Town Square

Post a New Topic

Driver to face trial in Ware's death

Original post made on Jan 10, 2013

Now that a judge has ruled there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial of Matthew Pumar, the driver accused of hitting and killing local man last June, there are two directions the case might take.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 10, 2013, 4:30 PM

Comments (5)

Posted by Steve, a resident of Jackson Park
on Jan 10, 2013 at 6:40 pm

"Pumar's defense lawyer, Dennis Smith, argued that the Mountain View resident had not been negligent in the June 21 accident"

"...Pumar was traveling somewhere between 46 mph and 62 mph when he struck Ware..."

Sigh. Only a defense lawyer would argue that speeding through residential areas at 11 to 27 miles over the posted speed limit is not being negligent. Their work should be held to a higher standard.



Posted by ORACLE, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:21 am

Why are lawyers considered to be professionals? Lawyers are merely word Technicians who manipulate words to make money. We all know the Law is blind to Justice, but why is that so? Pumar's frantic speeding, based on scientific analysis, was so negligent as to show he had no respect for others nor did he have any sense of responsibility. He needs to pay money to Ware's family and spend a lot of time in prison.


Posted by Old Ben, a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 am

According to the initial reports here, Pumar got out of the car after the accident clutching his cell phone. How long had it been in his hand? Is that the first thing you grab after totalling your car, or was he on the phone while ripping down California Street at nearly twice the posted speed limit?


Posted by Sandy, a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm

The only surprise about this is that it doesn't occur more often. I have been stopped at an intersection on California twice when a car from behind pulled out and ran the light. I was able to follow one to his house and photograph the car. But because the incident wasn't observed by an officer, nothing could be done.
I know, I know. Could be dangerous.


Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 11, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Just because the speed limit is 35 does not mean that is the SAFE speed for that part of road. We would need to go to city hall to find out what the safe speed is for that street.

Also.. 46 to 62 is far from stating a fact. It shows how hard it is to accurately determine the speed of a car AFTER the fact.

Everyone deserves the best defense they can afford.

As far as the cellphone comment. Meh. If it's OK for the police to drive while talking on a cellphone I'm ok with everyone else doing it.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,160 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 31 comments | 1,447 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,139 views

Dear Chandrama, Everywhere I turn . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 852 views

Crittenden Hosts Startup Weekend
By Ms. Jenson | 1 comment | 239 views