I just don’t understand drinking and driving

.

It still should matter criminally whether or not the accident was avoidable or not avoidable by a sober driver.

If the accident was of a nature that a driver could not had avoid the accident then as far as manslaughter is concern the level of blood alcohol in the driver blood should not matter.

If the law state otherwise that would be a fine example of where jury nullification should occur.

Seriously? So proven guilty that it was "his fault" and because he left the scene, he gets 30? You have to account that "if he was drunk and caused it" it has to be Manslaughter, but he did apparently make good on fleeing all be it too late, but because he was drunk... IDK I understand the family would want the book but a Judge has to in my opinion see, if true, he had a conscious, that does in my opinion account for something .. The same rules do not apply to everyone, how can they in day to day living? So why should they in laws?

He does deserve jaol purely for driving whilst drunk, Barry and his family do deserve closure that being, someone drunk killed him when otherwise if sober may not have...

But 30 is a life sentence deserved for deliberate MURDER in my books.

Even a deceased family here, sees that.



In aways that is still true. Regardless of what Barry was doing and thank you for enlightening me again of the name, I felt bad on that note, but, does it note make sense if Thom was drunk? That he would not be able to not be at fault? His actions and reactions are slowed down.



Speculation. Simularily, with all due respect, he could have been singing along to a song with it cranked up.. And, not be concentrating...

.


What is still legal?



Not really I stated he chose to drive, after drinking... That seems to be a fact.. So, irrespective, the law should consider who's fault it is and judge accordingly on time but Thom still chose to drink and drive...

.

But Thom still drove , after drinking... I know you see "law" but I've met many who have "not much of a life" some are still the same, others have changed and have moved mountains. Everyone deserves the chance and mostly no one is there for them or have given up... But, even to be a hobbo, milling in life , is living... He may have been happy patting a stray dog, seeing birds fly over, just because he "may" have been homeless doesn't mean that he didn't give a **** about life, that's an assumption he may not have given a **** about his ex wife, given a **** about the family that "didn't understand" but the look in his eyes tells me he loved live... His smile.. his eyes, sorry Hawkeye they do say the eyes have it and If I met you i'd probably see sex just kidding.. not with me anyways.. But still we can't find out.. Look at his photo go deeper.

No neither do I but a good majority had/have and if not, have disclosed some thoughts of their life, or pain after joining ANY forum... Including me.. The Internet is private, no real names, a way to speak.



I do agree, repeat defenders that can not change, serial killers, rapists, or physically abusive that can not be controlled can not be amongst people.

Thom made a mistake that will cost him dearly.. He also made a decision.. But we don't know if Barry was drunk himself, or contributed in which case the case by case base is needed... Not just a "law"... that is general..

I wonder how new the car involved in the accident happen to be as the newer ones had what amount to black boxes in them.

It would be interesting to get information on the man driving before and right at the time of the accident.

Bill you are getting carried away.


You are now talking general, not withstanding anything about this thread.

Your imagination defines itself to general why is that?

I think that Hawkeye makes a helpful point
in that our hireling employee, government,
which the citizens OWN, shud be held responsible
to render facts to the citizenry,
so that we can monitor how well it is doing its job.
That is merely an issue of employee accountability.
(I dont mean to suggest intrusion into defendant's own private records.)

An interesting counter-argument to that
is that we failed to include that into
the enabling instrument of its existence: the Constitution
(in this case: the Constitution of Florida).





David

David a permanent standing grant jury that would issue a report to the citizens every year of so on the total criminal justice system in a state might be helpful.

We also need to find ways to break off the closed relationships between grand juries and the Prosecutors so they could act as first intended as a shield from government abuse instead of a tool of the state.

"I wonder how new the car involved in the accident happen to be as the newer ones had what amount to black boxes in them."


ummm. if you mean like flight data recorders, no they don't.

please provide a source for this...

here is what is available. it is part of the airbag system, and only in some cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder

Here is some information from your link and the majority of news cars seems to have them now.

Thanks for the link.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use as evidence in courtsThere have been a number of trial cases in the US and Canada involving EDRs. Drivers have been convicted and exonerated as a result of EDR evidence.

