Elon Musk Demands 'Fire That Judge!' as 2014 Case of Driver Given Community Service for Killing 2-Year-Old Girl Resurfaces

Elon Musk has responded to resurfaced footage showing a grieving Dutch father throwing a chair in a courtroom after hearing the initial sentence for the driver whose actions caused the deaths of his two-year-old daughter and her grandparents. Replying to a post sharing the video, Musk wrote, 'Fire that judge!'

The footage shows Erik Derijks reacting to a 120-hour community-service sentence handed down in November 2014. That was not the final outcome: on 23 September 2015, an appeal court imposed 15 months in prison and a four-year driving ban.

Elon Musk Responds to Resurfaced Courtroom Footage

Musk's response was directed at a post by Complex sharing the chair-throwing footage on 8 October. Other users also criticised the original punishment and questioned its severity.

The post referred to the initial November 2014 ruling, rather than the prison sentence imposed on appeal the following year. The distinction matters because the appeal court reached different findings about the driver's conduct after considering further evidence.

The video captures Derijks's reaction to the first judgment. It does not show the subsequent proceedings or the punishment eventually imposed.

Father Threw Chair After Community-Service Sentence

The crash happened on 19 May 2013 in Meijel, in the Netherlands. Two-year-old Ize Derijks was travelling by bicycle with her grandparents when a car struck them. All three died.

The driver, a Polish national, lost control of his vehicle, which left the road and struck the cyclists.

On 21 November 2014, Limburg District Court found that the charged offence of causing death by culpable driving had not been proved. It instead convicted the driver of causing danger on the road.

The court said it had not been proved that he had driven with the degree of culpability required for the more serious offence. It imposed 120 hours of community service and a suspended one-year driving ban with a two-year probationary period.

After the sentence was read in the Roermond courtroom, Derijks threw a chair towards the judge. In a subsequent interview with RTL Nieuws, he described everything going black before his eyes when he heard the punishment.

Prosecutors challenged the ruling, taking the case to the Court of Appeal in 's-Hertogenbosch.

Appeal Court Imposed Prison Sentence

The appeal court considered further investigation into the car's speed and additional expert evidence. It also considered witness accounts describing excessive speed.

The court concluded that the driver had exceeded the 80 km/h limit and driven very carelessly. On 23 September 2015, it sentenced him to 15 months in prison and imposed a four-year driving ban.

Derijks and his wife welcomed the decision at the time.

The different outcome reflected a change in the court's findings about the driver's conduct, rather than simply an increase in punishment for the same established offence.

The driver subsequently appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court and left the Netherlands. He was arrested in England in August 2016, where he had been working as a seasonal labourer, and was returned to the Netherlands to serve his sentence.

Driver Was Later Released Early

In April 2017, after serving less than nine months, the driver was granted a sentence interruption to travel to Poland because his pregnant girlfriend was due to give birth. He was not required to return to the Netherlands to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Then justice state secretary Klaas Dijkhoff opposed the release, but the relevant appeals body allowed it. Dijkhoff later described the decision as wrong and apologised to the family, including over the fact that they had not been informed in advance.

Derijks said the decision reopened the family's distress after they had believed the legal proceedings were over.

The resurfaced footage concerns the original community-service sentence, not the eventual appeal judgment. The later early release was a separate development that generated further controversy over the handling of the prison sentence.