A North Bend woman pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide Monday for her role in a fatal June 9 car crash that took the life of her 9-year-old daughter in south Snohomish County.
Anita Marie Durrett, 42, was charged with the felony after she allegedly fled the scene of a shoplifting near Woodinville and crashed while driving nearly 80 mph along a winding, hilly two-lane road. Durrett's daughter, LaDawna, was in the car and died of head injuries.
During a brief hearing on Monday in Snohomish County Superior Court, Durrett entered a so-called Alford plea. In court papers, the woman said she believed herself innocent, but acknowledged she'd likely be convicted if the case went before a jury.
Judge Kenneth Cowsert agreed there was a "very strong likelihood" that Durrett would be found guilty as charged. He scheduled sentencing for May 14.
Durrett's attorney, Jim Rosenberger of Seattle, said his client will seek a sentence below the roughly two-year prison term mandated under state sentencing guidelines.
Durrett had earlier fled from an Albertson's supermarket in King County, where she allegedly was spotted wheeling a cart of groceries to her car without paying.
Store employees followed Durrett in their own car, at one point blocking her path at a stop sign, according to court papers.
The confrontation at the stop sign was more than a mile away from the store, and witnesses said the store employees kicked Durrett's car and were menacing her, Rosenberger said.
"There is much more to it than meets the eye," the attorney said, adding that he's seen no evidence his client was driving recklessly until after the confrontation at the stop sign.
In court papers, prosecutors said Durrett hit one of the workers as she tried to get away.
<hr></blockquote>
Kicking her car is not slapping her. It is kicking her car. Maybe the milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese in my veins, but I still think that she is the one responsible.
Do I think that the store employees acted irresponsibly? Yes. Will Albertsons lose this case? Yes. But it still boils down to the fact that she drove the car.
all in all, i think its awefully hypocritical for her to bitch about all this. yes, an innocent was killed in the process. everyone was guilty of something. BUT, she was guilty first and more. her actions were the primary instigation of the situation. therefore, she was overall at fault for her daughters death. for her to blame others is to make her a hypocrite. if she hadnt done any of the crimes to begin with, and brought her daughter along w/ her, then there would have been no violence involved...
Kicking her car is not slapping her. It is kicking her car. Maybe the milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese in my veins, but I still think that she is the one responsible.
Do I think that the store employees acted irresponsibly? Yes. Will Albertsons lose this case? Yes. But it still boils down to the fact that she drove the car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed in full.
i seriously doubt they even touched her. i believe that she is just trying to get people to feel sorry fer her and bullsh*t her way out of this. c'mon people, dont be so damn gullible...
This is really a no-brainer. Even if the manager hadn't ordered the clerks to chase her down, the clerks would be responsible. Once they decided to be vigilantes, they became responsible. It wouldn't even matter if she still had the groceries. Her breaking the law doesn't exempt the clerks from their breaking the law.
Here's an example: A while back, I was backing out a parking spot in front of my dorm. When I was going out to my car, there was no one parked behind me in the fire lane and I assumed that no one had pulled in in the 3 seconds between the time I crossed it to the time I started backing out. I was wrong and I hit the car. Now, I thought that since she parked ILLEGALLY in the fire lane that I wasn't at fault. I was. That's the way it works. I can't break the law just because you are. And thank goodness for that.
<strong>This is really a no-brainer. Even if the manager hadn't ordered the clerks to chase her down, the clerks would be responsible. Once they decided to be vigilantes, they became responsible. It wouldn't even matter if she still had the groceries. Her breaking the law doesn't exempt the clerks from their breaking the law.
Here's an example: A while back, I was backing out a parking spot in front of my dorm. When I was going out to my car, there was no one parked behind me in the fire lane and I assumed that no one had pulled in in the 3 seconds between the time I crossed it to the time I started backing out. I was wrong and I hit the car. Now, I thought that since she parked ILLEGALLY in the fire lane that I wasn't at fault. I was. That's the way it works. I can't break the law just because you are. And thank goodness for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
theres no argument that they also broke the law. however, she is more to blame fer the gurls death than they are. yes, they shouldnt have chased her, but she shouldnt blame them fer her own actions.
I had a friend in BC that worked at a grocery store. They loved doing this shit, it was like drugs to them - getting the chance to take down a shoplifter.
I don't doubt for a second these 2 punks scared the hell out of this lady.
"GET OUT OF THE CAR NOW YOU STUPID BITCH!!!!'
THUD! THUD! THUD! go his boots into the car.
Yeah, she should have calmly driven, at the speed limit, to the nearest police station.
How is she not going to be held responsible for her actions, tmp, look at your own freakin' article. What more do you want, her to pay money to Albertson's?
She's going to be convicted of killing her own daughter, what more do you want?
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
----
Alliance, my attack wasn't baseless at all. You obviously know nothing if you think that criminals have no rights and are quite deserving of the scorn you receive as a result.
Alliance, my attack wasn't baseless at all. You obviously know nothing if you think that criminals have no rights and are quite deserving of the scorn you receive as a result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually, i said that line to see what kind of response it would get, hence it being in its own post.
however, it wasnt that big of a deal if u think about it. convicted felons DONT have rights, hence their not being to vote, etc. this woman hasnt been convicted yet, but she will be and thus she should be treated as a criminal.
oh, and i fergot how much u love to argue just fer the sake of arguing...
but dude, throwing out stupid insults really never works in getting yer point across. maybe u should try a more diplomatic approach, cause the way u act just makes u seem like a 5 year old child throwing a tantrum...
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
they should be given a fine and ticket. but they should NOT be to blame for killing her child. that load should be placed solely on that stupid womans shoulders.
[quote]convicted felons DONT have rights, hence their not being to vote, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Convicted felons don't have rights? Very very interesting... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Your grasp of the complexities of our legal system is astounding.
They can't vote, own a weapon and maybe a few legal limitations placed on them as a result of their specific crimes, but for the most part felons have as many rights as you and I do.
Washington D.C. has a convicted felon for a mayor.
--
If you chase someone in a car after physically accosting them and they end up crashing into a tree and dying... guess what the law says. (Hint: it's more than a speeding ticket)
Stick to car racing and microbiology discussions, you really aren't very versatile.
<strong>How is she not going to be held responsible for her actions, tmp, look at your own freakin' article. What more do you want, her to pay money to Albertson's?
She's going to be convicted of killing her own daughter, what more do you want?
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
----
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exsqueeze me- she is going to try for less that the two years (!) that she would be normally be given in this case. What do you want? Her to get a few million and probation?
I give up- she was a wonderful mother who just made a mistake. Those evil bag boys, who we all know are just clearasil-sniffing vigilantes spoiling for a fight should be tried and convicted of manslaughter and speeding and assault on a bumper- give 'em the chair! The store manager should be drawn and quartered by four strong horses, fired, and then his quarters should be drawn and quartered by four strong ponies. And Albertson's should pay this woman and her lawyer billions and give her free groceries for life. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Convicted felons don't have rights? Very very interesting... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Your grasp of the complexities of our legal system is astounding.
They can't vote, own a weapon and maybe a few legal limitations placed on them as a result of their specific crimes, but for the most part felons have as many rights as you and I do.
Washington D.C. has a convicted felon for a mayor.
--
If you chase someone in a car after physically accosting them and they end up crashing into a tree and dying... guess what the law says. (Hint: it's more than a speeding ticket)
Stick to car racing and microbiology discussions, you really aren't very versatile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i meant currently convicted felons, not felons that have already served their sentence u dumbass...
btw, why do u keep saying they physically accosted them??? they have no evidence fer that other than her word. damn yer a gullible fool...
Now, now, children, calm down. You're all still pretty.
Here's how I see it:
1) She is already being convicted for vehicular homicide, because she DID end up killing her daughter by her actions.
2) The manager was very wrong in telling the clerks to chase her. In the state of Missouri, you CANNOT pursue someone off company property in a vehicle, period. I'd imagine most other states are like that.
