When Jessilyn Eisman, 16, crawled out of her friend’s wrecked car in Iowa, one friend (Chrishaun Moten, 17, right) was dead and two others seriously wounded. She called for the other driver to call for an ambulance but she says that Hilberto Velasquez-Ramirez, 31, refused. She says that he looked like he was going to drive away so she grabbed his keys and ran for help. Now Velasquez-Ramirez, who was drunk and driving without either insurance or a driver’s license, says it was the fault of the teenagers.
The van had crossed into opposing traffic when it hit the car and killed Chrishaun Moten. Brenden Kniesly, 18, the driver of the car, and Philip Moffatt, 17, were seriously injured. Eisman was the least injured (right) and acted quickly to guarantee that the suspect did not flee and that medical attention was coming for her friends.
Velasquez-Ramirez was arrested on suspicion of homicide by vehicle, two counts of serious injury by vehicle, operating while intoxicated and having no driver’s license or proof of insurance. While blaming the teens, Velasquez-Ramirez admits that he consumed six beers before the crash. Additional beers were found in his van. He is being held due to uncertain immigration status.
Even without the illegal immigration status, this is not what one would call an easy defense case. He was reportedly twice the legal limit for intoxication and found with additional beers in his van. The van reportedly hit the car in opposing traffic and the driver was found both drunk and driving without a license or insurance. That would just about cover the criminal code from such accidents to guarantee a hefty sentence if convicted.
Source: Des Moines
We stumbled over here different website and thought I might check things out.
I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to
going over your web page for a second time.
I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your blog. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more
pleasant for me to come here and visit more often.
Did you hire out a developer to create your theme?
Outstanding work!
justateacher, There is a big difference between a PI and a person elected to a public trust. And, public employees entrusted w/ that same duty. In Wi., which has the best open records laws in the country, I needed few sources to get info. I still had them for being able to get w/ a phone call what I would have needed to drive and get in person. When I worked in Chicago, which has some of the worst open record laws, you had to have sources to get info. They wanted that power for, among other reasons, to be able to hold out their palms for records that are public virtually anywhere else. The same holds true for the Federal govt. You have no idea how secretive they are and you have lately seen how a Chicago politician reacts when the Federal govt. records are released. I assume you don’t approve of the draconian methods Holder has used in leak investigation, maybe you do. I did get records and info I should not had been given from public and private sources. In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be necessary. Certainly we agree the world is less than perfect. When you earlier said I was “bragging” about getting info from sources, I didn’t see it that way. I was merely trying to let folks know, from my years of experience, that when the govt. has records and tells you they are secure, they’re full of shit.
I’m impressed you liked The Conversation. As you know, Harry Caul’s specialty was audio surveillance. You didn’t see the footwork, getting sources, etc. Well, my specialty was video surveillance. It does have a long term effect on a person. I never tore my house apart like Harry, but the work has a psychological effect. like Harry, I became less interested in what my subject was doing. I had no control over that. I just tried to get the best quality video of whatever they did. When Harry was asked by his assistant, “Fredo”, “What were they talking about?” Harry is incredulous. He was just concerned that what they were saying was audible and had no idea what the people were discussing. Whoever wrote that script knew A LOT about surveillance from a PI’s perspective.
Some behavior should be hard to defend.
It’s ethically indefensible.
I suspect the time will come when egregious criminals will be ordered to fall on a sword.
We simply haven’t yet reached critical mass on the crappy behavior scale.
But from my perspective, we’re leaning in that direction.
Would I be painting with too board a brush if I think your contempt for Chicago is based on your belief of a long history of corruption?
And would it be inaccuate to suppose that over thirty years you had to get access to thousands of city/state/county/federal records of US residents illegally? Is that corruption?
Would it be inaccurate to suppose that those employees that supplied you with those private records would be subject to dismissal/legal action if discovered supplying you with those records? Was that a concern ?
The Conversation is the best. And I clearly remember the final scene. Pretty devastating – the life of a PI.
justateacher, I didn’t say I was “always able” to get info from public employees, I believe I used the word, “often.” And, I also spoke about getting info from private company employees. I’m not sure what you think PI’s do, but we gather information. We have sources, just like investigative reporters. If you’re not getting info from sources, then you’re simply not doing your job and won’t be in business very long. It’s a tough world out there, teacher. And, I’m really not that surprised of your incredulity because when I taught I found most teachers were clueless to what PI’s do. Actually, to be fair, most of the public think being a PI is what they’ve seen from tv and movies. When I’m out in public and someone asks me what I do or did I often don’t tell them I was a PI because I get the same stupid questions. The best PI movie I could suggest to you is The Conversation. It’s superb, but pretty dark. It stars Gene Hackman in what I think was his best performance ever. Directed by Coppola. Chinatown is ok.
Nick, I recall a thread where you stated that you were always able, and did not hesitate, to get private information from city/state employees that you needed in order to pursue an investigation. You implied that that was why you were so successful. I thought it was bribery (even if all was needed was some of your reknown Italian charm) and you were clearly and knowingly practicing corruption. Forget about the entire world being corruptable. . I don’t think you can provide an anecdote as proof. But I do believe you when you described your business model and often marvel that you then don’t hesitate to lecture many commenters (most especially liberals, rogue elements, and those who live in “Obama’s” Chicago) on their ethical and political failures.
I had to deal with DUI crashes by illegals often when I worked the road. I can say that they usually try to flee the scene. And yes by usualy I mean more than 50%. There have been cases where illegals have been granted bail and when they haven’t. Very often, though I don’t have stats, when they are released on bail for a serious crime it is often that they are GTM (Gone to Mexico) as soon as they are out.
Sometimes after a couple of years, they seem to think they can come back scott free. Strangely these guys come back to the same town, and are hooked up as soon as they are discovered.
justateacher, EVERYONE is corruptible. I NEVER said all bureaucrats are corruptible, because they are not. I said they are more easily corrupted. However, sticking to the substance of this subject, would you want govt. officials setting the rules for assisted suicide?
Are we sure Valezquez-Ramirez wasn’t part of the Bush administration?
Nick, of course you wouldn’t want the government to set the standards. After all, in your experience ALL government employees are corruptable and easily bribed. I once heard of a P.I. who bragged of such a business model.
Gene, I’m on the fence w/ doctor assisted suicide. I was against it, but as I get older and see more, I am trending toward being in favor of it. If I had to vote on the issue, I would want the program already set up w/ regulations, safeguards, contingencies, etc. I would like the ability to attend hearings and ask questions of the people who would be administering the program. I couldn’t just vote “yes” and then allow the govt. to set the standards.
Mr. Velazquez-Ramirez’ immigration status is the last thing he needs to be worried about at this point.
*go further*
Sure. “Too often” works just fine, nick.
And I’ll even further than agreement on the “quality of life” issues. Sometimes surviving can be worse than death. That’s one of the reasons I’m for doctor assisted suicide. I think someone living in misery with slim or no prospect of improvement or recovery should be able to decide with dignity how and when they exit the world without any undue legal repercussions.