Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,833
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    25218
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    Of course there's always the old saying not everything is black and white or that's easier said than done.
    You left out "talk is cheap."

    "I would stop them from driving no matter what" is a fairy tale and only children believe in fairy tales. Adults believe in "I would do what I could but there's a point where discretion is the better path -- for everyone involved." There are police officers and first responders who are trained in how to handle such situations and there's nothing wrong with using them. I don't have such an inflated opinion of myself that I believe that the fate of the world rests on me and me alone.

    I most certainly wouldn't physically challenge someone I didn't know, anyone I did know that I knew owned a gun or I knew I couldn't take down. Challenging someone you know you can't take down is grandstanding. Challenging someone you don't know or you know has a gun (or other weapon) is stupid. Calling the cops when it's a situation you know you can't handle is smart. And it's not even close to "not even trying." IMO calling the cops actually takes way more courage than trying to take someone's keys away because in our culture we have it ingrained from a young age that you don't 'snitch.' I suspect you risk losing friendships over taking that path, in fact.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    5,969
    vCash
    470
    Rep Power
    12551
    As a former CT resident, this smells more like an attempt by someone to deflect the dead girl's responsibility fo her own actions. The police are out of line here. The driving during curfew will stick, but I think the rest will get thrown out.
    AceOn6, the golf loving skating fan

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,765
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    0
    to me it smells of it is Christmas/Winter break time where kids may be drinking and driving and/or aware that friends are driving, with an attempt to hopefully increase kids awareness that they may be held responsible.

    Same as a current case in my area that involves a motor vehicle homicide where there were more than allowable passengers in the car on a provisional license and reckless driving, obstinately because of distraction of the driver and kids in the vehicle. The mother of the teen who was killed questions why the information on charges was released now before the holidays. I don't know the county attorney's thought process on this, but it would be a time that teens are out of school and driving each other around. To me that would drive home a point that I might make to my kids if they were teens and had restrictions on licenses.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,442
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4484
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    I doubt the charges will stick. They aren't in a position where they had a legal obligation to stop her and they aren't even adults.
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveRinger View Post
    How are minors responsible for the behavior of other minors? Legally they aren't even responsible for themselves.
    They're 17. They're not kids. Now if they were 12, they might fall below the criminal age of responsibility, but at 17...quite a lot of kids are tried as adults. In the US, some states have minimums and other states rely on common law, which generally is interpreted to mean that anyone over 14 IS criminally responsible for their own actions. In some places, kids as young as 12 have been tried for murder. Just because they go to juvie and not prison doesn't mean they're not legally responsible.

    In this case, I have to wonder how much detail is in the press and how much has been left out. It's not entirely unprecedented though. Some countries would call it negligent manslaughter, others negligent homicide.

    I agree with whoever said that you should absolutely try to stop your friend driving drunk and do everything in your power...but I don't think it should necessarily be criminal if you fail to do so. If you fail to even try...well...you have to live with the consequences.

    I don't think the charges will stick, but I also wonder if the police expect them to, or if they're just trying to teach young people in general a lesson about looking out for your friends.

    It varies so much from country to country. In Australia, there are speed cameras everywhere, HUGE penalties for speeding, the blood alcohol limit in every state is lower than in every state of the US (0.00-0.05 in Australia, 0.08 in the US), including a limit of 0.00 for young people on provisional licences in some states. Police are able to pull over vehicles and randomly breath test the drivers at their discretion, and if you're done for drunk driving, you can pretty much kiss your licence goodbye.

    There's no positive obligation to stop someone from drunk driving, but there is a totally different approach in general to driving offences which is why I think there have been such different reactions in this thread.

    The positive obligation thing is a bit of a slippery slope. IIRC, there was a test case in the UK involving a drowning when the family of a victim tried to sue passers-by for not saving someone drowning in a pond. I'll have to go back through my old law school notes and see if I can find the outcome...but I think the case failed. It's difficult to predict how anyone will react in that situation and I'm pretty sure those kids, or anyone who didn't prevent a crime for whatever reason (Fear? Froze? Didn't know what to do?) will never forget it without the threat of criminal charges.
    Last edited by *Jen*; 12-09-2013 at 04:23 AM.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  5. #25
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,458
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    You know, I was thinking about this some more and when I did my training as a daycare worker one of the scenarios that came up was drunk parent picking up a child (thankfully this never happened). By law, we cannot deny a parent their child- no matter what the scenario. We were supposed to suggest they hang out and wait, or call a ride, but if they refused and wanted the kid to leave, we had to let them, and then immediately call the police with a license plate number.
    This is similar to our policy at the casino--we have to stop serving (and allowing you to gamble) if we decide you're intoxicated or close to it, w can have you escorted off the floor if you refuse to stop drinking or gambling once you've been red-lighted, we can strongly recommend you eat something and if you're at the location with a hotel that you get a room or go to one if you have it and sleep it off (cutoffs are usually four hours), but unless we have to actually have you arrested for trespass (when you keep coming back on the floor before your 'time out' ends) we can't physically stop you from leaving. We're all explicitly forbidden from physically grabbing someone's keys or restraining them. Generally if a guest who's been cut off insists on leaving, we'll call Tribal and they'll be waiting by the end of the drive to pull the guest over as soon as they hit the public road, but we can't actually stop them from going.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    City of Troy, Rensselaer County, NY
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,536
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    .

