Kill two people on a motorcycle, get 90 days!

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:59 pm

Unfakingbelievable....
Really Mad

I am totally speechless...
Really Mad

what the hell is happening? Why is it ok to kill people?? How do these lawyers live with themselves???
Really Mad

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A Folsom man convicted of manslaughter in a crash that killed two people was sentenced on Wednesday.
Barry Krug will spend 90 days in jail and three years on probation. His driver's license was also revoked.
The judge also ordered Krug to pay more than $19,000 to the families of victims Carly Baker and Jordan Barkey to cover funeral costs and other expenses.

Krug offered an apology during the sentencing.
"I said that I'm sorry and I'll leave it at that. I hope everybody gets healed," he said outside court later.
"I will never accept his apology. I will never forgive him. Ever," Carly Baker's mother, Chris Baker, said.
Last month, Krug pleaded no contest to misdemeanor manslaughter as part of a deal to do no more that 90 days in jail.
Krug will serve his 90-sentence at the Sacramento County Jail. He is scheduled to turn himself in next week.
Now that the criminal phase of the case is over, the families said they are pursuing civil action against Krug.

Someone go find this guy

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:17 am

I can understand the frustration but what more would you suggest they do to him?

he pays 19,000 bucks out of pocket (no car insurance would cover that), has his license revoked and spends 3 months in jail no probation and 3 frikkin more years with probation.

Hopefully he won't ever get his license back and sits in jail with his cell mate bubba for 3 long years. Even if he is a perfect angel in jail and gets probation it only takes 1 offence and his ass is back in the slammer. He has manslauder on his permanent record so Im sure his current employer will frown on this and he probably would be fired due to the jail sentence.

That looser's life is over and may the riders rest in peace.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:31 am

I dont know, it just seems he got off light after killing two people. Its not like he beat up a blind guy. He killed a motorcyclist and his girlfriend.....

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:13 am

Killing people on bikes is like a female teacher having sex with a student, they always get off easy. If a guy on a bike was to kill a family in a minivan, they would throw the book at him, just like they do male teachers who have sex with students. There is always an unwritten double standard.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:41 am

if he was drunk, or otherwise impaired, i would want him in jail for at least 20 years, maybe longer. if a drunk were to kill one of my family members, a jail would be the safest place for him.

there was a study done years ago that hooked up monitors to peoples heads so that they could tell when they spotted something, like a truck, a car, a motorcycle. turns out they didnt see bikes all that well, unless they were cop bikes. those they noticed. the study said that people "see" motorcycles but dont acknowledge them. thats why they pull out in front of us when they are staring right at us. for this azzhole to get charged like he did he must have done something other than just pull out in front of them.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:54 am

Macman wrote:

Killing people on bikes is like a female teacher having sex with a student, they always get off easy. If a guy on a bike was to kill a family in a minivan, they would throw the book at him, just like they do male teachers who have sex with students. There is always an unwritten double standard.

Throw the book at the coffin, maybe...

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:04 am

larryg wrote:

if he was drunk, or otherwise impaired, i would want him in jail for at least 20 years, maybe longer. if a drunk were to kill one of my family members, a jail would be the safest place for him.

I read the rest of the article and it is a pure shame. Apparently it was DUI (medications). The prosecutor did not have enough evidence to prove the medications impaired him so made the plea-deal. WTF???

I'm with you Larry, I would be the next person in jail if it was one of my family because this scum wouldn't have many breaths left on this earth with a .45 cal slug in his head. Maybe vigilanteism is all we have left since the friggen courts don't take care of shit like this anymore.

soapbox

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:59 am

I feel for the families loss. When you are in court you expect the punishment to fit the crime, this didn't seem to be the outcome a reasonable person would have expected.

I don't buy that "I didn't see them" bullshit I have seen a SUV destroyed by a transport and heard the same rationalization. Driving anything is a priviledge and a responsibility, to yourself and everyone around you. I don't think that this is in the DMV/MTO test, but it should be.

Failing to be properly charged with a DUI rests squarely on the shoulders of the law enforcement, the families should have an issue with them. I have seem this first hand, an impaired "native Canadian" runs a red light through the dead end of a T intersection, heights a Pontiac ahead of me and rights off the 2 week old car. Clearly impaired the police fail to have a road side breathalizer proformed due to his complaints of chest pains (the fat bastard bounced off a steering wheel, he should be in pain). There wasn't follow up at the hospital, hence the tribe high-fiving outside the courtroom after the case is dismissed.

The reality is that Barry Krug is likely a poor driver and unfortunately he and Carly Baker and Jordan Barkey crossed pathes at the wrong time. I will bet if Carly and Jordan were driving a 10 ton semi Barry would of had his F'ng eyes open and if he didnt there wouldn't have been a court case.

