Woman Facing Prison For Fatal Texting While Driving Fatal Wreck

fmdog44

fmdog44

Well-known Member
Location
Houston, Texas
FREEHOLD, NJ – This past week, a Monmouth County jury returned a guilty verdict today against a 50-year-old Keansburg, woman in connection with the 2016 collision which took the life of 39-year-old Yuwen Wang on Laurel Avenue in Hazlet Township, announced Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni.
Alexandra Mansonet, 50, of Keansburg, is facing five to ten years in a New Jersey state prison after the trial jury returned a guilty verdict for second degree Vehicular Homicide following a three-week trial before Monmouth County Superior Court Judge David F. Bauman. Her sentence is also subject to the provisions of the No Early Release Act (NERA) requiring her to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before becoming eligible for release on parole.
Evidence presented at the trial revealed that Mansonet was texting while driving at the time of the fatal crash.

I hope others that text/drive pay attention to her sentencing.
 

Don M. said:
These "Cell Phone users while driving" deserve the maximum penalties, IMO. They are worse than drunk drivers. If they injure someone, they should be charged with Assault, and if they kill someone, it should be Murder.
Click to expand...


I agree here.
 

Don M. said:
These "Cell Phone users while driving" deserve the maximum penalties, IMO. They are worse than drunk drivers. If they injure someone, they should be charged with Assault, and if they kill someone, it should be Murder.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it - -why aren't drunk drivers subject to these same charges? They became drunk of their own volition, same as the jerk using his phone and texting. We're not talking about wine sippers but plain drunks. Should we cut them a break? Is the person "less dead" after being run down by a drunk? Maybe not yourself but we older folks, in general, can be very hypocritical when it comes to booze.
 
We have a big problem with people texting around here while they’re driving it is absolutely terrifying as they are completely unaware of what’s going on around them and then it could be too late, I’m terrified at the thought of somebody running over a small child or anyone while doing this, as it especially happens in our neighborhood and there are little ones playing all over the place.
 
I agree that the law should be enforced but IMO prison in a case like this is not the answer.

I would rather see this person and many others be sentenced to paying a form of support similar to alimony or child support to the victim's family.

A financial form of punishment would actually help the victim's family and save taxpayers the cost of incarceration.

If the criminal fails to pay then I would support a prison term.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree that the law should be enforced but IMO prison in a case like this is not the answer.

I would rather see this person and many others be sentenced to paying a form of support similar to alimony or child support to the victim's family.

A financial form of punishment would actually help the victim's family and save taxpayers the cost of incarceration.

If the criminal fails to pay then I would support a prison term.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, taking way somebody’s freedom is the ultimate form of punishment and if someone is injured and killed they belong in prison. I hope I didn’t misunderstand your statement if I did I apologize.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree that the law should be enforced but IMO prison in a case like this is not the answer.

I would rather see this person and many others be sentenced to paying a form of support similar to alimony or child support to the victim's family.

A financial form of punishment would actually help the victim's family and save taxpayers the cost of incarceration.

If the criminal fails to pay then I would support a prison term.
Click to expand...
There are three things wrong with financial punishment:
1. It's unlikely they will pay.
2. A wealthy criminal would be getting away with a crime, since he/she could easily afford to pay.
3. Paying won't physically stop them from driving, which would endanger more lives.
 
I have been very close to having been run over by a driver talking on her phone when I was crossing a wide boulevard. She had a red light for a left turn. I had a green light to walk. I guess it would have been my fault. I should have looked out for those kind of drivers. Oh, that was only one of my adventures as a pedestrian. You get to have many.
 
A prison sentence in this case is justified. There have been numerous warnings regarding texting and/or just using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle.

As for making payment to the victim’s family, that will probably happen anyway, either through a lawsuit or by the driver’s insurance carrier reaching an agreed upon settlement with the heirs to his estate.
 
DaveA said:
Now that you mention it - -why aren't drunk drivers subject to these same charges? They became drunk of their own volition, same as the jerk using his phone and texting. We're not talking about wine sippers but plain drunks. Should we cut them a break? Is the person "less dead" after being run down by a drunk? Maybe not yourself but we older folks, in general, can be very hypocritical when it comes to booze.
Click to expand...

The difference between Drunks and Cell Phone users, based upon my experience, is more a question of "Timing". I've always been extra cautious when going somewhere on a Friday or Saturday night....when the drunks are out in high numbers. Cell Phone users, OTOH, are everywhere and texting 24/7. I can hardly go anywhere without seeing someone drifting in and out of their lane, and invariably if/when I pass them, I note that they have one hand on the wheel, and the other holding their phone to their face. If I were King, I would dictate that cars have a feature that disables the ignition when the cell phone is in use....much like some states require convicted drunks to have a device in their cars that detects alcohol.
 
In Pennsylvania, it is legal to talk on a cell phone, but not text. The fine for texting starts out at $50.00,if that’s the only violation. If an accident or other incident should occur, the price goes up. Even with the $50.00 minimum, after all the costs are added, the total comes to just under a $100.00. It is also “not” considered a moving violation, so insurance rates are unaffected.
 
Drunk drivers are drunk "legally" in different states. Having enough beer/ booze to be declared legally drunk in not the same as being inebriated. Being legally drunk is saying the driver's ability to drive is impaired. Driving while texting is driving while not looking at the road, not much room for flexibility there. A drunken driver drives in many cases because they believe they can drive without being dangerous. A texting driver texts because they place a higher priority on communicating over driving safely. Bottom line it has been proven too many times neither will stop doing it.
 
I was flagging traffic for our road crew out on a two lane country road. We had all our works signs out, and I was set up down past them. I had on my reflective vest, orange shirt, hard hat, and my stop/slow sign showing stop. I was standing next to a bright orange pickup with the beacon light flashing, and there were orange cones all around me.

A mid-sized green sedan came into my work area and just kept coming without slowing down. As he got close to me I started yelling and waving but he just drove right past me. I looked right at him as he went by, a guy staring straight ahead with a cell phone to his ear.

Luckily we had no trucks or equipment in the road at the time and the car made it through with no problems. But that was scary, really scary for me. And bizarre, I mean how could he not see everything we had set up?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top