It happens with appalling frequency. Here are statistics for rail-highway crossing incidents in the US by year:


And casualties from said rail-highway crossing accidents on public roads alone:


34 people have died in highway-rail grade crossing in 2004...plus 11.

Casualty chart for California alone (frightening statistics): DOT

Hey I'm not criticizing your sources I just don't understand them. How do you know which died in the car and which died on the train??

Edited to add
O.K.... I just did a query with these specs


http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafe...age=casabbr.asp

Now only 4 people fell into this category. 1 slipped and fell; two were because equipment; and 1 was cause derailment. Does not say why it was derailed

I think we might need a bit more than that before we're ready to equivocate parking a car on train tracks for suicide with setting a bomb on the tracks. Let us hope a jury will spend time weighing the question of intent a little more delicately before sentencing someone to death.

For a little levity, I'd like to share something someone emailed me today about retribution - a short video clip you can watch or download by clicking here. The file size is only 2.9 megabytes. Be sure to note the bumper sticker about war on one of the cars about halfway through the clip...

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think what he did was abhorrent, and he should be charged with 11 counts of second degree murder (or the equivalent in CA) and related charges for his reckless indifference and depraved heart. I just have a very high threashold for the death penalty, and I don't think it's appropriate here. This guy, however, does not deserve to see the light of day again.

He purposely parked his vehicle on the tracks, yes. But I don't think he purposely intended to kill those people on the train. It's obvious he didn't care (at the time) if people died, but I consider this "knowing" and not "purposeful." It seems like a small distinction, I know. It's still murder; I just wouldn't apply the death penalty.

Yes, let's hope. It does seem a bit idiotic, though, to even entertain
the notion that this guy didn't understand the grave danger he was putting others
in by doing what he did.



You don't think he purposely intended to kill anyone? Well, you don't
know what his true intent was. Only he knows for sure. So, we can only
go by the results of his actions:

11 dead, countless injured.

O.K. the question begs to be asked DP. Why?? For all those who just KNOW. Why is it more idiotic to "entertain
the notion that this guy didn't understand the grave danger he was putting others
in by doing what he did."

Because I am not an idiot and there is no way I would think that a car hitting a train could cause this much damage to the people on the train. I ride a commuter train almot every day to work. I ride a subway/elevated train as well. Have you ever stood on a platform and felt the sheer wind force when this train comes by you?? This is when a train is slowed coming to a stop to pick me up. Where is the precedent that all, but idiotic people, should know the grave danger.

You know this is what happen whenever there is a tragedy. Find the cause, then say "you should have know better" It's the same illogical knee-jerk response to tragedy. So what's next, if some one is driving too fast on a snowy day with low visibility or in heavy fog causing a massive car pile up are we going to charge them with murder for their stupidity if there are any fatalities??

Hi Doomed Planet,


I'm glad you share the same sentiments about the jury. I have to ask, though, is it really idiotic to even entertain the notion that Alvarez may not have understood the grave danger he was putting others in by doing what he did? Why shouldn't we consider that possibility in the process of examining what happened? Doesn't our system demand it?


You're certainly right when we say we don't know what his true intent was, and that only he knows for sure. But this actually undermines the stance that it is idiotic to even entertain any notion that he didn't understand, doesn't it? If you're admitting you don't know his true intent, isn't it possible that someone of his intelligence didn't understand the risks he was putting others in?

I also think we can not "only go by the results." The intent and knowledge of the accused is pivotal in a criminal case. Fortunately, all of these things will be tried and tested in the due course of time as the case plays itself out.

Because he understood well enough that his own death would ensue, were he
to stay in that parked car on the railroad tracks.



Are you joking? You are unaware of the inherent danger associated with a train
colliding into a smaller vehicle? A train can derail, engines can explode, etc.



We aren't talking about a fluke accident here. We are talking about a guy who
deliberately parked his car on a railroad track. You are comparing it to someone's
inability to maneuver a car in bad weather.