Other examples include:

In New South Wales, Australia, a teen-aged woman (a probationary driver) was convicted of dangerous driving "causing death/occasioning grievous bodily harm" in 2005. Evidence from the Peugeot's EDR showed that the car was being driven in excess of the posted speed limit. An injunction against the use of EDR evidence, obtained by the owner of the car (the parents of the defendant), was overturned in the NSW Supreme Court.
In Quebec, Canada, the driver of a car who sped through a red light, crashing into another car at the intersection and killing the other driver, was convicted of "dangerous driving" in 2001 after EDR information revealed that it was he, not the deceased driver of the other car (as the defendant asserted), who was speeding. There were no other witnesses to the crash.
The first such use of EDR evidence in the United Kingdom was at Birmingham Crown Court during the trial of a 21 year old man who crashed the Range Rover Sport he was driving into a Jeep in 2006. The accident left a baby girl paralyzed and the driver, who was aged 19 at the time of the incident, was sentenced to 21 months in prison. The EDR evidence allowed investigators to determine the driver was speeding at 72 mph in a 30 mph zone.[4]
[edit] NotableOn 12 April 2007, N.J. Governor Jon Corzine was seriously injured in an automobile accident. According to the superintendent of state police, an Event Data Recorder in the SUV he was traveling in recorded he was traveling at about 91 MPH five seconds before the crash. The speed limit on the road is 65 MPH. The Governor was not the driver of the vehicle.[5]

[edit] Video Event Data Recorder

then it sounds as though Thom's attorney might have some evidence at his disposal that will have nothing to really help defend him against drunk driving.

more likely, it will help prove the state's case. speeding, or no brakes before the impact.

maybe it will come out at trial...

If he drove the car after the accident, then any data on the recorder was overwritten.

It could show that he was not driving in a unsafe manner and have normal driving inputs on steering ETC no matter what his blood alcohol level may had been or not.

If a dark cyclist came out of the darkness there is a good chance that a sober driver would not had have time to brake also.

Helpful information in any case might be there to be able to help analytics the accident and the events around it.

Who it help if it exist is an open question at this point.

I really don't understand all of this posturing about "well a sober driver might have had an accident, too."

A meteorite might have fallen out of the sky and killed the driver before he had a chance to run down the bicyclist, but that isn't what actually happened.

The law does not say, "if a sober driver would have had an accident under the same conditions then it doesn't matter whether he was drunk or not."

Nor do I see what bearing that has on the matter. A sober driver might have driven faster, or slower, or taken a different route, or (here's a thought) not been driving home from a bar in the first place.

.

He call the police within minutes from a block or so away and off hand I would assume that the police would had impound the car so that should not be an issue.

If the law is written in such a manner that it does not matter if no human being behind the wheel could had avoided the accident if the driver have a certain blood level of alcohol he or she is guilty of manslaughter that would be a fine example of another insane law.

A law just waiting for jury nullification and rightly so.

very good point...

That's why Thom won't get 30 years. The 15 year penalties for DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of a DUI manslaughter are the maximum sentences that can be imposed, but those are not the types of sentences actually handed down in cases like Thom's. Thom might face the possibility of several years in jail, but nowhere near 30 years.

Both Hawkeye and BillRM have an absolute aversion to actually reading any of the laws pertaining to any crime we discuss in any thread, so they instead present their version of laws as a set-up they can argue against. And the argument is aways the same, the defendants are always innocent, the laws are unfair, and the punishments are too harsh--and the only real victims are the individuals who are arrested--and it doesn't matter what kind of laws that are being discussed, their arguments are always the same. Why they are both so paranoid is anyone's guess but they start from a basic premise that an arrest, no matter how justified, is an instance of government abuse of that person.

Both Hawkeye and BillRM also have an absolute aversion to reading any news stories regarding trials or convictions that contradicts their paranoid assumptions about how the justice system operates or the types of sentences actually being handed out. They ignore the role of defense attorneys, as well as judges, although they are the main participants who insure that the system operates in a fair, just, and lawful manner. And they ignore the probability that the defendant might well have broken the laws they are charged with violating. And all of those things have been evident in this thread.

