I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

About someone you consider a worthless bum, a menace to society, and a danger to himself and others?

Or do you just enjoy hearing about grieving relatives who are burying a family member killed by a drunk driver?

You're pathetic.

Some bums have interesting stories. I want to know how it came to be that a guy with a married 26 yo son, twin 18 yo girls, and a wife/ex wife @1821 W Potawatamie Trail kankakee il who care enough about him to have a funeral was homeless and riding a bike @ 215 am in St Pete Fl.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

And running from the scene doubles the penalty for DUI manslaughter.

hawkeye10 wrote:

a person on the phone to authorities immedietly after an incident is not running from anything,
they are doing the opposite of running.

I agree with that point of vu.
If I were the judge presiding in trial of this case, I 'd probably dismiss
the charge of leaving the scene, if he called soon enuf after collision.
I can conceive of a victim pleading with defendant
to go and call for help. Defendant replies:
"no, no, I shall comply with the statute and remain here. I don't know first aid,
but I have a deck of cards; do u like Canasta?
Try to remain alive until someone eventually happens by; maybe he will go for help; who knows ?
Don t bleed so much."

The statutory intendment was not to be capital punishment inflicted upon the victim.

David

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I am also very curious to know how it happens that the mother of his children did not get a mention in the obit.....there has to be a juicy story there.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I can conceive of a victim pleading with defendant
to go and call for help. Defendant replies:
"no, no, I shall comply with the statute and remain here.
Try to remain alive until someone eventually happens by; maybe he will go for help; who knows ? "

this is where the state ends up when they make a habit of wringing the necks of citizens justified on a technicality, and in the process violates the spirit under which the law was written. This reminds me a lot of the time when a cop followed me for three miles in Arizona because he thought I might have illegals in my van. Once I touched the center line with my tire after these three miles he pulled me over, because he claimed me hitting the line gave him cause to see if I was a drunk driver and thus get a good look in my windows. A state that engages in this level of dishonest game playing to try to "get" a citizen is not a state that I can respect as an upholder of freedom.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

States wanna expand jurisdiction,
not to uphold freedom.
Those goals are antithetical.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

States wanna expand jurisdiction,
not to uphold freedom.
Those goals are antithetical.

So do the feds, and where to they both go to play their power games?? My life of course. The law books are constantly expanding, and so is the convict population.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

this is where the state ends up when they make a habit of wringing the necks of citizens justified on a technicality, and in the process violates the spirit under which the law was written.

There's no technicality here--the driver did not even stop at the scene--he kept on driving, while drunk, even after hitting one person, and he went home.

How is it "a technicality" that he didn't even stop his car at the scene?

Quote:

The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.027.html

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

hit and run n. the crime of a driver of a vehicle who is involved in a collision with another vehicle, property or human being, who knowingly fails to stop to give his/her name, license number, and other information as required by statute to the injured party, a witness, or law enforcement officers. If there is only property damage and no other person is present, leaving the information attached to the damaged property may be sufficient, provided the person causing the accident makes a report to the police. Hit and run statutes vary from state to state. It is not a violation of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination to be required to stop and give this information since it is a report and not an admission of guilt. Some hit and run cases are difficult to determine, such as the driver leaves the accident scene to go a block to his/her house or the neighborhood repair garage, and then walks back to the scene.

Or call the cops....hit and run laws were designed to punish those who try to avoid liability, it is a morally failed state which jams a guy up for hit and run after he reports the incident and his liability for it almost immediately.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

it is a morally failed state which jams a guy up for hit and run after he reports the incident and his liability for it almost immediately

Oh please, you are simply ignoring Florida Law. You can't substitute your own versions of laws, which you invariably try to do, for the actual laws that people are charged under.

Florida law required Thom to stop his car immediately after the impact with the cyclist. Stop means stop.

Quote:

The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.027.html

Florida law required him to try to aid the victim--to at least look at the victim--and to try to aid him, if possible.

Quote:

DUI Manslaughter/Leaving the Scene: A driver convicted of DUI Manslaughter who knew/should have known accident occurred; and failed to give information or render aid is guilty of a First Degree Felony
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/duilaws.html

How does calling the police some time later excuse his not stopping his car immediately, and not even looking at the victim, let alone trying to aid him?

You can't substitute your own version of a hit and run statute for Florida Law--because it was Florida Law that should have governed Thom's actions.
And it was Florida Law he violated.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

a person on the phone to authorities immedietly after an incident is not running from anything, they are doing the opposite of running.

There is a point there.

Granted, he should NOT, repeat NOT, have driven but he did appear to own up to his responsibilty with morals..

However, it's still Manslaughter which ever way you want to look at it and it's still fleeing the scene and DUI.

I still want to know, "it seemed he was homeless" verses "he was homeless.. given the take now on all the family.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

I still want to know, "it seemed he was homeless" verses "he was homeless.. given the take now on all the family.

We are not going to be allowed that information, but we know that it is highly likely that Barry was homeless by choice, and my original postulation that he was riding the streets to stay awake and this keep from being harassed by the police is likely. My guess is that over the years many friends and family tried to help this guy out, but that he chaffed under calls that he become a responsible productive member of the collective.

His obit said that he loved watching Chicago Sports teams and loud music??!! WTF, they might as well said that he loved shamming his responsibilities and doing drugs such is this damning with faint praise......that obit was written by a mother who was trying like hell to come up with some nice things to say about her mostly no good son.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Maybe his wife screwed around and he found out that his son wasn't his or his daughters and then turned to the other side, given the person who wrote this thread, and the people that came on here from seeing it when, googled... So maybe he actually was a confused man that couldn't grasp his position:) Who was he?

Maybe... Our active minds tell the story, the one that we want to see, mine is different than yours, as it should be...

I hate talking about the dead.. Let's hope he was loved huh...

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So he's expendable then? People like you should be allowed to kill people like him with no consequence?

You need to drop this bullshit about being a Socialist now. Socialism means protecting the weaker members of society, not driving into them blind drunk. You're a fascist, just not a very good one, you lack the charisma.

0 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

I hate talking about the dead.. Let's hope he was loved huh..

A guy is up for 30 years hard time....the state owes us the truth about what happened that morning, and how it was allowed to happen and that demands that we talk about the dead guy. Our right to ride a bike at night ends when we create an unreasonable danger to the welfare of those in cars, given the states position that the one who has the bigger vehicle and thus does the most damage is automatically the guilty party for what ever goes wrong on the road.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye I understand your "mission" and I don't disagree for the most part on "some" laws and then as you know I am Australian. It is different here.. the power games are left for the mines, global warming, money... Not laws pertaining to every single thing.

So firstly, let me address a few things, help me out.. So, Manslaughter gives 30 years jail? That's life... That's Murder. Here ..

If this man rode his bike without lights, on the wrong side of the road, weaved, was close to the middle of the road, then yes he assisted in causing the accident, that can and will be determined.

If Thom the driver, was so pissed, that he couldn't see clearly, regardless of if there were lights on the deceased person's bike and I'm sorry the name alludes me, then he was more than neglegent and he is 'Guilty' of 'going onto the road' full stop.

He was not a kid, he was an Adult.. He knew he had drunk alcohol and chose to drive.

It is possible it's both parties fault.. I would hope if that is the case that the law reduces the sentence in man-slaughter regardless of the drink driving, I think that would be a fair call... He still deserves penalty he broke the law by his own choice. But even taking that aside, people know what can happen when you drink and drive... He chose to and killed someone.

But, lets not call a homeless person "nothing" they were someone.. People loose their way in life...

Remember we all came to a Forum for some help... Somewhere along the line and if not shared our stories.

We are human.

2 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

Shared responsibility may indeed help in a lawsuit. Even if the accident were totally unavoidable from the drivers stand point, it seems he was still driving and was still drunk.

I have seen cyclists do things in traffic that would make Russian Roulette players look like pikers, by the way.

2 Replies

@roger,

I know this is the problem in my eyes.

You can argue on shared responsibilities, you can argue on blind spots, you can't argue on I drove knowing I was drunk... Despite the law, it's reality that something "may" happen as you can not possibly think straight, act quick enough, be alert.

I remember reading somewhere, that it takes 30 seconds for your brain to react in normal circumstances... I suspect it takes 60 when drunk or longer...

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

I think it's a lot less than 30 seconds for an experienced driver, but definately much longer when drunk.

0 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

. So, Manslaughter gives 30 years jail? That's life... That's Murder. Here

15 because the guy died and Thom is assumed to be the reason, 15 because he left the scene. In America unlike say Canada the state does not need to show that the accused was trying to flee liability, only that they did not do exactly as the law literally orders them to do.

Quote:

If this man rode his bike without lights, on the wrong side of the road, weaved, was close to the middle of the road, then yes he assisted in causing the accident, that can and will be determined.

my understanding is that if you elect to drive drunk then you forfeit the right to claim that the accident was not your fault.

Quote:

If Thom the driver, was so pissed, that he couldn't see clearly, regardless of if there were lights on the deceased person's bike and I'm sorry the name alludes me, then he was more than neglegent and he is 'Guilty' of 'going onto the road' full stop.

