Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Fatal crash suspect pleads not guilty

The 21-year-old Springfield driver accused of hitting and killing a pedestrian and then leaving the scene of the crash told police he knew he hit someone but opted to drive home because he “didn’t know what to do,” according to a state police affidavit in the case.

www.vnews.com     www.eagletimes.com

25 comments :

  1. "After the crash — but before he turned himself in at the police station — Ribeiro told police he smoked marijuana, according to the affidavit. The investigation is ongoing."

    Highly unlikely that someone who refused to render aid to two people that he smashed was not using drugs before he hit the victims. Probably fled because he was under the influence and possible had the evidence in the car or on him. Doubtful that he would flee home and start drinking or drugging while knowing he just hit two people and would likely be found out. GUILTY!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Philip Caron6/14/16, 5:10 PM

      Unlikely . . . probably . . . doubtful . . . GUILTY!!!

      Nice. You should be in charge.

      Delete
    2. The point Phil is that he did flee leaving two individuals writhing on a dark road with one dying. Two hours later he shows up blaming his cellphone for vibrating and claiming he decided to smoke some dope only AFTER hitting two people, killing one person. He has already admitted to fleeing the scene. I doubt anyone would toke up just before turning himself in for vehicular homicide and I doubt anyone, even with damaged brain cells, believes his story. The truth is more likely that he was under the influence when he hit the pedestrians and that he fled, ignoring their fate, to cover that fact up. No jury is going to believe his fairy tale but a liberal Vermont judge just might let him get away with his nonsensical tale. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

      Delete
    3. If PC isn't writing about angry monkeys, he's out there defending the inexcusable actions of the town's deviants and criminals. A worthy candidate for an appointment to the Vermont bench!!

      Delete
  2. Clearly we should lobby our representatives in government to quickly make Mary Jane legal so we can all enjoy the benefits.... ahhhhhh.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pleading not guilty to crimes he confessed to. He MUST be stoned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone plead guilty to a crime in this liberal ass state. All he has to do is "show remorse" and the liberal judge will set him free....with restrictions of course....not

      Delete
  4. He hit 2 known heroin addicts who were in the middle of the road- not near a cross walk and it was dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as long as it's druggies killing druggies I guess the rest of us shouldn't be too worried, right? (At this point I'm not 100% sure I'm joking.) Perhaps it's just the jaded, cynical former drug counselor in me talking, but after years of watching people kill themselves and each other because of dope you begin to see these things as inevitable.

      Delete
    2. The woman that survived recently almost killed an entire family while she was recklessly driving under the influence of heroin...Karma!

      Delete
    3. and not to mention pot and heroin are on 2 completely different levels, as a former drug counselor you should know this. Pot doesn't make you a crazy lunatic, it can make you dumb but not crazy!

      Delete
  5. Let's think about this... He is 21 , 21!! He was scared! That would be my thought on why he left. Let's have a little compassion. Yes a man was killed and a woman hurt. And I am very sorry for that. My heart goes out to all of them!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm going to add something to my earlier reply, as I believe it is necessary. I once worked at the #1 ranked drug treatment unit in the country. We even beat Betty Ford, because we had a 20% success rate. That's right, only 20% made us the best in America. That is how bad this is. Face it, Mr. and Mrs. America, if your son/daughter mother/father are getting high, between 80 and 90% of them will die in their addiction. Period. The only question is, how many people will they injure or kill before they do. It really makes me sick, especially when I hear people talk of legalization. This country needs a real war on drugs, with the death penalty for all dealers, from the street level on up. Addicts should receive treatment, (as ineffective as it is) but if you really want to stop this, the dealers must be eradicated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, legalize and "eradicate" the dealers.Tax dollars raised can provide treatment for many more addicted individuals.

      Delete
    2. chuck gregory6/18/16, 11:21 AM

      You're a voice in the wilderness, 6:31. Springfield has totally bought into the "War on Drugs" and will not, in my opinion, change its mind. I will be very happy if they prove me wrong.

      Delete
  7. The driver's version of the incident is believable. Irrational, but believable. The distraction = unthinking reaction. Failure to stop = panic producing cowardice. Smoke = foolish choice for achieving calm. Nothing praiseworthy there, nothing evil either.

    Signing as 'anonymous' to avoid suit for character assassination.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sure, legalize and then WE ALL become the dealers. Maybe YOU can handle being the cause of misery and death, but leave me out of it! When will you neo-hippies wake up! The Summer of Love crashed and burned by 1968. My cousin was one of the Merry Pranksters out in California back then. She married a guy in the Hell's Angels. She was so disgusted by the end of it all that she became a cop! Tax dollars raised FROM drugs to pay for treatment FOR drugs? Are you nuts? Yeah, pot just makes you dumb enough to kill someone. Oops! That alone should be enough to convince any sane rational individual of the folly of legalization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, we should reinstate alcohol prohibition?

      Delete
    2. You mean the folly of prohibition....

