Avid Climber Mike Sanders killed by 2X DUI offender HELP

My brother Mike was an avid climber with heart and soul, he climbed Mt. Denali and Aconcagua; you may have even climbed with him in Indian Creek or Boulder! He needs climbers support now more than ever, the man that killed Mike has 2 prior DUI's and is only being charged with evading an interlock device. Eduardo was only allowed to drive a car properly equipped and he was NOT! He will get 30 days house arrest and will be eligible for a driver license in April 2013. He is trying to get off the very minimal charge against him, he needs to be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter! He no showed court, then came the next month and pleaded NOT Guilty to evading an interlock device and last week came to court and asked for a continuance to allow time to get his mental evaluation to the court, to prove he was incompetent when he drove the wrong vehicle. Please sign my petition and help get this guy off the road!!!

Decide for yourself at: change.org/petitions/denver… change.org/petitions/denver…

PLEASE Join this GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT!

Gwen Sanders Katz

In New York I believe he'd me charged with felony vehicular homicide.

Sorry to hear this...but was the driver drinking? If he wasn't...well it's very unfortunate. His DUI history had minimal bearing unless he was drinking and driving.

Regardless horrible to hear about the loss

It seems as though in any state you would be charged with some sort of Manslaughter!

Scott, he supposedly was not drinking at the time, but why was he not driving the breathe analyzer vehicle he was supposed to be driving? Has he been drinking the night before or only planning to go drink as it was Easter Sunday around 12:30 pm.
There are a lot of other circumstances surrounding this case, you be the judge at the link there are news stories and more info....I am sorry to have ASSUMED that people would look at the link!!!

I'm not defending the guy, but there is no other info provided that he hit someone. He could have been jaywalking in black clothes in the middle of the night. The only info provided was he had 2 DUIs. What bearing does that have on this particular case?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09/friends-of-jogger-killed-by-suv-gather-at-site-of-crash/

I am very sorry to hear about Mike. I signed the petition and shared on Facebook.

Hi Gwen - I am so sorry to learn of your family's loss. My deepest condolences. How disturbing for Mike to have been killed while doing something as simple as a lunch-hour jog around his Denver neighborhood. That is not right, and no one else's family should be put through such a tragic, senseless loss as yours. So that is why I signed the petition for his case - to have his case further reviewed. And I encourage others to do the same. If the driver, Mr. Duarte-Alegria, has a pattern of dangerous and reckless driving, then that needs to be firmly addressed by our legal system now.

All I can say that is Mike's death is a great loss to the outdoor community. He had a such a passion for the outdoors; was generous in sharing his knowledge; motivated his partners with that almost childlike, contagious joy of his, and was just always happy when he could get others out into his beloved vertical world. When I first learned of his search-and-rescue good deeds and saves, and when I observed how he genuinely looked after the well being and enjoyment of others, I though that Mike was a climber who had accrued enough good karma to get him through a couple lifetimes.

What a loss.

First of all my condolences for the loss of your loved one. Losing someone we love is probably the toughest thing we'll ever have to do.
Sounds like the outdoor community lost a great person in Mike.

However.

I cannot, in good faith, sign this petition.
Here is an excerpt from the petition:

" Mr. Duarte-Alegria is currently charged only with driving a vehicle without an interlock device, which tests whether or not the driver has alcohol in their system. He was required to utilize this device by the court due to his previous alcohol-related offenses. In 2001 he plead guilty to a DWAI and underwent alcohol treatment. In 2009 he was arrested for a DUI and again underwent treatment, as well as requiring the interlock device on his car. Given his history of offenses for alcohol, it is possible this pattern will continue in the future if he does not face proper repercussions for this deadly incident"

The man plead guilty to the crime he commited in this case...not having the court ordered interlock device.

I understand that you are deeply upset over losing a loved one. Especially in such a tragic and unlucky way. I understand being upset at the person who's own tragic and unlucky event caused the death of your loved one.
A witch hunt I don't understand and cannot contribute to.

josh

Gwen Sanders Katz wrote:Scott, he supposedly was not drinking at the time, but why was he not driving the breathe analyzer vehicle he was supposed to be driving? Has he been drinking the night before or only planning to go drink as it was Easter Sunday around 12:30 pm. There are a lot of other circumstances surrounding this case, you be the judge at the link there are news stories and more info....I am sorry to have ASSUMED that people would look at the link!!!

He is completely guilty for not driving with an interlock. But the unfortunate reality is that his previous DUI's have minimal bearing on this tragic case. If he was drinking...absolutely hang him high, but having a DUI doesn't mean you are some felonious hellbent miscreant. Basically you can't create a new charge for someone based on their previous history that might not be relevant.