The courts aren't any different in Canada, except you are not able to chase offenders in civil court as easily.

I think he should have been given a 90 minute head start and let the families settle the injustice. Just my opinion though!

Jim

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:43 am

Jim,
if you give me more details about the crash you speak of in toronto I can search records and find out the exact reasons for the outcome of that case.

Playing devils advocate: What we all know is one thing..In court (which is geared to protect the accuseds rights and I wont even go there!!!) the prosecution must PROVE without reasonable doubt that the bad guy did a bad thing. If the evidence is not all there then the crown Attorney (D.A. in the states) must do their best to win the case. In the end the bad guys needs to do nothing but be quite. If the case is not proved because of lack of evidence or the least bit of reasinable doubt, the judge MUST let him go.. The bottom line is this proving a case is not that easy. people see the criomes and we all know the shit head did it. BUT by the time we get the witnesses that will get involved to court and the defence gets a chance to confuse them abit..the bad guy walks. THe more money you got the better a fast talking lawyer you can get..

North american legal systems suck..they will never change until the silent majority (thats us) do something about it. But no one wants to lead the charge because the first one in usually becomes the sacrificial lamb for the cause..and the circle starts all over again..

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:47 am

having said all that, my personal view is Eye for an Eye.

I say gut the bastard hang him from a pike and drape a sign across his ass that clearly tells all he ended up this way cause he drove a car when he shouldnt have.

You do it too and we have alot a fucking poles in the yard. (sorry if i offended anyone Wink

)

Ya'll come back ya'hear

But im not supposed to say that in public anymore Twisted Evil

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:23 am

The whole reason why these trageties keep happening is in fact we put a value on the human body. 8 thousand dollars at the last time i checked.
Human suffering is a whole other issue.
The fact of loved ones suffering is not factored in.
Now if the person lives and suffers for some time or the rest of his/hers life then thats prison or payup time.
I myself couldnt care less if i`m dead then he could walk away..
Hey..If I`m dead then thats that..But my family would not feel the same way.
I feel its important anyhowe to prosecute these dumbshits and at least give them a mandatory 7 years in prison.
Just my two cents.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:36 am

OK I agree that this idiot should be locked up for a while and never drive again but the prison's are so full now they are releasing 1st degree murders and chid rapist early so I don't want him taking up space in a prison at 50 grand a year to the taxpayer for 20yrs. Evil or Very Mad

There is something called malice and fore thought and this guy doesn't fall into that. I remember in my younger days doing stupid shit in motor vehicles and but for the grace of god I never killed anyone. You can't fill up the prisons with these idiots but you can humilate them and keep them off the road (at least legally).

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:48 am

MY FRIEND GOT 7 YEARS IN PRISON. HE WAS STUPID DRUNK ONE NIGHT ON HIS MOTORBIKE AND PLOWED INTO A TREE AND HIS PASSENGER DIED.
I WAS THE ONE THAT DROVE HIM TO HIS ARAINMENT AND ON THE WAY WE SPOKE ABOUT OUR LOST FRIEND.
MY RIDE WAS THE LAST HE TOOK FOR SOME TIME..
HE REALLY NEVER GOT OVER IT AND I`M SHURE IT HAUNTS HIM TODAY.
HE GOT OUT OF PRISON TATTOO`D UP AND SOBER BUT SOON REVERTED BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS.
SOME LEARN...SOME DON`T.

Hawk Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 359 Location: NYC

eatpasta wrote:

How do these lawyers live with themselves???

This is a pretty ignorant statement.

I don't really want to get into the middle of this, but for him to get a deal like this there must have been a better than good chance that he would beat it in a trial.

I work with and know personally a lot of Distric Attorneys in New York and some in california and if there is one they they really don't like to negotiate, it is DUI and DWI plea bargains. If they know they have enough evidence and everything was done by the book most of the time they won't even entertain it.

Another one they try not to plea bargain is cell phone violations.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:04 pm

God forbid anyone who really F@@@cks me over and rides a bike. I take a few perscription Ambien I use when I cant sleep and it's
F250 - 1 asshole - 0. Evil or Very Mad

I do a little community service and walk away.

Or flip the coin over,,, I hope I dont piss someone else off who thinks like this or Its Dodge Ram - 1 cbxdog - 0 Crying or Very sad

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:16 pm

You know it does not say what the cirumstances were, only that he killed two people on a bike.
Did anyone think that maybe it was not his fault and he has to live with the fact that two people are dead because they came in contact with his vehicle?
I went to school with six guys that got killed on bikes in less than a year and none of them were killed by a drunk drivers but they were killed by dumb luck and no helmets & bad riding skills.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:47 pm

Geeto67 wrote:

eatpasta wrote:

How do these lawyers live with themselves???