3) The baggers were wrong to chase her at the speeds they did. This doesn't mean, however, that they're legally responsible for her wreckless driving. It doesn't matter how intimidating they were, she still made the choice to drive at such speeds.
So...
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
Exsqueeze me- she is going to try for less that the two years (!) that she would be normally be given in this case. What do you want? Her to get a few million and probation?
I give up- she was a wonderful mother who just made a mistake. Those evil bag boys, who we all know are just clearasil-sniffing vigilantes spoiling for a fight should be tried and convicted of manslaughter and speeding and assault on a bumper- give 'em the chair! The store manager should be drawn and quartered by four strong horses, fired, and then his quarters should be drawn and quartered by four strong ponies. And Albertson's should pay this woman and her lawyer billions and give her free groceries for life. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
shes just a victim of the system!!!!!!! someone start up a charity for this poor woman...
and while we're at it, start donations for grover too. he's the type who will believe anything just cause someone said so. damn...i cant wait til yer gullibility leads u to a good ol fashioned scam...
open yer eyes dude. things arent always as u assume...
<strong>Now, now, children, calm down. You're all still pretty.
Here's how I see it:
1) She is already being convicted for vehicular homicide, because she DID end up killing her daughter by her actions.
2) The manager was very wrong in telling the clerks to chase her. In the state of Missouri, you CANNOT pursue someone off company property in a vehicle, period. I'd imagine most other states are like that.
3) The baggers were wrong to chase her at the speeds they did. This doesn't mean, however, that they're legally responsible for her wreckless driving. It doesn't matter how intimidating they were, she still made the choice to drive at such speeds.
So...
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
<strong>Now, now, children, calm down. You're all still pretty.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You smooth talker, you
[quote]
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
I wonder if this lady knows that other lady that had the homeless guy stuck in her windshield. They sound like they're from the same gene-pool. maybe they should get together with OJ, the Ramses, and Condit and cry about how they were wronged by the 'system'.
Comments
[quote]
By Scott North
Herald Writer
A North Bend woman pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide Monday for her role in a fatal June 9 car crash that took the life of her 9-year-old daughter in south Snohomish County.
Anita Marie Durrett, 42, was charged with the felony after she allegedly fled the scene of a shoplifting near Woodinville and crashed while driving nearly 80 mph along a winding, hilly two-lane road. Durrett's daughter, LaDawna, was in the car and died of head injuries.
During a brief hearing on Monday in Snohomish County Superior Court, Durrett entered a so-called Alford plea. In court papers, the woman said she believed herself innocent, but acknowledged she'd likely be convicted if the case went before a jury.
Judge Kenneth Cowsert agreed there was a "very strong likelihood" that Durrett would be found guilty as charged. He scheduled sentencing for May 14.
Durrett's attorney, Jim Rosenberger of Seattle, said his client will seek a sentence below the roughly two-year prison term mandated under state sentencing guidelines.
Durrett had earlier fled from an Albertson's supermarket in King County, where she allegedly was spotted wheeling a cart of groceries to her car without paying.
Store employees followed Durrett in their own car, at one point blocking her path at a stop sign, according to court papers.
The confrontation at the stop sign was more than a mile away from the store, and witnesses said the store employees kicked Durrett's car and were menacing her, Rosenberger said.
"There is much more to it than meets the eye," the attorney said, adding that he's seen no evidence his client was driving recklessly until after the confrontation at the stop sign.
In court papers, prosecutors said Durrett hit one of the workers as she tried to get away.
<hr></blockquote>
Kicking her car is not slapping her. It is kicking her car. Maybe the milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese in my veins, but I still think that she is the one responsible.
Do I think that the store employees acted irresponsibly? Yes. Will Albertsons lose this case? Yes. But it still boils down to the fact that she drove the car.
<strong>
Kicking her car is not slapping her. It is kicking her car. Maybe the milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese in my veins, but I still think that she is the one responsible.
