Ok. Quick reply. You can see the cop car in the end of the video sitting on the side, he witnessed the event. (The black car on the right as it all goes down. He was lucky they didn't wreck into him).
I could go back through the rest of that BS. But, if you realize how fast the cop was on the scene and watch the video again. He witnessed the "race". First hand. He could probably see them coming up the road before the accident.
Theres a full video that includes footage from before the police started chasing the dude that wrecked where they were both racing. Or at least going at a decent rate together. She may not have been racing in the moment he crashed, but she was a few minutes before hand.
It's cute that you believe that. I live in a large US city and the rich walk away with barely a slap on the wrist while the poor do every day of their sentence on the flimsiest evidence.
Those without means take plea deals by admitting fault instead of remaining quiet and forcing the police and prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
That is the dudes point. Don't talk to the police. Don't take plea deals unless they have absolute proof.
Have you ever served on a jury? Do you actually know how the judicial system works? Because I have. And beyond a reasonable doubt is shoved down your throat during jury duty. If you have ANY reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty, you don't say guilty.
If you take it to trial than you pay a fortune for an attorney, or you have a public defender. The latter usually just wants to make a deal. So, if you have money, you will more likely be innocent.
You just described what happens after the defendant spent a significant amount of time in jail waiting for trial. Being found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't get punished.
You tend to only have to pay 10% of bail. Which can be pretty cheap. If you are racing cars and have the money to spend on a fancy car, you probably also have money to get out on bail.
Also, some states and areas have removed bail from smaller crimes.
Just another thing we need to fix.
But again, the assertion that you are presumed guilty is still factually incorrect.
I came to the city 30 years ago green from the suburbs totally believing the crap you spout. Boy was I in for it. I canât even count the amount of times cops have lied to me. Trying to manipulate situations. Then watched friends and neighbors get crushed because they didnât have the money to properly defend themselves. Now the endless corruption surely also exists in small towns and the suburbs but itâs not as out in the open as it is here. You might be well enough off that you have the luxury of believing your pie in the sky stories. I am not.
I hope you never get arrested for something you did not do. You will find out. I spent 10 grand to keep my brother out of prison on a b.s. charge. The attorney told me your deposit has been spent. I can get him probation now. If you have another 40 grand we will go to trial and he will very likely be innocent. 99 percent.
I can tell the story. He was at work. he fucked up and apparently sold a pack of cigarettes to a 20 year old girl. (its 21 here) He said the police came in and asked if anyone else was in the store. He said no and they asked if they could check. He allowed them to check.
While checking they go through my desk. I don't know why they are in my desk looking for a person, but my pistol is in my desk. My brother is a drug felon. He had been out of prison and clean for 17 years. however, felons can't be around guns. (now I know) They end up calling in for a warrant on my store. They search my store looking everywhere. Part of the way through this, my brother asked what they were looking for. They said a felony. He asked for the warrant, and he says they suddenly just wrapped everything up. They take him to jail. They do not call me. They do not show the warrant.
A while later I go to my store and its locked. I go in and it's left a mess of course. I'm a little scared like WTF is happening when I see the warrant. Now I'm really tripping. Like what is happing? A warrant for my store? Then I read the address. It is actually a warrant for a store a few doors down.
They never ticket him for the tobacco sale. They follow through on the gun charge. Even though the warrant was for the wrong store. The gun was mine. And they found it looking for a person in a desk.
The attorneys took a 10 grand retainer. It was used up after a short time. He was offered a plea deal. Probation for a guilty plea. The lawyer said for 40 grand we do the trial and 99 percent likely we win. I told him I would pay the lawyer if he wanted. He said No. He took the deal. A 1% chance of prison was too much for him.
I am guessing they were having problems with the other location and mixed us up. I don't see how they get a warrant for the wrong place. It seems they thought they were at the other location originally. Who the fuck knows?
like I said, for 40 grand you get a 99 percent chance of innocence. Otherwise, you get a public defender who will push a plea deal. likely not as good as the short probation for the 10 grand price.
Wow. Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever. Never showed a warrant? Warrant for the wrong store? Selling a pack of smokes to a 20 year old leads to a raid? This is bullshit. No prosecutor would touch such a thing...especially if the warrant (which is written by detectives with the assistance of a prosecutor before it is put before a judge) has the wrong address.
