“This was not reckless driving. This was murder,” the judge said before she read out Mackenzie Shirilla’s verdict Monday afternoon.

319 points

The reason why they say this was murder:

Two weeks before the crash, she allegedly threatened to crash her vehicle when she was driving with Russo because she was upset over a disagreement they had. Russo called his mother and asked to be picked up, and a friend ended up retrieving him. In a phone call with Russo, the friend allegedly overheard Shirilla say, “I will crash this car right now,” prosecutors said in court documents.

This isn’t a drunk driver, or a thrillseeker, this is someone with murderous intent.

permalink
report
reply
63 points

Considering she was unconscious as well, sounds like it was a murder/suicide attempt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Sounds more like a mental health issue tbh…

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I agree 100 percent this is a child with some kind of inability to understand the consequences of her actions she should be placed in a care facility until she demonstrates the ability to make proper decision making ability

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Contrary to popular belief, people suffering from mental health issues are more likely to be the victim than perpetrator of violent crimes, more than their healthy counterpart. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.563860/full

She’s just a murderer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

In most US jurisdictions if you’re “just” trying to commit a felony, like purposely crashing your car at 100+ MPH (160+ KPH) to cause grievous bodily harm to others, and someone dies as a result that’s automatically elevated to murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

It’ll depend on the jurisdiction. But ‘intent’ for murder does not mean “pre-planned”. Heat of the moment intention to do serious harm is enough for a murder conviction in the UK (and, I believe, the US).

In this case, the prosecution accused her of pre-planning as well as intent, and the jury agreed with one or both arguments.

Russo, the judge, delivered a scalding description of the case before she read out the verdict, saying Shirilla had a “mission” she executed with “precision” that fateful day — and “the mission was death.”

“The [crash] video clearly shows the purpose and intent of the defendant. She chose a course of death and destruction that day,” Russo said.

“She morphs from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels as she makes her way down the street,” Russo said, saying Shirilla made a calculated decision to drive that morning, when not many people would be around, on an obscure route she did not routinely take.

Prosecutor Michael O’Malley told NBC affiliate WKYC of Cleveland that the crash video was damning, saying, “The intent was obvious upon seeing that video that there was only one goal.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I recently read that a 70mph accident is considered “unsurvivable.” Regrettably I don’t recall the source. Because people survive accidents that happen on 70mph speed limit highways all the time, I assume two things. 1. That the accident has to happen AT 70mph. And that 2, most people are able to slow down or perhaps the vehicle hits something first, glancing blow, that sort of thing, which brings the speed down, making it more survivable. So yeah, I think that makes 100mph suicide/murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Murder laws can vary by country.

She murdered two people with the intent to at least cause significant harm. That’s enough on the state she was in, thank God. She deserves life in prison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-32 points

Sounds more like a suicide/self harm thing to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points
*

When you include an unconsenting person in the attempt, it is also murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not a lawyer, but even if they consent isn’t it murder?

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

It sounds much more like an abusive relationship. She was trying to punish him, regardless of the risk to herself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-47 points

…no, no, no… only WOMEN can be in abusive relationships.

At least that is the utter bullshit you would believe if you listened to the feminist/white knight rhetoric out there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

If you attempt to kill yourself and take other people with you, it’s commonly called murder/suicide. Killing people with intent is usually murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

A woman kills family then kills self. Is it murder!!! Oh. No, just self-harm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

That’s not exactly what has happened here and derailing it using emotional hyperbole won’t help either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

If you’re trying to kill others along with you, it’s not just suicide, it’s also murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-30 points

This is why suicidal people are dangerous, it’s a relatively small change from killing yourself, to killing others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

This is why pastry chefs are dangerous, it’s a relatively small change from baking your bread, to baking others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

@ryathal @agressivelyPassive

Have suicidal ideation is in no way, shape or form the same as being the perpetrator of a murder-suicide. Neither is being suicidal a lead-in to becoming a murderer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What a ridiculous take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

No there may be a small chance of collateral damage, such as this case. But suicidal thinking does not make you think of killing others. You’re clearly lucky enough to have never had suicidal ideation, but it never comes near the kind of thoughts that want to kill others

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

If you feel that way, you might be the dangerous one

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Now this is just plain stupidity

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I have a relative who was recently given a DUI.

They went to the store, sober, and bought a handle of vodka (1.75 liters) consumed the vast majority, and drove around.

He wanted to die in a head on collision. Selfish fuck.

I don’t have a problem with people having the freedom to decide enough is enough, but don’t harm others in the process, at least more so than the death would cause. Especially innocent unrelated people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

Fucking hell that is horrible. And of course she’s the only one to survive. 100mph into a brick building has probably left her pretty physically fucked up and in constant pain. Hope she enjoys feeling that way in prison for the rest of her life.

permalink
report
reply
-39 points

She’ll spend 8 months in prison and appeal for a reduced sentence and get out on “good behavior” before she’s even served a quarter of her term. Don’t you know how the American legal system works?

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Murder is a felony, so I believe you have to serve 80% of a sentence before being able to be eligible for parole

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

The bullshit sentences are the ones we mainly hear about, and many people have a bit of a confirmation bias because of it. But, you don’t have to look further than your own community to see that slaps on the wrist are not typical.

US citizens are the most incarcerated people on Earth, buy an uncomfortable margin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

You forgot the white woman modifier, you take a man’s sentence and divide by 4.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

Murder with a car is often toned down to, “vehicular manslaughter”. It’s often times charged as a misdemeanor. I agree with you that it should always be a felony because it’s murder, but that’s not how the courts treat it.

Here’s an example of a New Jersey man who murdered someone with their car and did not face any jail time at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points

More of this. Also let’s start holding rich people accountable of crimes also.

permalink
report
reply
54 points

I am truly sorry for the passengers. Lost life because of teenage perceived hardship is tragic.

From a different perspective, it seems incredibly impressive that anyone survived a deliberate head on collision with a brick wall (that appears to have barely buckled) at 100 MPH / 161 KMH.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

Thanks for the Christianization of the speed units, God bless you

Survived and still standing on her feet…

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Not just survived, but with everything intact. No missing limbs or massive head trauma. She’s wildly lucky in that reguard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Something tells me the judge will make her feel a bit less lucky within a few days.

I’d be surprised if she gets out within 20 years

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Or wildly unlucky, depending on how one looks at it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Lucky or a very impressive feat of engineering in modern cars? 😱

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Remind me why we allow teenagers to drive 3-ton vehicles again?

permalink
report
reply
67 points

“Gotta get them teens to work. And no public transit options please, they make my money pile smaller.”

-CEO’s everywhere

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Why do we allow most people to drive 3 ton vehicles

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Right? I honestly can’t wait until self driving cars take up enough of the market share that manual driving cars will be outlawed (or at least getting insurance on them will be astronomically expensive)

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Or public transit improves, actually freeing up space on the road

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Remind the rest of us why anycunt needs a 3 ton personal vehicle again?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

At risk of angering the vast majority of the fuck cars community, it’s generally because I live 30 minutes from my job by highway, and can’t afford to live within walking distance. And they won’t let us telework. I really really want to actually live close enough to bike.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

So we have a large reoccurring expense that forces us to always have a job and stay productive in a modern society where this really isn’t necessary?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’ll stick with my 1.2l, 50mpg shitbox thanks

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Uh, I think society is pretty darn dependent on everyone working to sustain it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*

Because the vast majority of them don’t use the 3ton vehicle to commit murder.

You do know that adults use vehicles as murder weapons also, yeah?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

I am sure they don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Waukesha Christmas parade attack and the Nice, France attack?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

So they can be exploited for cheep labor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The same reason we all have a personal 3 ton vehicle: to ensure we remain bound to a culture of sprawling roads and fossil fuel consumption.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

When I think back to how immature and reckless I was as a teenager I can’t believe I was legally allowed to drive and considered a full grown adult at the age of 18.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Remind me why we allow banks to control our economy again?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Awesome. Judge all teenagers because of a deranged one.

What’s your stance on 27 year olds with driver’s licenses?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah buddy i’m going to judge all drivers, because i kinda sorta vaguely don’t want me or others to die!

Are you against gun control too?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m not, but it seems like you are, correct?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

tbp the camry she drove was closer to 1.5 tons

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Freedums!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

A Camry weighs half of that, and regardless, she could have done this in any vehicle

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

How much does a razer scooter weight?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

So they can be exploited for cheap labor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You’re not wrong. Being able to drive by 16 so that you can start working is the capitalist way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Lol which vehicles weigh 3 tons. Aside from EVs. You mean 3 tons as in 6600 lbs right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

She was 18. That’s an adult.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

She was 17. But I understand your point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Legally sure, still immature and not someone who should be piloting a heavy vehicle capable of going 100 mph.

Most people aren’t, frankly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You’re right and car rental companies agree with you as most of them won’t rent to anyone under 25.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 482K

    Comments