Larchmont teen charged with DWI after 9-year-old is struck

[DMM8240 2]

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS02/806060427

I don't understand why the Larchmont Police would want to protect this individual.

Very sad, thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim.

[Guest CRASH]

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS02/806060427

I don't understand why the Larchmont Police would want to protect this individual.

Very sad, thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim.

.

.

Im sorry but 18 no longer a minor .

.

.

the journal is sooooooo quick to print your name if your caught pissing on the side of the road but this MOOK hits a 9 yr old while intox .....hang the lil S.O.B.

[DMM8240 2]

Agreed, although I don't think his age is the reason they haven't released his name. I hope he goes to jail for a very long time. 18 year old rich kid from Larchmont.... don't drop the soap.

[sbvfd596 2]

Agreed, although I don't think his age is the reason they haven't released his name. I hope he goes to jail for a very long time. 18 year old rich kid from Larchmont.... don't drop the soap.

You already know its wrong before you get in the car and drive drunk!

[DaRock98 76]

When will people learn that it just doesn't pay to get in the car and drive after a night of drinking. I used to be that stupid and had 1 to many close calls, I ALWAYS leave my car where ever I am no matter how far away from home and call a cab now. Its just not worth killing your self or anyone else on road. Please think about what you opening your self up to by doing that. I don't think I would ever be able to drive after killing someone or even injuring a child because of my own stupidity. Please call a cab, have a designated driver hitch a ride with someone else just don't drink and drive.

[DMM8240 2]

I actually graduated from the same high school as the driver of the car. Don't know him other than a name and a face.

I also just found out that I know the victim and the family.

Very sad, still trying to find out more info on his condition.

[LTNRFD 266]

This isn't the first time that someone under the age of 21 has been involved in a DWI accident in Larchmont. There have been 15 year olds involved in auto accidents and they had better booze in the car then I have in my house. We should not forget those under age youth that don't drive. The 8th grade graduation dance that need an ambulance transport of an intox 14 year old. And the list goes on and on. These incidents have been over the past 10+ years, so it's nothing new in Larchmont.

The parents of these misguided youth need to wake up and take charge of these kids. "It's 10 PM do you know where your children are", more parents should have that as their cell phone wall paper.

In reference to the 18 year old DWI. Was he coming in from a night of drinking or did he just wake up and had the breakfast of champions??????

And one last question, where are these kids getting the alcohol from? Yes some are just going to daddy's and mommy's liquor cabinet, but others are getting it by other means.

[LTNRFD 266]

In my last post I forgot to add that the 15 year olds were the drivers, not the passengers.

[DOC22 1]

We've had our share of clls for highly intox tenagers. It happens all over the place, not just in Larchmont, or anty other areas where there are a bunch of well to do families. The only alcohol I consume is a glass of wine with dinner at my sister's house or a very occaisional Coors Lite with the landlord, and I don't go out after that.

[RWC130 594]

NOTE TO:

Westchester County DA's Office

SEND HIM TO JAIL!!!!

[ex-commish 490]

.

.

Im sorry but 18 no longer a minor .

.

.

the journal is sooooooo quick to print your name if your caught pissing on the side of the road but this MOOK hits a 9 yr old while intox .....hang the lil S.O.B.

I dont defend the Journal News often but it is the police that will not release the name of the defendant due to a policy the have not the paper.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

Maybe the driver is related to somebody on Larchmont PD. This kid should be charged as an ADULT and if the DA decides anything other SHE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. IF that is even possible.

[Guest]

Intoxicated at 7:45 am?????

A parent's worst nightmare on both fronts. I hope the 9yr old is ok.

The comments by the PD seem quite "odd"

[DMM8240 2]

Maybe the driver is related to somebody on Larchmont PD. This kid should be charged as an ADULT and if the DA decides anything other SHE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. IF that is even possible.

Driver has no relatives in the Larchmont Police Department.

I have no doubts he will be charged as an adult.

[Guest MVFD334]

Alcohol had to be the easiest thing to obtain when i was under 21.. How many kids have older friends, relatives or watever that will buy it for them. No matter what you do it will always be easy to obtain. When we were in hs we had plenty of parties with many a kegs but rule of thumb was keys where collected. Perhaps this moron still was drunk after he woke up, I can vouch for that happening. Regardless he shouldnt have been driving and you gotta punish the parents and the kids.. I read all the time in newspapers how they are gonna fine adults who allow their kids to throw parties with alcohol, perhaps these fines are a little to leinant? Maybe they need to step it up a few notches with mandatory fines, community service and maybe a lil weekend outing at a correctional facilty and only maybe then will parents will take charge. Also without a doubt this kid should be held accountable, and not with any penny charges either.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Apparently, the decision not to release the name by Larchmont PD is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act.

