I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@Sloan,

Interesting. That is something a judge will be interested in knowing about.

I'm surprised that his lawyer has not already warned him against such actions.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

That is something a judge will be interested in knowing about.

Why, if it isn't relevant to the case?

1 Reply

@firefly,

The judge will be the one determining relevancy.

Spoliation is the issue.

http://www.jetlaw.org/?p=9624

Quote:

As the use of evidence from social media sites becomes a more regular occurrence in trials, lawyers must take care not to forget that the rules regarding production of evidence apply even to MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Sorry but he did call for help in a short period of time and if the visibility was poor then he might not had known the nature of the accident even cold sober.

Being from the state of NJ I had been in driving situations where you just could just see the edge of the roadway most of the time.

If someone on a bike had been hit by my car I would not had likely not known what cause the impact and I would surely not had stop to be part of a mult-cars pile up.

We do not have all the facts.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Believe me, I am sure that Thom now regrets not stopping his car, as required by law, and trying to summon aid that might have saved the cyclist's life.

At this point we dont know that there was even a minute delay in calling this in, as Thom may have been talking with 911 before he even pulled up to his house. All we think we know is that he drove the other 1.5 blocks to his house, that he did not stop at the scene. I am not sure that the state cares about the minute to minute sequence of events, as the law allows them to pound on Thom with the threat of 30 years and it is the administering of this kind of beating on citizens that gets DA's off...this case is a wet dream for the state's prosecutors.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I'm surprised that his lawyer has not already warned him against such actions.

No doubt he has been thus warned, but it is hard to stay quiet when you know that you are not the complete ****-head that the state is claiming you are to reporters.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry but he did call for help in a short period of time

<snip>

We do not have all the facts.

As you say, we do not have all the facts. That includes not knowing that he did call for help - ever or in a short period of time.

Stick with - we do not have all the facts. That part of your post was correct.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

If he is determined to have tampered with evidence - and that includes Facebook postings - there is the possibilityof additional charges.

(are you really so interested in this one case that you're following it in the local media?)

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

If he is determined to have tampered with evidence - and that includes Facebook postings - there is the possibilityof additional charges.

I would not put it past the state to be that vindictively petty.

Quote:

(are you really so interested in this one case that you're following it in the local media?)

I am interested in this case enough to use Google to see what is out there, as I would expect anyone who was at least moderately invested in this thread to do.

Quote:

For Immediate Release
Dec 23, 2011
Fatality Hit & Run Accident
Location: 5th Avenue North and 22 Street
Date/Time: 12/23/11 at about 2:15 A.M.
Victim: Barry Lancaster, W/M, DOB 12/2/64 currently believed to be transient.
Arrested Suspect: Thom Brian Swift, W/M, 08/16/1967 of 2017 Dartmouth Avenue North, St. Petersburg
Suspect Vehicle: 2010 Acura TL, FL Tag 3C158BN
Charges: DUI Manslaughter & Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death.
At about 2:15 A.m., Swift was driving his Acura eastbound in the curb lane of 5th Avenue North in the 2200 block when he
struck a bicyclist, Barry Lancaster, who was also traveling eastbound in the curb lane of 5th Avenue. Lancaster was ejected
onto the windshield of Swift’s vehicle and then thrown to the roadway.
Swift failed to stop after the crash and continued to drive to his residence located at 2017 Dartmouth Avenue North. Police
made contact with Swift at that location. He admitted to officers that he knew he was involved in a crash with what he
believed to be a pedestrian and he fled the scene.
Lancaster was taken to Bayfront Medical Center when he was subsequently pronounced deceased at about 2:43 A.M.
Swift has been charged with DUI Manslaughter & Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death and booked at the
Pinellas County Jail
Information released by Mike Puetz, 727-893-7550, [email protected]
####

http://www.stpete.org/police/releases/dec11/12-23-11-fatality-crash.pdf

I am offended and appalled that the state is putting out press releases at all trying to sell their side of the story, leaving out such an important fact as that the suspect alerted authorities to the alleged crime. Other stories have it that the police are claiming that Thom admitted that he thought that he might have hit someone, an apparent fact which is being used to paint Thom as a **** for leaving the scene when we have every reason to think that he was actually saying this out of concern for the victim........to a 911 operator: "OMG, I just had an accident on 5th Ave and I think I may have hit someone, please send and ambulance!"

Why have we not heard the tape? Likely because it would distort the story that the state is trying to sell us.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

If someone on a bike had been hit by my car I would not had likely not known what cause the impact

If the person hit your windshield, I'm sure even you would know what caused the impact. It's hard not to notice a body thrown up against the windshield. And he did know he hit a person, he just thought it might have been a pedestrian.

Quote:

Sorry but he did call for help in a short period of time,,

You don't know that he ever called 911 to request an ambulance for the victim. And you have no idea of the time interval before he called police to report the accident.

Quote:

We do not have all the facts.

Which is why you should stop manufacturing excuses for his actions.

The facts you do know include a criminal charge for failing to aid a victim, as well as leaving the scene of an accident/crime.

And, in your case, you don't even have the facts of the statutes he is charged with violating--you either have not read those statutes, or you don't understand them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Tampering with evidence is a pretty big deal. Charges resulting from it are not petty.

I do not know that this particular person's Facebook postings are evidence. That will eventually be for a judge to determine. I do know that messing with evidence is a bad idea.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If someone on a bike had been hit by my car I would not had likely not known what cause the impact

If you didn't realize there was a problem when a human body hit your windshield, you should probably have your license removed for other reasons than DUI.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

If he is determined to have tampered with evidence - and that includes Facebook postings - there is the possibilityof additional charges.

That's true.

But a sign-in on a Facebook page is not evidence related to either DUI manslaughter/leaving the scene, or failing to aid the victim, which is why I can't see it as "evidence" of anything pertaining to his criminal case.

That he was actually in the bar that night is not at issue. A Facebook sign-in sheet is not proof of anything regarding the actual criminal charges against him.

Perhaps someone else deleted those entries.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

which is why I can't see it as "evidence" of anything pertaining to his criminal case.

as I said earlier, that is up to a judge to determine.

Spoliation is a serious matter.

As a reference point, it is not that simple to remove entries from someone else's FB postings. Luckily for the justice system, the footprints of the postings last pretty much forever.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

As a reference point, it is not that simple to remove entries from someone else's FB postings. Luckily for the justice system, the footprints of the postings last pretty much forever

which is why the state claiming that it had its panties in a twist over this would be a vindictive bitch move.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Has the state commented on this at all?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

As a reference point, it is not that simple to remove entries from someone else's FB postings. Luckily for the justice system, the footprints of the postings last pretty much forever.

But, didn't the Facebook page belong to the bar? I can't access the page, it seems to have been removed. But the bar might want to remove Thom's name from their sign-in sheet. Publicity from this accident doesn't exactly help them to sell more booze to their patrons.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Has the state commented on this at all?

Of course, they put out a press release and reporters claim facts and claim that these facts come from agents of the state. This kind of attempt to vilify citizens in the press combined with the way that we Americans charge suspects before the investigation has barely begun strikes our more civilized Europeans friends as outrageous....and they are correct. America is no longer as civilized as we used to be.

3 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But the bar might want to remove Thom's name from their sign-in sheet.

are you nuts?

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But, didn't the Facebook page belong to the bar?

the check-ins on most resto/bar pages are done by the patrons. The check-in can only be removed by the person making the original entry. It can be hidden by others - but not removed.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know