Women in ice cream shop crash had meth in blood
By Judi Villa, Rocky Mountain News , April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 6, 2008 at 4:55 p.m.
Photo by Darin Mcgregor / The Rocky
Gov. Bill Ritter ordered the working group after an illegal immigrant with a lengthy arrest record broadsided a pickup truck, killing two women and a 3-year-boy eating ice cream inside this Aurora Baskin-Robbins.
Hernandez ran a red light while traveling 78 mph.
Both women killed when an illegal immigrant broadsided their pickup truck in Aurora in September tested positive for methamphetamine, raising questions about whether the driver had some fault in the crash.
Autopsy reports show that Patricia Guntharp, 49, of Centennial, had enough methamphetamine in her blood to be considered intoxicated. She also tested positive for unidentified opiates.
She pleaded guilty in 2003 in Weld County district court to driving under the influence of alcohol, according to court records.
The crash at East Mississippi Avenue and South Havana Street also killed a 3-year-old boy in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop and quickly became a lightning rod for immigration reform.
The immigrant, Francis Hernandez, 23, was born in Guatemala and came to the U.S. when he was 5. He had been arrested nearly 20 times in the past five years, mostly for misdemeanor traffic offenses, but he never had been flagged for deportation.
Hernandez has been charged with vehicular homicide, leaving the scene of an accident and child abuse resulting in death, among other charges.
Kallman Elinoff, Hernandez's attorney, said the toxicology reports prove his client was not at fault, and that the vehicular homicide charges should be dropped.
"You can say, but for the fact that he came to this country illegally 20 years ago, the accident wouldn't have happened," Elinoff said. "Now the argument is, but for the fact that she was high on meth and got in that car, this accident would never have happened."
Three-year-old killed
Guntharp was making a left turn into a parking lot a short distance from an intersection when Hernandez ran a red light and broadsided her pickup. The impact sent both vehicles into the ice-cream shop. Marten Kudlis, 3, of Aurora, who was inside the Baskin-Robbins with his mother, was snared by the wreckage and dragged to his death. Guntharp's passenger, Debbie Serecky, 51, of Aurora, also was killed.
Serecky, who was taking a work break when she died, had methamphetamine and traces of marijuana in her system, according to autopsy reports.
Hernandez fled after the accident but was arrested a short time later. Elinoff said the data recorder in Hernandez's Chevrolet Suburban showed that he had been driving 78 mph.
"He didn't have drugs or alcohol in his system. He was just driving fast," Elinoff said. "It's not his fault. She's at fault in that accident."
Vito Kudlis, Marten's father, said Thursday he had heard there were some "new developments" in the case but had been advised not to comment.
The families of Guntharp and Serecky couldn't be reached for comment.
Elinoff said that driving while high on meth is just like driving drunk and that "nobody's going to view it any different."
Meth levels differed
A doctor with Denver Health Medical Center said that the drug can be detected in urine for three to five days after use. The doctor, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he is not directly involved in the case, said that a person would be considered intoxicated if the level of meth in the blood was between 1,000 and 2,000 nanograms per millileter. The concentration in Guntharp's blood was 1,685 ng/ml. Serecky's was 636 ng/ml.
The doctor said that Guntharp's concentration was "pretty high - my best guess is she probably used methamphetamine the day she died."
The autopsy report did not specify how much opiate was in Guntharp's blood. Opiates are narcotic drugs that can be prescribed legally for pain, but they also are highly abused. Examples include morphine, codeine and heroin.
Scott Robinson, a defense attorney who is not involved with the Hernandez case, said that the toxicology results could bolster Elinoff's claims that his client was not at fault.
"The fact that meth was found in the driver's system gives the defense something to work with," Robinson said. "Meth has its own baggage. If I had to pick between someone being drunk or high on meth, I'd pick meth anytime. The defense will tell a jury that she was cranked up on meth and made a left turn in front of him."
Still, prosecutors have to show only that Hernandez's decision to speed through a red light was the proximate cause of the crash, not the sole cause, he said.
Attorney Craig Silverman, a former prosecutor, said the toxicology tests can be surmounted. "These poor ladies are not on trial. Hernandez is," Silverman said. "The issue is going to be whether Hernandez was driving in a wrongful manner. And even if the victims did something wrong, two wrongs don't make a right."
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 6, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
law1 writes:
With the exception of the very young, there is no innocence, only ignorance.
November 6, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
riverrafter writes:
That is so incredibly sad....and now the families have to live through the whole tragedy again, only this time, with fingers being pointed at their loved ones.
Please don't get me wrong- I am not condoning their choice to use drugs. It's the ones left behind that now have to add humiliation to their anguish. Horrible, horrible turn of events.
November 6, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
What an odd turn of events. Though driving at 78mph through that area should not go unpunished - this guy definitely added to the problem and I believe he should still be charged with something in relation to it.
November 6, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ellianna writes:
If he hadn't been driving 78 miles an hour in a 40 mph zone, he wouldn't have hit the truck. Should the women have been high and driving? No they shouldn't have. But they wouldn't have gone plowing into the ice cream shop if Mr. Hernandez hadn't hit them hard enough to push them into the building. He's still at fault for the accident.
