both of the drivers couldn't stop or swerve. Do you know how many feet away he was when they first noticed him? No you dont.

Also your search a forensic expert, do you want to get into the math here and start making assumptions into the speed skid if they were to brake and the vehicle speed when it striked him. Lets say they were going the speed limit(45). You do know if they hit the brakes full on at 45 mph(66 ft per sec) and he didn't complete the turn under the same circumstances(Just appeared) and even if they skidded for at least 75 feet meaning they saw him 168 feet away and hit the full brakes. They would hit him at about 30 miles per hour. That's with 2 cars. He would been ejected either way or suffer serious head trauma and at 75...you know the rest

220S I'm not giving extreme factors, my defense isn't something absurd like if HOLMAN wasn't born ROBERT would be still enjoying his E63...I'm talking rationally if he didn't make the TURN which is a driving violation. How can you even compare the two?

What next OJ isn't guilty because he wasn't convicted of it? I guess this is how people operate here. Whatever the law says is ABSOLUTE and we don't need to look at other factors for some of you guys. Lets ignore all the other circumstances.

How hard is it to understand that:

Speeding is not what caused the accident. Speeding is what caused his death. The accident was created by Holman.

 

Okay sure, we can discuss what caused the accident. But both issues are not exclusive of each other; i.e., what caused the accident and who is at fault. Speeding caused the death. But the accident may well have been caused by the speeding and not by Holman's miscalculation. That's the whole point. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

What you are saying is what the defense lawyers tried to say and what the prosecutors argued against. It was the only recourse for the defense. If the defense had such a solid case, then why the plea bargain acceptance? The Holman family only agreed to it because they thought perhaps the jury could possibly be swayed by the defense, as in the OJ case (since you bring that up.) Otherwise they have stated that they would have preferred it to go to trial with a less lenient outcome. This has been discussed over and over again in the news.

Both acts were violations. The million dollar question is why did the accident even occur in the first place. The 'truth' depends on your own world view and personal agenda: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...olman0807.html

 

Oh wow very informative article.

 

I respond in this thread not to argue the crash, why , if, when , where or what.

The plea phase , the turning of a steadfast Aronica against Van Brakel to save himself.

It all stinks.

Emoving, and others finding guilt here when in fact THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL!!!

Robert WAS NOT DRAG RACING the 200 hp mustang, he was speeding, he had trace amounts of THC in his system . That charge was presented much later as a result of the successful defense of the two speeders. Once they got Aronica to turn it was GAME OVER.

By all accounts Aronica hit Holman dead square , ejecting him and tearing the car in half , yet he will get probation and Robert goes to jail.

The State would never be able to prove the drivers were engaged in a "race" , they could charge with speeding but they needed something more. So they bring in the DRUG charge, the Murder charge, they scare the **** out of Aronica and near two years later he flips.


Robert raced real funny cars , he was used to alchohol dragsters, no need for thrills in the 63. To top it off I was to meet him the very next day to race on the drag strip. He was just doing his daily errands, he was not impaired.

I posted a case of Mr. Myers who killed a family of 5 including three young children. He ran a red light, the victims not wearing belts . Mr Myers faced less charges and less time than Robert, it makes no sense.

I had hoped for a trial.

 

Agreed, the article seems to be a good synopsis of the pertinent info, and gives some "ink" to both sides.

Side note... I enjoyed the one defense attorney's claim of denying they were racing because "they didn't even know each other." Seriously, that was the best he could come up with? Didn't realize that prior personal experience with your adversary was a mandatory prerequisite for an impromptu street race.

 

That was my thought - don't say things that are just stupid.

And - I have to tell you - if their own expert was right, and the AMG was traveling at 70 MPH, and the Mustang 65 MPH and they hit Holman in very rapid succession - they were racing. The speed limit was 45. If they were doing about 10-12 over, then maybe I could buy them just driving along... Heck - we all do 10-12 over as a normal practice (at least I did and that was my last ticket last month.... but I was all alone) How far after a stoplight was this? I lend no credibility to witnesses guessing the speed the cars were traveling - they ALWAYS guess high.

I do believe that the punishments should not be as disparate as it looks like they will be.