      Delete
  9. chuck gregory6/18/16, 5:39 PM

    11:49, when alcohol was illegal, we had EXACTLY the same problems that all today's banned substances produce. I don't know how you'd feel knowing that Nixon invented the War On Drugs to neutralize the civil rights movement (crack cocaine became the stereotype for blacks and marijuana for the anti-war protesters).

    As a result of our uncritical submission to manipulation, we do not pay attention to the facts about substance abuse: Addiction to alcohol is 300 percent greater than heroin addiction, but because it can be obtained legally, the victim and law enforcement costs associated with it are far lower. Experience in other countries shows that decriminalization leads to reduced use (even kids stop using it after they experiment) and of course far lower policing costs. When they are legalized, all the money that was spent on DEA-type activities could be used (but probably won't be; after all, this is America) for prevention and recovery programs. Properly legalized, heroin, etc., would be tightly controlled as to purity, advertising (recruiting more users) would be banned, and pricing would be so low as to dry up any black market.

    But as we want to live in fear and disgust, this is not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow! Maybe addiction to alcohol is 300% greater because it's LEGAL! I wonder how bad it would be if you could get a bag of smack at any gas station! No other country in the civilized world, no matter how liberal has been crazy or stupid enough to legalize heroin. Cheap, pure heroin? I remember the cheap pure cocaine in the 80s. A lot of my friends died from it. Sure, if you make illegal things legal law enforcement expenses drop. Duh. If there were no laws at all, we wouldn't need cops. Woohooo! But I guarantee the world would be a place even you wouldn't want to live in. Also, if drugs are so harmless, why would there be a need for treatment programs? Are you so blinded by your antiquated ideology that you can't see THAT contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  11. chuck gregory6/20/16, 1:37 PM

    4:50, do you recommend making alcohol illegal again? Yeah, based on what most of us know, that would be a really stupid idea. So would banning solvents, White-Out correction fluid and Whip-It cans (the "huffing" problem).

    We don't deal with substance abuse by banning or criminalizing it. We deal with the people who find that overdoing substances is preferable to what else is going on with them.

    You're wrong about "legalizing" heroin. Read "Legalize it All," in the May Harper's (at the library). Learn why The War On Drugs was never meant to be a war on substance abuse.

    For the last dozen years, Portugal has stopped arresting for use and personal possession of any previously banned substances-- and use rates have dropped. (They have not addressed the marketing problem, but the article does.)

    And if you look at the costs (social and otherwise) of heroin addiction vs. alcohol addiction, you will find that the costs of the latter are not 300 times greater than those of heroin.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. In Colorado, teenage drug use, which had been on the decline for years, has skyrocketed since legalization. I could care less about someone else's opinion about the politics, whether real or imagined. Tricky Dick is dead, the 60s are over, and we have serious problem in this country. I have absolutely no need whatsoever to read about the issue. My personal and professional experience is more than sufficient. Getting back to the original topic; one person is dead, and another crippled because of drug use. Legalization would not have stopped that. You have not listened to a word I or anyone else has said. You simply revert to the standard far-left talking points. You, sir, are a dinosaur, and your kind are why I, and so many others, have left the Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
  13. chuck gregory6/20/16, 5:26 PM

    If your professional life dealt with addiction, keep in mind that your experience with it was with the 100% for whom substance abuse is rally a problem. You must keep in mind that (as I pointed out before) vast majorities of substance users (and abusers) limit themselves to recreational, relatively infrequent use and do not present with the problems the abusers do. However, they contribute to the problems associated with the criminal trafficking: the vast financial gains, the crime, the violence, the encouragement of addiction and so forth.

    To get the broader look you didn't get in your practice, for heavens sake read "Legalize it all" in the May Harper's. You'll be glad you did.

    Teenage substance abuse after decriminalization in Portugal spiked, then subsided to a lower than usual rate and has stayed there. The theory is that they were curious, they satisfied their curiosity, they moved on. There could well be other reasons, such as since their present market was now assured, the peddlers no longer found it necessary to recruit more potential addicts. Read it.

    Legalization, as we have done rather successfully with alcohol, is far better than decriminalization (Portugal still has drug trafficking problems) IF there is a government monopoly and full control over production (eliminate deaths through impurities and encouragement of addiction with additives), marketing (no advertising to lure new users), distribution (no profit either through the very attractive premium dealers include for the risks involved at present, and too low a price on the market to make a gray market profitable), pricing (it's easier to adjust government revenues by changing the price of the product it controls than by trying to change a tax on a product the private market peddles), and market expansion (since Vermont does not want to get filthy rich off creating massive addiction problems, it will not want to expand the business).

    If you don't think a government monopoly on decriminalized substances is not a better answer, what do you propose? Clearly, what's in place is not working.

    "Fact do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored."

    ReplyDelete
  14. chuck gregory6/22/16, 7:08 PM

    3:16, you base your Colorado teen substance abuse increase on this article?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic.

Video: Lazy Day - Al Bowlly



A film by David Giardina

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com .

Pageviews past week


Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts