Where did he come from?

And at what point, if any, did our hero realize that something was (horribly) wrong? From the Houston Chronicle:

A driver who hit a pedestrian along Interstate 45 in southeast Houston early this morning didn’t stop even though the victim smashed through his windshield and landed in the front passenger seat, officials said. 

The driver, identified as 45-year-old James John Onak, was charged with  felony accident involving injury in the 177th State District Court, according to a Houston Police Department news release.  

The collision occurred in the 12200 block of the southbound Gulf Freeway near Fuqua about 12:30 a.m. Tuesday, according to the Houston Police Department.
Police said the 32-year-old victim, whose name has not been released, died at the scene.
No other injuries were reported. 

Police said a man was driving his Ford Explorer on the freeway when it broke down. He pulled to the shoulder and got out and began trying to cross the freeway. 

The man was hit by a black Mazda, driven by Onak, police said. Police said the collision forced the victim’s body through the windshield, and he landed in the front passenger seat inside the car. 

Onak did not stop after the collision, police said. Police said he allegedly got off the freeway and drove a few blocks before a Precinct 8 Harris County Constable pulled him over at 11600 Kirkvalley near Beamer, and the deputy noticed the car’s front was damaged. Then the deputy saw the victim in the car, police added. 

Police said Onak told the deputy he had hit something on the freeway and that he didn’t know the victim was in the passenger seat beside him. 

Onak was believed to be under the influence and a mandatory blood draw was taken. 

I'm thinking the sound of a body crashing through the windshield and landing in the passenger seat would be enough to alert anyone that there was a problem.

Sadly enough, this isn't the first pedestrian through a windshield story I've come across.

I have no idea whether Mr. Onak was intoxicated or not that evening. I'm fairly certain that had he remained at the scene the endgame of this said incident would be a bit more favorable to him. As a result of his not remaining at the scene, Mr. Ornak is facing a felony charge of an accident involving death.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the accident, Mr. Ornak might actually stand a better chance to defend himself against a charge of intoxication manslaughter as the state must prove that the accident was caused by his being intoxicated. Having a pedestrian attempting to cross the freeway in the middle of the night is not a circumstance that any driver can reasonably anticipate facing while driving.

How much warning did Mr. Onak have that someone was trying to run across the freeway? What kind of clothing was the pedestrian wearing at the time? Under those conditions, would an ordinary driver with an alcohol concentration of less than .08 (or who had the full use of their mental and physical faculties) have been able to avoid the accident?

Unfortunately for Mr. Onak, by driving on he has handed the prosecution a gun and a golden bullet with his name on it. The state doesn't have to prove that the accident was avoidable. All they have to prove is that he was involved in an accident in which a man was killed and he didn't remain or return to the scene.

Information - Onak

Same song, different verse

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent

Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance

Date: 14th century

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance

Warren Diepraam is at it again - criminalizing traffic accidents and trying to brand a driver who made a mistake as a felon.

Of course Mr. Diepraam has now taken his traveling circus act up the road to Montgomery County where he's hoping the powers that be won't have noticed the headaches he left behind in Harris County.

For Warren, there is no grey. Everything is black and white. Traffic accidents are called accidents for a reason. No one intended for them to happen. Accidents occur because one or more drivers were negligent in the operation of their car -- the fact that some was injured doesn't make it any more likely that the other driver intended to hit him.

DWT is more dangerous than DWI

A new study found that motorists who text while driving are six times more likely to be involved in a crash that those who just drive. University of Utah psychologists placed 20 men and 20 women between the ages of 19-23 in a driving simulator to test the effects of texting while driving. The tests indicated that motorists who texted while driving had reactions times 30% slower than those who just drove and that motorists who talked on their cell phone reacted 9% slower than non-talking drivers. Interestingly enough, reading text messages slowed braking times more than sending text messages.

An earlier study conducted in 2006 found that motorists who drove while talking on cell phones - either handheld or hands-free - were more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision than motorists who had an alcohol concentration of .08. Researchers believe that motorists talking on cell phones miss up to 50% of the visual cues that a non-talking driver sees.

None of this is to suggest that one get hosed and get behind the wheel of a car. The larger point seems to be that with every new device we put in a car we create more distraction for drivers. It is that distraction, whether caused by electronic devices or alcohol, that makes driving more hazardous.

DA looking into traffic fatality prosecutions

The Harris County District Attorney's Office is in the middle of reviewing over 100 traffic fatality cases to determine if proper protocols were followed in bringing criminal charges against drivers deemed at fault.

The vehicular crimes section was started up under disgraced former District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal and was seen as former prosecutor Warren Diepraam's baby. Mr. Diepraam is now working for the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office

According to a statement released by the DA's office, prosecutors in the vehicular crimes section "deviated" from office policy in filing criminal charges in the cases that are under review.

"The Vehicular Crime Section had deviated from the long-standing practice of this office concerning what was necessary to raise a civil negligent traffic accident case to that of criminal negligence." -- Harris County DA's Office statement

In response to claims from law enforcement personnel that this case review would make Houston's roads more dangerous for motorists, the DA's office said, in a written statement, that streets would not be made less safe if the office followed the law when deciding when to bring criminal charges against a motorist.

The sad reality of living in a major metropolitan area is that with more cars on the roads, accidents are more likely to happen -- including fatality accidents. In Houston we like to drive fast, and that leads to accidents. But that's what they are, for the most part -- accidents. There is a difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence when it comes to accidents.

It's one thing to cause an accident because you're driving too fast, it's quite another to cause an accident because you're under the influence of drugs or alcohol or because you're involved in a high-speed race on the freeway.

Criminalizing automobile accidents

While flipping channels late last night I came across a taped speech by Warren Diepraam of the Harris County DA's Office on one of the municipal channels. He was speaking to some group about traffic issues. Diepraam said he went to Chuck Rosenthal, the disgraced former district attorney, and asked to set up a vehicular crimes division of the office.

Diepraam went on to talk about the innovative methods being used by the attorneys in the vehicular crimes division.

When prosecutors talk about innovative methods they're really talking about finding ways to charge citizens with criminal offenses for accidental conduct or to enhance existing penalties by piling on additional charges.

Most car accidents are the result of negligent behavior on the part of one or more drivers - not criminal conduct. It's a sad fact that people who did nothing wrong die in car crashes. And although the burden is often devastating on the deceased's family, charging another person with a criminal offense because he was involved in a wreck doesn't change what happened.

Diepraam also made an interesting comment regarding "no refusal" weekends -- he stated that they were necessary because of the large number of suspects in Harris County who refuse to provide evidence to the police after being arrested for DWI. That speaks volumes to Diepraam's attitude toward the constitutional rights of citizens in Harris County.

Section 724.012 of the Texas Transportation Code governs the taking of specimens. The police may request one or more specimens of a driver's breath or blood if there are reasonable grounds to believe he was operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Section 724.012(b)(3) states that a peace officer is required to take a specimen of breath or blood if, at the time of the arrest, any individual died, or will die, as a result of the accident, an individual other than the suspect suffered serious bodily injury or the driver refuses to provide a specimen voluntarily when asked.

If the specimen is of blood, per Section 724.017(a), only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse or licensed vocational nurse may take the sample. Additionally, the blood must be drawn in a sanitary place. Per Section 724.017(c) emergency medical services personnel are not qualified to take the sample.

A person who is incapable of refusing to submit a specimen is deemed to have consented to the request per Section 724.014(c). In other words, if you are rendered unconscious in the accident, the police can take a blood sample without even asking for it.

So much for your right against compelled self-incrimination.