Do I think that the store employees acted irresponsibly? Yes. Will Albertsons lose this case? Yes. But it still boils down to the fact that she drove the car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed in full.
i seriously doubt they even touched her. i believe that she is just trying to get people to feel sorry fer her and bullsh*t her way out of this. c'mon people, dont be so damn gullible...
Here's an example: A while back, I was backing out a parking spot in front of my dorm. When I was going out to my car, there was no one parked behind me in the fire lane and I assumed that no one had pulled in in the 3 seconds between the time I crossed it to the time I started backing out. I was wrong and I hit the car. Now, I thought that since she parked ILLEGALLY in the fire lane that I wasn't at fault. I was. That's the way it works. I can't break the law just because you are. And thank goodness for that.
<strong>This is really a no-brainer. Even if the manager hadn't ordered the clerks to chase her down, the clerks would be responsible. Once they decided to be vigilantes, they became responsible. It wouldn't even matter if she still had the groceries. Her breaking the law doesn't exempt the clerks from their breaking the law.
Here's an example: A while back, I was backing out a parking spot in front of my dorm. When I was going out to my car, there was no one parked behind me in the fire lane and I assumed that no one had pulled in in the 3 seconds between the time I crossed it to the time I started backing out. I was wrong and I hit the car. Now, I thought that since she parked ILLEGALLY in the fire lane that I wasn't at fault. I was. That's the way it works. I can't break the law just because you are. And thank goodness for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
theres no argument that they also broke the law. however, she is more to blame fer the gurls death than they are. yes, they shouldnt have chased her, but she shouldnt blame them fer her own actions.
I don't doubt for a second these 2 punks scared the hell out of this lady.
"GET OUT OF THE CAR NOW YOU STUPID BITCH!!!!'
THUD! THUD! THUD! go his boots into the car.
Yeah, she should have calmly driven, at the speed limit, to the nearest police station.
Give me a break.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Didn't have time between Sheep****in' 101 and Minority Bashin' 322 to slip in Basic Principles of Law?
"She's more to blame, judge! She's wronger than I wuz! It's what they taught me down at the skoolhowse!"
Torifile:
It really is a no-brainer, perfect for Alliance.
I still want to know if her daughter was belted in.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Didn't have time between Sheep****in' 101 and Minority Bashin' 322 to slip in Basic Principles of Law?
"She's more to blame, judge! She's wronger than I wuz! It's what they taught me down at the skoolhowse!"
Torifile:
It really is a no-brainer, perfect for Alliance.
u didnt even read my last post, did u...?
being a judgemental bigot doesnt help yer case ever grover, even though u seem to think that baseless insults belong here fer some reason...
She's going to be convicted of killing her own daughter, what more do you want?
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
----
Alliance, my attack wasn't baseless at all. You obviously know nothing if you think that criminals have no rights and are quite deserving of the scorn you receive as a result.
<strong>
Alliance, my attack wasn't baseless at all. You obviously know nothing if you think that criminals have no rights and are quite deserving of the scorn you receive as a result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually, i said that line to see what kind of response it would get, hence it being in its own post.
however, it wasnt that big of a deal if u think about it. convicted felons DONT have rights, hence their not being to vote, etc. this woman hasnt been convicted yet, but she will be and thus she should be treated as a criminal.
oh, and i fergot how much u love to argue just fer the sake of arguing...
but dude, throwing out stupid insults really never works in getting yer point across. maybe u should try a more diplomatic approach, cause the way u act just makes u seem like a 5 year old child throwing a tantrum...
<strong>
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
they should be given a fine and ticket. but they should NOT be to blame for killing her child. that load should be placed solely on that stupid womans shoulders.
Convicted felons don't have rights? Very very interesting... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Your grasp of the complexities of our legal system is astounding.
They can't vote, own a weapon and maybe a few legal limitations placed on them as a result of their specific crimes, but for the most part felons have as many rights as you and I do.
Washington D.C. has a convicted felon for a mayor.
--
If you chase someone in a car after physically accosting them and they end up crashing into a tree and dying... guess what the law says. (Hint: it's more than a speeding ticket)
Stick to car racing and microbiology discussions, you really aren't very versatile.
