The Chainlink

Bobby Cann Updates: Ryne San Hamel Pleads Guilty, Receives 10 Days in Jail

Jason Jenkins at ActiveTrans is helping to coordinate community response.  If there is any chance you can attend proceedings, please reach out to him: 

jason@activetrans.org.

 

Views: 43849

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on October 8, 2013 at 8:40pm

I was just asking questions, and trying to encourage discussion.



Alex Z said:

Bob, the snarky comments likely are more in response to your tone than in response to your actual requests for information. You are coming across as somewhat entitled.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on October 8, 2013 at 9:08pm

The beauty of an open, minimally-moderated forum is that you are free to ask questions, and any of the 9500 or so other members of the forum are free to comment. 

Regardless of what Morgan may believe, there are many on this forum who are very interested in the outcome of this trial, if and when that ever occurs. At the trial, evidence will be presented in the form of occurrence and/or expert testimony, physical objects, records, documents, and the judge or jury presiding will determine whether or not Mr. Sanhamel is guilty of the offense(s) with which he has been charged. Until that time, and except in the case of an evidentiary hearing, the court proceedings will be thin on factual information. Absent factual information, real evidence, if you will, any "discussion" on the chainlink is likely to consist of speculation and conjecture.

Is there anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, who thinks that it's OK for someone to operate a motor vehicle while legally drunk, drive in a reckless manner and cause the death of another person? Not likely. Is there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sanhamel behaved in that fashion and caused the death of Bobby Cann? That is precisely what a trial will determine.

Talk amongst yourselves.



Bob Kastigar said:

I was just asking questions, and trying to encourage discussion.



Alex Z said:

Bob, the snarky comments likely are more in response to your tone than in response to your actual requests for information. You are coming across as somewhat entitled.

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on October 8, 2013 at 9:37pm

The hearing took place on Monday, the next court date is November 8th I believe. No major developments. That is all the info I have at this time as I was unable to attend due to a family emergency out of town.

Jason Jenkins

Crash Support Programs Manager

Active Trans


Morgan 6 mi said:

Jason,

Any updates from the hearing on the 7th? I am interested as well.

Thanks,

Morgan

P.S. Sarah and Kevin, no need to reply. As a concerned bike commuter I am very interested in the outcome of this trial.

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 8, 2013 at 9:40pm

Bob, I wonder if it would be easy / cheap to get transcripts of the proceedings. I think that might help to fill in the gaps you're trying to understand. Maybe some of the smart attorneys here can provide some tips on how to get such resources.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on October 9, 2013 at 1:07am
Trying to acquire transcripts of status hearings would be a waste of time and money. They're typically 3 or 4 pages long and, as Kevin explained, say nothing of any consequence beyond setting a date for the next hearing.

Nothing significant happens until/unless there is a trial, a hearing with live witnesses, or a guilty plea. This can take months or even years.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 9, 2013 at 8:05am

Bob,

What's the status of your on-line petition demanding a full trial for Mr. Sanhamel? Have you delivered it to the state attorney's office yet?

Permalink Reply by WillG on October 9, 2013 at 9:00am

Kevin, I can appreciate your point of view. However, you and others keep throwing out this argument that the reporting of factual court proceedings in this forum will lead to "speculation and conjecture." That's silly, Bob's asking for factual information not emotional rants and interpretations. Besides, there are plenty of us around here (less vocal, perhaps, than Bob) that also would like to stay up to date. And sure, Bob can sometimes come off a little impatient and stubborn, but he's been personally attacked here and in the chibike listserve repeatedly about this (simply wanting information), I would expect him to be a tad defensive.

Jason, thanks again for the info. We appreciate it.


Kevin C said:

The beauty of an open, minimally-moderated forum is that you are free to ask questions, and any of the 9500 or so other members of the forum are free to comment. 

Regardless of what Morgan may believe, there are many on this forum who are very interested in the outcome of this trial, if and when that ever occurs. At the trial, evidence will be presented in the form of occurrence and/or expert testimony, physical objects, records, documents, and the judge or jury presiding will determine whether or not Mr. Sanhamel is guilty of the offense(s) with which he has been charged. Until that time, and except in the case of an evidentiary hearing, the court proceedings will be thin on factual information. Absent factual information, real evidence, if you will, any "discussion" on the chainlink is likely to consist of speculation and conjecture.

Is there anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, who thinks that it's OK for someone to operate a motor vehicle while legally drunk, drive in a reckless manner and cause the death of another person? Not likely. Is there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sanhamel behaved in that fashion and caused the death of Bobby Cann? That is precisely what a trial will determine.

Talk amongst yourselves.



Bob Kastigar said:

I was just asking questions, and trying to encourage discussion.



Alex Z said:

Bob, the snarky comments likely are more in response to your tone than in response to your actual requests for information. You are coming across as somewhat entitled.

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on October 9, 2013 at 9:05am


Duppie said:

Bob,

What's the status of your on-line petition demanding a full trial for Mr. Sanhamel? Have you delivered it to the state attorney's office yet?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/no-plea-bargain-for-ryne?source=c....

