Am I my brother's keeper?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Loif
The police called him to pick up a friend. He was drunk. Powell should have driven him to his house (or Powell's house) and had him sleep it off.

One can just as easily turn this line of reasoning around and say that the police are guilty because they realesed a man who was way over the legal the BAC limit back on the streets and gave him his keys back.

[Chris 62]

So we have reached the stage of bad judgement=manslaughter.

Insane.

There is also the matter of there being no law against someone not serving drinks preventing someone from driving.
The prosecuter is asking the jury to deliberate a judgement call, when the jury cannot be postion of all the facts (they can't speak to the dead man, they have no way of knowing how he was acting).

I would be counter-sueing the hell out of Jersey for false arrest and imprisonment, and defimation of character.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Chris 62
So we have reached the stage of bad judgement=manslaughter.

Insane.

No, typical. "Gee, I thought it'd be a good idea to drive 65 miles per hours passed a school at 3:00 p.m., but now I see that was bad judgment." Manslaughter is defined as a negligently caused homicide.

There is also the matter of there being no law against someone not serving drinks preventing someone from driving.

Whew, too many negatives in that sentence. Bartenders are ususally not targetted because they have no specific knowledge the drunk is going to be driving. In California, there's a special law on this.

The prosecuter is asking the jury to deliberate a judgement call, when the jury cannot be postion of all the facts (they can't speak to the dead man, they have no way of knowing how he was acting).

I would be counter-sueing the hell out of Jersey for false arrest and imprisonment, and defimation of character.

I've seen the police video of the drunk-driving arrest. The guy is so drunk, he can hardly stand up. There's was also a breath-alyzer or blood test. I don't remember now whether the results were twice the legal limit or 0.20.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
No, typical. "Gee, I thought it'd be a good idea to drive 65 miles per hours passed a school at 3:00 p.m., but now I see that was bad judgment." Manslaughter is defined as a negligently caused homicide.

Just once, I'd like to see me quoted WITHOUT an assinine example that is so rediculous as to be laughable following it.
The actual statue says "to cause harm by action", that would mean placing the guy behind the wheel, not some stupid nonsense about speeding through a school zone.
Why did you feel it neccessary to post something so stupid as that as an example?

[quote]Whew, too many negatives in that sentence. Bartenders are ususally not targetted because they have no specific knowledge the drunk is going to be driving. In California, there's a special law on this.[/quoye]We are talking New Jersey here, and there IS such a law, and they ARE targeted.

I've seen the police video of the drunk-driving arrest. The guy is so drunk, he can hardly stand up. There's was also a breath-alyzer or blood test. I don't remember now whether the results were twice the legal limit or 0.20.

If he is so obviously impared, why is he being released?
You just gave the defense even more.
People are resoncible for their OWN actions, not others.
This case reminds me of the final seinfeld episode, where they arrest the cast for not trying to prevent an ARMED robbery.

The fault here lies with the dead driver and the police that arrested him and then released him.

[chequita guevara]

There's a good case for 2nd degree murder here. He created a dangerous situation which any reasonable person would assume could cause the death of another person. That's beyond simple negligence.

The law considers being drunk an impairment on judgement, so the drunk driver himself (we he still alive) does not hold all of the responsibility. His friend, however, had no such impairment (maybe sleep deprivation). He had to know that letting his friend drive as drunk as he was might very well result in someone's death.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Chris 62

The actual statue says "to cause harm by action", that would mean placing the guy behind the wheel, not some stupid nonsense about speeding through a school zone.

Hmm, this seems to be the source of our disagreement. I see little legal or moral difference between causing a death by speeding through a school zone and causing a death by putting a drunk behind the wheel of the car.

People are resoncible for their OWN actions, not others.
This case reminds me of the final seinfeld episode, where they arrest the cast for not trying to prevent an ARMED robbery.

The fault here lies with the dead driver and the police that arrested him and then released him.

The difference between Seinfield and this case is the difference between passivity and activity. The Seinfield people did nothing, while Powell transported the drunk to his car and gave him his keys. The law (usually) imposes no duty to act but, when a person chooses to act, the law then imposes a duty to act reasonably.

BTW: There is no question the drunk driver is also responsible.

Question: I don't understand why you believe the police are more cupable than the friend. The police released the driver into the custody of his friend with instructions to take him home. How did that act put the public at an unreasonable risk of harm??

[Dinner]

I still like to believe that each of use is responsible for our own actions. As a friend I would have tried to be more forceful with a drunk companion but in the end it was the drunk who killed three people that night. Not his friend and not the police.

[Loif]

Yes, but the friend should have been more responsible and shouldn't have driven the guy BACK to his car and given him back the car keys. What the heck was he thinking? A responsible person just doesn't do things like that.

[Shi Huangdi]

Not guilty. Yes, he should have been smarter, but you should not be resposnsible for the actiosn of another man.

"A responsible person just doesn't do things like that."

He wasn't responsible at all for his brother. And if they didn't want the man to drive, the police shouldn't have returned the car keys.

[chequita guevara]

BD, the law is fairly clear with something like this, if you create a situation in which it is likely that someone will die, you may be charged with 2nd degree homocide. I forget the exact term. If they offer this guy 1st degree mansluaghter, he should take it cuz a jury will convict.

[Loif]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Not guilty. Yes, he should have been smarter, but you should not be resposnsible for the actiosn of another man.

I disagree. If people aren't expected to be responsible for the actions of others then the world as a whole is in a lot of trouble. Whatever happened to looking out for one another?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BD, the law is fairly clear with something like this, if you create a situation in which it is likely that someone will die, you may be charged with 2nd degree homocide. I forget the exact term. If they offer this guy 1st degree mansluaghter, he should take it cuz a jury will convict.

The operative word here being 'likely'; while it is indeed dangerous, I strongly doubt that driving drunk is likely to be lethal. If it were, there'd be a lot fewer drunk drivers, since most of them would be dead.

[Loif]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


The operative word here being 'likely'; while it is indeed dangerous, I strongly doubt that driving drunk is likely to be lethal.

Tell that to someone who has lost a friend or loved one to a drunk driver.

[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.

[chequita guevara]

With as much alcohol as was in his blood stream? Dude was measured at .26. I'm surprised he could walk, let alone drive. He was an accident waiting to happen.