Sylvia Hatchell unintentionally kills pedestrian | The Boneyard

Sylvia Hatchell unintentionally kills pedestrian

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you know it was accidental? She was charged with a crime. Just because speed or impairment weren't a factor doesn't preclude negligence or other wrongdoing.
We should wait before characterizing a death as blameless.
 
Alydar said:
How do you know it was accidental? She was charged with a crime. Just because speed or impairment weren't a factor doesn't preclude negligence or other wrongdoing.
We should wait before characterizing a death as blameless.
Expand ...
No, you misread. The news report listed it as an accident, not a poster.
 
That's just a horrible situation all the way around. The family and friends of the deceased, Sylvia, and her family and friends as well. I'm sure Sylvia is absolutely devastated.

I lost my mind when I hit a pigeon the other day. Can't imagine what it must feel like to kill a human being with your car. So terrible. My heart goes out to everyone affected by the tragedy...
 
Dokey said:
No, you misread. The news report listed it as an accident, not a poster.
Expand ...

If 2 cars collide it's an accident. If one of the drivers was drunk it's still an accident but legally it's a felony most places. The way I read the title to the thread Nan was classifying it as an accidental death. To me that implies that no blame was placed and no charges filed and that's not true.
 
Alydar said:
If 2 cars collide it's an accident. If one of the drivers was drunk it's still an accident but legally it's a felony most places. The way I read the title to the thread Nan was classifying it as an accidental death. To me that implies that no blame was placed and no charges filed and that's not true.
Expand ...


Nan's title appears to be accurate. By definition, it can be an accident even if there is blame. An accident is defined as "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally", i.e. there was no deliberate causation. Right now she has been charge with "misdemeanor death by vehicle and unsafe movement violation." Neither implies intent, so it is very possible, probably likely, that it was accidental.
 
That is true. If she was charged they have to believe there was some negligence involved on Hatchel's part.
 
Dont know why this is on this forum. It has nothing to do about basketball.
 
cbraarj said:
Dont know why this is on this forum. It has nothing to do about basketball.
Expand ...

Sylvia Hatchell is a famous person and considered "newsworthy" because she was the head basketball coach for a major university's women's basketball team for decades. The majority of the people that frequent this forum knows who she is. Anything she does or is involved in is newsworthy in the minds of the news media. If you or I had done this, it would not be newsworthy because we're not famous, and no one knows who we are.

Nan posted it here (it was in fact posted earlier by another poster on the general women's board) because I believe she felt it may be of interest to others in the Boneyard. Hatchell is (and will forever be) connected to women's college basketball. She is a member of the elite 1,000 career wins club of women's basketball coaches (1023–405). This is a women's college basketball forum. I think Nan posting it here is relevant. I also would not be surprised to see this reported on ESPN's SportsCenter.
 
Last edited:
This is a terrible tragedy for all involved. I also found it strangely sad that Hatchell is using a fitness center in Durham rather than Chapel Hill. I’m sure that for all the years she was the HC at UNC, she worked out on campus like all the other UNC coaches.
 
I have to agree the thread title could have been better. But this Alydar person is off the rails here. Needs to back away from the keyboard and let the thread just drop down the board.
 
Alydar said:
If 2 cars collide it's an accident. If one of the drivers was drunk it's still an accident but legally it's a felony most places. The way I read the title to the thread Nan was classifying it as an accidental death. To me that implies that no blame was placed and no charges filed and that's not true.
Expand ...
Read the first sentence of the story (or just what is part of the link) and the thread title is correctly stated. Your fault for what you think she was implying. IMO she was not implying anything, she posted a link to the story without any judgment.
 
Alydar said:
How do you know it was accidental? She was charged with a crime. Just because speed or impairment weren't a factor doesn't preclude negligence or other wrongdoing.
We should wait before characterizing a death as blameless.
Expand ...
Thousands of people are charged "with a crime" and are not guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no idea of the circumstances here, but it can be an accident with or without guilt or blame. I think we still have that quaint innocent until proven guilty notion. And @HuskyNan herself did not characterize the death as anything but tragic. Rein yourself in my equine adjudicator! :rolleyes:
 
It was in a parking lot and those places are ripe for people being hit as come out from between cars. The lady she hit was also 89 who was knocked over and hit her head on the concrete. Wouldn't take much of a bump to accomplish that. All it takes is a moment of not paying attention to miss a small person coming from between cars.
 
I'm sure many of us have had near misses with pedestrians, I know I have. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people dressed in dark clothing, at night, and you can barely see them. We know there was no ill intent by Sylvia, so it's a terrible tragedy.
 
Alydar said:
How do you know it was accidental? She was charged with a crime. Just because speed or impairment weren't a factor doesn't preclude negligence or other wrongdoing.
We should wait before characterizing a death as blameless.
How do you know it was accidental?
Expand ...
You must be a criminal attorney or prosecutor. "How do you know it was accidental?" You say.
She was charged with misdemeanor death. You make it sound like she should have gotten manslaughter or murder. The title of a thread on a sports forum now has to be subject to proper law terminology?

It is clearly a thread of compassion for all parties involved. Your high horse has you on the wrong path with this one.
 
Alydar said:
If 2 cars collide it's an accident. If one of the drivers was drunk it's still an accident but legally it's a felony most places. The way I read the title to the thread Nan was classifying it as an accidental death. To me that implies that no blame was placed and no charges filed and that's not true.
Expand ...
Accidental means it wasn't intentional; Sylvia didn't intentionally hit the poor woman.
 