This is a pretty ignorant statement.

ok, how do you live with yourself?

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:17 pm

fasterspider wrote:

You know it does not say what the cirumstances were, only that he killed two people on a bike.
Did anyone think that maybe it was not his fault and he has to live with the fact that two people are dead because they came in contact with his vehicle?
I went to school with six guys that got killed on bikes in less than a year and none of them were killed by a drunk drivers but they were killed by dumb luck and no helmets & bad riding skills.

Naw, this guy KILLED them. He was on legal prescription pain-killers The link to the rest of the story is in the first post. He crossed the freakin center line and his scumbag attorney knows that due to the Expert Toxicologist report which cannot "without a shadow of doubt" prove he was impaired will get his client off if he goes to trial.

This guy is old enough to know how to read the medicine lables warning of operating machinery, he was probably told this by the pharmacist and his doctor but being someone who takes NO repsonsibility to watch out for their own actions like so many people do now days knowingly got behind the wheel after taking the medication.

Hawk Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 359 Location: NYC

eatpasta wrote:

Geeto67 wrote:

eatpasta wrote:

How do these lawyers live with themselves???

This is a pretty ignorant statement.

ok, how do you live with yourself?

I don't like it anymore than you that he is getting a light sentence but if you think it is easy for the attorneys to come to that compromise, I'm telling you it isn't.

Every citizen in this country is entitled to representation in court proceedings, and it is the duty of an attorney to represent his client to the best of his abilities reguardless of his personal feelings in the matter. He must also serve the interests of justice, and cannot help his client to do an end run around the law. It probably took a lot of work on the attorney's part to convince his client to even go for the deal that would put him in prision, espically since (as the article states) the prosecution may not be able to prove intoxication at trial (thereby making it a civil matter only).

The fact that this guy is getting a light sentence is a pretty good indication that he could have very well succeeded at trial and the charges dropped all together, and then nobody is happy. At least this way he gets some form of punishment.

Statements like "how do the lawyers live with themselves" is ignorant because it shows a fundimental misunderstanding of the justice system in the this country (a problem that a majority of americans sadly suffer from), and the difficult decisions that most people in that position have to make. You want to blame somebody, blame the lawmakers for being ambigous on the DUI and DWI laws so that the possibilty exists to exclude prescription drugs or for not having legislated more motorcycle friendly vehicle codes, blame the police for not having a way of testing for imparment by perscription drugs, blame the schmuck who made a bad judgement call and is going to have to pay for it for the rest of his life (which he disearves), or blame yourself for not taking a part in lobbying your state lawmakers to get the kinds of laws and policy changes you want. Or you can just live with it, the choice is yours.

As fas as how do I live with myself? I am fine, thank you for asking. But keep in mind I am not defending the guy who caused this terrible accident (I don't think I could), just the guy whose job you don't understand and whose morality you question.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:33 pm

Geeto67 wrote:

eatpasta wrote:

Geeto67 wrote:

eatpasta wrote:

How do these lawyers live with themselves???

This is a pretty ignorant statement.

ok, how do you live with yourself?

Statements like "how do the lawyers live with themselves" is ignorant because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system in the this country (a problem that a majority of americans sadly suffer from), and the difficult decisions that most people in that position have to make. You want to blame somebody, blame the lawmakers

this case makes perfectly clear that the justice system is fundamentally flawed, not that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system.
Furthermore, I have a problem with anyone that makes their living helping people that do terrible things. This man did a terrible thing, and someone helped him get a lesser sentence. I have a problem with that.
I dont think anybody on this site, or anyone in general is going to say that this was a fair outcome; justice was not served.

Hawk Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 359 Location: NYC

eatpasta wrote:

Geeto67 wrote:

eatpasta wrote:

How do these lawyers live with themselves???

This is a pretty ignorant statement.

ok, how do you live with yourself?

I don't like it anymore than you that he is getting a light sentence but if you think it is easy for the attorneys to come to that compromise, I'm telling you it isn't.

Every citizen in this country is entitled to representation in court proceedings, and it is the duty of an attorney to represent his client to the best of his abilities reguardless of his personal feelings in the matter. He must also serve the interests of justice, and cannot help his client to do an end run around the law. It probably took a lot of work on the attorney's part to convince his client to even go for the deal that would put him in prision, espically since (as the article states) the prosecution may not be able to prove intoxication at trial (thereby making it a civil matter only).

The fact that this guy is getting a light sentence is a pretty good indication that he could have very well succeeded at trial and the charges dropped all together, and then nobody is happy. At least this way he gets some form of punishment.