 

juicee63 - I understand that he's your friend, and that little fact can make this 1,000 times harder for you than others. I don't even know the guy, yet appreciate that it's a horrible situation for everyone involved, and their lives have been irrevocably altered by this tragedy. Everyone here has shaped an opinion of the events, from the information available - most (if not all) of us were not present to personally witness the events as they transpired. I encourage you to think of the "Court of MBW Public Opinion" as just that - opinions. BTW, it appears that your friend accepted to submit a guilty plea for this offense... did he not?

Thought the later model Mustangs were 300 hp. Regardless, I'm sure you're aware, depending on reactions, traction, timing, momentum, gearing, etc., the HP difference alone between the two vehicles doesn't preclude the possibility that they were racing and in close proximity to one another when the crash occurred.

You're 100% certain that Mr. Aronica will not see any jail time? The one article I read said he could get up to 2 years. Has he already been sentenced, and only got probation?

Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Regardless, the State of AZ didn't really have to "prove" anything - just convince 12 folks that the State's version of the story is the closest one to the truth. My guess is that they would've been successful in that endeavor, from what I've seen - but that's just my opinion.


That he had experience with professional-level drag racing vehicles is interesting, and I was not aware of that. I respectfully disagree with the conclusions you've jumped to, however. His driving record would seem to suggest a cavalier attitude toward speeding, even when on public streets. Obviously, I cannot personally attest to his level of impairment at the time of the accident; I'd suggest that one would've had to have been there to know for sure.

The legal system doesn't always make sense - each case is different. Other than perhaps some precedent for sentencing, I'm not sure of the relevance of the Myers case.

Obviously your friend's attorney(ies?) disagreed, and convinced your friend to accept this known quantity, versus face the unknown outcome of a jury trial. Assuming he accepted the plea, which (I think) I saw posted earlier.

I want to be clear on something - I'm not saying your friend is a "bad guy." He is a member of this community, and I wish him the best outcome possible in the future. Hell, he could already work every Saturday at a soup kitchen and build homes for Habitat for Humanity for all I know. But it looks like he was caught up in a bad situation, it went horribly wrong for all involved, and now is facing the legal consequences of that situation.

We'll never know the truth of exactly what occurred... you'd have to be omniscient otherwise. My best guess, which is solely my opinion, is this: Mr. Aronica, an aggressive driver, comes across Mr. Van Brakel, who also on occasion is an aggressive driver. For sake of argument, let's say Aronica sees a clean, late-model AMG and thinks "here we go..." rides his bumper, revs his engine alongside, etc., instigating the events that occur. Mr. Van Brakel's ego (we all have them) gets the best of him, and he thinks "am I going to let some young punk in a Rustang show me up? Not on my watch. Prepare for your beatdown, son." And they take off. Down the road, Mr. Holman is half paying attention to his driving, and half paying attention to his phone call. He sees cars coming, but doesn't look long enough to properly assess their closing speeds - just judges the distance. So he turns... which turned out to be a fatal mistake, due to the high rate of speed at which the cars were approaching (if witnesses said "around 100 MPH" and the defense attorney says "70 MPH" - the truth is probably in the middle, maybe 80-85 or so... but we'll never know). Is that the truth? No way to know... but seems like a plausible scenario, to me anyway.

 

In Scottdale and all around Arizona, The speed cameras are set to go off only if you are going 11 or more MPH over the speed limit. One might be able to argue that the state is Ok in some respects with some form of speeding.

 

And if you are driving around at 11 over either alone or with all the other traffic moving at that pace - you'll probably not get in trouble. You see this all the time on interstates.

If the rest of the traffic is doing 11 under due to traffic or conditions, then you'll likely get a ticket.

If you do this and cause an accident, you'll get many tickets.

If you kill someone, then all bets are off.

Is this concept really that hard to understand?

If "everybody's doing it" didn't work to convince your mom, it's not going to fly with the legal system.

 

My opinions are based on evidence from the accident.
The Myers case is relavant because he hit a car full of people , some of which were unbelted. The unbelted children died.

Holman may be alive today had he simply buckled up, stayed off the phone, and let the cars speed by rather than turn out directly in the path of the vehicle.

Even on a green light you need to look both directions to make certain the cars or either stopped or traffic is clear.

The driver in the Myers case was cited for the unbelted passengers.


I believe there is a shared responsibility for this accident.

Had Mr. Aronica and his attorney stuck to the original testimony this case goes to trial and Arizona offers Mr. Van Brakel a much more fair plea.

The point is the system is unjust, unequal, and seemingly broken.

Im not sure you are looking at court documents , but Aronica's driving record is much worse than Van Brakel's. Plus Robert is 2x Aronica's age. No prior DUI, no prior felonies, a military service record and a prominant member of his community. Jail is not the answer, let him run his company, support his family and begin to pay the restitution due to the victim's family.

 

Sorry Juicee fail! There is no amount of restitution that can be paid for killing one of my family members while you were stoned and racing at speeds over 70mph in a 45mph busy residential/commercial area. I guess you are luckymost members here won't be on his jury. It's a shame how you keep blaming someone for not realizing that tow dousche bags were racing before he pulled out. I gues he thought he was pulling out onto a public road not a drag strip. If you think they were not racing then you are in serious denial.

 

Just to clear some things up.. Scottsdale Road, is not a residential street. Its a multi lane road, much like Las Vegas Blvd (AKA the Strip) Some times it can even have the traffic of Las Vegas Blvd.

Even if Holman was looking, Its hard to judge the closing speed of something coming right at you. Kinda like this, but on a less extreme leve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC0AW7G50NA
So at first glance, what seems like enough room/distance quickly becomes not enough.

What is completely unfair is the other party to the race will not be getting the same punishment. I agree with a bunch of arguments from both sides. I think emoving, makes a good point. Just what if that car they hit was your family member, you wife, brother, son, Mom or Dad. It would be a loss on a catastrophic level. No court orders settlement would ever be enough. The thought of buying a new home with blood money or something like that, would linger in my mind with every penny spent. Knowing I could not share the joy of a new purchase without the loved one that was lost.

On the flipside, If jail is about rehabilitation. I think Van Brakel has learned his lesson. Jail or no jail, I feel he wont be street racing or even racing again in his life. Van Brakel is not one of these sociopaths that get out of jail only to kill again. Maybe a more meaningful punishment, would be a life long driving suspension w/ restitution.

The company he owns bares his name on the building. A lot can be at stake if you take that head of the company out of the picture. The company could fail, causing the loss of many jobs.

Even though the family wants Van Brakel to get the max. Painting the picture of Cal Holman was a public servant, really should have no effect on the sentencing. Thats if all people are equal. Holman may have been a great guy, and by all respects is or was. However his death and the sentence brought down on Van Brakel, should be no different than if it was the death of any other person.

In all honestly, I feel truly saddened for all parties involved. Van Brakel's 10 second poor decision, has now made a seemingly regular person... not only have to live with the death of another person, but all this public shame.

Cal Holman now has a wife the wakes up every day, without a husband. The thought of expecting someone to be home soon. Only to find out they will never come home again, Is a pain/feeling I hope no one I know ever has to go though.

I think Abraham Lincoln said it best.
"I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming..."

 

This is news? It's been like this since the dawn of civilization. The system is run by humans. Humans who have emotions like lust, desire, greed in addition to characteristics of ethics, morals, and principal. And those constantly clash with each other.

I'm not condoning anything here, but prior behavior doesn't preclude committing an illegal act. We all know that; look at all the world's Boy Scouts who get caught with their hands dirty. And yes, jail is questionable.

Not passing judgment here, but this is a reflection on what's going on in the legal proceedings: those who knew and are representing Holman want one thing and those who knew and are defending Van Brakel want another thing.

It's the way it is. There is "perfection" only in a Machiavellian World. And we don't want that. So we deal with an imperfect world. Fairness becomes an abstraction.

 

There is no such thing as perfect justice.

 

There will be when Vic closes this thread.

 

LOL

 

There are excellent arguments from both sides of the equation in this thread along with a wealth of great information, both legal and ethical especially in the additional articles provided. It is very unfortunate that the lives of so many, due to small-unsound decisions (from all parties), have become permanently scarred and will remain so for many years to come. And so without condoning or condeming either side, I take this incident as a lesson and a reminder that even the slightest mistakes (even ones that seem harmless at the time) could change my life, the lives of my family, and possibly the lives of many others forever. I feel sad and sorry for the people involved and hope they are able to move forward past this.

 

It is time- lets stop discussing this tragic incident and move on. These debates can go on forever so if you want, open up a new thread in OT cause thats where this thread has gone.

Happy April!