    It varies so much from country to country. In Australia, there are speed cameras everywhere, HUGE penalties for speeding, the blood alcohol limit in every state is lower than in every state of the US (0.00-0.05 in Australia, 0.08 in the US), including a limit of 0.00 for young people on provisional licences in some states. Police are able to pull over vehicles and randomly breath test the drivers at their discretion, and if you're done for drunk driving, you can pretty much kiss your licence goodbye.
    Au contraire. New York State, where I've lived all of my life, starts measuring at .05. .05-.07 gets you charged with DWAI - Driving While Under the Influence. .08-.17 is DWI - Driving While Intoxicated. .18 and over is Aggravated DWI. We also have Leandra's Law, which makes driving drunk with a child in the car subject to being charged with a Class E felony for a first offence. There is also a separate charge, DWAI-Drug, for drug-related offences. We also have a very strict graduated license program for under-18 drivers. Actually, under-21 drivers can have their license revoked if they are convicted of DWI or DWAI anywhere in the US or Canada, or if they refuse a chemical test in NYS.

    http://dmv.ny.gov/alcohol-drug.htm
    http://www.safeny.ny.gov/alco-ndx.htm
    http://dmv.ny.gov/broch/C-39DDL-web.pdf
    Last edited by Karina1974; 12-09-2013 at 05:42 PM.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,263
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What about a person who gets into a car with someone who is driving drunk? They clearly are allowing the person to drive. Should they be held responsible? What if there is an accident and the passenger is injured? Do they face charges because they got into a car driven by someone under the influence? This could be very, very dangerous legally.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,442
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4484
    Quote Originally Posted by Karina1974 View Post
    Au contraire. New York State, where I've lived all of my life, starts measuring at .05. .05-.07 gets you charged with DWAI - Driving While Under the Influence. .08-.17 is DWI - Driving While Intoxicated. .18 and over is Aggravated DWI. We also have Leandra's Law, which makes driving drunk with a child in the car subject to being charged with a Class E felony for a first offence. There is also a separate charge, DWAI-Drug, for drug-related offences. We also have a very strict graduated license program for under-18 drivers. Actually, under-21 drivers can have their license revoked if they are convicted of DWI or DWAI anywhere in the US or Canada, or if they refuse a chemical test in NYS.

    http://dmv.ny.gov/alcohol-drug.htm
    http://www.safeny.ny.gov/alco-ndx.htm
    http://dmv.ny.gov/broch/C-39DDL-web.pdf
    Huh, interesting. I didn't know there was a difference between DWI and DUI. Thanks for the info
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    City of Troy, Rensselaer County, NY
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,536
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    DWI may just be the term that NY uses. I'd be more interested in how our drunk driving laws compare to other states'. Not that they stop some people, unfortunately. We just had a sentencing for a 23-year-old who drove drink and stoned 80 MPH on the Northway (I-87 north from Albany up to the Canadian border) and also texting - he cut across two lanes and slammed his car into the back of another car with 4 17-year-olds in it, killing 2 & critically injuring the other 2. This POS has been involved in 5 accidents in 6 years, all of them his fault. He is also a Momma's boy whose mommy was able to pay for a good defense attorney for him. In spite of pkeading guilty to **58** charges he only got 5-15 years.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,442
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4484
    In Australia, there is only one offence (drink driving), but the penalty varies depending on the severity of the offence. In the situation you describe, the guy would go to jail also, but I couldn't say for how long.

    There is a lot of random breath testing, especially around holidays, but people still do it They're actually installing breathalysers in the cars of recidivists...they'll need to blow not just to turn the car on, but they'll have to blow every couple of minutes to keep the car on for the journey home (to prevent friends blowing into it).

    Some people are just so stupid and reckless. It's a shame they hurt others, and not just themselves
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,765
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    What about a person who gets into a car with someone who is driving drunk? They clearly are allowing the person to drive. Should they be held responsible? What if there is an accident and the passenger is injured? Do they face charges because they got into a car driven by someone under the influence? This could be very, very dangerous legally.
    I don't understand what you are saying? you mean set a legal standard that we are all responsible for drunk driving behavior if we know about it?