Statements like "how do the lawyers live with themselves" is ignorant because it shows a fundimental misunderstanding of the justice system in the this country (a problem that a majority of americans sadly suffer from), and the difficult decisions that most people in that position have to make. You want to blame somebody, blame the lawmakers for being ambigous on the DUI and DWI laws so that the possibilty exists to exclude prescription drugs or for not having legislated more motorcycle friendly vehicle codes, blame the police for not having a way of testing for imparment by perscription drugs, blame the schmuck who made a bad judgement call and is going to have to pay for it for the rest of his life (which he disearves), or blame yourself for not taking a part in lobbying your state lawmakers to get the kinds of laws and policy changes you want. Or you can just live with it, the choice is yours.

As fas as how do I live with myself? I am fine, thank you for asking. But keep in mind I am not defending the guy who caused this terrible accident (I don't think I could), just the guy whose job you don't understand and whose morality you question.

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:11 pm

are you repeating yourself because you think Im missing something?

Hawk Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 359 Location: NYC

eatpasta wrote:

are you repeating yourself because you think Im missing something?

I thought that would be obvious.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:59 am

Do you honestly think I am really that stupid? I'm not missing anything, I just think you're wrong.

That's allowed.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:06 am

sorry guys to get in between this conversation, i have a question coming a different country, when it said, that they revoke his licence, is that for a period of time, or is that for life.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:20 am

from what it looks like, it is only going to be or a few years.... then he can drive again, and go run over more innocent people.

Usually when the word "revoke" is used, it is temporary.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:32 am

Here in Michigan a revocation may be for a certain length of time as determined by the judge at sentencing BUT... at the end of your sentence you need to petition the license bureau to have your license reinstated, if they don't like the cut of your suit, your mismatched socks, which side you part your hair on, whatever! they can turn you down. They do not need to give any reason. A friend is 5 years into an 18 month revocation and still no license. The other side of the coin.

Hawk Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 359 Location: NYC

eatpasta wrote:

Do you honestly think I am really that stupid? I'm not missing anything, I just think you're wrong.

That's allowed.

Actually I don't think you're stupid at all, just you speak about things which you seem not to have any real life expirence with, and you speak ill about people based soley on what you (mistakenly) perceve their job to be. I guess we will just have to let this end with each of us telling each other that he is wrong and leave it at that.

Typically license suspension is the temporary solution, revocation is a more permanent one. On first offense DWI and DUI cases in california have a manditory a six month suspension if you did not injure anybody, and one year if you did. If you seriously injured or killed somebody, the charge then activates the california three strikes law (which basically says that if you commit three offenses of the same nature or worse you get a life sentence), and the court can levy more serious penalties.

With a license suspension there is at least the promise that you will get your license back eventually. With Revocation no such promise is made. At the end of the suspension, if you have met the requirements imposed by the court, you get your license back. If it is revoked, even if you were to get it back, you would have to start the process all over again and there may be more serious restrictions involved. With a license Revocation the DMV is entirely within its power to refuse to issue you a license for the rest of your life if it sees fit. If you license is revoked you can reapply but you can't for at least a year from the date of revocation, and the decision still has to be reviewed by the DMV. I spoke to a friend of mine who is a prosecutor in Ventura and he tells me that for a fatal DWI, without extenuating circumstances drivers usually don't get their licenses back for at least 5 years.

That is assuming that this guy even wants to drive again. Of the 4 people I know who were involved in fatal accidents and survived, only one has begun to drive again, and he only considered it after the police told him that the corners office determined that the other driver was dead before the wreck (driver had a heart attack and slammed into my friends car).

As tragic as these car/motorcycle accidents are, they are in the news because they are inflamitory in some way. It is no secret that motorcycles are not fairley protected in the vehicle codes of most if not all of the states, but the worst thing you can do is to bitch and moan, make false assumptions, and blame the system or individual people who are doing their job, all while sitting on your hands. If this kind of stuff really applas you then it should be a call to action to lobby for better laws protecting motorcyclists, to vote in those who protect and/or advance your motorcycling interests, and to support those organizations that lobby for better motorcycle laws. I hear bikers fight endlessly about the helmet laws, but I don't hear anybody fighting to have their state vehicle codes to give motorcycles the right of way over larger vehicles (as a measure to make people more aware of motorcycles).

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:40 pm

The 2 sides will never reach agreement on this. I still say this is an easy way to kill off some one you dont like, for all we know that could have been his ex girl friend on that bike and he extracted his vengance on both of them Twisted Evil

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:11 pm

I second that...this topic is a stay of proceedings...

so did you hear about the guy in jersey that axd murdered his whole family and got 2 weeks community services??

Laughing

KNOCK IT OFF!!!

GO TO YOUR ROOM!!!