I just don’t understand drinking and driving

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

This is what this all boils down to. If you take the controls of a lethal weapon when you're intoxicated, you have to take the consequences of your actions.

Was there something in this thread
indicating that the bicyclist was also a drunken driver? or not ?

Lancaster had just as much a right as Swift to be out at 2:15. Why you think that it was odd only for Lancaster to be out makes no sense. Why had Swift been out in a bar drinking until that hour on a Thursday night?

You are overlooking the fact that it was Barry Lancaster's birthday. He may have been out that night celebrating somewhere with friends, or simply doing something special, and he might have been riding his bike back to wherever he was going to spend the night.

You're assuming he had no place to stay, but that might not have been the case. He might not have had a permanent address, but he might have had places to spend the night. He also might have worked, even at odd jobs. Maybe he slept in a back room of a place he worked. The police said he might have been transient, so maybe he didn't even live in St. Petersburg. Maybe he came there to celebrate his birthday or for a visit. If he had not been in contact with his family they might not have known where he was living either and they might just have given the funeral director the St. Pete location for the obit because that's obviously the last place he was.

You're never going to know more about Barry Lancaster than you know right now, which is next to nothing.

And nothing about Lancaster's personal life is at all relevant in legally determining whether Swift caused, or contributed to, his death by running into him with a car while driving under the influence. Even the condition of Lancaster's bike isn't really relevant. Even for you, this is just mega bullshit.

A lot more relevant might be Swift's habitual drinking habits and whether he had previous DUIs. If he hung out in bars regularly, doing a lot of heavy drinking and then driving, it was only a matter of time until his luck ran out. And that may well be what happened that night. If he never even saw Lancaster before he hit him, that tells you something about Swift's condition, in fact that probably tells you all you need to know about Swift's condition to explain why he hit Lancaster with his car. How can you not see a man on a bike in front of your car before you hit him? Perhaps because you're not looking? Perhaps because you're so drunk you're having trouble focusing your eyes? Perhaps because your night vision is too impaired by alcohol? Perhaps because you're so drunk and tired you're having trouble just staying awake?

As far as we know, Barry Lancaster had a perfect right to be out riding his bike that night. On the other hand, Swift had no right at all to be driving his car that night in the condition he was in. That explains why everyone, including the state of Florida, is blaming Thom.

But, as usual, only you know the real truth....

Absolutely not. There is no info on the cyclist's condition, or the condition of the bike.

And the cyclist and the car were both traveling in the same direction. From the info Hawkeye just posted it sounds like the cyclist was traveling in the curb lane in front of the car and the car ran into the back of the bike throwing the rider against the windshield before he rolled back into the road.

Maybe there was a witness to the accident.

In another century, one of my cousins in Florida
(a young girl at the time) left a party, a little tipsy.
She was followed and jumped for gang raping purposes,
whereof she did not approve.
She used her revolver and shot some of the offenders.
Thay survived their wounds and fled the scene.
I am of the opinion that if u take control of a lethal weapon
when u r intoxicated u have to do what u have to do n u better DO it.

She does not regret the consequences of her actions,
tho she might have controlled her weapon more lethally,
if she 'd been less tipsy.

Well, those are the posted CHARGES.

I tend to agree that, in the end, there probably will be
a plea bargain. The information does not suggest (not yet anyway)
that Thom is digging in for a big fight. Maybe his lawyer will convince him.

I 'm impressed with your legal prowess, Firefly.
Thank u for your contributions to this thread.





David

What a load of crap.

You're not interested in the facts. The facts we have are that Swift spent a night in a bar drinking, and he was involved in a collision driving home from that bar, and he is now charged with driving drunk, running into a man on a bike, who was riding in front of his car, and fatally injuring him, and failing to stop at the scene.

And those are the "facts" and the only "facts" that Swift's defense attorney must refute.

The gossipy details about the victim's personal life, or why he was out riding his bike that night have nothing to do with whether Swift contributed to killing him while driving DUI and then leaving the scene. For DUI manslaughter, the prosecution need prove only that Swift contributed to Lancaster's death by driving while under the influence.

So, if Swift was traveling too close to the cyclist in front of him, or driving too fast given the visibility conditions, or was swerving and ran into him, or failed to even see the cyclist in front of him before running into him, any of those actions could be taken to reflect poor judgment and decreased faculties due to his impaired state. And none of those things would have anything to do with the victim--they are actions related to the driver of the car, a driver who was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. And, if the cyclist died as the result of injuries inflicted by collision with the car, the driver of the car would have caused or contributed to the death.

Those are the "facts", Hawkeye--not this whole saga about the victim that you are trying to spin out of whole cloth--why the victim's marriage broke up, why he moved from the mid-West to Florida, how and where he was living in Florida, why he was riding his bike that night, whether the city of St Petersburg is partly responsible for the death, etc., etc., etc., While such background info might have some human interest, just to tell us more about this victim of a fatal DUI hit and run, it's just not related to Swift's legal case, since it has nothing to do with whether Swift caused or contributed to the man's death.

You don't seem to know the difference between an episode of Law & Order and an actual legal case. You want all the details of character and plot that are appropriate for a fictionalized legal drama, but which would have little relevance in determining whether a criminal defendant engaged in certain actions that constituted violations of law. This isn't Law & Order, Hawkeye, and the fact that you aren't privy to all negotiations between the prosecution and defense does not mean that due process and a just outcome is not taking place. And, were you sitting in the courtroom for the pre-trial hearings, you'd know more about the issues than you do now. Nothing in the legal system stops you from going down to that courtroom, it's open to the public.

Because you are so irrationally hell bent on always accusing the state of mistreating and abusing any defendant arrested on any charge, and because you are always so hell bent on insisting a just outcome never occurs in criminal cases, you set up phony, specious conditions to try to make your case. And that's exactly what you are doing in this case. If the legal process doesn't follow your rules, by not investigating Lancaster's entire life background and life circumstances the night of his death, then something is being hidden and the system is "unjust". But the system doesn't operate by your rules, Hawkeye, it operates by the rules of law and established legal procedure, and some information is legally relevant and other information isn't. If the defense feels that Lancaster's actions on the road that night will help to mitigate the charges against their client, then they will seek out such information and use it, but putting the victim on trial, simply because he was homeless, would not serve their client at all.

Homeless people have a right to ride bikes on public streets 24/7---drivers do not have a right to drive drunk on public streets at any time. Neither the state nor the defense would have logical reason to make an issue of Lancaster's homeless state, any more than Swift's homeless state would be an issue if he had been living in the car he was driving that night. Because you think these things are important does not mean anyone has to play by your rules. And calling the judicial process unfair because they aren't playing by your rules is a desperate and absurd effort on your part to grasp at straws in a frail attempt to make your usual anti-government rant seem legitimate. And, it just doesn't work, Hawkeye. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

No one forced Swift to drink that night and then drive his car while under the influence. He was justifiably arrested that night, on the basis of available information and evidence, and quickly appeared before a judge who evaluated whether the charges were justified by the state. Bail was set and posted and Swift retained defense counsel and entered a plea of not guilty. The defense has requested discovery materials and pre-trial hearings have begun. All within under two weeks from the date of arrest. There is no railroading going on. If this case ends with a plea bargain rather than a trial, it will be because Swift has agreed to that option--the final decision is his. And he may agree to that option because the state's evidence is strong and it may be difficult for the defense to raise reasonable doubt at trial, and that is not "blackmail", Hawkeye, because a strong case against Swift would point to his guilt and there is absolutely nothing underhanded about the state using evidence of guilt against a defendant--that's exactly what they should be doing. This is another of your phony and specious premises being used in an attempt to grasp at straws.

What the defense can refute, they will refute, but you also have to allow for the possibility of guilt that the state cannot refute, and that's where plea deals benefit the defendant. And neither you nor anyone else should interfere with Swift's right to negotiate such a deal. Your interests, and your personal desire to see a trial, so you can "see a full accounting of the facts" definitely does not trump his interests and his rights and choices. If you were truly a champion of justice in the criminal justice system you'd realize that--the defendant has rights which must be protected, and you can't force him to go to trial.

So, you're succeeding quite nicely in proving what a hypocrite you are. And in terms of showing that a criminal defendant is receiving unjust treatment, in this particular case involving Swift, you are falling flat on your face.

Go watch some more Law & Order episodes, Hawkeye, that's more your speed than discussing real life cases.

The world does not revolve around me....whether I want the facts or not has nothing to do with whether we get the facts or not.

As I have said, the state does not care of Thom caused the death of Barry, only that he was DUI and involved.

That would matter if this was vehicular manslaughter, but since it is DUI manslaughter all the state needs to prove is that Thom was drunk and that Thom's car made contact with Barry. How it happened, and whether the death was the fault of Thom the state does not care about. It is assumed that this is Thom's fault.

They have no more right to drive tired than does anyone else, and no more right to drive without proper safety equipment, and no more right to drive with their vehicle in good working order. We dont know if Barry contributed to his own death. We should find out.

I never said that we should do away with pleas, only that a system that operates with 90% of the cases getting plead is broken. I also maintain that the state and the defendant reaching an agreement does not obliterate our right to an accounting of the facts of the night in question. We need to know what happened so that we can judge if the deal reached in our name by the state represents justice.

My argument is that the "justice" system is unjust, as shown in this case by being willfully blind to what really happened that night, blackmailing Thom, refusing to credit Thom for his good acts, and subverting the spirit and intent of the fleeing the scene laws. Probably in more ways as well but the list above is what I can recall at the top of my head as having argued in this thread. It is not about me, it is about justice, your trying to make it about me and then trashing me is one of your classic attempts to dodge the debate. Is this because you dont think that the "justice" system can be defended on the merits?

But your statements reflect otherwise. You do think the world revolves around you and that the criminal justice system should play by your rules about what should be made public. And, if they don't play by your rules, then the system is unfair and unjust in your mind. That's all you keep saying. How grandiose can you get?