Indeed. However, he was parked on those tracks when he should not have been.
He knew enough about trains and automobiles to understand that he would lose
his own life, were he to stay. He likely knew that there was at least a minute risk
that others could be injured and/or killed. But, even if he didn't think that would
happen, he is still responsible for the catastrophe that occurred because of his
decision.



I don't see how that should have any bearing on this case. Does a "lack of
intent" make any of those vicitims less dead? I mean, it wasn't an accident
that he was parked there. And, quite frankly, whether he had the intelligence
to know what his actions would result in should not lessen the punishment he receives.



Yes, where law is concerned, there are a whole set of rules that must be followed.
Sadly, he did something beyond stupid. His actions entered the territory
of diabolical and atrocious, and he must be held completely accountable. The
courts will inevitably have the final say on this one.

Huh?? I'm asking you about how was he to know about the grave danger to the passengers on the train, and you retort about the grave danger he knew he was in. No doubt, I'm sure Mr. Not-too-bright-Juan knew that if the train hit him head on that his life was pretty much over. That's why he jumped out the car... that's why we call it a suicide attempt. Again my question is how are you and others so sure of this grand knowledge Juan should have that the train would derail right into the path of another train, rather than the knowledge that the train is just going to smash his car??



Well, actually...yes!! I have a good idea now, but, prior to this I never heard of such a tragedy, maybe I get different news than you and some others. So I did a quick experiment... by no means scientific. I went to google typed in these words "Train hits car" I looked at every story on the first page and second page. Quite a few of the stories had passengers on the train dying, but ALL of these stories dealt with our nemesis not-too-bright-Juan. Let me share some of thes other stories.



another....



Please notice the car in the story above. It is crushed underneath the train...yet the train is still on it's tracks!! another...



Wow!! This train hits a truck FULL of cars, the truck splits, cars fly everywhere and what exactly happens to the train??? The front engine derails, the put the train back on the track and, like the little engine that could, the train moves on!!! Let's check a different country...



Hmmm nothing about the train passengers being killed or injured. Last one...



Though it isn't ruled as such, this looks as though it could have been a suicide by train. Take a look at the train on the tracks still with the truck smashed... it's missing the inherent dangers you say exist.

Look maybe you could find a story that illustrates your point, but I didn't pick and choose for these stories. I just took them one-by-one on my simple search. So I guess we have to figure which of us is really joking. Time after time the train hits the car; the people in the car die, no one was injured on the train.... How often does something have to happen before you make an assumption that it is likely or foreseeable??




He deliberately parked his ar there for the reason of suicide, not homicide. He didn't have time to get the car off the tracks and you have yet to show why it is reasonable to believe that a train hitting a car would cause such tragedy on the train. Whether your rage and anger at the situation does not allow you to accept the facts here, we are dealing a "fluke accident" Did the guy purposefully park his car...yes. But what else was his purpose??? Do you honestly believe it his purpose to derail the train at an exact point and time so that another train is coming at the exact time on another track to collide. Are we talking about an idiot here or some master genius similar to the villain on "Unbreakable"?? He knew all this was going to happen... he even told his friends about a suicide attempt a week earlier to set up the story.... how brilliant!!!

So, let's assume he didn't think anyone would get hurt. Okay! Guess what?
11 people died and a ton of people were injured. He shouldn't have parked
his car on the railroad tracks. It is against the law. Why is it against the
law? Because it is dangerous.



My point is this: The man committed a crime that resulted in eleven deaths.
Whether he knew or not may be the difference between life in prison or
the death penalty. Either way, this guy is responsible. If you want to argue that
it isn't common knowledge, even among the most uneducated laypeople, be my
guest. It doesn't take away from the hard truth, that this guy messed up
in a colossally destructive way.