November 6, 2008
5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
BenchBoss writes:
Bizarre. Nothing ceases to amaze me anymore. Definitely not a turn I expected in this case.
November 6, 2008
5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
It's my non-expert notion that most two-car accidents probably occur because both parties made a mistake (including inattentiveness). That's why we are taught to drive defensively.
The accident was a tragedy. The guy who was driving 78 on a city street should have the book thrown at him. If he hadn't hit anyone, he probably terrorized a few drivers along the way.
November 6, 2008
5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
"Elinoff said driving high on meth is just like driving drunk and "nobody's going to view it any different."
"Any time you get in a car with high levels of meth, you're just a time bomb," he said.
The toxicology reports prove that Guntharp was actually at fault in the accident, Elinoff said."
No, it's not, you scumbag. Meth is a terrible drug and it's so very sad these ladies chose to use it. It destroys lives, no doubt, but the effects of meth are just the opposite of alcohol.
Many, many long-haul truckers use meth. If it had the same effect as alcohol, we would have several hundred 80,000 lb accidents a day.
http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truc...
November 6, 2008
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheVentilator writes:
Once again, the perpetrator will claim to be the victim.
November 6, 2008
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnsrfer writes:
Had he not been in this country illegally he wouldn't have had the chance to drive twice the speed limit down a street.
November 6, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Romulus1968 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 6, 2008
6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
atlarge9 writes:
The drugs found in the women's systems remains for 3-30 days. The fact they were in their systems does not confirm they were high at the time of the accident. The simple fact remains Hernandez was responsible for the horrific results of this accident.
November 6, 2008
6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
singularity99 writes:
Elinoff's comments perfectly illustrate why lawyers have such stellar reputations as human beings.
November 6, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodjt1 writes:
Elinoff says Hernandez wasn't at fault, he was just driving fast?!? I know attorneys are supposed to defend even a guilty client, but this truly pushes the limits to the breaking point. I've been on the freeway when someone has overtaken me doing 80mph, and I saw them only briefly in my rearview mirror before they zoomed around me. There's no way those two women could have anticipated him traveling that fast coming from the opposite direction. He would have traveled a whole city block in about 3 seconds. It was just a matter of time before he hit someone that night.
November 6, 2008
6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Romulus1968,
What a kind, understanding person you are. Let me add revolting.
So the toxicology reports said the women had meth and marijuana in their blood. Considering how long THC can be detected in bodily fluids, they could have puffed some pot weeks before the accident. Meth can remain in the system 3-5 days, according to the source here:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/...
Why their blood was even tested is odd because they were killed by a speeding man in a truck. Nobody can prove either woman was hopped up on goofballs at the time, so what's the point of releasing the tests? It's almost like blaming a rape victim for what happened.
That's some insightful, hard-hitting reporting. Way to go, Rocky.
November 6, 2008
6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Story in wisconsin, two vehicles collide at 3 am head on. Both drivers drunk. Now there's justice huh? Too bad these women choose to use drugs, but, the illegal still at fault if I'm on the jury. if they had survived and found to be on drugs, guilty of driving under the influence also. Seems the only true victim was the child.
Now that family can sue them all......
November 6, 2008
7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
"Any time you have somebody who is on meth, making that horrific turn that she did, I think your case falls apart," Elinoff said.
Hernandez, who had a lengthy criminal record mostly for misdemeanor offenses, was speeding at 78 mph
Excuse me? So what about that small child? Was he on meth too? Give me a break! Wasn't it already decided that Hernandez
caused the accident?
November 6, 2008
7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
BatsonDBelfry writes:
so now we blame the victims?
November 6, 2008
7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zay writes:
She probably wasn't looking when she made the left hand turn and didn't even see the truck coming. You don't have right of way if you're making a left and there is oncoming traffic, drugs, "harmless" or not, skew your perception and your regular decisions.
She was wrong to make that turn, he was wrong to have been speeding. Both are responsible for the accident because both poor decisions ended up causing the death of the child. Take away either mistake and the kid would have still been alive.
And I see many, many people driving 70+ down Colorado and 60+ down University and they're not all Hispanic looking illegals...
November 6, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
JustMe @5:13
A speeding charge ?
November 6, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
pkripper writes:
Are they saying the women were driving high? If I took meth and marijuana last week, wouldn't it be in my system?
November 6, 2008
8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
Wow! That teaches me not to jump to conclusions. Things can happen and not be as it seems till all the evidence is brought out.
My bad.
November 6, 2008
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
theairdog writes:
pkripper: Other stories state that her level of meth was 1,685 nanograms of methamphetamine per milliliter of blodd. 500 is considered DUI on meth.
This guy's lawyer should NEVER have even been readmitted to the Colorado Bar after he was disbarred in 2000 for attempting to bribe two DCSO deputies to get his client off. He'll do anything to get his client off.
November 6, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
spyder writes:
The illegal had been stopped at least 15 times before.
The illegal had been stopped in Denver 2 weeks before for a DUI that seems to have been forgotten, for striking a police officer and trying to evade arrest, which is almost completely not covered.