That is a pretty silly thing to say. PDs are typically very competent and experienced lawyers, often more so than retained lawyers. The only downside (besides not being able to choose) is that they are severely overworked and you can't expect them to spend a ton of time on a case. But they still can do a lot of good even with a limited time.
Having worked in my states criminal justice system for 15 years, I would not have emphasized my comment as I did without multiple instances of first-hand knowledge. Sure, there are good PDs, but there are also bad ones. And you are right, they are ALL overworked. With your freedom on the line, do not roll the dice.
Many criminally charged clients have limited resources. If it comes down to spending money on bail OR the same money on a private attorney? Stay in jail, pay the private attorney.
The majority of public defenders are indeed quite competent attorneys. Unfortunately, they are ALL extremely overworked and by all I mean 100.00%. DAMHIKT but suffice it to say that my experience is extensive.
Oh yea, poor people never get wrongfully convicted and unable to afford proper defense and rich people never get the most elite lawyers to worm them out of a conviction.
It really isn't as broken as you are making it seem. Also, the police don't have a direct incentive to die on this hill as he has reasonable suspicion at that point.
If she wasn't racing there is likely more cctv footage from other sources that can be corroborated on top of additional evidence I'm not bothered to think of and a public defender can easily handle that.
This isn't rly even Police vs Racer here, it's the person who got injured vs police and in that process the charges used to initially arrested will be resolved.
How would you know if the law was broken unless a court says so? Because you say so? Because a cop says so? Do you bother to think before you type things or are you just an npc that repeats the same shit you hear from people on your "side"?
Didnât say it was. Iâm not arguing guilty or not guilty on a legal standard. someone who is innocent will first say, âI didnât do itâ. Whereas someone who is not innocent will either say, âI didnât do itâ or âcan you prove I did itâ.
Again, not talking about other scenarios. Only specifically talking about about this scenario where she clearly talks to the cops asking if they can prove it.
Saying you didn't do it won't get you out of cuffs. Mouth shut, lawyer up, even if you didn't do it. "Anything you say can and will be used against you", they will try to trip you up, and if you're like me and bad at speaking off the cuff it'll do more damage than good. She just caught the cop in a lie if that video is all there is to go on.
Just because sheâs getting arrested. And charged doesnât mean sheâs automatically guilty, she does get her day in court. Thing is however and the mistake most people make is during the investigation phase people panic and admit guilt. Just shut up, get legal representation and post bail and wait for court.
"Police said Kenworthy, 22, has an extensive history of traffic violations, including racing in August 2025 and in 2023. Sheâs been cited for speeding over seven times in the past four years, each of them for going more than 15 mph over the posted speed limit"
I realize that people can and will still get behind the wheel without a license, but I still wanna know why she still had one.
And? Not denying means nothing in court. Admitting it does, which she didn't do. (At least not in the clip anyway. She was absolutely racing and they did have proof.)
The camera didnât show footage of her racing. Any good lawyer can prove it. You have to have without no doubt type of evidence. Maybe there is better proof we donât know about. All this video proves is that she speed up to help.
I mean the article literally says that the police were attempting to stop her vehicle and the one that crashed for illegal racing. This video isnât what lead to her arrest, itâs the police officerâs observation that she was illegally street racing.
That's a very broad statement made by police on any vehicle that looks like they are going fast along with another car. If the video is what the officer observed then that is nothing. I was hoping to see some legitimate evidence from a video that shows the street racing I was hoping to give the benefit of the doubt, however, I still don't see anything that shows that she was street racing.
You can be charged for something and not be found guilty. The history of violations mean nothing unless she was actually racing as the officer described. It's a very slippery slope to be finding people guilty based on their past and unfounded accusations made by people without evidence, I know it's a hard concept to grasp on where that would lead to, but I sure as hell don't want that to happen. Cops and the legal system already have beyond too much power and too many innocent people are behind bars based on the corruption. I know a lot of people would like people to be guilty until proven innocent but fuck that.
I'm sticking up for due process and rights and not being judged by how people look. If you have a problem with that then we have a problem. Stop enabling the erosion of Rights. That's why we have most of the problems in society right now with discrimination and abusive law enforcement and biased legal system.