Its also possible that he was not intoxicated but still was able to blow double digits on the BAC

[DaRock98 76]

Its also possible that he was not intoxicated but still was able to blow double digits on the BAC

How could that be?

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

He has to be intoxicated in order to blow a BAC. He might have stopped sometime in the night but your BAC goes up even after you stop drinking.

So if he isn't a relative of someone on the force, then the partents probably know someone. In a small Town everyone knows everyone.

[Guest feraldan]

A little corporal punishment and this crap will drastically decrease in our country. Mr. Heinlein had it right.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Apparently, the decision not to release the name by Larchmont PD is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The "FOIL" laws require that someone request the information in writing. Then the agency (LPD) must acknowledge reciept of the request within 5 days. Then they have 20 days to provide the information or in writing turn down the rquest (for cause).

so 1st did anyone request the info in writing?

[Guest MVFD334]

He has to be intoxicated in order to blow a BAC. He might have stopped sometime in the night but your BAC goes up even after you stop drinking.

So if he isn't a relative of someone on the force, then the partents probably know someone. In a small Town everyone knows everyone.

What sucks is that the nobody people that nothing and will learn from a mistake get their names in the paper, but the ones who keep doing the same thing over and over dont.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

So I consider this SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. The driver should also be charged with Vehicular Assault. Lay the charges on and get his name in the paper so his INFLUENTIAL FAMILY get be embarrassed. The parents would probably be more upset that they are being disgraced then their SON CAUSING A SERIOUS INJURY. Also did anyone catch in the paper today that they are upset with the BUSES being on those roads? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I don't know what kind or WORLD we live in.

S 120.03 Vehicular assault in the second degree.

A person is guilty of vehicular assault in the second degree when:

(1) with criminal negligence he causes serious physical injury to

another person, and either

(2) causes such serious physical injury by operation of a vehicle in

violation of subdivision two, three or four of section eleven hundred

ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law or by operation of a vessel or

public vessel in violation of paragraph (b ), (c ) ( d) or (e) of

subdivision two of section forty-nine-a of the navigation law, or

(3) causes such serious physical injury by operation of a motor

vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than eighteen

thousand pounds which contains flammable gas, radioactive materials or

explosives in violation of subdivision one of section eleven hundred

ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law, and such flammable gas,

radioactive materials or explosives is the cause of such serious

physical injury, by operation of a snowmobile in violation of paragraph

(b ), ( c) or (d) of subdivision one of section 25.24 of the parks,

recreation and historic preservation law or by operation of an all

terrain vehicle as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of

section twenty-two hundred eighty-one of the vehicle and traffic law and

in violation of subdivision two, three, or four of section eleven

hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law.

Vehicular assault in the second degree is a class E felony.

Edited June 8, 2008 by jack10562
fixed smileys

[jack10562 414]

This was no accident, He was driving DRUNK!!! The jerk couldn't wait and went and passed the bus.

The poor kid he hit is in very serious condition. He's lucky to be Alive!

Youthful offender, I think NOT. He's a CRIMINAL, Period.

Lock him up already.

[Oswegowind 17]

2nd that! Cause if that were my kid, they'd better lock him up! That is plain ridiculous, everyday people are passing stopped school buses with red lights flashing, where is the enforcement throughout the County????? Especially in YONKERS! Somebody has to get our traffic unit to start following buses! I see it everyday on Yonkers Av on my way to work, but I can't do anything about it so I will just b&m on here!

[abaduck 123]

The "FOIL" laws require that someone request the information in writing. Then the agency (LPD) must acknowledge reciept of the request within 5 days. Then they have 20 days to provide the information or in writing turn down the rquest (for cause).

so 1st did anyone request the info in writing?

Dunno about that, but here's the full explanation from the Gazette:

"Police have declined to release the name of the driver because of his age. At the discretion of a judge, 18-year-olds are eligible for youthful offender status in which their records would be closed to the public. According to Police Chief Steve Rubeo, Larchmont has a long-standing policy of not releasing names of individuals eligible for youthful offender status. Arraignments of such individuals are also closed to the public, he said. "

Whether a FOI request would do an end-run around the decision of a Judge in the matter, I don't know.

Mike (who has zero tolerance for drunk drivers, and even less for those that injure people)

[LTNRFD 266]

2nd that! Cause if that were my kid, they'd better lock him up! That is plain ridiculous, everyday people are passing stopped school buses with red lights flashing, where is the enforcement throughout the County????? Especially in YONKERS! Somebody has to get our traffic unit to start following buses! I see it everyday on Yonkers Av on my way to work, but I can't do anything about it so I will just b&m on here!

I totally agree. It drives me nuts when people pass stopped buses, especially while talking on their cell phones. I wish I could paint ball them so everyone would know that they are unsafe around our kids!

[mfkap 0]

That is plain ridiculous, everyday people are passing stopped school buses with red lights flashing, where is the enforcement throughout the County?????

I agree with the school bus issues being a problem, especially in the more urban areas. However, the article says that it was a Bee-Line bus, which people CAN pass, depending on the road striping. Also, did anyone else notice that it was a 9 year old that was walking his 16 year old sister to the bus, and then crossed in front of the bus after she got on? I am not an expert here, but a few things. Who crosses in FRONT of a Bee Line bus? They aren't expecting 9 year olds to be crossing in front of them, and they don't have the now-standard school bus bars to keep the kids from walking too close in front. While full blame rests on the drunk driver, I think it might have been a dangerous situation that could be avoided by not having a 9 year old crossing the street unsupervised. He would obviously be used to school buses, where you cross in front of them and don't have to look both ways because traffic is "stopped." Not to take anything away from the idiot drunk, but the situation could have been dangerous just by crossing in front of a bee line bus.

[LTNRFD 266]

I agree with the school bus issues being a problem, especially in the more urban areas. However, the article says that it was a Bee-Line bus, which people CAN pass, depending on the road striping. Also, did anyone else notice that it was a 9 year old that was walking his 16 year old sister to the bus, and then crossed in front of the bus after she got on? I am not an expert here, but a few things. Who crosses in FRONT of a Bee Line bus? They aren't expecting 9 year olds to be crossing in front of them, and they don't have the now-standard school bus bars to keep the kids from walking too close in front. While full blame rests on the drunk driver, I think it might have been a dangerous situation that could be avoided by not having a 9 year old crossing the street unsupervised. He would obviously be used to school buses, where you cross in front of them and don't have to look both ways because traffic is "stopped." Not to take anything away from the idiot drunk, but the situation could have been dangerous just by crossing in front of a bee line bus.

The area where the bus was stopped was in a residential neighborhood, not on a main road like the Boston Post Rd. These are areas that typically pick up both commuters and school kids by the Bee Line buses. No it was not a yellow school bus, however the people from the neighborhood know that at anytime an adult or a kid could be running to catch the bus. The runner could come from anywhere, and its' done in ALL CONDITIONS, light, dark, rain, snow etc. Common sense should make a driver go slow around any large vehicle, until you have a clear view in front of the vehicle.

[helicopper 1,050]

Dunno about that, but here's the full explanation from the Gazette:

"Police have declined to release the name of the driver because of his age. At the discretion of a judge, 18-year-olds are eligible for youthful offender status in which their records would be closed to the public. According to Police Chief Steve Rubeo, Larchmont has a long-standing policy of not releasing names of individuals eligible for youthful offender status. Arraignments of such individuals are also closed to the public, he said. "

Whether a FOI request would do an end-run around the decision of a Judge in the matter, I don't know.

Mike (who has zero tolerance for drunk drivers, and even less for those that injure people)

Mike, I share your zero tolerance and agree with all who have posted and called for jail time.

The issue is not with the Larchmont PD, State law specifies who's eligible for youthful offender status (all that means is at the end of the criminal process the records get sealed - he could still go to jail and be a YO). As for the FOIL bypassing that, it is an interesting question and I'm sure that the Journal News will try or has tried in the past.

A few more comments,

As far as the criminal justice system is concerned, anyone over the age of 16 can be charged with DWI so he won't be a "minor".

The parents should indeed be ashamed of themselves and hopefully will be held liable - at least in civil court!

You can't have "double digits and not be DWI". Intox in NYS (and almost all the rest) is .08.

bvfdjc316, can you cite your assertion that this is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act?

Finally, you're absolutely right. Some of these kids need a good swift kick in the a**!

[helicopper 1,050]

Youthful Offender Adjudication Under New York State law, individuals who are at least sixteen years old but less than nineteen years old who are charged with a crime (misdemeanor or felony) may be eligible for a "youthful offender adjudication." Section 720.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets forth the circumstances under which a court may make a finding that a individual is a youthful offender. For purposes of misdemeanor convictions, such as first time DWI offenders, CPL § 720.20 states:

Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a pre-sentence investigation of the defendant. After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender. Such determination shall be in accordance with the following criteria:

Where the conviction is had in a local criminal court and the eligible youth had not prior to commencement of trial or entry of a plea of guilty been convicted of a crime or found a youthful offender, the court must find he is a youthful offender.

CPL § 720.20(d) provides that when an individual is found to be a youthful offender, " the court must direct that the conviction be deemed vacated and replaced by a youthful offender finding; and the court must sentence the defendant pursuant to section 60.02 of the penal law."

Section 60.02(1) of the Penal Law limits the maximum sentence that may be imposed upon an individual adjudicated a youthful offender who otherwise would have been convicted of a misdemeanor to "a definite or intermittent sentence of imprisonment with a term of no more than six months...."

Complete article available at: http://www.legalsurvival.com/dwilink/vol22.html