It doesn't matter what his purpose was. The outcome of his actions is what
matters. If you want to rally that the guy (whom you do not know..or do you?)
is an innocent, poor soul, who just wanted to kill himself peacefully, go ahead.
There were other alternatives to the choice he made.

No one wants to rally around this guy that I can see. All people are saying here is that there is a legal definition of FIRST DEGREE Murder in California and this case does not seem to fit the definition.

source

OK lets look at this case.

Were the Deaths of the Passengers of the Train Premeditated Killing? No. The man's intent was to kill himself, though since he didn't go through with it we can consider the possibility that all he really wanted was help or attention rather then his own death, not that this is relevant.

Were the deaths of the Passengers the result of his committing the crime of "Train Wreaking"? I assume the argument could be made that he did in fact commit the crime of train wreaking. However, his intent was to kill himself, and as far as I have seen there is no evidence to suggest that his intent was to wreak the train.

source

Now there is usually a standard in criminal cases where Intent has to be proven. I simply can't see how the case can be made that this man intended on derailing the train.

Now, is he guilty of second degree murder? I would have said no based on my experiences with the law in my area. However, this code would seem to suggest that it is.

source

Now, assuming that no proof is forthcoming to suggest that this man intended to kill the passengers or derail the train that would seem to leave us with manslaughter charges based on the information above. Specifically, this would be involuntary manslaughter as again, there would seem to be no Intent.

Since there is a special provision for Vehicular Homicide and this particular act was the result of "a grossly negligent act while driving a car", it would appear to me that this act best fits that category.

However, a full reading of the CA P.CODE sections (Linked above) would seem to suggest that the charge of Murder can be applied.

So, we come back to premeditation of murder. Did the suicidal idiot PLAN to kill those Passengers? I think just about any reasonable person would say no. That leaves us with the worse charge possible seeming to be 2nd Degree Murder.

Now, a re-reading of the section on 2nd Degree Murder seems to suggest that the absolute minimum sentence is 15 years with the maximum being life (though, there are some confusing sections that define other mandatory minimums above 15 years).

Now if this man is convicted of 2nd degree murder, he is facing 11 counts. Each with a minimum of 15 years. So he would likely be facing 165 years - 11 life sentences assuming the sentences would be served consecutively, which generally is the standard with murder cases.

So effectively, he will be facing imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. That seems a fair punishment, and it is one that can be achieved without undermining the rule of law by re-defining or stretching the definition of first degree murder.

Of course this is all my opinion, other then the links to the law.

Yes, actually it does. If his whole grand scheme here was to derail a train and try to hurt people, with premeditative thoughts then, then he'd be looking at first or second degree murder. But if his purpose was to commit suicide then it becomes something different, depending on how the court sees it. It could still be first degree murder because of the "extreme disregard for human life" clause.

Now if what we're you're saying is true then there would be no need to look at why something was done. Let's say I went hunting with a friend and accidently shot and killed him right. But according to you're line of thinking I've just killed a person, because that was the result of my action, and my intent doesn't' matter so lock me up; even if it was a complete accident. Now don't get me wrong here and think I'm saying Jaun was involved in some sort of accident and we should let him off with a slap on the wrist. What I'm saying is that purpose does matter. His purpose, as I understand it, was to commit suicide (which was corroborated by his friend). Was he negligent? Yes, without a doubt. Were the results of his actions bad? Of course. Did he know what was going to happen? No, and you can't prove he did.

Just saying "he should've known better" doesn't work. Think about the physics of it: a hugely massive train coming at some relatively high speed, hitting a parked car. Now that's like comparing a truck running into a segway, you just don't see the truck crashing. Anyway, the only way he could've known better would be to know the future. I mean, if you're using that line of thinking then if you get into a car crash and say it's the other guys fault, I'd just say "you know tons of people crash every day, and yet you still decided to drive, therefore it's both your faults and you should've known better."

With all due respect, we are talking about a case where a guy parked his car on
some railroad tracks. It wasn't two buddies hunting. Sure, we can assume that he
thought only he would be injured by the act. It doesn't matter (at least, not to
me) if that is the case. He broke the law by parking his car there, in the first
place, and his intent was to have the train hit him. Anything else that happens
as a result is his fault, his responsibility and so forth. To say that the
guy didn't mean for it to happen, and he only wanted to kill himself, etc. - that's
unacceptable. The book should be thrown at this guy, and anyone else who
commits such a crime.

If the law says he can get a lesser sentence by proving he didn't really want
to kill others, only himself, yet his actions killed others, he should still be
given the harshest punishment, one that would be doled out to someone who
signed a confession that he intended to kill passengers aboard a train.

Perhaps there should be warning signs at every railroad crossing: "Beware,
suicidal attempts involving your vehicle and an oncoming train may result in
passenger casualties, so if you don't intend that, maybe you should swallow a
bottle of pills or shoot yourself."



It wasn't a complete accident, DA. The guy intentionally parked his car
there. He planned the collision.

This guy supposedly wanted to kill himself. The fact that so many others died
is a direct result of his deliberate act. To compare this situation to
legitimate accidents (such as hunting or accidentally running people over due
to snowy weather) is fallacious.

To continually ignore all of the evidence put forth that this fits the definition of one type of murder and not another in equally fallacious IMHO. Or am I missing something here?

I do not understand why you cannot except that the law requires that the death be PREMEDITATED MURDER to qualify for the charge of first degree murder. I also don't understand why you think 165 years (if given the minimum sentence on each of the 11 counts of second degree murder) or 11 counts of Life; or even 110 years (if given the maximum on each of the 11 counts of manslaughter (I highly doubt the sentence would be less then the maximum for manslaughter considering the circumstances) is some sort of slap on the wrist. Why is it wrong to seek the harshest punishment for the crime this man actually committed?

No one is saying he should not have the book thrown at him, we just want to make sure it is the right book.

Charges are defined by the act and the intent. Where you take into consideration extenuating circumstances (either in favor or against the defendant) is in the sentencing. That is why there is a range in sentencing for most crimes. This is what I was trying to point out by posting quotes from and links to the actual legal code in question in this post.

You seem to be advocating that we ignore the definition of the law so that we can seek revenge on this man. What scares me about that is if we allow it to happen, what will stop it from happening again, and again and again all in the name of revenge. If we allow the law to be applied however we wish, because of our emotional response to the crime then we better hope that one day we are not involved in a crime that incites a similar emotional response in others.

doomed_planet,

Although I agree with you that this is a horrible crime and I believe this guy should go to prison for the rest of his life (for the second degree murder of 11 people), in all jurisdictions mental intent is required to convict someone regardless of the physical act (of death). Often, intent is judged by one of four adverbs: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. If none of these apply, the person was not guilty of a crime.

Now, in this case there is no doubt that this guy was negligent and reckless, so he should definitely be charged with at least manslaughter. However, I think there is a strong element that he had knowledge that what he would do would cause a catastrophe (even if he didn't do it purposely). Therefore, I feel (if this is true) that he should be charged with 11 counts of murder in the second degree and should rot in prison for the rest of his life.

My point is, whether or not it makes sense to you, you HAVE to argue that the accused had the appropriate mental state to commit the crime in ALL JURISDICTIONS. No mental state, no crime. That's the way the law works. But there is more to the mental state than whether he did it purposely. As I explained, I think "knowingly" would apply here.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to convey my belief that when he decidedly
parked his vehicle on the freeway, that was as good as premeditated and/or
intended.



I accept that.



I'm not saying it's a slap on the wrist. In many cases involving deaths and
sometimes involving murder it is the appropriate punishment.



Indeed. And, that is what we are debating. What is the appropriate punishment.
You say life, I say death. You say tomato, I say tomawto...You get the idea.