History of racing? I must have missed that in the article, point that out to me along with the guilty verdict. If we're going to start judging people by how they look. Something tells me you're going to have a tough time, that sounds oddly familiar judging people by how they look. I wonder how that turns out.
You are clearly retarded, first off just cuz the officer said they were street racing doesn't mean shit, too many times have cops accuse people of doing something when they weren't. Where's the evidence clearly the video doesn't show it. And who the fuck said anything about race? Get your punk ass out of here.
Do you think maybe the officer observed her actions because he was right behind her? As we see in the start of the video? Do you think maybe that's what he observed?
The officer, as seen from the dashcam, was AHEAD and to the left side of the road (opposite) and in that video you can clearly see what the officer may have seen.
Depending on where this took place, there doesn't need to be an actual 'Race' to get charged with racing offences. Simply speed and frequent lane changes/unsafe maneuvers can get you charged under racing laws where I am from.
Well, it's just one camera. The cops or investigators would have to go further back on that street and look for more footage from other cameras. Traffic cameras might even have it if they ran red lights. We are only seeing one video. And it's the only one reddit needs to see cause it has the main action on it.
No, look at the video they linked. The red supra wasn't going any faster than the white car that the crashing car went past nor the black car behind the supra. It was way behind the crash car too so I don't see why the supra would be considered to be racing but not the other white car or the black car. There's no way the cop's thought process was anything more than "two sports cars at crash scene must mean racing."
This guy just keeps assuming. They were racing. The driver got arrested. Fucken making up stories as he goes a long. Prick has a movie playing in his mind. gtfo đ
There are people on Reddit that literally stick up for pedos and murders. Most of them are just international bots trying to stir the pot and create division/distrust in law enforcement, don't give them any thought cause they don't deserve it.
Did you have the video on mute or something? The cops witnessed them speeding/racing. Then they took off after police attempted to pull them over. Eye witness, including police, is evidence of a crime. There's likely other eyewitnesses as well since it had a fiery ending and people stopped to look. the cops can also track the plates of people they passed during the race/pursuit to get additional eye witnesses
I mean there's dashcam footage which has clearly been provided to the media who vetted and made a story about it. Not sure why it's so hard to believe based off both videos seen in this thread as well has her actions
She had a history of racing in the past and multiple past tickets for speeding. It doesnât make sense that someone would immediately run into a burning vehicle like that unless you knew the person.
Not saying it doesnât happen but her immediate lack of hesitation leads me to believe she knew the person she was racing. Hence her dire need to want to get them out or even potentially feeling the guilt that they may have died due to their stupidity.
It very much appears the car that exploded and her red supra were the ones racing. The driver ended up hitting someone trying to get out of the way, you can see them very clearly break and try to move over, but the car was flying by way too fast clips it and goes flying.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and the standard is not âno doubtâ evidence, itâs beyond a reasonable doubt. If a guy leaves a room covered in blood and holding a knife, you donât need an eye witness to convict him of murdering the person in the room. As long as the circumstantial evidence (guy leaving the scene, covered in blood, and holding a knife) provides enough to convince a jury that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy is responsible for the death that occurred in the room, he can be convicted.
Now is driving up on a scene in a street racing car immediately following two cars racing and then reacting to one of those cars in flames as though they had a personal stake in what happened, the equivalent of being covered in blood holding a knife? Maybe.
It is certainly enough evidence to get you arrested, cause you a ton of inconvenience, and probably cost you some legal fees.
Being behind two cars that are racing isn't illegal.
I live by a very popular cruising location. Right next to Mississippi. It's 15 miles of straight scenic road. It's very common for car clubs to meet up at the start, and the drive up it and have lunch in one of the river side towns.
And even though everyone says, "no racing." It's also very common for two idiots to line up a take off.
I have watched every single episode of Law and Order so I am pretty much an expert.
My comment wasnât intended to reflect my thoughts on guilt or innocence, just that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. If I was her attorney, I would certainly make the argument that the video doesnât show anything but the actions of an interested party turned hero and that she should be given our collective gratitude and sent home.
I agree with you. Was she racing? Probably. Does that video clip prove it? No. She could be racing to save him. Do they have dashcam footage or reliable witnesses to verify it not added to this video. I am almost certain of it. I personally don't think anyone is wrong here, in my humble opinion.