Dove said:
I have to agree the thread title could have been better. But this Alydar person is off the rails here. Needs to back away from the keyboard and let the thread just drop down the board.
Expand ...
Centerstream said:
Read the first sentence of the story (or just what is part of the link) and the thread title is correctly stated. Your fault for what you think she was implying. IMO she was not implying anything, she posted a link to the story without any judgment.
Expand ...
Bama fan said:
Thousands of people are charged "with a crime" and are not guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no idea of the circumstances here, but it can be an accident with or without guilt or blame. I think we still have that quaint innocent until proven guilty notion. And @HuskyNan herself did not characterize the death as anything but tragic. Rein yourself in my equine adjudicator! :rolleyes:
Expand ...
Woof 101 said:
You must be a criminal attorney or prosecutor. "How do you know it was accidental?" You say.
She was charged with misdemeanor death. You make it sound like she should have gotten manslaughter or murder. The title of a thread on a sports forum now has to be subject to proper law terminology?

It is clearly a thread of compassion for all parties involved. Your high horse has you on the wrong path with this one.
Expand ...
cockhrnleghrn said:
Accidental means it wasn't intentional; Sylvia didn't intentionally hit the poor woman.
Expand ...

WOW. Maybe someone can quote where I made any reference to guilt or innocence. I posted what I took the title to imply and inferred that Nan's title was trying to excuse the death. The title could have also read "Former UNC coach kills pedestrian with car" and be a truthful title that implies a different meaning. The title seemed to infer that she was found blameless, which isn't true, at least not yet. And I doubt an 89 year old person can "dart out" from between cars, although it could happen.
Further, it's likely that in the event of a lawsuit, the driver would be found to be liable for the death, whether or not it was intentional.
I didn't intend to speculate but since so many are reading my posts let me explain what I read into the short article. It clearly and intentionally stated that speed and impairment (alcohol/drugs) were not an issue. I am not a lawyer but I spent many years listening to testimony and reading letters from attorneys and learned that what is not said can be as revealing as what is said.
I imagined that Sylvia had been working out. I doubt that she had answered phone calls or read texts while doing so and it would be natural for someone to check their calls and texts as soon as they had a chance. Now don't hammer me for saying she did that. It merely crossed my mind along with many other things that could distract someone from their driving at a slow speed. The article could have said that Sylvia was not found to be on her cell phone, but it didn't say that. My immediate inclination was "HMMM".
Again, I am not making any accusations nor do I have any resentment towards Sylvia.

And a special response to Dove; It's bad form to tell any poster what they should or shouldn't do. I don't mind posters disagreeing with me but I do resent a stranger telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
 
Last edited:
Alydar said:
WOW. Maybe someone can quote where I made any reference to guilt or innocence. I posted what I took the title to imply and inferred that Nan's title was trying to excuse the death. The title could have also read "Former UNC coach kills pedestrian with car" and be a truthful title that implies a different meaning. The title seemed to infer that she was found blameless, which isn't true, at least not yet. And I doubt an 89 year old person can "dart out" from between cars, although it could happen.
Further, it's likely that in the event of a lawsuit, the driver would be found to be liable for the death, whether or not it was intentional.
I didn't intend to speculate but since so many are reading my posts let me explain what I read into the short article. It clearly and intentionally stated that speed and impairment (alcohol/drugs) were not an issue. I am not a lawyer but I spent many years listening to testimony and reading letters from attorneys and learned that what is not said can be as revealing as what is said.
I imagined that Sylvia had been working out. I doubt that she had answered phone calls or read texts while doing so and it would be natural for someone to check their calls and texts as soon as they had a chance. Now don't hammer me for saying she did that. It merely crossed my mind along with many other things that could distract someone from their driving at a slow speed. The article could have said that Sylvia was not found to be on her cell phone, but it didn't say that. My immediate inclination was "HMMM".
Again, I am not making any accusations nor do I have any resentment towards Sylvia.

And a special response to Dove; It's bad form to tell any poster what they should or shouldn't do. I don't mind posters disagreeing with me but I do resent a stranger telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
Expand ...


All of the above doesn't change the fact that Nan's original title was accurate.
 
stamfordhusky said:
All of the above doesn't change the fact that Nan's original title was accurate.
Expand ...

I never said it wasn't. You and several others are trying to imply that I called the headline inaccurate. The key to spinning a headline is accuracy that tends to provoke an inference. Read the headline in the article and the post in the sub-board. Both use the word "charged" and that gives a much different spin than "accidentally". I'm still unsure why Nan posted when it wasn't UConn related and there was already a post elsewhere on the board. My speculation is that she was trying to avoid a bunch of nasty posts about the driver by using the word "accidentally" instead of "charged".
Thinking about why I made my post I have realized that it had a lot to do with the fact that there was more concern given to Sylvia than to the victim. I lost the person I loved more than anyone in my life a year ago and because she was 75 people seemed to think it was less of a tragedy and I received sympathy tempered by "she had a full life" words of sympathy. Believe me, my pain at my loss was real and as intense as any I have ever felt. This victim was 89. It irked me that Nan appeared to me to be more concerned with protecting Sylvia's good name than having concern for the 89 year old victim. I don't know if that was the case but at the time and even now I can't help but resent that, given my experience, that it a possible consideration. Why Nan chose to alter the wording of the article headline and why she has since removed the word accidentally is unknown to me and frankly I didn't care at the time I posted.
If Nan had a problem with my post she hasn't said so and I'd just as soon drop the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
249
Guests online
1,699
Total visitors
1,948
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,031
Messages
4,379,112
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom