This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Child Hit Killed by SUV in Park Slope — Brooklynian

Child Hit Killed by SUV in Park Slope

anonymous
edited November -1 in Park Slope
I know it's not quite Park Slope, but it's being reported as so in the news.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5030941
«1

Comments

  • I love it how the last sentence implies that the teenager might be guilty for listening to an iPod while walking. Blame an iPod before a hummer. What about deaf people who get run over by hummers?
  • I wonder if it's Uncle Louie G's big yellow hummer. He drives it all over town...plate says "Ices"
  • holy crap. that's awful. that poor family.
  • Subject: Sickening.

    I passed this scene on my way to pick up my son at daycare. Kid is walking in the crosswalk with the right of way and they are talking about his iPod? What the f is wrong with this city? What was the guy in the fuggin yellow Hummer listening to on the radio or stuffing in his face when he ran over the 4-year-old boy and killed him?

    I'm so utterly totally sick of the way people drive their cars in the neighborhood. Criminals.
  • Flexichick wrote: I wonder if it's Uncle Louie G's big yellow hummer. He drives it all over town...plate says "Ices"
    FYI:
    Fat Louie changed to a vanilla Escalade last year. Still parks in front of hydrants.
    Can't wait to see the perp walk of the idiot Hummer driver.
  • Interesting, DW. Does he still have vanity plates?

    Either way, it's a sad story. People cut me off in crosswalks all the time. I don't know what the hell they're (not) thinking.
  • Ugh. Sad and awful.

    Can't say how many times I've wanted to shoot someone's tires out as they race up Carroll Street trying to beat the light or whatever. Such stupid selfish behavior. It makes me sick.

    BTW, I'm not the only one who has boycotted Fat Louie G after seeing his ludicrous yellow Hummer parked in front of numerous fire hydrants. Does he realize what a jackass everyone thinks he is?
  • Innocent X,
    Are you trying to be funny? That is just sick.

    MOD NOTE: the post this is responding to has been removed.
  • Some Jackass lawyer is probably trying to get the guy off the hook due to the I-Pod thing.
    I can see it happening and being sucessful.

    My thoughts go out to the family. As a father of 2 I cant even begin to imagine the pain.
  • http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/497304p-419211c.html
    Boy killed by Hummer as he crosses street

    BY JIMMY VIELKIND and MICHAEL WHITE
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

    A 4-year-old Brooklyn boy was struck and killed by a Hummer SUV yesterday as he walked home from a Brooklyn day care center with his teenage aunt, authorities said.

    James Jacaricce, who had just celebrated his birthday, died at New York Methodist Hospital shortly after the 3 p.m. crash in Gowanus, officials said.

    His 18-year-old aunt, Ta-Nayin St. John, was recovering at the same hospital last night with a shoulder injury.

    "My baby! My baby! How could this happen?" St. John screamed as she cradled her dying nephew in the street, according to witness Gil Pabon, 44.

    "He was just trampled over," Pabon said of the child.

    James and his aunt were attempting to cross Third Ave. at Baltic St. when the 3-ton SUV turned onto Baltic and struck them, police said.

    "The guy didn't realize he hit them because the vehicle rides very high," a police source said. "He stopped a short distance away [after hearing screams]."

    The SUV driver, Ken Williams, 48, of Brownsville, sat on a sidewalk near the scene and sobbed, witnesses said.

    Williams was later given a ticket for failure to yield to a pedestrian, police said.

    "I don't want to hear nothing about no accident. They was in the crosswalk. They had the right of way," said the boy's grandfather, James St. John.

    "I loved my grandson. Everybody loved my grandson. He was a happy kid," the grandpa said before breaking into tears. "He was happy about going to school."

    Cops found an iPod in the crosswalk, which police said belonged to the boy's aunt. However, it was unclear if she had been listening to the music player at the time she and her nephew were hit.

    James, who lived with his aunt and other relatives at a Bond St. apartment, had been at the nearby World of Little People Head Start program shortly before the accident, witnesses said.

    The grandfather said the family called James "Juicy," because he loved juice. The boy also enjoyed riding his bike and playing basketball, relatives said.

    "No matter what, this kid could make you smile," his grandfather said. "He could make you laugh."

    James was the second child in six days killed in Brooklyn after being struck by a king-sized passenger vehicle.

    Last Thursday, 3-year-old Eddy Heredia of Massachusetts was hit by an extended cab pickup as it turned left onto Fifth Ave. in Sunset Park.

    The driver drove away from the scene, but cops deemed the fatal crash an accident after interviewing the driver, who told police he did not know he hit the boy.