<strong>How is she not going to be held responsible for her actions, tmp, look at your own freakin' article. What more do you want, her to pay money to Albertson's?
She's going to be convicted of killing her own daughter, what more do you want?
Why shouldn't the other lawbreaks have to pay for their actions as well, because she did something wrong? If she breaks the law first then it's a license for others to do the same?
----
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exsqueeze me- she is going to try for less that the two years (!) that she would be normally be given in this case. What do you want? Her to get a few million and probation?
I give up- she was a wonderful mother who just made a mistake. Those evil bag boys, who we all know are just clearasil-sniffing vigilantes spoiling for a fight should be tried and convicted of manslaughter and speeding and assault on a bumper- give 'em the chair! The store manager should be drawn and quartered by four strong horses, fired, and then his quarters should be drawn and quartered by four strong ponies. And Albertson's should pay this woman and her lawyer billions and give her free groceries for life. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Convicted felons don't have rights? Very very interesting... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Your grasp of the complexities of our legal system is astounding.
They can't vote, own a weapon and maybe a few legal limitations placed on them as a result of their specific crimes, but for the most part felons have as many rights as you and I do.
Washington D.C. has a convicted felon for a mayor.
--
If you chase someone in a car after physically accosting them and they end up crashing into a tree and dying... guess what the law says. (Hint: it's more than a speeding ticket)
Stick to car racing and microbiology discussions, you really aren't very versatile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i meant currently convicted felons, not felons that have already served their sentence u dumbass...
btw, why do u keep saying they physically accosted them??? they have no evidence fer that other than her word. damn yer a gullible fool...
Here's how I see it:
1) She is already being convicted for vehicular homicide, because she DID end up killing her daughter by her actions.
2) The manager was very wrong in telling the clerks to chase her. In the state of Missouri, you CANNOT pursue someone off company property in a vehicle, period. I'd imagine most other states are like that.
3) The baggers were wrong to chase her at the speeds they did. This doesn't mean, however, that they're legally responsible for her wreckless driving. It doesn't matter how intimidating they were, she still made the choice to drive at such speeds.
So...
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
She shouldn't win.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</p>
<strong>
Exsqueeze me- she is going to try for less that the two years (!) that she would be normally be given in this case. What do you want? Her to get a few million and probation?
I give up- she was a wonderful mother who just made a mistake. Those evil bag boys, who we all know are just clearasil-sniffing vigilantes spoiling for a fight should be tried and convicted of manslaughter and speeding and assault on a bumper- give 'em the chair! The store manager should be drawn and quartered by four strong horses, fired, and then his quarters should be drawn and quartered by four strong ponies. And Albertson's should pay this woman and her lawyer billions and give her free groceries for life. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
shes just a victim of the system!!!!!!! someone start up a charity for this poor woman...
and while we're at it, start donations for grover too. he's the type who will believe anything just cause someone said so. damn...i cant wait til yer gullibility leads u to a good ol fashioned scam...
open yer eyes dude. things arent always as u assume...
<strong>Now, now, children, calm down. You're all still pretty.
Here's how I see it:
1) She is already being convicted for vehicular homicide, because she DID end up killing her daughter by her actions.
2) The manager was very wrong in telling the clerks to chase her. In the state of Missouri, you CANNOT pursue someone off company property in a vehicle, period. I'd imagine most other states are like that.
3) The baggers were wrong to chase her at the speeds they did. This doesn't mean, however, that they're legally responsible for her wreckless driving. It doesn't matter how intimidating they were, she still made the choice to drive at such speeds.
So...
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
She shouldn't win.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed on every point.
<strong>Now, now, children, calm down. You're all still pretty.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You smooth talker, you
[quote]
She's being rightfully convicted. Albertsons should fire the manager faster than he can say "groceries," and law enforcement should fine the hell out of the grocery store. The baggers should be charged with whatever speeding, assault, or property damage charges they committed, but...
She shouldn't win.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder why the baggers weren't charged?