The illegal had the truck impounded and then "someone" got it out and let him drive it again.
The illegal should not have been in this country.
This illegal will have 3 meals and a cot paid for by the taxpayers.
The illegal has a 'wife' in Guatemala and kids there and a 'girlfriend' with 2 illegitimate kids and another on the way which are, I am sure, being cared for by us, the taxpayer.
The illegal was driving a vehicle dangerously, illegally, and at a high rate of speed.
Is there some commonality here?
Could it be that the illegal should not see the light of day again?
Could it be that the illegal should maybe have had some type of 'legal' support?
Could it be that the illegal should not have been here in the first place?
No. I do not have any sympathy for him or his 'family'.
Yes, all my sympathy goes to the families that this scum tore apart.
I wonder what the "task force" will conclude.
November 6, 2008
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
easy writes:
"In their system" and "impaired" are two completely different things.
Never would I condone illegal drug use especially for parents but these findings don't say a thing about whether or not the driver was impaired.
Inflammatory and defamatory is all I'm reading here.
November 6, 2008
10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
pkripper writes:
ssqured
Full Disclosure:
I took Nyquil last night and drove to work at 7am this morning.
November 6, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
cs writes:
Spyder-
DITTO!!!!!
November 6, 2008
10:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
Doctors constantly give medications to patients daily and many will cause you to be considered impaired. Old drugs, just taken drugs- it isn't a good mix no matter what the situation is. I know for a fact there are more people driving out on our roads impaired by over the counter drugs than illegal ones. We are going to witness more with the cold season now coming into full swing.
Many take over the counter drugs so they can go to work or school. They can't afford to miss one day of work, many have no benefits! It isn't an answer and I by no means defending these women that drove under those conditions. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Hernandez must also be held accountable for his irresponsible actions." like many of us have stated here. He should have never been driving, nor in this country. It looks like he may not have to face charges of vehicular homicide-for the rest he does deserve to have be accounted for.
November 7, 2008
12:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Delcycer writes:
Spyder--
I love it. The 'illegal' is repeated, over and over again--it's almost as if you think the fact that he was in this country against the law was the causal factor in this horrific, unforgivable disaster.
I think that irresponsible, irrational, reckless disregard for others is not related to someone's legal status.
Linking the two is lazy thinking.
Wake up. 1 in 25 people--4 in every 100--is a sociopath, their 'legal' status notwithstanding. Laws change, in fact, they are designed to change.
ANYONE who drives an automobile without the utmost care and concern for the people around them is a danger to society--whether they are 'legal' or not.
Proximate relationships are not causal.
Do some critical thinking, flex that bit of pink tissue inside your skull, before you decide to connect someone's antisocial behavior to a subjective social relationship to the law.
November 7, 2008
7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_KIMN_Chicken writes:
Wow, that attorney is pond scum, why is he shooting his mouth off in the press all the time I don't get that? Shouldn't he be concerned with the court case and nothing else? He has no reason to be saying all these terrible things constantly unless as I suspect it's all about self promotion for him and his love for seeing his name in the paper and getting a reaction from everyone. The guy is the reason people loath lawyers.
November 7, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Delcycer, you're a little off-base ... in Spyder's statements "the illegal" is the subject of the statement, not the predicate (in simplest terms). He's not referring to "the defendant's" state, he's referring to "the defendant".
It's is no different than if he had written:
Mr Hernandez had been stopped at least 15 times before.
Mr Hernandez had been stopped in Denver 2 weeks before for a DUI ...
The fact that Mr Hernandez is currently the defendant in this case, makes him the defendant. The fact that Mr Hernandez is in this country illegally, makes him (in Spyder's example) the Illegal.
Using your sociopath example: If Mr Hernandez were diagnosed as a sociopath, Spyder's statements could be re-written:
The sociopath had been stopped at least 15 times before.
The sociopath had been stopped in Denver 2 weeks before for a DUI ...
In regards to proximate cause, it is reasonable to state that had Mr Hernandez been jailed or deported for his repeated prior violations of the law, the accident involving Mr Hernandez (the illegal) and Ms. Guntharp would never have happened, regardless of drug use or legal residency.
As for critical thinking, there is nothing subjective regarding the residency status of Mr Hernandez, he is here illegally, period.
November 7, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
Anybody who knows, or has worked with or against the attorney, Kallie Elinoff, knows that he will stop at nothing. He is the consumate shyster and has been previously suspended from the practice of law (almost permanently disbarred) for attempting to bribe a law enforcement officer on behalf of one of his clients.
November 7, 2008
8:31 a.m.
B300 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 7, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
beentheredonethat writes:
So, Mr. Lawyer-- does that mean that caffeine is the cause of any accident in which its user is involved??? Because caffeine is legal speed. Red Bull, anyone? How about caffeine and valium? Any idea how many people in your office are on those two?
Speed kills. But speed in the bloodstream does not cause traffic accidents. Taking a left on Havana with a car a couple of blocks away is not unreasonable. There was no way for her to know that the car in front of her was doing twice the limit and therefore going to cross her trajectory twice as soon. You can't tell how fast a car is approaching when all you can see are its headlights. If it's a couple of blocks away in a 40 mph zone, it's not extraordinary for a driver to go on and take the left. If his lawyer is able to deflect the responsibility, that will be a travesty.