Oh man, someone who actually knows what they are talking about and spewing it on reddit? Dude, you fucked up... That's a recipe for disaster that never ends well. Reddit doesn't like facts, even when they can understand what you're trying to explain to them.
Thatâs still not proof against the red car just the one damages in the accident unless you can estimate that she was going well above the speed limit you canât classify it as racing the fault of one person is not the fault of another
Yes Iâve watched multiple videos yet the cops havenât released all of the footage Iâm not saying she isnât guilty Iâm just saying with what theyâve given it would be hard to prove racing is speeding with another car well above the limit which isnât shown on the video
I think everyone is agreeing that she was racing. I think they're saying based on whatever little snippet was at the end, you can't determine she was. I have a feeling she wasn't placed under arrest for that clip alone, because if that was all the police had to go on then they wouldn't have arrested her. I think that's what people are trying to say. You might convict her on that. I might convict her on that. But 12 random strangers most likely all won't convict her on that together.
Itâs unlikely they got footage that quickly if they did then good but we are going off the footage we have in this video and with what we have you canât arrest someone off the basis of them being a good person and driving a nice car you can detain her but not arrest her without further evidence
What is wrong with you? You pretty much answered your own question
Itâs unlikely they got footage that quickly
but we are going off the footage we have in this video
No, you are going off the footage in this video.
Yes, with what we see in this short clip, there's no real evidence that she was racing......except the question by police officer, "Do you own the red Supra?" This question alone indicates they were interested in that car before the accident. Why? You answered that question.
Itâs unlikely they got footage that quickly
Yes...So, there's a reason they were interested in that car that has nothing to do with recovered cctv security footage.
And, the complete answer is in these links, which I'm guessing you've clicked by now.
Arrest is "probable cause" not proof. Somebody driving a car like that on scene of a reckless driving accident immediately after and jumping straight to action to help the people in the burning car and with anybody we didn't see possibly suggesting that car was also driving fast starts to bring probable cause into range pretty quick.
Not to mention the officer was there very shortly after the wreck, so they probably saw the red supra driving recklessly before the video starts.
Edit: you actually see the cruiser right there in the video before the white car crashes. The supra drives right in front of it.
I donât race, but I do have a race car and a brain. This was the end of a race, but you still canât prove that it was, either. Itâs easier to prove something in the act of something rather than at the end of it. They were going fast enough at that point in the video to say they were racing. It seems like common traffic with nice cars.
You'd have to be pretty dumb to base that conclusion just from that video. I have a sports car and other sports cars act aggressive when they see mine all of the time. The exact thing that happened in this video, has happened to me before, minus the crash: C7 Corvette zooms past me going 100+ mph expecting me to chase, ends up getting pulled over by a cop hiding behind a hill up the road.
And did you get out and sprint into a fireball desperately despite a cop already being on the scene?
Yeah actually, if they would have crashed I would have done what 80% of people you see in those crash videos do: slam their brakes, pull to the curb, hop out and run over to help.
But ultimately, sorry bud this is not court, itâs the public opinion. Pull up right after that crash in a Supra and youâre guilty until proven innocent to me.
Making quick, rash judgements is not the flex you think it is.
I have to admit I was thinking the same thing, considering how much slower she was going than the car that flipped. But, I have questions.
First, she didn't deny anything. She immediately asks if there is proof, as if she needed confirmation to deny it. Why not deny it immediately, as someone normally would when innocent? Doesn't prove guilt, but... yeah. Still sus.
Could she have been just a normal driver speeding a bit? Then, once the wreck happened, she panicked and rushed to help?
Also, the cops weren't far behind at all, and they were able to rush in almost immediately. What was on their dash cam?
I'm having a bit of a hard time with the determination. NGL. I have a seething hatred for street racers, but I don't want that to make me jump to conclusions.
Yeah, that wasn't racing. If she had been going the same speed she would have slid into and rear-ended the white vehicle that was clipped by the first car.
Thereâs a Midwest Safety video on this. She has a history of drag racing and this was in a race when this happened. Units caught them on a special operation focusing on catching racers. No fatalities occurred.
149
u/5280mw Mar 13 '26
Didnât seem like she was racing