I just don’t understand drinking and driving

LOOK Andy, this is getting to be a HABIT!

How many times is that this month?????????
Get a grip on yourself.





David

Shewolf:
Thank u for a lucid, articulately written post
from which I learned a lot !





David

I agree we don't know his b.a.c.
Seems obvious, six hours is pretty convincing, but we don't know the sum.
And we certainly don't know the victim's circumstances and actions, if they might be relevant somehow. To reiterate, my interest is in what happened, not the legalities.

This is beginning to sound like a Tom Wolfe novel.

I don't really understand why we're getting all caught up in one accident.

I look at the thread title and just think yup - don't get it.

I simply don't understand anyone drinking and driving.

I know that I probably take it to an extreme, but I don't drink alcohol on a day when I know I will be driving. I'm not depriving myself of anything to put off drinking to a day/week when I won't be driving.

Its especially hard to understand the folly
of celebrities who r fairly well off financially,
yet drive themselves in their own cars, after drinking.

I guess thay r too cheap, too stingy to get drivers.
Thay 've had to live with the results; thay embarrassed themselves.
If u wanna fully enjoy life, u can 't be such a miser.

That is the philosophy of my Special Interest Group.





David

No, it's not wrong.

When the law requires you to stop and remain at the scene of an accident, you are supposed to stop and remain at the scene.

That does not mean you drive 1.5 blocks, to your own home. Stop mean stop. You don't keep driving home.

The two charges for leaving the scene are different charges. The first charge involves leaving the scene of a DUI manslaughter. This isn't just leaving the scene of an accident, it's leaving the scene of a crime. Just driving under the influence is a crime, but he knew he hit someone with his car, and a fatality resulted, which he did not know, since he hadn't stopped, but, certainly when you hit someone, you are legally obligated to pull over and stop. And the car is part of the evidence of that crime, and the car was not stopped and kept at the scene. Was there possibly something in the car he wouldn't have wanted the police to see--that he removed once he got home? He should not have moved his car from the scene of the accident/crime.

The second leaving the scene charge pertains to his failure to stop and render assistance to the injured victim, or to even see if the victim required medical attention. Florida law required that the driver do this.

The driver admitted to police that he hit someone and didn't stop his car. He hit the cyclist and just kept going. He was apparently so drunk he thought he hit a pedestrian and not a cyclist. But, the fact is, he violated more than one statute by failing to even stop his car, or to remain at the scene even for a short time, or to try to assist the victim, which is why he's charged with two leaving the scene felonies.

You don't want to judge the drunk driver and consider him guilty for knowingly fleeing the scene of an accident, and the scene of a crime, and thereby violating the law, but you've already decided, on the basis of no factual information, that the cyclist was a "vagrant who was a danger to himself and to others"?
Are you saying that you are psychic and just know that this "vagrant" should have been committed to a psychiatric facility, since he was obviously a " danger to himself and to others"? Do you know that the cyclist had received citations in the past for riding his bike recklessly, and endangering people? Were there witnesses to the collision with the drunken driver, that you have spoken to, who described the accident and said the cyclist was "partly responsible for his own death"?

You almost make it sound like this drunk driver did a public service by hitting and killing this "vagrant who was a danger to himself and to others" and getting him off the streets.

Even for you, this line of thought is wildly irrational. You've constructed fantasies about the victim that are not supported by any known facts. You've taken the possibility that the victim might have been homeless, something that isn't even definitely known, and used it to create an unfounded and very negative scenario about this human being, which also has him contributing to his own death. This is all pure fiction on your part. And, as pure fiction, it really doesn't belong in a factual discussion of this case.


You're also looking at this case in terms of your preconceived prejudicial stereotypes regarding homeless people, or people who ride bikes late at night.

And you are trying to minimize the liability of a drunk driver, a man who had just spent 6 hours in a bar, who hit a cyclist with his car and was so drunk he thought he hit a pedestrian, and who, ignoring the law, kept right on driving, leaving his victim to die on the street.

The state, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of protecting the community, should seek to remove that dangerous and irresponsible drunk driver from the streets, and to punish him for his reckless actions which resulted in the death of another human being.

In your mind, no doubt, that would be the state being, "more interested in beating on citizens than it is in justice" because you never think of perpetrators of crimes as deserving of punishment, or as deserving of the punishments that the law requires.

You forget that that "vagrant" is deserving of justice in this situation too--he did not deserve to be hit and killed by that drunk driver and to be left by him to die in the street like a worthless piece of trash.

The guy went home, likely around 500 feet away, and in some not clear amount of time, called the police.
We don't know the number of feet to his home, we don't know what happened, we don't know how long he took to make the call. Given the six hours he spent in the bar, I am thinking both he and the bar are mucked up, but we don't know that either, re bac.

I'm not clear that you know those details.

I really think that people do this simply because they think they can get away with it.

I doubt this was the first time that the driver we're talking about got in a car and drove while drunk.

And, most of the time, people who drive drunk don't get stopped for a DUI, and they don't get into an accident. So, they get a false sense of security about the risks involved.

And people who drink excessively often deny how much they drink, or how alcohol affects them, or they just don't stop to think at all. I'm horrified by the people they arrest for DUI who are driving around during the day with their own small children in the car. The degree of denial and recklessness that goes on with drinking and driving is incredible. And it keeps going on until the person gets arrested, or gets into an accident, or kills someone.

It probably wouldn't help much, but I think bars, like the one this man had been drinking in, should make a portable Breathalyzer available to patrons who might use it before deciding whether to get in their car. Maybe people need that kind of concrete feedback to know whether they are legally impaired or not. If they blow above .08 they will know. Maybe having Breathalyzers more widely available would help more people to learn how much they can drink and still drive safely. It wouldn't help people who regularly abuse alcohol, or who drink excessively, but it might help some people who really do want to drive responsibly. Not everyone wants to forgo drinking, and having Breathalyzers more readily available might help, even as learning devices for more moderate social drinkers.

I'm clear about those details, osso.

But, when the law requires you to stop your car and try to aid a victim you've just hit with your car, and to remain at the scene, that's what you're expected to do. It doesn't matter how close his home was, he never stopped his car--he admitted that to the police--he should never have continued to his home, he should not have left a man alone dying in the street.

I'm not impressed with the fact that his home was close by, that doesn't explain why he didn't stop his car after he hit the cyclist. I think it shows some responsibility that he called the police and turned himself in, and, who knows, maybe he called a lawyer first and the lawyer told him to do that. But he still had fled the scene of an accident and left his victim without even stopping to see how badly the victim was injured. And it doesn't change the fact he had been driving drunk--with a BAC greater than .08.

He'd be in a lot of trouble simply from driving drunk and hitting and killing someone. But, he's in a lot more trouble because he never stopped and kept driving home--even if home was only a block and a half away. He didn't hit a parked car, he hit a person, and he should have stopped his car and either called for help, or flagged down another car, or run looking for help, etc. to try to aid the victim.

Being drunk doesn't excuse his going home, or not thinking straight.

I wonder if its reasonable to liberally interpret
whether radius of the scene extends out 1.5 blocks.
What if the ax occurred at his house itself?
What if the needs of sanitary relief manifested themselves upon him,
or if he needed emergency recourse to medications at his home?
Does the State have authority to require him to sacrifice his life??
I don 't think so.



Does that activate his 5th Amendment rights v. self incrimination??
I wonder; just musing over the possibilities, here.



In contemplation of the 13th Amendment,
I wonder whether the State has any authority to mandate that.
Does the State have authority to require defendant to expose himself
to the dangers of angry participants of the collision?
Sometimes, thay have dismounted from their respective vehicles,
prepared with bladed weapons. I 've seen that happen.
What about exposure to liability for medical malpractice
for rescue efforts rendered at the scene??
In theory, he coud end up killing the other fellow,
by administering incorrect remedies, or medications at the scene
whether requested by decedent ( e.g.: Michael Jackson) or not.



I wonder whether he hit his brake or not, reflexively?
Many people woud.