Okay. So, it becomes a matter of showing this guy had (or didn't have) the
intent to kill others when he parked his car on the tracks.



I'm not advocating that. I truly feel that his crime should be given the death
penalty. I am for the death penalty, and you are against it. That is where we
differ. I see this as a crime that merits that punishment. Obviously, the courts
and the lawyers will do their respective jobs in proving one way or another.
As far as revenge goes, it's not where I'm coming from at all. I want the
appropriate punishment, and perhaps what I deem appropriate differs from
you and others.



Thank you for your post, Goldblum. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've
said. Time will tell on this one. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

I agree with most others that this case according to the law qualifies for 11 counts of 2nd degree murder. I also understand that it was a profoundly egregious act which should be considered during sentencing. Nevertheless, it is possible for the jury to find for 1st degree murder (which can have a capital punishment sentence). I find it highly unlikely that, should the jury find for 1st degree, an appeals court would uphold it. Here's an interesting thought experiment. What happens if the jury finds for 1st degree/capital punishment and it doesn't get appealed because he wants to die? How does the law deal with that situation?

Admittedly, I do oppose the death penalty. However, that is not the basis, or even the reason for my opposition to calling this FIRST DEGREE Murder. My opposition hinges on the definition of first degree murder in the Penal Code of the State of California and the requirement of premeditation.

I could be proven wrong, perhaps the previous suicide attempts was a cleaver way to create a cover for a terrorist attack. However, based on the information available at this time, it would seem to be that the deaths of those on the train were not premeditated, and thus not murder in the first degree.

I would argue against it being considered second degree murder prior to my reading of California Penal Code. After reviewing the Statutes, it would seem to me that they are ways that this case could fit into California's definition of second degree murder. Perhaps I missed something in the definition of first degree and there is a loop hole there as well.

There is the provision of "Train Wreaking" in the definition of first degree murder. And I believe this 1905 provision is what the DA is seeking to use to get first degree murder. However, there is still the requirement of premeditation, not to mention intent.

I do hope that the DA has enough sense to include the charges of second degree murder and manslaughter and not leave the charges solely to first degree. I fear that if he is only charged with 11 counts of first degree murder and the jury is not given the option to find him guilty of second degree, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc, then the man will be acquitted if just one juror feels that the letter of the law needs to be followed.

I don't think the people of California would have justice in this case if the man is acquitted because the jury found that his crime did not fit the definition of the charges brought against him.

That is the real concern for me, that the DA, in seeking to get "revenge" (and likely score some political points) will end up watching this man be acquitted.

Then again, maybe that is a function of the judge, to instruct the jury on the differences of the different charges and empower them to determine the criminal code that best fits the crime (not sure how things work in CA.).

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my previous post. It becomes a matter of finding out why he did this. Did he do it to derail a train or commit suicide? From what I've heard it was suicide (though I haven't followed the case that closely).

I'm not saying his actions are admissible or he should go without punishment, I'm just trying to say that we need to follow the law, and do what is written in the books. These laws have been written and agreed upon, so we need to go by their guidelines

droop224 Jan 28 2005, 10:48 PM


I have not seen anything that suggests he should have known/accounted for/foreseen the other train. No other post (except yours) that I have read even mentions it being foreseeable that both trains would derail or that one train would derail and hit the other one. Most people are arguing that the guy could have reasonably foreseen the derailment of the train he parked in front of. One derailment is enough for guilt in my mind.

Just a couple of points of clarification here. The train that actually hit the Jeep Cherokee was the Southbound train, not the Northbound one. That train was the one moving "backwards". The first car in that train then derailed, hitting the Union Pacfic freight train locomotive, knocking it off the track and causing the second car in the southbound train to jackknife and derail in the opposite direction and into the rear car of the passing northbound train. Based on hometowns of the people who died it is evident that the majority (6-8) of the deaths occurred on the southbound train, the one that hit the Jeep. The other deaths would have been on the northbound train.