Sean Higgins - Legal Proceedings

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I find this conversation a bit weird. This is a situation where we pretty much knew how this happened from the beginning because the killer admitted to it and all the information we’ve learned since has just confirmed what we already knew.

He was a reckless driver with road rage issues who was also impaired due to alcohol. Pretending he wasn’t impaired is really strange. And pretending this is actually a lesson about how cyclists are annoying but we still shouldn’t run them over is also strange? Like, he was impaired and angry at the car in front of him so he passed on the right and didn’t see the cyclists in time. He wasn’t some sober rage-head who ran down cyclists because he was mad at them.

Yeah, I don't see why it has to be one or the other. He sounds like someone with road rage issues who chose to also add alcohol into the equation. Being under the effects of alcohol doesn't take any blame off him, it adds blame. No one is saying alcohol is an excuse for road rage.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I don't see why it has to be one or the other. He sounds like someone with road rage issues who chose to also add alcohol into the equation. Being under the effects of alcohol doesn't take any blame off him, it adds blame. No one is saying alcohol is an excuse for road rage.

Absolutely.

I also think framing 0.08 as some arbitrary legal limit and not actual, significant impairment does nothing but favour and enable people who drink and drive.

It’s the whole “high tolerance” argument people use to justify their decision to drink and drive. Even those with high tolerance will experience the same reaction time and vision impairments as others, regardless of how “drunk” they feel or don’t feel.

Nobody should be shrugging off his impairment level. It’s a huge issue, and as significant as any other factor in this story. The idea that this would’ve somehow been better or more understandable if he was just drunk is insane to me.

[sureLoss]

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...ry-nj/4051994/

Grand Jury indicted Sean Higgins for:

second-degree reckless vehicular homicide x 2
first-degree aggravated manslaughter x 2
fourth-degree tampering with physical evidence
second-degree leaving the scene of a fatal accident


First Degree aggravated manslaughter carries a sentence of 10 to 30 years in NJ
2nd Degree vehicular homicide carries a sentence of 5 to 10 years in NJ

edit: they indicted on manslaughter and homicide for each brother

[Max Cow Disease]

First I’ve heard about the evidence tampering/leaving the scene element. What’s up with that, I wonder?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

First I’ve heard about the evidence tampering/leaving the scene element. What’s up with that, I wonder?

I suspect he threw a beer can into the ditch or something. And perhaps came to a stop at an unreasonable distance away after causing the accident.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

First I’ve heard about the evidence tampering/leaving the scene element. What’s up with that, I wonder?

IIRC there was mention of him trying to hide beer cans in his truck from the police.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...ry-nj/4051994/

Grand Jury indicted Sean Higgins for:

second-degree reckless vehicular homicide x 2
first-degree aggravated manslaughter x 2
fourth-degree tampering with physical evidence
second-degree leaving the scene of a fatal accident


First Degree aggravated manslaughter carries a sentence of 10 to 30 years in NJ
2nd Degree vehicular homicide carries a sentence of 5 to 10 years in NJ

edit: they indicted on manslaughter and homicide for each brother

I was definitely wrong about Higgins getting a lighter than expected sentence. My guess is he came across as a huge jerk in court. Leaving the scene and hiding evidence is not a good look.

Does anyone know if the sentences can be served concurrently or will they be consecutive? That makes a huge difference in terms of the jail time he'll get.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

First I’ve heard about the evidence tampering/leaving the scene element. What’s up with that, I wonder?

He didn’t stop…. His vehicle was inoperable.

He also admitted trying to hide beer cans after hitting the Gaudreaus, prosecutors said.

His vehicle sustained “significant damage” when he struck the Gaudreaus and it became inoperable about 1/10 of a mile down the road, the prosecutor’s office said.

https://www.nj.com/salem/2024/12/dri...outputType=amp

[Flabbibulin]

1/10th of a mile, so about 160m. I wonder then if he was intending on fleeing the scene, but had no choice to stop.

[Titan2]

He hit two guys on bikes hard enough to make his truck inoperable?

#### that guy to hell.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

He didn’t stop…. His vehicle was inoperable.


https://www.nj.com/salem/2024/12/dri...outputType=amp

What a piece of crap. Hits two people and doesn't stop to try and help them? His whole story about working with addicts in a rehab centre really wears thin.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

I was definitely wrong about Higgins getting a lighter than expected sentence. My guess is he came across as a huge jerk in court. Leaving the scene and hiding evidence is not a good look.

Does anyone know if the sentences can be served concurrently or will they be consecutive? That makes a huge difference in terms of the jail time he'll get.

This was just a grand jury, so he's not even convicted, let alone sentenced. And he wouldn't have appeared in court before the grand jury. They may have seen the video of him as part of the indictment evidence.

But he's certainly now facing the most serious crimes possible from the events IMO.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Titan2

He hit two guys on bikes hard enough to make his truck inoperable?

#### that guy to hell.

This always gives me pause.

I dont know how that happens. I have trouble with that part, I mean, how hard would you have to hit a couple of bikes with a Truck to screw the truck up that badly?

Thats crazy.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This was just a grand jury, so he's not even convicted, let alone sentenced. And he wouldn't have appeared in court before the grand jury. They may have seen the video of him as part of the indictment evidence.

But he's certainly now facing the most serious crimes possible from the events IMO.

Fair enough. I'd still like to know how their system works in terms of concurrent vs. consecutive sentences. The system in Canada is pretty different. It would just be the crown attourney who decides if charges go ahead, and the process to get there seems a lot quicker.

[Yamer]

Inoperable could mean any number of things, including a smashed windshield or flat tire.

[Ped]

Article in the Athletic on the charges:


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/599...eaths-charges/

According to criminal defense attorney Brett M. Rosen, who is aware of the details of the case that are public but is not affiliated with the case in any manner, the key difference between vehicular homicide and aggravated manslaughter is that prosecutors will need to prove that Higgins’ conduct resulted in a “probability, as opposed to a mere possibility, of death.”
Rosen, a licensed trial attorney in New York and New Jersey, said the prosecution could have enough evidence to convict Higgins on all counts, should the case go to trial.

According to the brief, Higgins drove 1/10 of a mile down the road before his vehicle became inoperable due to significant damage from the crash. Higgins also admitted that he attempted to hide the beer cans after he struck the brothers.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Does a flat tire or shattered windshield qualify as significant damage? I don’t think so.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Does a flat tire or shattered windshield qualify as significant damage? I don’t think so.

Depends. You can't operate a vehicle you cannot see out of, and a flat tire or two won't get you far down the road.

Although I kind of want to curb this part of the discussion because it gives me icky feelings to be anywhere in the vicinity of defending this jackass.

[Ped]

How is it anywhere close to defending him? Doesn't it mean that if he was able to keep going, he would have? Makes him even more of reprehensible and abhorrent person.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Ped

How is it anywhere close to defending him? Doesn't it mean that if he was able to keep going, he would have? Makes him even more of reprehensible and abhorrent person.

I suppose in some ways it can be interpreted as lessening the force of the impact. Which is moot, either way. "He hit them so hard that he rendered his vehicle inoperable" and waffling on what "inoperable" means is irrelevant given the ultimate result.

But yeah, I think if he could have fled he would have.