That the victim in this case was homeless is completely irrelevant to the charges against Thom or to the disposition of the case. Thom is charged with causing or contributing to the death of a human being, and it really doesn't matter legally who that human was or what his social status was. The issue involved is whether Thom contributed to, or caused, that death because he was driving while drunk. When one drives legally intoxicated it is very difficult to demonstrate that alcohol did not impair one's ability to avoid a collision since the effects of alcohol greatly increase the probability of an accident occurring because of the manner in which alcohol affects the central nervous system of the driver. That's the reason we have drunk driving laws--alcohol impairs the ability to operate a motor vehicle and it impairs the ability to avoid accidents.
Arguing about what the victim might or might not have been doing that contributed to the accident does nothing to diminish the fact that a drunk driver is operating a motor vehicle in an impaired condition, and that impaired condition will affect his ability to respond to any situation. So, in terms of criminal laws, a greater burden of responsibility will inevitably fall on that drunk driver, as it should. Contributory factors coming from actions of the victim receive greater weight in civil suits.

What will actually go on in that courtroom in Thom's case is not likely to center on who was at fault--this isn't a settlement in an accident case and it isn't an issue of who was right or wrong, the driver or the man on the bike. The victim is not the one on trial. The main issue is whether Thom actually committed the actions he is charged with, and whether the state has the evidence to back that up. And that process has already begun in court. This week Thom's lawyers entered his plea of not guilty and they requested/demanded that the state's evidence be provided to them. And their job will be to attack every shred of that evidence with all means at their disposal. That's how our justice system operates, in an adversarial manner of the state vs the defense. All of the harping about jury trials vs plea bargains is not what insures a just process because there is nothing inherently unjust in plea bargains since they can decidedly work to the advantage of a defendant. What helps to maintain justice for the defendant is the advocacy of his defense.

In this case, Thom appears to be represented by a locally high profile defense attorney/firm who I have no doubt will do their job in a far different manner, and a far more effective manner, than anything that Hawkeye or BillRM have been coming up with in this thread. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is fully on the state and that will be true whether this case is settled by a plea bargain or by a trial. The defense will try to get evidence thrown out and they will try to get the charges either dismissed or lowered. How successful they will be will depend on the strength of the state's case as well as the defense team's legal expertise and experience. But it is that combative struggle between the opposing state and the defense that is the heart of our justice system, that's what keeps the state from hammering on citizens.

There is absolutely no reason in this particular situation to start from pre-existing assumptions that Thom is totally blameless and that he's going to receive an unfair or unjustified punishment. Neither of those things is likely to be true. And the essential issues in this case will play out in a public courtroom in front of a judge whose rulings are likewise public. While Hawkeye complains that he's missing all the juicy gossipy details, including totally irrelevant minutia about the victim's marital history, he could go to St Petersburg and sit in that courtroom if he so desired and he could observe the legal tug-of-war being played out. Nothing is being hidden from him that the law gives him the right to see and hear. He has no right to know the private negotiations between the state and the defense, he has no right to know Thom's side of the story, unless Thom chooses to make that story public. Both Hawkeye and BillRM have a rather over-inflated sense of their own self-importance, and a significantly over-inflated sense of their ability to accurately interpret and apply the laws. And neither of them have the acumen or legal ability of a decent defense attorney when it comes to evaluating a defendant's possible legal strategy which is mainly why they are nothing but hot air.

At this stage of the game, all of the speculation about who was at fault and possible outcomes for Thom is meaningless, given the absence of facts, of evidence, and of just about all information that is needed for a meaningful discussion of such matters. And the attacks on the justice system are equally meaningless in this context because this case appears to be moving forward in an entirely appropriate and just manner. A lawful arrest was made, and the reasons for the arrest were presented to the satisfaction of a judge. And the defense has just begun the process of examining the state's evidence and preparing to attack it, and they seem to be working to modify the bond agreement. Things are going just the way they should be going. The system is working just fine--and that's what Hawkeye and BillRM won't/can't acknowledge. They can't deal with reality when it interferes with their paranoid fantasies about how the legal system operates.

That was a lengthy read:)

This is why I have said, "speculation" or "assumption".

If there is going to be a debate, let it be 'after the fact', that makes sense...otherwise, it's a witch hunt of he said, she said, only it's he did, she did, or in this case they are both hims..

I know that both are heck bent on the laws and changes that are needed, appreciate that they have a right too, to think as they wish to.