November 7, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Deport BOTH the LIAR and his client. Our country doesn't need either one and would be a better place without them.
I won't say what I think should really happen. It would get censored. It involves a tree, a rope and a fast horse...
November 7, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
jersey writes:
Without a doubt the only true loser/victim in this case with this latest revelation is the innocent young boy and his family. So tragic. May he RIP.
November 7, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
This is why I ride the bus.
November 7, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Some more critical reading is needed here. A doctor says that given the level of meth in the driver's system, she was likely impaired. The level is key here. Some residue of meth may be found 2 or 3 days later, but these levels apparently indicate much more. By the way, toxicology tests are routinely taken for all victims in auto accidents.
Comparing caffeine or other stimulants and meth is ignorant. The debilitating affect of meth on all judgment is vastly greater than legal stimulants. Further, consistent use of meth results in much greater mental instability. By the time of trial we may know more about how this driver was or was not affected by the use.
Once again the facts are a bit more complicated than the "illegals are the root of all evil" folks on here want to believe. We still do not know for sure what caused this accident and there may be much more to learn. I know it is more fun to just jump to conclusions and claim to know all, but perhaps a bit of rational thought and patience might make sense.
The reason that Elinoff is in the press is because he knows that the potential jurors include folks like those on here who basically are hoping for a lynch mob. Elinoff may have to try this case and since there is no chance of getting a jury that is not polluted by the media, he is at least trying to get some of his side out to balance out all the hatred that has been expressed toward his client.
November 7, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Innocent men don't drive wrecklessly with no license, step over a dying 3-year old, run to the nearest Hooter's, calls their buddy to bring him a change of clothes and sneak him out of the area.
The meth in the other driver's system complicates the case, but it doesn't excuse Hernandez from his own Choices.
Here's the question: Once he's sentenced and done his time; How long will it take him to be right back speeding without a license on US streets again after he's deported?
My guess: 1 week.
November 7, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
This is a perfect example of the stigma attached to "drugs". Just because this woman had meth in her system, doesn't mean she was impaired. Every person has different levels of tolerance and impairment given the same blood concentration levels. The problem with setting BAC limits for DUI is that 2 people with the same BAC can exhibit different levels of impairment. We can't allow the police to determine someone's level of impairment so we have to set arbitrary limits.
Who here has ever had a glass of wine or 2 with your dinner and drove home? You are technically considered to be DUI, but you know your body and realize that you are not intoxicated and are ok to drive. Same applies to this situation.
Don't let your bias or prejudices change how you feel about this story, 2 innocent women lost their lives through no fault of their own. Are you too high and mighty to to have sympathy for a "meth-head"?
It has no bearing on the FACTS of the case.
November 7, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
Let's set the immigration issue aside for a moment, and stipulate that the lady driving the pick-up was under the influence, and, therefore, impaired. That does not change the fact that Mr. Hernandez was traveling at 78 mph, weaving through traffic, and had just run a red light. The other driver's impairment may have contributed to the accident, as she was unable to take evasive action soon enough, but Mr. Hernandez's vehicle did strike the other vehicle at a high rate of speed, causing the subsequent tragedy. Nothing can change those facts; the rest is, at best, mitigation. His record does him no good, either.
November 7, 2008
10:14 a.m.
ruger9 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 7, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Joanne19 writes:
That illegal idiot STILL RAN THE RED LIGHT!!!! That's what caused the accident and the death of that innocent little boy!
November 7, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
BoiseBroncoFan writes:
Not only was he driving 78 in a 40, he ran a RED light. This is not a case of simple speeding!!! There is no way you can blame the 2 women in the truck. Doing meth is absolutly stupid but it had no part in this poor childs death. Fry the illegal and his d*** lawyer!!! All of you people trying to defend illegals in this country need to take a very close look at your beliefs. They do not belong here. Send them home.
November 7, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ron65ron writes:
the illegal has a good lawyer who job is to try and sway the jury to find the illegal innocent. HOWEVER, the illegal was SPEEDING and factually he is th one who caused the accident. He plowed into her and that is how the entire thing happened. If he was not speeding, this would have never happened. Of course the illegal will only get 1-2 years in jail then be deported and then come back to our country illegally and do this again, while our federal governement and state government tip-toe around these type of immigration issues. May God help us.
November 7, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I doubt that these women were high on meth. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been on their way to get ice cream.
November 7, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
anxiousorganizer writes:
Why oh why is it suddenly not-so-vogue to have immigration law? Why does your door have a lock? Why do you check it every night before you go to bed? It is because though you know it may not guarantee that your home won't be invaded you still *try* to protect yourself from persons whom you have not screened for entry into your home. Why is our beloved country any different? Should we get rid of immigration law (our only lock) because it makes some folks uncomfortable or others afraid of being called racists. It doesn't make sense because the truth is that wages *are* driven down by an influx of unskilled labor into the workforce and tuburculosis rates have risen in communities on our borders and 90% of methanphetamine in this country *is* coming from Mexico. I am a humanitarian and all of this saddens me but I don't think that hard-working Americans taking their kids for ice-cream should have to be victimized so brutally and irreparably by our lax approach to making sure the people who are able to enter this country are not habitual violators of the law that can remain unmolested in a country they entered illegally after coming to the repeated notice and noteriety of the law. I am going to need some help with how we should not see this and other incidents as a clarion call to have our current laws (which exist for a reason) adhered to. That is not hatred at work, it's commons sense and, the law.
November 7, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
And the OBAMINATION wants to give these POS drivers licenses...
It's not a mob mentality when the US CITIZEN says ENOUGH.
Once, twice , how many laws does he need to break in this NATION OF LAWS?
When it gets down to basics, WE LOSE WHEN WE DON'T ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS!!!
And it comes down to the US CITIZEN enforcing those laws if OUR GOVERNMENT does not.
This type of scenario plays out EVERY DAY in the US.
Only M$M doesn't want to say it....
Sometimes there is a reason to SEND A MESSAGE...
November 7, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
78 mph is 114.4 feet per second.
If it takes 5 seconds to slow down and safely make a turn across oncoming traffic the illegal would have been 570 feet away. That's almost 2 football fields between her and the oncoming car... AND the oncoming car had a red light.
Whether she was impaired or not, the decision to turn in front of this car is completely justified. On cannot be expected to predict that the oncoming car will run a red light and reach your location at double the posted speed limit.
The fact that he is an illegal also has nothing to do with this accident, but as long as the Rocky insists on calling him "An Immigrant" then I will raise my voice alongside others on this board to point out that he is not in fact an immigrant. He is an illegal alien.
Immigrants emigrate. Emigrating is a legal process that this man did not go through.
November 7, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
blindrid writes:
DA's office better not screw this one up. Let's see 78 MPH and the other drivers at fault?
November 7, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mdk80219 writes:
Whether or not the two women were under the influence isn't really the issue. Hernandez is at fault - not just for going 78 mph, but because he ran the red light. Anyone could have been turning into that parking lot under the assumption that oncoming traffic was stopped. There's really no way they could have known Hernandez would come flying down that street at over twice the legal limit and through the red light. Hopefully, Hernandez will be deported this time. Unfortunately, it's too late for the victims of this tragic accident. His lawyer should be ashamed for even thinking about blaming this on the victims!!
November 7, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Cowboy63: "Here's the question: Once he's sentenced and done his time; How long will it take him to be right back speeding without a license on US streets again after he's deported?
My guess: 1 week."
Yep, unfortunately there's no known cure for stupid.
November 7, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
ThingFish writes:
Does red mean go and green mean stop in Guatemala?
November 7, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
MileHighPatriot writes:
Ok.. so they had meth in their bodies? That excuses him running the light at 70mph? Hopefully the judge/jury realize it's not.
November 7, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Macita183 writes:
He was speeding and ran a red light. Probability would suggest that he would hit a car and cause an accident. Somehow through all this mess a little boy was killed. Speeding and especially not obey traffic lights causes major accidents. This man took a little boys life and should be held accountable for at least that.
November 7, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salsmom writes:
The attorney has an obligation to represent his client, including presenting the fact that this woman was driving with meth in her system, possibly a contributing factor to the accident. He would do that for each and every person who has commented on this case if you were his client.
Just read the story in the Rocky about the father who killed himself and his child in the mountains, driving off the road in the middle of the night. His blood alcohol was four times the legal limit - he was not in this country illegally - he like the defendant in this case and the women with meth in her system all made really bad choices. Acting as though ingesting meth is an okay, every day activity is bull. Lots of bad decisions regardless of one's status.
November 7, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
America1st writes:
Perhaps the attorney would like to do his well-deserved jail time for him, since he's so innocent.
Doubt it.
November 7, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jersey writes:
Heidi: You're kidding. Right?
November 7, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salsmom writes:
No one is saying this man is innocent but there are factors that potentially contribute to changing what charges the defendant faces - so he may face charges other than vehicular homicide if the DA were to determine that the meth use affected the woman's decisions.
November 7, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
I never thought I'd agree with RickyLee: I'd opt to execute the "scumbag," however, here is where Ricky and I may part company. It won't do any good to incarcerate him; however, give him life in Az.'s tent city and offer him a choice: he goes free, back to his native country, but if he ever comes back to America, he consents to execution. Empty our prisons of these illegals by offering the same deal. America is providing three hots, a flop and amenities prison provides at an astronomical cost that keeps on going higher and higher. Federal law even mandates cable TV. Richard Grimes: Deicide, slayer of gods.
Deicide Corner: “Christianity persecuted, tortured, and burned. Like a hound it tracked the very scent of heresy. It kindled wars, and nursed furious hatreds and ambitions. It sanctified, quite like Mohammedanism, extermination and tyranny. . .”-- George Santayana
November 7, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
The Lawyer is actually wanting us to be judge and jury. He can then request that the case to be dismissed, because his client will not get a fair trial. It's time that the RMN stops writing about this case so we can see Hernandez get his day in court.
November 7, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Noia writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 7, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fancy_chance writes:
It just amazes me how quick everybody judge. First off yeah the guy shouldn't have been here illegally, second the women should not have been driving under influence of meth. Basically 2 wrongs don't make a right. In other words it's not only illegals that break the law citizens are just as likely to break the law, in fact probably more apt to break the law, than an illegal (who is trying to stay under ICE
radar. I see alot of people living in glass houses here.
November 7, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
jersey, yes I was being sarcastic. If the results of the toxicology reports lead to absolution of Hernandez, that will mean the woman driving the pickup is to blame for the death of the 3 year old. It doesn't make sense to me. This whole thing sickens me.
November 7, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Fancy_chance >>Nothing says they were "under the inflence of meth" , they just tested positive for it in their system. BIG difference.
November 7, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
bato writes:
ThingFish writes:
Does red mean go and green mean stop in Guatemala?
It means "green-go"
November 7, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
sweetater writes:
Weather the ladies were high or not, the other driver legal or not fact remains that the victim is the family of and the 3 year old , I hope he felt no pain. May you rest in peace little guy, may your mother and father still see the sparkle in your eye and hear your giggle from time to time and find comfort in it
November 7, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
Wow - I can't believe how many of you are discounting the fact that two middle-aged women were driving around Denver with a high level of not only meth - but opiates in their system (at least for the driver). no doubt, a very dangerous combination. and you are misrepresenting the article too - it did not say the driver only tested positive for meth - it said that in the opinion of a physician the RMN interviewed, she had a high enough level to be considered impaired by the meth. and, the level meets the legal level of meth intoxication. how can you come on here and say she was not impaired??? I'm not saying the illegal gets off scot free - to the contrary, he certainly bears 100% responsibility for the speed and the running of the red light. but you people are in denial who seem to think the drug-addled drivers of the other vehicle should not matter. These women pose just as much danger to society as the illegal. 2 were a menace to society - one still is.
November 7, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
newsjunkie>>
This is a perfect example of the stigma attached to "drugs". Just because this woman had meth in her system, doesn't mean she was impaired. Every person has different levels of tolerance and impairment given the same blood concentration levels. The problem with setting BAC limits for DUI is that 2 people with the same BAC can exhibit different levels of impairment. We can't allow the police to determine someone's level of impairment so we have to set arbitrary limits.
Who here has ever had a glass of wine or 2 with your dinner and drove home? You are technically considered to be DUI, but you know your body and realize that you are not intoxicated and are ok to drive. Same applies to this situation.
Don't let your bias or prejudices change how you feel about this story, 2 innocent women lost their lives through no fault of their own. Are you too high and mighty to to have sympathy for a "meth-head"?
It has no bearing on the FACTS of the case.
November 7, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
"The doctor said that a person would be considered intoxicated if the level of meth in the blood was between 1,000 and 2,000 nanograms per millileter."
Just because you meet the legal/medical definition of "intoxication" doesn't mean you are necessarily impaired.
Until our society can understand this and stop the war on drugs, we will never be able to mitigate the harm that drugs cause. Drugs are illegal now, but that does NOTHING to fix the problem. Drugs are a mental health issue, not a criminal one.
November 7, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
c412a0 - your post is full of ignorance. go back and read bluffsbrg's post - he/she explains it quite well. there is no comparison between a glass or two of wine and the impact of a high level of methamphetamines on the body and a person's judgment. it is simply absurd to compare the effect of these substances. your assertions about "stigma" are laughable. meth is and always will be considered an extremely dangerous, mind-altering substance. these women - while not deserving to die, are NOT innocent here. they placed themselves and the lives of innocent people in grave danger by ingesting large quantities of meth (you cannot go on denying that) in addition to opiates - and then getting behind the wheel. You apparently cannot stand to have your initial judgments and condemnations concerning this case challenged by new information that clearly sheds a different light on the case - albeit not one that will allow Hernandez to go free, I don't believe. but I suggest you take your own advice - don't let your own "biases" and prejudices" affect how you feel about this case - b/c rejecting the notion that these women were drug-impaired - would be doing just that - it demonstrates you are simply consumed by your bias against an illegal. Sorry the facts get in the way of your theory of the case.
and I also challenge your assertion that 1 or 2 glasses of wine can equal DUI. yeah, maybe if you weighed like 80 lbs.
November 7, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
I hope I don't meet you on the road C412, you are hell-bent on justifying the use of meth and driving. wow, are you in denial.
November 7, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
theairdog writes:
ssqured writes: "
theairdog -
Just trying to keep the facts straight. Elinoff was not attempting to bribe the DCSO Deputies to "get his client off". Elinoff was attempting to persuade the deputies to allow his client some 'time' before going to jail. During the disbarrment hearing, Elinoff stated he was joking when he flashed the cash.
And, as a defense lawyer, Elinoff should and must do everything ethical and legal to defend his client and prove him innocent. In this case ... I hope he fails."
BULL. Just to "keep the facts straight" - He was disbarred for attempting to bribe to DCSO Deputies. Regardless of what he said, that is what he was disbarred for. If he was that stupid "I was just joking", he doesn't deserve to be a lawyer anyway.
Attempting to buy his client time? Yeah, time to flee.
Is it ethical to blame everything on the other driver? I don't think so - maybe you go by a different set of "ethics".
November 7, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Newsjunkie>> I'm not comparing the effects of meth and wine, I am comparing the arbitrary BAC levels and argue that "ability impaired" is different for all people. The amount of marijuana I consume before racing motocross is enough to floor the occasional smoker. For me, it's not a problem, and I can function without having my "ability impaired". To each his own. Same goes for these 2 women. I have no idea the level of meth they typically use, but they may not have been impaired....we'll never know. And no where did I justify the use of meth or DWAI.
The "stigma" I refer to is not about the danger of the drugs, rather the moral stigma. Our society sees drug users as criminals (because it is illegal) instead of seeing them as addicts who need counseling. We need to get over the stigma of drug addiction being a crime and treat it as a mental health issue. People who abuse alcohol go to AA, people who abuse meth go to prison. This is the stigma I refer to.
You say "it demonstrates you are simply consumed by your bias against an illegal." >>I said nothing about Hernandez, my argument has nothing to do with him.
I feel it is wrong to somehow say that these 2 women were in anyway responsible for what happened. Their BAC of meth is irrelavent to the case.
November 7, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
And before you try and denigrate my use of MJ and racing motocross, let's all remember the Olympic GOLD medalist in downhill skiing who had to relinquish his medal because he tested positive for THC.
November 7, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
I heard the courts gave back the GOLD metal to that skier? I thought it was a snowboarder?
November 7, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
hey - i've got no problem with your use of THC but not while you are racing motorcross - what gives you the right to put the other racers in danger? i don't care what your tolerance level for THC is - it slows your reaction time and you know it.
I would agree that the BAC's for alcohol use tend to be misleading and do not account for a whole host of factors. but you cannot deny that the level of meth in this female driver is not alarming - it is way past the level of legal intoxication by meth.
you are simply in denial - I can't believe you can come on here and state unequivocably that the BAC of these women is irrelevant - and worse yet - that they bear no responsibility. whether they contributed to the accident or not remains to be seen - but there is no question that their choices placed the lives of innocent people on the road in danger.
November 7, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
The stigma attached to marijuana in the early 1900's in this country was that the "dirty mexicans" were bringing it across the border, that's why it is illegal today. The stigma associated with cocaine was that it was something that "black" people do, that's why it is illegal today. The stigma associated with meth is that it is something that "filthy trailer-trash rednecks" use.
This is why we cannot treat the problem of drugs effectively, because of the "stigma" attached to them.
November 7, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
no wonder you're defending the drugging and driving by this female driver - you engage in the same behavior. you've just lost all credibility.
November 7, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
newsjunkie "but there is no question that their choices placed the lives of innocent people on the road in danger"
Maybe, but not anymore so than driving while texting on your blackberry, which doesn't have the same "stigma" attached to it.
BTW- One cannot race motorcross if your ability is "impaired", and believe me, the other racers could care less about how stoned I am as we are jumping a 100ft table top at 50mph. Motorcross is inherently dangerous, regardless of my "impairment".
November 7, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
I agree the stigma attached to MJ is unsupportable by scientific evidence and social history - but cocaine and meth? please. um, I believe people commit violent crimes while under the influence of those substances, overdose and die, and, commit violent crimes to get those substances. families are torn about, people are rendered homeless and all kinds of social ills are the result of the use of these substances. think that justifies a "stigma" perhaps?? quite a bit different from MJ in my estimation.
November 7, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
UNV_ME>> You are probably correct, my stoner memory fails me! I didn't take the time to Google it. The example reinforces my point about the use of drugs and how it impairs one's ability. How can someone win a gold medal in such an extreme sport if their ability is impaired? The fact that some loser stoner won a gold medal over those who are sober is amazing!
November 7, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
newsjunkie " I believe people commit violent crimes while under the influence of those substances, overdose and die, and, commit violent crimes to get those substances. families are torn about, people are rendered homeless and all kinds of social ills are the result of the use of these substances. think that justifies a "stigma" perhaps?? quite a bit different from MJ in my estimation."
I'm sorry, were you talking about alcohol? or just cocaine and meth?
I've only ever smoked mj, I've never tried meth or cocaine.
The point that I am trying to make is that the stigma associated with meth doesn't allow most people to evaluate this case appropriately. Most people hear that these 2 women had meth in their system and it changes their beliefs about this case and about the 2 women. I feel that it is unfair.
November 7, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
o.k. then - do you feel it was "fair" to other drivers on the road for this female driver to get behind the wheel while juiced on meth and high on opiates? these two women were behaving very recklessly - driving after using highly dangerous and illegal substances - why shouldn't that change the way we feel about these two women? stigma? so be it. but the scorn and stigma is much deserved.
November 7, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
newsjunkie>> I am not trying to convice you of my beliefs, just challenge your's. I enjoy the debate. I don't feel that their BAC is evidence that they were DWAI. We will obviously not agree with each other. I just hope that this type of dialogue will help some people to evaluate the situation based on unbiased logic, not just regurgitate something they have been taught to believe.
