Update: Authorities Release Driver in Saturday's Fatal Crash

17-year-old could be re-arrested pending police investigation.

The 17-year-old driver of the SUV that on Treat Boulevard, has been released from juvenile hall. 

The results of a police investigation into the circumstances of the accident which resulted in the death of Solaiman Nuri and his daughter, Hadessa Nuri, are expected to take close to two weeks, Concord Police Lt. Bill Roche said Monday, but in the meantime, the law requires the juvenile to be released.

The unidentified 17-year-old was arrested at the scene of the accident for vehicular manslaughter, but authorities can't keep him in jail unless formal charges are filed within 48 hours. That deadline was Tuesday at 4:30 p.m.

 of an emotional Sunday evening candle-light vigil held in honor of the Nuris at the scene of the fatal accident. 

The district attorney's office will not file charges until it receives a complete report on the accident from the Concord Police Department, and investigators are still compiling the report, police Lt. Bill Roche said.

"They want the entire packet done before they make the review. We still have a lot of work to do," Roche said. 

The following statement was issued by the victims' family:

On behalf on the Karzai/Nuri family we would like to thank the People of Concord and the rest of the community who have reached out to our family and have been a great help in this time of pain. We would also like to thank the Concord police department and the district attorney for all of their hard work.

We understand this will be a long process and have been made aware the driver might be released today. We know this country has a justice system put in place and we respect it, that is why our families moved here over 27 years ago. At this time we are focused on being a family and Laying our loved ones to rest and letting the police do their job. Thank You

Emal Karzai
On behalf of the Karzai/Nuri family

Roche said investigators are poring over physical evidence, witness reports and the mechanical review of the vehicle involved, a white 2002 Cadillac Escalade. They are also looking into whether the teen was texting or talking on the phone and whether drugs or alcohol were involved in the accident, Roche said.

Police say the driver could be arrested again depending on the results of the investigation. 
The car was traveling at an "excessive rate of speed" through the intersection when it went out of control, struck a fire hydrant, hit the bicyclists, then careened into a building, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Lewis Broschard said.
"We believe speed to be a factor, but the sequence of events is still under investigation," Roche said.

Anyone with information on this incident is asked to call Traffic Officer Ken Carlson at (925) 603-5931

Want to help? The family set up a Memorial Fund:

Donations should be made to the "Solaiman and Hadessa Nuri Memorial Fund" at any Wells Fargo branch.

the account number is: 3268148529

- Bay City News contributed to this report.

Stay tuned by "Liking" Concord Patch on Facebook.

Steve Bond April 11, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Im sorry. I just cant drum up much sympathy for the kid or his parents in this. He has speeding tix and evidently has only been driving for around 6 months with a license. The parents allowed him to get this suv and didnt provide any discipline to stop his poor driving judgement when he got the speeing tix. As a result a family has been cut in half horribly. The fact that he just has to live with this on his conscience for the rest of his life doesnt provide much deterrent in my mind. His attitude can simply be as callous as "its a shame but they were in the wrong place at the wrong time". That is not justice in my book.
The Merry One April 11, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Not that it makes an ounce of difference in this tragic event, but I thought that if you were under age 18, and were caught speeding, that this was an automatic suspension of your license until you turned 18. Even if that is not the case, why did this guy's parents allow him to drive when a year into his driving experience he already had a speeding ticket?
Steve Bond April 11, 2012 at 06:01 PM
What this boils down to for the kid and his parents is that their lack of discipline for his habitual negligent behavior has now been transferred to the responsibility of the justice system/state. A family is ripped in half from the senselessness of a kid who prob thought he could continue to drive however he wanted regardless of how many times he got caught violating traffic laws. @The Merry One, to your point, the vehicle shouldve been impounded after more than 1 speeding ticket by a minor.
Concerned Resident April 11, 2012 at 10:47 PM
This intersection is typically full of school kids most of the time. I have witnessed people flying through this intersection and also further up Treat eastward where the right lane merges. I am surprised that Concord PD is hardly present for any speed control in these locations. If there were better policing of these usual flying zones I would think there may have been a dismal chance this could have been avoided!!
Claire Voyance April 12, 2012 at 02:44 AM
Yet again, the public has convicted a person before all of the facts are known. Did the driver lose control of the vehicle after swerving to avoid a wild animal (e.g. squirrel)? Did the driver lose control of the vehicle after swerving to avoid a stray domestic animal (e.g. cat, dog)? Did the vehicle malfunction (brakes, steering, accelerator, etc)? Was the driver temporarily blinded by a reflection or other visual impairment? Did the driver suffer a seizure? etc. etc. etc. Trayvon Martin DUKE LACROSSE All convicted by the public before all of the facts are known. Worse are the media clowns who exacerbate the hysteria, especially a local website that shamelessly published facebook screenshots that seriously inflamed the hysteria and probably polluted the jury pool.
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 02:56 AM
Right Claire, all valid points which can easily and quickly be eliminated by the simple fact that he was exceeding the speed limit thru the intersection. That alone (aside from vehicle malfunction) brings in the criminal negligence. This form of negligence is a much lower threshold of proof. If the mobile phone records indicate a call was made or sms sent at the time of the accident then you compound the speeding with that to build the manslaughter charge. He is not convicted of anything, yet. The criminal negligence charge is virtually guaranteed due to violating the speed limit. The rest is built on the charge from there. And Claire, if you dont mind him being able to get behind the wheel again while he's out then perhaps you also wont mind crossing the street in front of him approaching an intersection either.
Noor April 12, 2012 at 04:01 AM
This event is beyond sad. Even a sidewalk is no longer safe for a bicyclist(s). What happened to sharing the road or the shoulder? I did not know the victims' family but felt obligated to join the funeral procession. I must say, few things bring tears to my eyes, unfortunately, this was one of them. In regards to the driver, he knows where and how he screwed up and I hope he gets what he would want if someone did this to his family the way he did.
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 05:35 AM
No remorse at all from these people. Why should there be any sympathy towards their own plight?: http://serve.castfire.com/video/937585/937585_2012-04-12-002625.html
Doug April 12, 2012 at 06:15 AM
Claire Voyance, is that like Congressional Intelligence? Stop making excuses for this young man. His reckless actions and decision making killed two innocent people. End of story! Swerving to avoid small animals...yeah, right. Stop reaching for excuses.
Romney for the win. April 12, 2012 at 07:40 PM
In addition, Claire I wonder how fast you'd offer such an empty excuse if your family members were killed? It's funny how you offer such a humanitarian standpoint to defend negligence, laws are in place for a reason. "Congressional Intelligence" indeed, flawed logic at best. Interesting regarding your two examples of media parades, do yourself a favor stop watching FOX news and try thinking for yourself. Case and point two people lost their lives, and your writing about squirrels? You should have your license revoked, as you clearly lack level the of intelligence to operate a vehicle. *-guessing your favorite character in Wizard of OZ was.....the scare crow?
Romney for the win. April 12, 2012 at 07:47 PM
That's just sad, and beyond belief.
Claire Voyance April 12, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Steve (a.k.a. Mike Nifong's Doppelgänger), Do you have conclusive evidence that the vehicle did NOT malfunction? No, you don't. Ever heard of SUDDEN ACCELERATION? Educate yourself: http://suddenacceleration.com/ My point is very simple: NONE OF YOU MORONS KNOW ALL OF THE FACTS, BUT ALL OF YOU MORONS HAVE ALREADY CONVICTED THE DRIVER IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC HYSTERIA.
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 08:08 PM
I suppose that's one way to describe it. Id prefer an outrage and people who'd be better off for both themselves and the community if they just leave. That kind of attitude towards people your offspring has killed is not welcome here.
Claire Voyance April 12, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Congressional Intelligence? LMAO. That's absolutely irrelevant to this issue. Put down your "Thesaurus for Political Lunatics" and start reading a book about factual analysis, especially the chapter on unsound conclusions based on incomplete facts. Also, learn the difference between an excuse and an explanation. It's clear that I am the only person capable of "thinking for myself" and performing sound factual analysis.
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Claire, have you ever heard of the theory of Accam's Razer? The fact that he has multiple speeding tix already can also be attributed to sudden acceleration as well in your mind? These attempts by you to defend him in any possible way is I'm sure already being eliminated as possible explanations by CPD. Any remotely possible explanation that you can think of that could explain away his responsibility is the easiest part of the investigation for CPD. Accam's Razer suggests the most like explanation is usually the correct one. Checking the mobile phone records and the toxicology report will reveal the truth all else being eliminated.
Beau Hunk April 12, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Uh, that would be "Occam's Razor."
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Right you are. Touche.
Claire Voyance April 12, 2012 at 10:11 PM
I cannot stop laughing. You tried to use BIG WORDS and don't even know the correct spelling. "most likely" and "usually" do not equal certainty. You are guilty of stupidity beyond a "most likely" / "usually" doubt.
Steve Bond April 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM
The lack of a spell checker on mobile aside. All other aspects are accurate. When this point is proved we can re-commence this argument then. Toxicology reports take around 2 weeks to run thru the lab. Mobile phone records should be faster. The Razer theory is right the vast majority of the time. But I'm not against him gettin some family time before heading back.
Harry Jenkins April 13, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Why do you believe there's no remorse? "No comment," is the smartest thing anyone can tell a reporter, especially if you are involved in a criminal investigation. Only an idiot with speak with the press under such circumstances.
Chris Nicholson April 13, 2012 at 03:01 PM
The nature of facts/proof/conclusions in real life is all about inference, not deduction. There is very very little that we can "know" with 100% certainty. This is particularly true in cases like this, where the true crux will be: what was in the kid's head at the time of the incident. What *do* we know? 1. He exhibit the external trappings of being a loser/thug. 2. He lost control while driving at an unsafe speed. Should we hear his side of the story and get more facts? Of course. But, given what we DO know, it would be irrational to pretend that we don't already know enough to make a reasonable guess as to where this will land. If anyone sincerely believes that a coin toss is as predictive of guilt here as anything we know know, I would offer a substantial even money bet that he will be found culpable. That said, this feels like vehicular manslaughter, not murder.
Steve Bond April 13, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Indeed. The proof barrier is reasonable doubt. Outside of that I can think up all kinds of possible "explanations" for this accident that are outside the realm of reason. Perhaps an alien transported him up to their spaceship for a 5 second examination and when they transported him back the SUV was already out of control. There are endless "explanations" that are beyond the reasonable doubt barrier. The same goes for this sudden acceleration "theory". Without specific evidence that this happened at that exact moment it is beyond reasonable doubt that this is what caused him to crash. The simplest explanation is correct beyond all but a very small % of circumstances. Those rare circumstances can be easily eliminated beyond a reasonable doubt with an examination of the car's brakes and electronics. Him swerving around another vehicle prob doesnt qualify for manslaughter unless he was doing it over the speed limit and/or using his mobile phone without a headset. The Razer dictates that the simplest explanation is correct beyond extremely rare circumstances whether or not that qualifies for manslaughter. As for these people's lack of any remorse, they are not under investigation. For them to show even a small amount of remorse for the family thats destroyed does not show any guilt. They werent behind the wheel when it happened and even though it was their offspring it does not indicate guilt for them to show simple remorse without any other statement.
Harry Jenkins April 13, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Again, only a fool would speak to the press. Notice how biased this reporter is. He doesn't contact the family in advance about an interview. He uses that old style 60 Minutes ambush interview technique. He even includes a shot of his feet running as he chases after the family. Once the family speaks to the reporter, they lose all control over how the reporter edits the comments, which reporters do all the time. No comment is the best comment when you are the subject of a criminal investigation.
Morticia9267 April 17, 2012 at 03:14 PM
Even if there are charges filed and if he is found not guilty, the fact is his actions or lack of caused two innocent people to die. The law states that the parents are liable financially and DMV can revoke his license.
Chris Nicholson April 17, 2012 at 03:38 PM
That's not very comforting. His parents are very likely judgment proof (poor), so good luck recovering.
Steve Bond April 17, 2012 at 03:46 PM
So aside from criminal negligence or manslaughter charges, his worst case scenario is losing his license till he's 21. Insurance company will prob cover what little coverage they are responsible for which is likely ridiculously insufficient. Yea, thats justice for ya.
Rosemary April 17, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Why aren't parents criminally punished for the misdeeds of their children?
Chris Nicholson April 17, 2012 at 04:58 PM
Not sure if you are serious, but the theory is that *punishment* as distinct from civil monetary liability, is reserved for states of mind / mens rea worse than simple negligence. There also needs to be causal link between this bad state of mind and the commission of the crime. Unless there is a understanding with the parent (conspiracy) regarding the criminal act, the bad intent is no worse than negligence and/or the causal link between bad parenting and the crime is too tenuous... Sometimes, a specific act of a parent (e.g., giving an untrained and erratic kid a loaded gun) can be so reckless as to be a crime, but I think you are suggesting a crime of "criminal parenting" (in general) and/or vicarious strict criminal liability for all acts of kids. I see the appeal in terms of incentives to be better parents, but also kind of a rough rule....
Steve Bond April 17, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Well, I think at a min, if you kill someone and there is cause for civil negligence liability then you should lose your license for at least 20 yrs. regardless of whether youre a minor. If you are caught driving without the license with this on your record then it should be the equivalent of a drunk driving charge against you. If the parents will not police their own kids then the state/judicial system has to remove them from being a danger to society.
Rosemary April 17, 2012 at 05:57 PM
I have always favored rough, rules that is.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something