Sen. Karen Keiser (D-Washington State Labor Council) committed a hit-and-run Monday evening when she drove over a traffic calming device and knocked over a sign:
"I probably should have reported it at 7:30 [Tuesday] morning but I didn't."Keiser never reported the incident to the police. She was seen hitting the sign but didn't admit it until confronted by a reporter. The state GOP e-mailed this photo of Keiser's Mustang:Olympia Police Department Sergeant John Hutchings said Tuesday evening that "if you caused damage, you're required by law to report it. ... The moment you leave it's a hit and run."
Keiser said that she planned on notifying law enforcement immediately after the business day on Tuesday.
Hutchings said that whether or not someone is charged with the hit-and-run crime "depends on the totality of the circumstances. It comes down to 'why did you leave?'"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 11, 2007
10:32 AM | Email This
Speaking of Sound Transit, where is the outcry about their proposed $17 billion expansion plan, which would require sales tax be increased by 0.6% from 8.9% to 9.5%, and the MVET increased by 0.8% from 0.3% to 1.1%?
Seems like the only person protesting the Sound Transit boondoggle at the present time is -- ironically enough -- Joel Connelly:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/311090_joel11.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 11, 2007 10:41 AMBobbie Bridges Washington State Supreme Court Justice defines a traffic calming device as a "parked car".
Posted by: Smokie on April 11, 2007 10:51 AMIsn't it the Traffic Calming Device's fault, since obviously Keiser wasn't soothed enough to rampage over it?
LOL! Posted by: MIchele on April 11, 2007 10:54 AM
Possibly there was a call between Senator Keiser's office and someone who was in a position to make sure the sign was quickly replaced? Or is it just that the largely left leaning Olympian bureaucrats know who to run cover for when there has been a slip?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 11, 2007 11:02 AM
"This law makes clear that if a citizen fails to summon assistance when they know someone is in need of help, they will be liable for failing to call 911. We need to understand that we have both rights as (sic) responsibilities as citizens."
Seems as though she has selective memory when it comes to her position on responsibilities.
Or is it more of the liberal do as I say, not what I do approach?
Her excuse sure doesn't seem like that of a responsible member of the community. But than again, she is a politician and a Democrat one at that.
I also ran "Capitol Way and 18th Ave S.W. Olympia, WA" though Google Earth and that intersection doesn't have any traffic calming device installed at the time that photo was taken.
Posted by: G Jiggy on April 11, 2007 11:29 AMHer excuse sure doesn't seem like that of a responsible member of the community. But than again, she is a politician and a Democrat one at that.
I also ran "Capitol Way and 18th Ave S.W. Olympia, WA" though Google Earth and that intersection doesn't have any traffic calming device installed at the time that photo was taken.
Posted by: G Jiggy on April 11, 2007 11:30 AMAnalogous logic was used in the case of Hayes v. US (or something like that -- it was the US Supremes, anyway), wherein the court held that no one can be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm if they have used it in the commission of a crime, as that would constitute self-incrimination. So they might look at this the same way.
Posted by: TB on April 11, 2007 01:03 PMSection 16: Privileges from arrest. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.
A former state Senator who used to blow past me at about 80-85 on I-5 approaching Olympia would cite that to me when I asked about his lead foot.
We probably should have elected someone more responsible, but we didn't.
Badda-bing--you win the "Bobbebridgebanger" Award.
2 sets of laws. Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 11, 2007 01:15 PM
"It's just a sign!!!!!!"
That sign cost money in materials, time, and labor. Someone has to make a new one, and someone has to go out and replace the broken one. That money come out of the pockets of taxpayers. You're dammned right she ought to be fined. She ought to be fined the full cost of replacement and fined for hit and run.
Posted by: nw denizen on April 11, 2007 01:29 PMferrous@18
While we are at it, let's also consider the danger not reporting the downed sign. Suppose someone who is not familiar with the intersection comes along and blows the intersection because the didn't see a stop sign. Suppose that stranger T-bones another vehicle or gets T-boned. Now suppose, as a result, someone is seriously injured or killed. Who do you think should be responsible? She should have reported the accident immediately and stayed at the scene to direct traffic. She should also be fined for stupidity.
Posted by: nw denizen on April 11, 2007 01:43 PMI don't know if you have noticed...but you're not in Missouri anymore!
Posted by: Rob on April 11, 2007 01:51 PM/love scabattle.
Posted by: fox3 on April 11, 2007 02:13 PMIt's hard to know exactly what the situation is with this state Senator without driving up to the area and checking out the visibility. I'm not a fan of Democrats, but pardon me if my own experiences with poor city planning give me pause for entirely wanting to indict someone's driving when other factors could weigh in a lot more in a case of simply running over a sign. Also, consider that any city or state transportation department is bound to budget for a certain amount of sign replacement. It's part of routine upkeep of roadways. And we all pay the taxes on that already as it is meaning we're all paying taxes on a certain amount of signs that will get taken out IMO.
Posted by: ferrous on April 12, 2007 11:14 AM