November 7, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Ricky, I believe meth is very dangerous and there are plenty who have od'd on it.
http://www.drugoverdose.info/meth.htm
I assume that maybe you meant to say mj instead?
November 7, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
A totally drunk driver in a parked car would not be at fault if they were hit, a stoned couple of ladies making a legal left turn are likewise not at fault.. this lawyer is reaching for straws... the fact that they were on drugs has nothing to do with fault.. fault is not a state of existence, but based on actions. This illegal scumbag deserves to rot.
November 7, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
That link I posted reinforces what I was saying about a users tolerance, it states:
"A toxic reaction (or overdose) can occur at relatively low levels, 50 milligrams of pure Meth for a non-tolerant user. Metabolic rates vary from person to person, and the strength of the Meth varies from batch to batch, so there is no way of stating a "safe" level of use. Because stimulants effect the body's cardiovascular and temperature-regulating systems, physical exertion increases the hazards of Meth use."
Key words being "non-tolerant users" and "safe" level of use. It shows that everyone has a different tolerance to the drug, and while these 2 women were technically intoxicated, there is no way to know if their ability was impaired.
November 7, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jersey writes:
Heidi: I plea guilty to not picking up on your sarcasim. You do notice that I asked about your post rather than assumed it's meaning. Like I said in my post it's tragic and my heartfelt condolences go out to the innocent little boy who got caught up in this needless and senseless act. Far too often the innocent are the ones who pay the price, and in this case the ultimate price, through no volition of their own. Once again may the little guy RIP.
November 7, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Right writes:
The parents of the three year old should be filing a suit against Colorado.
Mr. Hernandez should have been in jail/prison/and deported, long before he decided to speed 78 miles per hour through a red light.
Govn. Bill Ritter, the courts, and law enforcement were appointed to serve and protect, and to be civil servants upholding the rules and laws of society. Colorado government has let us all down by making us all potencial victims.
Mr. Hernandez should have been traveling on foot.... NO license, NO insurance & a Drunk driving arrest, not recklessly causing death.
And shame on the person who got his vehicle out of the impound lot, 9 NEWS should do something to expose, the heinous people who are getting vehicles out of the pound for illegal drivers. there is blood on their hands too.
November 7, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
jersey,
Sarcasm is hard to determine sometimes. And I do appreciate your questioning it rather than attacking me.
How horrible for the parents to witness the violent death of their little, precious child. Imagine what they are going through every day.
November 7, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
You're right, Heidi. Even I forgot to mention that fact, and I'm sorry that I did. Everything else about this case pales beside the fact that a wonderful little boy died. That is the true tragedy; I cannot imagine how I'd react to having one of mine die so horribly.
November 7, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
rickylee, I just did a google search for "methamphetamine overdose" and found an number of citations for death from such an overdose, including a story about the death of Don Ho's daughter from such an overdose. I know from legal work that meth can mess with a person in so many ways that death from overdose is not the only issue.
Once again, whether the driver was impaired and if that impairment was in whole or in part the cause of this accident remains to be seen. This case is not as simple as many want it to be so they can use it to promote their political agenda. Those who believe that the immigration status of the defendant is all that matters cannot be convinced otherwise. Those with the continuing capacity for rational thought will know better.
November 7, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
bluejinx writes:
I don't think that the fact he is an illegal immigrant is important, or even worth mentioning in this case. At 5 years old I hardly think he was given a choice. Nor do I think that the womens blood toxin levels makes a difference. The man ran a red light going 78 miles an hour. Had he not been in such a hurry, he would have either stopped at the red light, or safely passed through it while green. He made the choice that knocked the first domino. He is absolutly,directly, and soley responsible for ending the life of a child and 2 women. Cause and effect. It is also sickening to me that anyone would try to place blame on the dead when the facts are so obvious. This world is full of people that would rather point their fingers at anyone but themselves, rather than take responsibility for their wrongs.
November 7, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
I did not mean to direct the last part of my post at you rickylee. That was directed at others on here who see nothing about this case but the word "illegal". Nobody really thinks the current immigration status is the best one, but the disagreement over how to fix it has become so emotional and divisive that the dysfunctional status quo remains in effect just by default. Some middle ground is the only way anything will get done.
That said, the immigration status of this guy and whether he caused the accident are and should be separate issues as to his guilt on the charges filed.
November 7, 2008
6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jersey writes:
Heidi: It's always more intelligent to question rather than blindly assume which is to make a A - - out of U and me. No I cannot imagine what the family is going through and hopefully I never will. No parent ever feels their children will leave this world before they do. What has to be tremendous devestation is amplified given his age.
November 7, 2008
11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Hey ssqured! Where have you been? I missed you!
November 8, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Peru???? Wow, I am jealous! Are you having fun? Everything is good here. I'm hoping for the clouds to go away so I can ride my bike in the sun. I'm going skiing on Monday.
November 8, 2008
6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I haven't seen Dave around. I guess I'm not looking in the right place!
Bad luck on my bike ride. Two flat tires and only one spare tube and one patch. It wasn't enough. I had to keep stopping to pump up my rear tire as it didn't take long to run out of CO2. My hot tub felt nice when I got home!