    Originally published on February 14, 2007

  • "I don't want to hear nothing about no accident. They was in the crosswalk. They had the right of way," said the boy's grandfather, James St. John.
    He's got that right! I'm sick and tired of hearing careless/dangerous driving resulting in injury and death being classified as "accidental".
  • Flexichick wrote: Interesting, DW. Does he still have vanity plates?

    Either way, it's a sad story. People cut me off in crosswalks all the time. I don't know what the hell they're (not) thinking.
    ICES it still is.
  • Jamzer wrote: Innocent X,
    Are you trying to be funny? That is just sick.

    MOD NOTE: the post this is responding to has been removed.
    Yeah, CENSORED by the crew. I made a joke in bad taste to prove a point. Obviously I think this is a tragedy. Shouldn't use a dead kid to prove a point I suppose. But hey, biting comedy walks a tightrope.
  • Louie G Ices rant--funny how all the otherwise Organic Only Park Slopers feel it's ok to enjoy those overpriced sugar waters...I have NEVER had their ices--I knew about Fat Louie and his stoopid Hummer before they came to the Slope. Such hypocricy. Told me kids that's why we will NEVER buy his ices. I'm sure the same people who eat his ices are the ones buying environmentally friendly "G" diapers and Fair Trade coffee. Act locally people. Ugh.
  • IMO, Hummers should be illegal in the city. There's one parked every now and then on 8th Ave. in between Flatbush and Union that practically takes up the parking line and the first lane of traffic. Maybe a careless accident on the part of the driver will finally get people to become more vehemently anti-Hummer. It's ridiculous that the iPod is even a focus here.
  • "I don't want to hear nothing about no accident. They was in the crosswalk. They had the right of way," said the boy's grandfather, James St. John.
    It just burns me up that failing to yield to pedestrians, and subsequently killing one, is just a traffic ticket. Talk about a warped world.
  • Flexichick wrote:

    Either way, it's a sad story. People cut me off in crosswalks all the time. I don't know what the hell they're (not) thinking.
    Just a couple days ago on 7th Ave, there was a woman in a car honking furiously at the pedestrians crossing in front of her while she waited to make a turn. Do some people not understand that pedestrians have the right of way?

    I can't believe that the only penalty for killing someone this way is a traffic ticket. :x
  • Is that really true?
    You kill someone and you get a ticket? Thats all?

    I have never paid much attention to that as I lived in the city without a car all my life.

    One would think that the LEAST that comes out of this is revoking of the license for longer period of time (1 year upward). Especially if the person killed clearly had right of way.
  • It's true. It's ruled an accident. The SUV driver got a ticket for failing to yield, but nothing for KILLING.
  • This is the third time in the past month or so that a child in Park Slope or Sunset park was killed in an "accident" caused by a large vehicle turning into a crosswalk. The drivers didn't see the children because they weren't looking! 3rd and 4th ave., along with 5th ave in Sunset Park, are basically used as highways by cars and commercial trucks alike, and anyone who's ever tried to cross 3rd ave. with a child knows how pedestrian-unfriendly it is. With all the new construction along 4th ave. and no efforts in place to slow the traffic patterns, I'm afraid there will be a lot more stories like this.
    I would really like to *do* something and not just wring my hands - is calling a congressman the answer? a group like Transportation Alternatives? Any other ideas?
  • theoryofpractice wrote: It's true. It's ruled an accident. The SUV driver got a ticket for failing to yield, but nothing for KILLING.
    I'm just curious what you think he should get? I have no idea what the ticket will cost him, maybe some community service and a fine. It's a pretty small amount.

    The guy sounds like he is remorseful, he was crying at the scene according to the DN piece. It sounds like it was an accident and there was no mention of DUI or speeding or anything. Assuming it was just an accident, having to live with it is going to be pretty harsh if he has a conscience.

    Should he got to Jail? For how long? What if he loses his job as a result and his life goes down the toilet.
    Should he have to do 2000 hours of community service?
    Should these decisions be mitigated by the fact that he drove a much more dangerous vehicle than the Jetta zipcar I use?

    It's a horrible thing, but what if it was just an accident? Do we punish accidents harshly?
  • Isn't there a crime called "vehicular manslaughter"? I'm not saying this qualifies and I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if they wanted to try to make this into more than a ticket, the legal apparatus is in place for that to happen. He'd probably be unlikely to be convicted if he wasn't breaking any other traffic laws (speeding, dui, reckless driving) for the reasons steve discussed above.
  • steve wrote:
    I'm just curious what you think he should get? I have no idea what the ticket will cost him, maybe some community service and a fine. It's a pretty small amount.
    This is a little grey area and will not be easy to determine correctly but ill give you my opinion anyways.
    If it is clear that the victim had right of way, then this does not qualify as an accident in my book. That is recklessness and should be punished harshly. I think he should lose his drivers license for good and do a couple of hundred hours community service.
    If he needs a car for his job, he shouldnt have driven recklessly to begin with.
    Thats what *I* think should be the punishment. And I aimed low for that.