Not true. At present, the state contends that Thom caused or contributed to Lancaster's death while DUI. That they brought charges against Thom indicates that they do care about who caused Lancaster's death and want that person held responsible.

How, by backing into Swift's car? By pedalling his bike too slowly? The criminal issue is not whether Lancaster contributed to his own death, but whether Swift caused or contributed to it--this isn't an automobile insurance settlement, it's not a civil matter of contributory negligence or fault--the criminal issue is whether Swift contributed to or caused Lancaster's death, whether Swift violated the Florida DUI manslaughter law.

And what gives you these alleged rights to know how a plea deal is arrived at? And what gives you the right to "judge if the deal reached in our name by the state represents justice"? And whose definition of "justice" are you using--yours? The offering of the deal, and the acceptance of it by the defendant, and the entering of the defendant's guilty plea are just resolutions when a defendant choses that option rather than exercise his right to a trial--he could have a trial if he so wished. We accept the defendant's guilty plea in a plea deal just as we accept a jury verdict at trial--both are considered "just" outcomes as long as the defendant's due process has been protected.

You're right, Hawkeye, the world does not revolve around you, neither does the criminal justice system. They are not going to change the rules to make you happy or satisfy your personal notions of "justice". Stop being so grandiose.

It's up to Swift and his defense counsel to decide whether a plea deal or trial is in Swift's best interests. If it's a plea, you will know the charges that Swift will plead guilty to and the sentence he will receive, if they decide on trial, you can go to the courtroom and watch the trial. And, if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, you'll just have to live with that. Thom Swift has a defense attorney, as well as a judge, looking out for his interests, he doesn't need you to do that for him. Your sense of entitlement and your own feelings of superiority are just plain silly.

This is another one of the statements from you that makes me shudder, given that you likely went to law school. The government and Thom are not the only stake holders in our justice system, there is the matter of all of the rest of us, those whom the justice system claims to represent. As citizens we always have the right to look into what our government does in our name, and to object when the government either stonewalls on providing information or carries out its duties poorly. David should be ashamed of himself for complementing your legal arguments given your total disregard of the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.

Only because you're blinded to them by your narcissism.

They are readily apparent to almost everyone else.

And you've decided all this within two weeks of the accident and arrest?

Even though Swift was released on bail, he has retained an attorney and entered a not guilty plea, and the case has already been before a judge several times in that short span of time, and another hearing will be held on Tuesday, you still think the system is "unjust" and is "blackmailing" Swift.?

You really are paranoid and irrational. And that does interfere with your ability to evaluate reality.

You aren't debating anything. You are preaching your usual anti-government crap, and your ludicrous attempts to justify such paranoid thinking, in this particular criminal case, are bordering on the delusional because they are so out of touch with the reality of the situation that is actually and currently taking place in Swift's case.

It's because you have no capacity to objectively evaluate your own line of thought that you feel you are being gratuitously "trashed" without reason. You just don't realize how irrationally paranoid you sound. You're not concerned with "justice" you're concerned with showing the government is always evil and unfair and underhanded and malicious in prosecuting criminal defendants, and, even when there is no evidence that any of that has gone on in Swift's case thus far, you still irrationally insist it is going on. That's paranoid, Hawkeye, it's delusional, it's crazy. That's not debate.

"Good acts?"

What good acts?

I decided this years ago, and nothing since that time, to include this case, has convinced me to change my mind.

If you can dispute my claim that the state is threatening Thom with 30 years while all during the process being willing to accept only a fraction of 30 years have at it. At this point you are throwing turds in the desperate attempt to avoid addressing the merits of the state's behavior.

I am proposing a thesis and then making an argument for it....I am attempting to start a debate. You of course with your long history here at A2K of acting like your dream job is being a bureaucrat for Democratic People's Republic of Korea feel the need to demean my efforts.

Notifying the police almost immediately, and admitting his culpability almost immediately.

deciding that if he didn't turn himself in, that things were gonna get a lot worse...

Did he stop at the scene? Did he try to aid the victim he had just hit with his car? Did he even stop to look at the victim?

Do you know, for a fact, that he called the police? Are you positive the police didn't track him down?

Even if he called the police, do you know what time he called the police? How are you justifying your use of "almost immediately"?

The state is "threatening" Swift, in your terms, simply by asserting that they can, and will, prove that he violated certain laws. That's exactly what they should do when they feel they have arrested the guilty party, the one who they believe violated criminal laws. That's what we pay them to do.

Can you prove they have already offered Swift a plea deal? Only 2 weeks after arrest? They don't ever have to offer a plea deal. There is no mandated necessary plea deal offer in a criminal case. The state can always go to trial, just as the defendant can aways go to trial.
So I certainly can refute your claim.

That's why there is no debate on your end. You're a classic case of, "I've already made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts."

And your thinking about this case, and your appraisal of it's progress thus far, simply reveals your irrational paranoia and your ignorance of what is actually taking place in that courtroom during Swift's pre-trial hearings.