But, I also would like to see a case that is closed and discussed, as apposed to a case that is open and assumptions and speculations are had.. That's called, what?

Guilty until proved guilty or innocent...

I like the saying, assume, makes an ass out of u and me...

It does not work, as too often people are wrong with their assumptions...

Like I said, I'd like to read where a case is closed and felt to be in-just.. That is worth debating not speculation.

The DUIs laws are so crazy that if you do the right thing and instead of driving you decide to sleep it off on a parking lot you can be charge and convicted of DUI driving.

No commonsense seems allow in out laws of late.

http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1619282.html

Actual Physical Control DUI
DUI - ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL (or, when doing the right thing gets you arrested...)

Imagine having a few drinks with friends, it’s late, you stagger to your car to drive home--but something happens. You get to your car, and realize that a night of two-for-one tequila shots has affected you a bit more than anticipated. So, you make the right decision not to drive, and simply stay in your car to sleep it off in some dark corner of the parking garage. Nothing illegal about that, right? RV owners do this on a daily basis.

“Tap tap tap”. You’re awoke by a knock on your car window, right where your ear was pressed up against the glass. It’s the police. You wake up, roll down the window, and the officer catches a blast of the odor of alcohol. The cop asks you to step outside the car to perform some field sobriety tests. Eventually, a DUI arrest occurs.

But wait. No driving. Just sleeping in your car, a common thing for those traveling in their RV, so why is the officer singling me out--because I’m not wealthy enough to own an RV? What’s the problem?

The problem is that DUI law in the State of Florida allows for a conviction for driving under the influence even though the police officer essentially woke you up from a nap. The officer doesn’t have to prove “driving”, as might be expected. “Driving” Under the Influence is not necessary the correct term. The State need only prove that a citizen has “actual physical control” of the car while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Historically, actual physical control issues targeted DUI accident cases. A common scenario involves a car wrapped around a telephone poll, with the owner of the car staggering nearby the vehicle. Police arrive, and no one is driving the car, no witnesses saw who drove the car. With actual physical control laws, the officers can make a case that the person hanging out near the wrecked vehicle, who happens to own the vehicle, and who happens to have possession of the keys to the vehicle, was probably in actual physical control of the car and thus a DUI investigation may proceed. Of course, who isn’t staggering after hitting a telephone poll?

Some courts have defined actual physical control as situations where a driver “could have at any time started the automobile and driven away”, thus factors such as the location of the ignition keys play a crucial role. (See Griffin v. State, 457 So. 2d 1070, at 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). In Griffin, it was 2:30 a.m. when an officer noticed the Defendant in the driver’s seat of a car which was sitting in a traffic lane facing the wrong direction, lights on, keys in the ignition, foot on the brake, but the engine was not running. The court determined that these facts were sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle, and upheld the guilty verdict for DUI. Id. at 1072.

However, the courts may not find actual physical control when the lone occupant of a stationary vehicle does not have possession of the ignition key. Mere presence in the driver’s seat, alone, is not enough. Much like real estate, the court’s analysis often hinges upon Location, Location, Location. The location of the car, the location of the keys to the car, and the location of the driver within the car. In one case, a driver was found guilty of DUI when found alone and unconscious in his vehicle parked in the emergency lane with no headlights on with the engine not running and car keys on the center console. Krivanek v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 702a (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. June 19, 2003). In Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the defendant was sleeping alone, lying down in the front seat of his vehicle parked in a parking lot, keys in the ignition (in ‘off’ position), lights on, but the engine was not running. The court in Fieselman held that this was not sufficient to establish actual physical control of the vehicle, as required for the charge of being in control of vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.

The problem becomes more complex when an officer wakes a citizen sleeping in a car, only to discover a possible DUI case in the making. Does a person asleep have actual physical control of the car they’re sleeping in? What can the human body “actually” control while asleep? Obviously, breathing, heart rate, basic bodily functions—but don’t you have to be awake to be in control of a car? For example, how many people watch TV, fall asleep while watching with the remote control in hand? Would you say that the person sleeping on the couch had actual physical control of TV just because the remote remained in their hand? Actual physical control issues are handled on a case-by-case basis. You should call DUI defense attorney John Guidry to discuss your options.

who is John Guidry, and why are you advertizing for him?