I'm extremely sorry for your loss, it must be absolutely heartbreaking. However you can't criminalize someone just because their history. He could have gotten stung by a bee or had a stroke. Until proven otherwise there just isn't enough of a correlation to this event regardless of his past, to petition a charge of manslaughter.

Of course all this discusion is a moot point when you are dealing with the pain of losing a love one. Again, very sorry for your loss.

One reason for the petition is "to review the case involving dangerous driver Eduardo Duarte-Alegria." And that is why I signed it. We're getting ahead of ourselves if we're trying to weigh-in on if Mr. Duarte-Alegriaegria is guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on the thin information provided.

If you and many others sign the petition, then perhaps the court will be prompted to perform a proper investigation on why Mr. Duarte-Alegriaegria lost control of his speeding SUV before plowing into Mike and into a family in their home.

I, myself, am not a subject matter expert on determining root causes of vehicular crashes. I, myself, am not a District Attorney. But I signed the petition so that those appropriate parties can be engaged to perform their due diligence and then determine if additional charges should be brought against Mr. Duarte-Alegria.

Was it a mild oversight that led to the devastating consequences, this fatality? Or was there something more to it that led to Mr. Duarte-Alegria losing control of his SUV?

To me, this petition is not about punishing Mr. Duarte-Alegria. But it is about ensuring that the case is properly reviewed, and that has not been done yet. If warranted, based on evidence unearthed, then additional charges can be brought against the driver.

I choose to take-on objective hazards on alpine climbs, but not when I go for a lunch-hour jog in my neighborhood. So if there are drivers who should not be behind the wheel, then let's get that addressed. Start by signing this petition.

Courts do not do investigations. The petition is to raise charges and weigh guilt, regardless of what it states.

I have no information on this matter except for what is in the article and the petition. However, the article makes the accident sound medical related. I'd be happy to sign the petition but I need more information first.

First off, I am really sorry to hear about this, especially as a fellow service member. It sounds like we lost a truly great person.

This is a difficult topic. I feel that an involuntary manslaughter charge for the driver may be warranted in this case. It is not so much that he is a repeat DUI offender, but rather that his actions resulted in another person's death. I believe that is the primary purpose of the involuntary manslaughter charge. The charge exists to assign consequences to someone who accidentally kills another person through direct action (or lack there of).

The issue that one must decide is whether an accidental death could have legitimately been avoided or not. If the answer is yes, the killer should get charged. If the answer is no, he or she should not be charged. So, if a pedestrian walks straight into traffic because he or she is blasted on Vodka, the driver that struck the ped should not be charge with any crime because the ped's death did not result from the vehicle operator's actions. But, if someone is speeding and they slide off the road killing another person, the driver should be charged because the bystander's death came as a result of the driver speeding. Of course it becomes very difficult to determine what constitutes avoidable action and what does not. If a tire blows out causing a vehicle to roll onto another person, is that the driver's fault? What about if it was underinflated or overloaded? What about if it was defective and the tire manufacturer initiated a recall later? This quickly becomes one of those "I dident kill him, the gun did, or rather the bullet did" type topics.

20 kN wrote: The issue that one must decide is whether an accidental death could have legitimately been avoided or not.

Did you even read the charges against the suspect, and the news story that ran along with the petition? Try again. This being the United States, we all have our rights to a quick and speedy jury trial, etc. But what you describe relates in almost no way to the case at hand. Prove me wrong. That, or you would make a very poor defense attorney.

Scott McMahon wrote: He is completely guilty for not driving with an interlock. But the unfortunate reality is that his previous DUI's have minimal bearing on this tragic case. If he was drinking...absolutely hang him high, but having a DUI doesn't mean you are some felonious hellbent miscreant. Basically you can't create a new charge for someone based on their previous history that might not be relevant. I'm extremely sorry for your loss, it must be absolutely heartbreaking. However you can't criminalize someone just because their history. He could have gotten stung by a bee or had a stroke. Until proven otherwise there just isn't enough of a correlation to this event regardless of his past, to petition a charge of manslaughter. Of course all this discusion is a moot point when you are dealing with the pain of losing a love one. Again, very sorry for your loss.

Sounds like someone's probably had a DUI...

I have friends who have had DUIs and I am in no way defending them as well, but seriously?

Anyway, he was jogging mid-day, at lunch, when he gets killed by a driver driving a vehicle he is not legally allowed to operate, has had two prior DUIs, a poor driving history, skipped court dates, and is now attempting to circumvent charges which are not even of comparable magnitude to the charges that should be brought forward.

We're not creating a new charge, however, pertinent information, for instance, two prior DUIs (high profile driving incidents) should absolutely not be left out of this case. That's absurd.

________________________________________
Basically you can't create a new charge for someone based on their previous history that might not be relevant.
________________________________________

Oh, God. That's too funny, Scott. My sides are burning with hilarity.

That would be like killing someone, getting charged, then doing it again but having the former case left out as erroneous information.

Howrad McGreehan wrote: Sounds like someone's probably had a DUI... I have friends who have had DUIs and I am in no way defending them as well, but seriously? Anyway, he was jogging mid-day, at lunch, when he gets killed by a driver driving a vehicle he is not legally allowed to operate, has had two prior DUIs, a poor driving history, skipped court dates, and is now attempting to circumvent charges which are not even of comparable magnitude to the charges that should be brought forward. We're not creating a new charge, however, pertinent information, for instance, two prior DUIs (high profile driving incidents) should absolutely not be left out of this case. That's absurd. ________________________________________ Basically you can't create a new charge for someone based on their previous history that might not be relevant. ________________________________________ Oh, God. That's too funny, Scott. My sides are burning with hilarity. That would be like killing someone, getting charged, then doing it again but having the former case left out as erroneous information.

So when you are done laughing try reading it again. You can't make a charge up based on previous history when it "might not be relevant". Two murder charges would be relevant no? So if this guy had a heart attack or a stroke which caused him run into the victim, he should be charged with murder or manslaughter because he had previous DUIs?

I'll repeat myself. If he was driving drunk, hang him high. But if he had a medical issue, driving with or without an interlock wouldn't have mattered. Would an interlock have kept this from happening if he was sober? No. You can't make loose connections between his history and current case to create new charges. Sure the DA can bring them up, but skipping court dates has zero to do with anything other that proving he's not a responsible person. If he was sober what do DUIs really have to do with the case?

Proving the guy is an asshole doesn't mean you get to charge him manslaughter. Proving he's an asshole also doesn't mean that people should sign a petition without knowing any of the facts of the current case. The DA stated it was a medical condition that led to the crash. What does a medical condition have to do with DUIs? How is that pertinent? What charges is he trying to circumnavigate? Some asshole killed a great guy, but they determined it was accident.

http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Releases/2012%20Release/Duarte-Alegria%20interlock%20charge.pdf

Scott McMahon wrote: The DA stated it was a medical condition that led to the crash.

In CT this individual would still be brought up on Manslaughter charges.

"manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation."

CaptainMo wrote: In CT this individual would still be brought up on Manslaughter charges. "manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation."

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I'm still not sold on the manslaughter charge and I think your definition is missing quite a bit of the context around such as it being and unlawful act, negligance and the criminal aspect. Really the thinest line you can draw is he was criminally negligant by driving without the interlock when he killed the victim. And that's a thin line as the event could have happened with or without the interlock. The most you can say is he was commiting a crime by driving without an interlock, but it's not very relevant to the event. The guy didn't DO anything that contributed to the death. If he was speeding, drinking etc yes, but if he was wasn't DOING that contributed anything how can he be charged?

I mean think about it. If you have a heart attack and crash into someone and they die should you go to prison or be brought up on charges? That's absurd, even if the guy is the biggest asshole the world ever saw.

Again I'm no lawyer, but you can't rush to rash judgements that are based on emotion and not fact.

Any lawyers here wanna input into how the law works? Maybe I'm completely off base.

I'm no lawyer either... and the source sucks but from Wikipedia. I would also add the maybe the guy knew he had a medical condition in which case it might be negligent if he didn't have his pills with him or such to treat say a heartattack. Obviously all speculation but that's why you charge someone with the crime and then they are innocent until proven guilty. If they are not charged, that process would, to me, be usurped.

Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Constructive manslaughter
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.
For example, a person who runs a red light in their vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[13]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.

CaptainMo wrote:I'm no lawyer either... and the source sucks but from Wikipedia: Involuntary manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability. Constructive manslaughter Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter. For example, a person who runs a red light in their vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[13]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.

So bascially the crime he committed was driving without an interlock, however that didn't contribute to the death. Speeding, drinking, running a red light, charge the hell out of him. But they don't seem to have found any of those events to have transpired.

The dude could have had 10 DUIs, but if he had a heart attack that forced him to run off the road, there is no relation.

I apolgize for making an argument out of a such a huge loss, but you can't have mob justice based soley on emotion. You can't charge a guy just for being an asshole.