    If it is clearly an accident, i.e. a kid running in front of a car thats different (not any better for the parents mind you).
  • Steve,

    Please explain to me how this guy "living with remorse" is going to be a deterrent to drivers treating pedestrians like bowling pins. A deer running in front of your car is an accident; mowing down a pedestrian at an intersection is wilfull disregard for the law and human life.

    John Ife
  • Anonymous wrote: Steve,

    Please explain to me how this guy "living with remorse" is going to be a deterrent to drivers treating pedestrians like bowling pins. A deer running in front of your car is an accident; mowing down a pedestrian at an intersection is wilfull disregard for the law and human life.

    John Ife
    I'm not sure punitive measures for something that sounds like an accident will serve as much of a detterent. Howevear, remorse can be a fairly strong behavioral conditioner I think.

    BTW, seeing as the word accident is sort of being bandied about. This is from dictionary.com

    1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
  • What the State needs too do is make NYS drivers re-take driving (road and written) tests every five years. In fact it should be a national policy. Those who cannot pass the basics, such as knowing and applying right of way, how to read a road sign, when to use turn signals and how not to tailgate lose their driving privileges until they can pass with an equivalent of a B+. This would cut down accident rates, lower insurance costs and take a majority of menaces off the road.

    As a side note, if the police pull a car over and the driver/car has no insurance then the car should be impounded.
  • kaiserkai wrote: [quote=steve]
    I'm just curious what you think he should get? I have no idea what the ticket will cost him, maybe some community service and a fine. It's a pretty small amount.
    This is a little grey area and will not be easy to determine correctly but ill give you my opinion anyways.
    If it is clear that the victim had right of way, then this does not qualify as an accident in my book. That is recklessness and should be punished harshly. I think he should lose his drivers license for good and do a couple of hundred hours community service.
    If he needs a car for his job, he shouldnt have driven recklessly to begin with.
    Thats what *I* think should be the punishment. And I aimed low for that.

    If it is clearly an accident, i.e. a kid running in front of a car thats different (not any better for the parents mind you).

    Kaiserkai, I think that the police need to determine that the driver was doing something reckless (for example, eating or talking on a cell phone without a headset, etc). If the circumstance is simply that the driver turned a corner and the combination of the height of the car and the angle of the turn did not allow him to see someone in the crosswalk, well that is not considered reckless, it is legally an accident. Pedestrians in a crosswalk always have the right of way, but if the driver can't see them, well its considered an accident.

    The real problem is just the size of these vehicles and the competence of the people driving them. I saw something on tv recently about mandating the installation of reverse cameras in SUVs and they showed that an entire class of 18 second graders can fit into the area directly behind the large size SUVs below the rear window. These cars (well actually trucks) are just so big, that its easy not to see smaller adults and children that are close to the vehicle, on the driver's and passenger sides and in the rear of the vehicle. Perhaps a preventative measure would be to require people driving SUV's over a certain size to get an additional license or road test. This would insure that people have a better appreciation for the vehicles they are driving.
  • I've never been inside a Hummer but looking at it from the outside it does seem to have an incredibly small windshield. Windshields should be as large as a Volvo S-80's. The hood should also slope downwards not only for visual references but to lessen the impact zone of someone or something being hit.
  • He broke the law that requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, he was either reckless or negligent, and he killed someone. I have no doubt that he feels terrible remorse, but I think something more than a traffic ticket is warranted. If I randomly fire a gun, just for kicks, and someone gets hit by the bullet, I am surely going to be prosecuted for homicide, even if I had no intention of hurting anyone and even if I feel bad about it afterwards.
  • The following blog entry and subsequent comments do a good job of expressing the outrage I share at the way our car-centric society (at least those in it with the responsibility of promulgating and enforcing laws) has been numbed to the carnage being wrought by metal on man.

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/14/four-year-old-killed-by-hummer-shouldnt-have-died-in-vain/

    And, I don't buy the "couldn't see them" argument at all. It is legally required of and incumbent on drivers to give way to pedestrians crossing with the light at intersections. If you can see the curb and roadway to be able to negotiate the corner, you can damned well see pedestrians. "I didn't see them" has become the motorist's equivalent of the Monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card.
Sign In or Register to comment.