Am I my brother's keeper? - Page 2

DinoDoc · August 8, 2002, 20:13

Can someone explain to me why his car was left out on the side of the road anyway? When I was arrested they towed my car to a lot fairly close to the jail.

cg: With as much alcohol as was in his blood stream?

I'm suprised that the cops put him back out on the streets with that much booze coursing through his veins.

chequita guevara · August 8, 2002, 20:27

So am I. I expect they thought his friend was taking him home, as any responsible person would have done.

chequita guevara · August 8, 2002, 20:28

Confession time: I drove drunk once, 'bout fifteen years ago. I'm still terribly ashamed of that.

DinoDoc · August 8, 2002, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So am I. I expect they thought his friend was taking him home, as any responsible person would have done.

Well, you know what they say about assuming things.

Bereta_Eder · August 8, 2002, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well, you know what they say about assuming things.

ass out of me.

The Mad Monk · August 8, 2002, 20:48

That's right, Paiktis, they make an ass out of you.

Bereta_Eder · August 8, 2002, 20:56

I need a further explanation on english idioms.

by ass do you mean ass like in bottom?

or ass like in that sympathetic animal?

Loif · August 8, 2002, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Tell that to someone who actually has the statistics.

What percent of DUIs end up with a fatality?

FWIW, I lost a cousin in a DUI seven years ago. she was twenty-four.

I don't have the statistics. I don't know what percentage of DUI's end up in a fatality either. I'm sure they differ from your country as opposed to mine. What I do know is that a person who is driving drunk does so knowing what they are doing is wrong. Ergo, so does a person who gives the keys to a car to a drunk person.

Sorry about your cousin. I have lost people I care about due to drunk driver accidents myself.

Tingkai · August 8, 2002, 23:26

The sober guy should be responsible for his actions. He knows his friend is drunk (after all the guy was arrested for drunk driving) and then he drives the guy to his car and then leaves. That's like giving a suicidal person a gun.

Maybe the cops shouldn't have let the drunk guy out of jail, but we don't know what was happening that night. Maybe the jail cells were crowded.

Saying that it was bad judgement or stupidity is no excuse. Criminals routinely commit stupid crimes due to bad judgement.

Roland · August 9, 2002, 03:17

Let's see this with a couple ifs:

- If it was clear to him that the other guy was way too drunk to drive, and
- if he has promised the police to take the guy home, and
- if he had no compelling reason not to do that (eg the other guy getting violent),

then he has accepted what we call "guarantor status" and behaved negligently.

Sikander · August 9, 2002, 03:33

The police were negligent on two counts as well:

1) Letting this guy go anywhere.

2) Waking up this guy's friend and making him responsible. Not only is the friend's judgement likely to be somewhat impaired by being woken up in the middle of the night, but the presumption that a drunk driver's friend is going to be responsible is a bit much. He may or may not be, but if the friend was chosen by the drunk I think that the chance that he is either irresponsible himself or easily manipulated by the drunk increases significantly.

Zkribbler · August 9, 2002, 12:18

I don't know whether I'm yet ready to agree with Sikander

, but his arguments are insightful and well reasoned & I must give them some additional thought.

Rex Little · August 9, 2002, 13:36

Nothing in the story indicates what, if anything, the police told Powell. For all we know, they just let Pangle out of the station and Powell picked him up at the curb. In that case, he couldn't be assumed to know that Pangle was still too drunk to drive, especially since Powell was probably still half-asleep. If anything, he might well figure that the police wouldn't have let Pangle go unless he was OK to drive.

DinoDoc · August 9, 2002, 14:59

I'm not sure but it looks like the jury deadlocked on the charges. I'll post a link when I find one.

tandeetaylor · August 9, 2002, 15:21

It is very certain that what he did was unethical, I'm not sure about unlawful.

There was a case here in my city, last year I think, where a girl driving a van fell asleep behind the wheel and also had some drugs and alcohol in her system. She hit, I think, 6 kids cleaning up trash on the highway. She is in jail for a very long time, but the parents of the children who died are also suing to legal system that put their child out in the middle of the highway (between the two sides of traffic). I can certainly understand that.

Arrian · August 9, 2002, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
I need a further explanation on english idioms.

by ass do you mean ass like in bottom?

or ass like in that sympathetic animal?

The animal, Paiktis.

Good debate. I still don't think the guy should be convicted of manslaughter, but I can understand lesser charges depending on the exact facts and circumstances of the case. We don't have all the facts, apparently.

-Arrian
who still wants to know why the police didn't have the guy's car towed and impounded

Tingkai · August 9, 2002, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Rex Little
Nothing in the story indicates what, if anything, the police told Powell. For all we know, they just let Pangle out of the station and Powell picked him up at the curb. In that case, he couldn't be assumed to know that Pangle was still too drunk to drive, especially since Powell was probably still half-asleep. If anything, he might well figure that the police wouldn't have let Pangle go unless he was OK to drive.

But if your buddy gets arrested for drunk driving and you're called in the middle of the night to pick him up, why would you assume that he somehow, magically, sobered up?

DinoDoc · August 9, 2002, 23:00

Found it:

Quote:

Jury acquits drunk driver's friend of manslaughter, deadlocks on lesser counts

(Court TV) — A New Jersey jury cleared a man of manslaughter Friday for letting his friend drive drunk, but was deadlocked on two lesser counts.

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, legal experts had speculated that the manslaughter case against 40-year-old Kenneth Powell could have set precedent if the jury found the defendant criminally liable. Powell could face retrial for vehicular homicide and aggravated assault.

The case stems from a July 22, 2000, crash in which Powell's friend, Michael Pangle, was intoxicated when he crashed head-on into another car, killing himself as well as the driver of the other vehicle.

Powell picked Pangle up from a police station three hours after Pangle was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Rather than taking him home, Powell drove Pangle to his sport utility vehicle just prior to the crash.

"I know you gave it your best effort and that is a credit to you" Judge William Forester told the panel, which began deliberations Tuesday.

Pangle got back behind the wheel and fatally crashed into a car driven by 22-year-old Navy Ensign John Elliott, who was killed along with Pangle. Elliott's girlfriend, who was in the passenger seat, survived but was critically injured.

Following his death, an autopsy conducted on Pangle revealed that he was still intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Though he wasn't anywhere near the accident when the crash occurred, Powell found himself facing 15 years in prison, charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault.

Prosecutors contended that Powell was reckless letting his friend drive drunk, and that his choices led to two deaths.

The defense, however, argued that state troopers should not have released Pangle or his car keys if he was still intoxicated. They also charged that the prosecution has overzealously charged Powell since Pangle is no longer alive to be held accountable.

Experts had predicted that a guilty verdict could have set legal precedent, making the failure to prevent a drunk driver from getting behind the wheel a crime.

The case has already had an impact on state legislators, who last year passed "John's Law" — named for Elliot — requiring police to impound cars of those charged with drunken driving for up to 12 hours. Elliot's parents have mounted a campaign to make it into a federal law.

SuperSneak · August 10, 2002, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed

hm... methinks those crazy loners in idaho and oregon have got it right. who needs friends and social networks when anything you can do can cause legal repercussions?

Hey, we're not loners...we're Libertarians!

Rex Little · August 11, 2002, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

But if your buddy gets arrested for drunk driving and you're called in the middle of the night to pick him up, why would you assume that he somehow, magically, sobered up?

If I don't know how long it's been since he was arrested (much less since he had his last drink) and all I do know is that the police let him go, why wouldn't I assume he'd sobered up? Nothing magical about it, just takes time. I'm not saying Powell didn't know Pangle was still drunk, just that nothing in the story as reported here tells us whether he did or didn't.

I caught some coverage of this case out of the corner of my eye on TV. Not sure about this, but I thought they said Pangle did some more drinking between when Powell dropped him at his car and the fatal crash. (What a moron!) No way Powell can be held responsible for that.

Berzerker · August 12, 2002, 01:02

Not guilty, the police set this in motion by releasing the guy with his keys. And I'd blame the drunk most of all, he chose to get drunk and drive. The accused is the least to blame of the 3 parties...

Sava · August 12, 2002, 01:12

I say guilty...

Chris 62 · August 12, 2002, 01:30

Looks like what I said was correct from the verdict.

Totally insane.

The Mad Monk · August 12, 2002, 06:18

Last I heard, prosecutors are considering retrying the deadlocked counts.

Gah.

Dr Strangelove · August 12, 2002, 10:12

In many states drunk driving will result in automatic jail time or impoundment of the offender's vehicle. Either one of these actions by the police would have prevented the incident. New Jersey needs to get its act together.

Loif · August 12, 2002, 14:46

I still say that people have to be responsible for their friends. Yes the police should have kept him overnight. Yes he shouldn't have been drinking and driving in the first place. I still think though, that if I would have been the one called to take him home that I would have made sure that he got there instead of giving him back the keys. I feel sorry for Powell; he has to live the rest of his life knowing that he could have prevented this tragedy.

Sirotnikov · August 12, 2002, 14:49

I agree with the verdict.

I agree with Sikander (as usual). The police had no bussiness letting a drunk go out on the streets.

It is THEIR job to keep felons and reckless people off the streets.

If a friend does it out of the kindness of his heart, it's nice, but he's not obliged to do this. Plus, being woken up in the middle of the night, and being the best friend of the drunk, his judgement was in question.

However, since he infact has drove to pick him up, he assumed responsability for him.

The question is, could he have said "no". If he could, then I could accept it reasonable for Powell to be charged of manslaughter of his friend (not the others).

But I support the decision of reckless neglagence.

We can't all live in fear of being sued for doing something or not doing something.

Saras · August 15, 2002, 16:20

0.26??? Here you can drive with o.40, like three pints of beer (for a big guy like me, less for smaller ones)

DinoDoc · August 15, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras
0.26??? Here you can drive with o.40, like three pints of beer

Americans are less able to tolerate alcohol than Europeans are.

Saras · August 16, 2002, 05:52

Geez, o.26 is like what, a hangover? Yeah sure you feel like crap, but does that make you a materially worse driver?