More likely Thom had just turned a corner and was not paying enough attention to the road ahead of him thus did not see a poorly lit bicyclist in the very short amount of time that he had available before contact...but we dont know because no one is talking. We likely will never know because of the "lets make a deal" legal system that we have which habitually fails to present the facts to the people.

Quote:

He was not a kid, he was an Adult.. He knew he had drunk alcohol and chose to drive.

Which for the moment is still legal, but some folks are working on that......

Quote:

But even taking that aside, people know what can happen when you drink and drive... He chose to and killed someone.

Here you are assuming that Thom caused the death of Barry, which we do not know, we only know that the state makes the same assumption.

Quote:

But, lets not call a homeless person "nothing" they were someone.. People loose their way in life...

True, but likewise maybe he did not have much of a life, did not give a **** about keeping that life, and thus operated his bike in a reckless manor that will cause Thom to spend many years in jail that he otherwise would not have. We dont know. We should find out.

Quote:

Remember we all came to a Forum for some help

I did, but I dont know that all have

Quote:

We are human.

That is my main argument against one strike and you are out highly punitive American law. If you have a guy who is always violating the law or otherwise showing that he does not care about the law or about other people then fine, throw the book at them.....but when you have a guy who has always seemed like a nice law abiding citizen and one time you catch him doing something bad then it is not appropriate to do your best to stretch the law into what is effectively a life sentence. We are all human, we all make mistakes, and some of us are capable of redemption. Far too many people either do not know this or do not care.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

A guy is up for 30 years hard time....the state owes us the truth about what happened that morning, and how it was allowed to happen and that demands that we talk about the dead guy.

The state doesn't owe you a damn thing. The state owes Thom Swift due process.

And nothing demands that "we talk about the dead guy". You don't give a crap about "the dead guy"--the one who was killed by the drunk. And you don't give a crap about the drunk either. This is all about you. Another excuse for your usual anti-government rant about unfair laws hammering citizens into the ground.

Quote:

Our right to ride a bike at night ends when we create an unreasonable danger to the welfare of those in cars

As I can imagine Hawkeye might respond...

Gee, a guy can't even drive drunk any more, because if he kills someone, even a worthless piece of trash of a human being, the state's going to make a big deal of it and try to put the poor drunk guy in the slammer for 30 years. I mean, no one will miss the homeless guy, but the drunk has a house and friends, so what right does the state have to ruin his life? The worthless one on the bike was "the danger to the welfare of those in cars"--just look at the danger he's put the drunk in now, facing all that jail time, all those legal bills. He was probably suicidal and just riding his bike looking for a car he could get to run into him. The drunk did him a favor when he hit him, he did all of us a favor, we should give the drunk a medal for getting another homeless bum off the streets.

What's the big deal if the drunk wanted to spend all night in a bar drinking and then drive 5 short blocks home. He does it all the time and he never hit anybody before, so we know it has to be the dead guy's fault that it happened this time. But the state won't give the drunk a break, for all those times he drove drunk and didn't hit anyone, oh no, they want their pound of flesh. This is cruel and abusive punishment. First they pass these unfair laws, then they expect us to roll over and obey them. Like hell I will. I'm Zen, and, like Martin Luther King I follow my conscience, and all laws, are wrong. I want to drive drunk without interference, so get the damn bikes off the road, and the damn pedestrians too--if you don't have a car you shouldn't be in the street.

Feminists have taken over the government and they're trying to enslave men in their chains. I know everything there is to know about everything, which is why I'm the only one at A2K not afraid to speak out. If men can't get drunk and drive it's unnatural. Men have to stop being disadvantaged and slap those government bitches around. I demand justice. I want to know why that drunk was even arrested. He admitted he did it, so why did they have to arrest him? The state owes ME an explanation. The hell with the drunk, and the hell with the dead guy, the state owes ME an explanation..ME..ME..ME. I am the champion of justice, I am the one who sees the truth, I always win all the debates, I am HOT ****.

Quote:

We likely will never know because of the "lets make a deal" legal system that we have which habitually fails to present the facts to the people.

There was a court appearance by the defense on the 4th, a written plea of not guilty was entered, and the defense made demands for discovery, and a request for a copy of information, and they will have a hearing on the 10th to discuss modifying the bond.
You want to know the facts, then go sit in the courtroom. The facts of this case are being discussed in a public courtroom. The facts of this case are not your personal business--they are issues to be debated between the defense and the state, in front of a judge--to insure that the defendant's rights are protected. Except you're so grandiose you think this is simply a show put on for your benefit, and you want all the juicy plot details so you can decide what the outcome should be.
It's not a show, these aren't stock characters, and you're not a part of it. One man is dead and another's life is in turmoil. For you this is amusement, for the real people involved it's not.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know