  12. #32

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,442
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4484
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    I don't understand what you are saying? you mean set a legal standard that we are all responsible for drunk driving behavior if we know about it?
    I think Cruisin is saying that a legal standard that we're all responsible could be dangerous.

    The problem with such a legal standard is that it amounts to a "positive obligation" for people to do something to prevent a crime, and face charges if they don't. Currently, there are no or few positive obligations (that I know of) in the common law systems around the world. If you walk past a river and see someone drowning, there is no legal obligation to save them, just as there is no legal obligation to intervene and help a victim if you see a crime being committed. There may be a moral obligation but that's quite another matter.

    Personally, I agree that friends don't let friends drive drunk, and like to think that if I saw someone drowning I'd try to save them. However, making that a legal precedent could be quite dangerous because it doesn't take into consideration how people react in a situation they're not familiar with (the whole fight or flight, freeze or go thing). If someone saw someone being robbed, would their first idea be to rush to help them, or stand back, call the police and rush to help when the crime is over? Any reaction is plausible. The same thing applies with letting friends drive drunk or not. What if you're really drunk and in no fit state to stop them? What if, as others have mentioned, they're bigger than you and aggressive and you feel threatened by them? What if you don't realise?

    To re-iterate, friends don't let friends drive drunk, IMO, but that should be the law.

    There was a horrible case in Australia where a girl crashed her car full of other teenagers, including one or two in the trunk. The two in the trunk died. She wasn't supposed to be driving but the designated driver was wasted, and everyone else was drunk to, so she was forced to. The question was whether she was responsible for the passengers since they'd kind of forced her to drive. I don't remember the outcome, I think it was found that she was but had already been punished enough so didn't go to jail, but it completely ruined her life Driving issues are pretty legally complex.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,263
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    I think Cruisin is saying that a legal standard that we're all responsible could be dangerous.
    Yes. How can we be responsible for what someone else does? I think it's s stretch for a bar or bartender to be responsible for someone they served driving under the influence. To expect a friend to prevent a person from driving under the influence is ridiculous. Yes, we would all hope that friends would do what they could to stop their friend from driving, but they should not be expected to be able to. As others have mentioned, chances are that the friend has been drinking or drugging as well. Their thinking is probably just as shaky as the driver's. What if the friend convinces the driver that they can drive? Because the friend is drunker than the driver? The point is that the driver is ultimately responsible for their actions. They choose to drink, they choose to drive. To hold another person responsible is ridiculous.

  14. #34
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,833
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    25218
    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    If someone saw someone being robbed, would their first idea be to rush to help them, or stand back, call the police and rush to help when the crime is over? Any reaction is plausible. The same thing applies with letting friends drive drunk or not. What if you're really drunk and in no fit state to stop them? What if, as others have mentioned, they're bigger than you and aggressive and you feel threatened by them? What if you don't realise?
    Plus a law saying you have to help/intervene assumes your help/intervention would make things better. As someone who used to volunteer with a rescue service (ambulance people), I can attest that many times "helpful" bystanders are anything but. Their interventions, while well meaning, frequently make things *worse*. For example, many more people are seriously and permanently injured in car accidents because bystanders ripped them out of the car, convinced it was about to burst into flames, and paralyzed them than have died because bystanders left them alone and waited for trained personnel to show up and remove them from the car using proper technique.

    If the law said you had to help or be prosecuted and the law said you could not be prosecuted for the results of your helping, then more people would do stupid shit in the name of helping where now they very smartly don't help.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,263
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    MacMadame raises a very good point. It should never be mandatory that you have to help. I am sure that it is also possible that the person trying to help, in some situations, could become a casualty themselves. I hope that most people would try to stop a friend from driving under the influence. And i hope that most people could evaluate a situation and decide whether it is safe for the victim and/or themselves to assist. Common sense is needed, not a law!

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,555
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    Should there be charges in this case? No cars involved, just "friends" leaving a friend passed out on the porch for nine hours ... in freezing temperatures!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ila-shots.html
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    659
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    A series of unfortunate events there

  18. #38
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,150
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34978
    What a story.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  19. #39

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,788
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37516
    No prison for privileged teen who killed four in crash

    A judge in the US has decided not to sentence a 16-year-old to prison for killing four pedestrians in a drunk-driving accident because his lawyers successfully argued that he suffered from a severe case of "affluenza".
    Couch's defence team argued successfully that their client's actions on the night were the fault of his upbringing, placing the blame on his parents for making him the product of wealth and privilege.
    I'm sure his parents didn't teach him to drink and drive. Or steal.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •