Nation Mourns Family of 4, 2 Others Killed in Wrong-Way Freeway Crash

The California crash resulted in six fatalities. Investigators of the crash believe the contents of Culbreath's car indicate alcohol was involved.

A screen grab of a Tweet of the crash by @sgvnwatchara.
A screen grab of a Tweet of the crash by @sgvnwatchara.

By Michelle Mowad

The entire country is taking to social media to react to the deadly crash in Diamond Bar, Calif. Sunday.

A crash caused by a 21-year-old wrong-way driver going eastbound on the westbound Pomona (60) Freeway in L.A. County killed six people and injured at least one other person, authorities said.

The driver of the Camaro in the crash, Fontana resident Olivia Culbreath, was arrested on suspicion of felony drunken driving and felony manslaughter. Culbreath is at the Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center in serious condition, according to the L.A. Times. 

Investigators of the crash believe the contents of Culbreath's car indicate alcohol was involved, the L.A. Times story said. 

Among those killed was a family of four, according to the Daily Mail. Media outlets around the world covered the story throughout the day.

As of Sunday evening the county coroner's office had only released the gender and age of those killed. Their names had not been released: two were 24-year-old women—one from Rialto and the other from Chino—the third was a 47-year-man, whose hometown was undetermined, Corral said. 

Also read: Updated: Wrong-Way Driver Kills Six in Diamond Bar

—City News Service contributed to this report.
Nancy J February 09, 2014 at 10:49 PM
Why is California news being reported on the Woodinville Washington Patch? I thought Patch was for local news.
David Hartman February 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Wow. She should receive the death penalty. We need to really start cracking down on drunk driving. She will drink and drive, and she very likely will kill again.
Karen G. French February 10, 2014 at 07:02 AM
I'm in Monroe, CT & it's on our patch also. Patch was recently bought out by another company. It wasn't doing well as it was. I'm not sure yet if I like it. It may turn into something other than the regular networks, they've just turned into entertainment shows. If patch can do some serious INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING & REPORT FACTS, then I'm all for it.
Cynthia February 10, 2014 at 09:31 AM
Everyone, get ready for even more road deaths as states legalize marijuana.
Georgia Idrathernotsay February 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM
Give that drunk driver the death penalty. What a tragedy for all who perished and their families to suffer their losses. this drunk 21 yr old should go straight to jail, and rot there until she is next to die.
Dan Snelson February 10, 2014 at 10:37 AM
death penalty, ah no that is actually more expensive. give her LWOP life without the possibility of parole. and whoever allowed her to get that drunk should also have some jail time....
Cynthia February 10, 2014 at 02:05 PM
How do you figure that the death penalty is more expensive?
Julia Nelson February 10, 2014 at 02:46 PM
The death penalty brings with it several built-in appeals, keeping the person on death row for more than 20 years. It's more expensive housing, and the court cases are expensive, too.
Julia Nelson February 10, 2014 at 03:22 PM
I don't think you can say the "nation mourns" the deaths from these accidents. More like the nation is "aware" of the accident. Just because Patch is online doesn't mean it can ignore the rules of good headline writing.
Vito Spago February 10, 2014 at 04:40 PM
JN. I agree. You cannot really morn someone you do not know. You feel empathy for them and their families and feel concern that it could have happened to anyone. However, I believe in fate. That there are some people that if they were on the road at the same time at the same place it would have not happened. That drunk would have run out of gas or something would have happened that would have saved those people and they would have never known it. In other words, when you time is up, it is up and when it is not, it is not. Go to church folkd and do not believe in the religion of the Libtards (Odumbo, drugs, gays, abortion, you know.....)
Julia Nelson February 11, 2014 at 01:14 PM
Oh, Vito, this has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. People have been getting into drunken-driving accidents since the invention of the automobile. I haven't been to church in years, and I also haven't been on the highways at 5:30 a.m. You can't blame the victims for the crash. Maybe they were going to church in a distant location.
Vito Spago February 11, 2014 at 01:30 PM
Huh? No way am I blaming the victims I feel very sorry for them. But what are YOU going to do? Stay off the roads? There is absolutely no way to prevent something like this from happening to any one of us. But I will let the libtards make tougher and tougher drunk driving laws with their stupid idea that they are making the roads safer. Let them make their stupid anti gun laws with their stupid ideas that they are making children safer. Let them legalize dope with their stupid idea that they are making folks safer (huh. THAT IS A LAUGH. That is just for Obama votes). They can make abortion easier with the ideal that they are making babies safer (WHOOPS, that is again for Obama votes and for the CONVENIENCE of drunk loose women). Enjoy your stay at the Plantation. You know you can never leave.
Julia Nelson February 12, 2014 at 03:08 PM
Nope, there's no way Obama can be blamed for this crash. It was caused by a likely alcoholic using very bad judgment. Binge drinking runs across party lines. Even though it has nothing to do with this issue, I still believe a civilian has no need for an assault rifle. And the number abortions is actually lower because contraception is working better, which is the goal. Turn off Fox News and get some facts.
Vito Spago February 12, 2014 at 04:20 PM
JN: What??? Quit making an issue where there is none, like a typical Libtard. I never said that Odumbo caused this. Only that tougher drunk driving laws will NOT prevent accidents like this. Tougher gun laws will NOT prevent nut cases from shooting off guns, and elimination of anti abortion laws will not prevent Blacks and Latinos from committing genocide by killing off their progeny. You THINK that Obama is for you but he is really making you dependent on him in the name in the name of 'liberal BS. Then you become slaves on his plantation. If you do not understand, get someone to explain it to you. Perferably a conservative with a high education. Like Ben Carson, MD.
Sandra March 04, 2014 at 01:12 PM
ViTroll, your spot under your rock's getting cold. Git back unner thar, boy! Now I know you're upset that the inevitable election of Hilary is set to tip you RIGHT over the edge, but look at it this way. We endured 8 years of a mental midget who started 2 wars under false pretenses and did unimaginable domestic and international damage to our relations.... you can endure (at least) 12 years of sane presidents getting our nation back to where it belongs. Your party of HATE and OBSTRUCTION and NO has sung it's last song, ya little prehistoric, impotent cowgirl.
Vito Spago March 04, 2014 at 01:27 PM
Wake up. Bush wan't running for Pres. Liberal McCain and Romney were. Odumbo the liar only was elected by lying to the American people about Odumbocare which is a total joke and has resulted is more uninsured, less money for the middle class, and less hiring by business. Odumbo is so arrogant he refuses to negotiate. Seems that means NO to mean. NO NEGOTIATION. Too bad you libtards will lose the midterms. Then impeachment proceedings can begin on Odumbo. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-getting-destroyed-key-senate-142414525.html
Ray Russell March 05, 2014 at 01:04 PM
Julia, what the hell is an assault weapon? I'd like to hear your definition! Even our lady politicians here in Calif. can't do it, but maybe you know? Please remember that a gun is only a tool! Like a shovel, hammer, or saw. And until a human picks it up, it remains a lump that can do nothing on its own! Maybe we should begin a ban on humans, after all they are the danger to others. Sleep well at night remembering that the right to protection is a Constitutional guarantee!
Julia Nelson March 05, 2014 at 02:25 PM
I don't know the "official" definition of an assault rifle. But I don't think our society needs almost military-grade automatic weapons available to the general public. That is not a weapon for protection, unless you think an army of foot-soldiers will attack. High-capacity magazines -- why? I don't think a gun in the home is a good idea. Far more people are harmed by a gun in the home than it protects. How many stories have you read about a father accidentally shooting his teen sneaking in home late after curfew? Or a youngster finding daddy's gun and accidentally killing a sibling playing with it? If you're keeping the gun in a safe place, can you really access it in enough time to protect your home? Sure, it's your right to "bear arms," but I don't think it's a safe idea.
Vito Spago March 05, 2014 at 02:41 PM
Julia: You do not read stories of crimes prevented because of guns. That is because crimes prevented NEVER HAPPENED. You cannot write a story about something that never happened. BTW, these so called 'assault weapons' that are legal in the US are IDENTICAL in function as semi automatic hunting rifles. They just LOOK LIKE the military fully automatic weapons. LOOKS ONLY. They are not fully automatic. Only issue may be the size of the magazine. 30 or 10 rounds which I will not go into now.
Julia Nelson March 05, 2014 at 07:19 PM
We don't have any proof that guns prevented crime. If it's not reported, it's just anyone guess. We do know that if a gun is in the home, there's a higher likelihood that the gun will cause an injury or suicide. A couple start arguing and one of them grabs the gun. No gun, no shooting death. I still don't think these semiautomatic guns should be legal. And I don't think guns belong in the hands of anyone not highly trained in their use. Police, former military, people who have taken multiple courses. These mentally impaired people who shoot-up schools and theaters can easily get their hands on powerful weapons they aren't sane enough to safely handle.
Julia Nelson March 05, 2014 at 07:22 PM
To add to my above comment, we had guns in the house growing up. My dad was a WWII vet and grew up on a farm and handled guns his entire life. The kids respected the danger and kept our hands off them. My father took me out target shooting. I can use a ruger in either hand to hit a target. I still don't want to shoot someone coming into my house. They can have my crappy TV.
Vito Spago March 05, 2014 at 07:50 PM
Jullia: You really sound like a guns rights person. No one with a gun wants to use it. We just do not want them taken away based on the actions of some psychos. My guns are locked in a safe and they will NEVER come out. They are a hobby and I do not want them confiscated on a whim that gun laws are going to prevent criminals from having guns. Just like drug laws have not prevented druggies from having drugs. Honor your father and let honest folks keep guns in a safe manner.
Julia Nelson March 06, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Vito, you sound like a responsible gun owner. People like you are not the problem. I still think the laws need to be tougher. Don't take the guns from responsible citizens. Make it harder to buy. Close the loopholes.
Ray Russell March 06, 2014 at 02:52 PM
What loopholes? Taking guns or gun ownership rights away from honest citizens does absolutely nothing to control unlawful gun usage! Only increased punishment for gun crimes will do that! Since you can't define what an assault weapon is, how can you call for its being outlawed? Do you mean military appearing weapons? If so, does the gun you learned to shot or your fathers hunting rifle fall into this group too? After all both were based on military designs in their day.
shazaam March 06, 2014 at 03:36 PM
Sandra: Not sure if Hilary is the answer. Name one thing that Hilary has done to deserve to be nominated? Don't forget the Benghazi incident when she was grilled and constantly said "I don't recall." Sounds like another Obama in the making. Lies, Lies, and more Lies. Julia: We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. What happens if a criminal breaks in your house and does not want your crappy tv as you mentioned, but instead want to inflict harm to you and your family? Are you going to let him/them do so? As a law abiding citizen, you will always want to have the advantage. I am a responsible owner and I am also a father of two. I will do anything to protect my family. I am the one who is going to have to wake up at 2am to see what that noise is coming from the kitchen, and yes I will go straight to my safe first. Loopholes? Julia, please do not listen to the mainstream media especially gun control advocates who have no idea what they are talking about. They look like fools especially the hypocrites, Diane Feistein and Bloomberg. There are laws in place. If you buy a firearm, there is a process that you have to go through to get one. You can not just go to a gun show or shop and say I want that one and that one---ring it up and walk out with it.
Julia Nelson March 07, 2014 at 02:48 PM
I'm not judging all gun owners by a few lunatics. I'm all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, and probably all of you here are responsible owners. What I'm against is the fact that it's too easy for someone with mental problems to get ahold of a high-powered gun, like the guys who have shot up schools and theaters. Did you know that in most states you can go to a gun show and buy a gun on the spot with NO background check? I have seen it on news shows and read about it from other sources, so I know it's true. That's the sort of loophole I'm against. (Just because YOU think the media is corrupt, doesn't mean it's true.) If you hear someone moving around your home at 2 a.m. and want to shoot him, just make sure it's not your kid sneaking in after curfew before you fire.
Vito Spago March 07, 2014 at 05:11 PM
You will be in a lot of trouble if you use your gun to shoot anyone. Best legal case is if they were in your house and threatening you and your family and refused to retreat. You could not shoot someone snooping around outside. Again. Media garbage. I have never heard of a gun show where you can just go up and buy a gun. Again, media garbage. There is always a background check. Same with internet. Now YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND CROOKED SELLERS but they would not follow any laws that politicians wirte. They would get their gun from a STRAW PURCHASER. This is a legal buyer who buys the gun for a criminal. THERE IS NO LAW THAT WILL PREVENT THIS. SO QUIT TRYING. It is like the war on drugs. Drugs are outlawed, so why the drug problem There are thousands of ways to buy drugs, that is why. WORK ON RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS KEEPING THEIR GUNS AWAY FROM PEOPLE THEY KNOW ARE NUT CASES. Also improve mental health treatment and when a tragedy occurs KEEP THE MEDIA FROM GLORIFYING THE KILLER.
shazaam March 10, 2014 at 02:07 PM
Julia: I will not be using it unless there is an immediate and serious threat to myself and my family. A verbal warning will be given. Why would I give my kids a curfew if I'm not going to stay up pass the curfew? That defeats the whole purpose of a curfew.


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
See more »