I printed and mailed a copy of the petition to Anita Alverez on June 6th, about 3 days after it was started and included over 4500 signatures then.  I included a statement: "We understand that it is your discretion to engage in plea bargaining; the concern was to ensure that the charges against him are not reduced or minimized."  I sent out one email to everyone who had signed the petition up to that date.

The petition has been left active and any added signatures will be sent by email to Anita Alverez, the States Attorney.  There are now over 5500 signatures to the petition and more are still being added.

I still encourage anyone who wants to sign the petition, and have the message sent to the States Attorney to do so by clicking on the link above.  There is a very small minority who seem to think this practice is inappropriate.   They are free to sign the petition and add a negative comment if they wish.

There is little or nothing in the media about this trial, and this is about the only way to ensure that the prosecution knows that there still remains a large public support and interest in this criminal trial. and that many still support strong prosecution of such egregious offenders who drink, drive, and kill.


Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 9, 2013 at 9:34am

Thanks. Did you ever get a reply from her office?

Bob Kastigar said:


Duppie said:

Bob,

What's the status of your on-line petition demanding a full trial for Mr. Sanhamel? Have you delivered it to the state attorney's office yet?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/no-plea-bargain-for-ryne?source=c....

I printed and mailed a copy of the petition to Anita Alverez on June 6th, about 3 days after it was started and included over 4500 signatures then.  I included a statement: "We understand that it is your discretion to engage in plea bargaining; the concern was to ensure that the charges against him are not reduced or minimized."  I sent out one email to everyone who had signed the petition up to that date.
[...]

Permalink Reply by Marina Fichera on October 9, 2013 at 10:23am
Everyone has and will be updated. Jason has been more than helpful to the family and all the rest of us in organizing and letting everyone know. There's not much going on right now. The fact that there's jabs at each other on a cycling forum is discouraging to some of us really close to this, and not that I can speak on his behalf, but Bobby wouldn't like it either. Some of us aren't comfortable with discussing things online, be it court advocate stuff or just personal. Take that how you will. If you're able to come, just one time, that would be incredible. If not, someone will fill you in. It's amazing the way the way that Bobby has brought people together and has made a SIGNIFICANT impression in this community. He was the best of us. Respect each other.
Permalink Reply by Rich Evans on October 9, 2013 at 11:10am

I've been following Bob's posts for a few years, now -- in this and other forums -- and I must say I've NEVER felt he's come across as "entitled."  Passionate and persistent? Yes. Impatient with smug BS? Yes.  Stubborn in requests for accurate, timely information? Yes.  Defiant in the face of bike-hating cagers? Yes.  I've seen/heard Bob take a LOT of abuse, and stand his ground, for pointing out that cyclists have rights and a purpose, oftenin setting where this important message is unappreciated.  We are lucky to have him as an experienced, intelligent, and vocally supportive brother cyclist.  Those of y'all who are getting so wrapped up in what you perceive as a "snarky" tone really need to get over yourselves.  We're all supposed to be on the same side, here, and we're talking about a problem (Justice for Bobby) that's bigger, and frankly more important, than your bruised little egos.  In case y'all haven't noticed, we are a MINORITY in this town, and if we squabble amongst ourselves, the very real bike-hating opposition will gladly eat us alive.  If you're actually interested in Justice for Bobby, and taking our rightful place on this City's streets, you need to start paying more attention to, and trying to understand, what Bob (and other posters) are actually saying, and a lot less attention to bitching about how he says it. 

 

Kevin C said:

The beauty of an open, minimally-moderated forum is that you are free to ask questions, and any of the 9500 or so other members of the forum are free to comment. 

Regardless of what Morgan may believe, there are many on this forum who are very interested in the outcome of this trial, if and when that ever occurs. At the trial, evidence will be presented in the form of occurrence and/or expert testimony, physical objects, records, documents, and the judge or jury presiding will determine whether or not Mr. Sanhamel is guilty of the offense(s) with which he has been charged. Until that time, and except in the case of an evidentiary hearing, the court proceedings will be thin on factual information. Absent factual information, real evidence, if you will, any "discussion" on the chainlink is likely to consist of speculation and conjecture.

Is there anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, who thinks that it's OK for someone to operate a motor vehicle while legally drunk, drive in a reckless manner and cause the death of another person? Not likely. Is there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sanhamel behaved in that fashion and caused the death of Bobby Cann? That is precisely what a trial will determine.

Talk amongst yourselves.



Bob Kastigar said:

I was just asking questions, and trying to encourage discussion.



Alex Z said:

Bob, the snarky comments likely are more in response to your tone than in response to your actual requests for information. You are coming across as somewhat entitled.

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 9, 2013 at 11:41am

+1

Rich Evans said:

I've seen/heard Bob take a LOT of abuse, and stand his ground, for pointing out that cyclists have rights and a purpose, often in setting where this important message is unappreciated.  We are lucky to have him as an experienced, intelligent, and vocally supportive brother cyclist.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service