Is it true that people have ever perceived in error,
even when stone cold sober?
Have u ever made an error, while in a state of sobriety?

( just musing, thinking out loud, here )





David

Don't try making words up you muppet. People are left with an impression, not a 'mis-impression,' you may feel the impression is wrong, but it's an impresssion nonetheless.

There's not even any logic to your word, you don't become less aware of something directly after you've encountered it.

Oh and if you do not have a cell phone with you and the only way of calling for help for the man is going those blocks to reach a phone you just obey the law and watch him die?

Sorry even the law recongnized the concept of being able to break a law to prevent greater harm from happening.

I did hear a little more through a friend, Thom did arrive at the bar at 8, had dinner first, they also serve food, then started drinking. It was Thursday night, the accident happened early Friday morning. Thursday night is $2.00 Long Island ice tea night, Thom had 4. They are not made in a glass, they are served in a mug, one is enough to make you over the legal limit.

Unless you know his weight and the time frame of the drinking and on and on it hard to say for sure if he was over the limit by the information you had posted.

In my younger days when I was out drinking I would have two drinks in a short time frame and nurse a third drink the rest of the night.

Not leaving for some time after the third drink was consume completely.

Three drinks consume in a short time frame would push someone over the limit but not three drinks that are front loaded and where there was hours between the bulk of the drinking and any driving.

Now my limit in the rare times I will visit a bar is one drink.

HHHHhhhhhmmmmmmm:
what if multiple drivers in a collision
suffer various personal injuries in Florida??

Does the statute require all of them to minister unto the medical and surgical
needs of one another?? What if there be radical disagreements
qua the treatments of choice? Must thay put it to a vote??

Does the statute confer authority upon a driver at the scene
to impose his will upon the other drivers (e.g., the final demands of Michael Jackson)??

We don't have law like that in NY.





David

WHAT'LL ya have ?

I 'm not taking the drink order.





David

http://www.deadlyroads.com/state-laws.html

in 2005 there were only 3 states where it was not a felony to flee the scene of a crash after killing someone



(the link leads to a page with further links to individual states hit and run laws)

But that's not what happened in this case, is it? So why make that statement?

The law recognizes that defenses are possible to violations of statutes, but that's quite different than "being able to break a law" in terms of having some sort of guaranteed permission to break a law. People are always free to break laws, and defense attorneys try to find excuses for those actions. But, in the case of the drunk driver we are talking about, the defense attorney will have a very hard time trying to justify the driver's behavior.

In this specific case, given what we actually know...

How do you justify the action of driving a car drunk, when that is a clear violation of law?

How do you justify the action of hitting someone with your car, and not even stopping the car to see how badly injured the victim is or whether he needs medical assistance--when this is what Florida law clearly requires you to do?

How do you justify fleeing the scene of an accident/crime scene, in order "to prevent greater harm from happening"?

We don't know that the drunk driver ever called 911 to get an ambulance for that injured cyclist, even after he reached home, do we? What little we know suggests he may have called the police to report his own actions and turn himself in. And we don't even know how long it took him to do that.

This driver acted with reckless indifference both by getting behind the wheel of a car drunk and by not even stopping to see how badly he had injured someone he hit with his car and what sort of assistance that victim required.

If you offend under the statutes this man this man is charged with, you have to face the consequences of your actions. And, for this driver, those consequences are likely to be harsh. The state of Florida doesn't want people to drive drunk, or to leave the scene of a serious automobile accident involving injury to another party, or to fail to assist that injured victim--which is why the penalties are so harsh. If the laws can't deter such crimes, it will punish them after the fact.

If you want to prevent harm from happening--both to yourself and others--you don't drive drunk.

We do know the man's weight--he weighs 150 pounds, according to the booking information which I have already posted on this thread more than once.
http://www.pcsoweb.com/InmateBooking/SubjectResults.aspx?id=1483326

He does not have a huge large frame. 4 Long Island Iced Teas--which are large, quite potent drinks, could easily push him beyond a .08 alcohol level. That amount of alcohol does not metabolize out of the body all that quickly.
Do you know what's in Long Island Iced Tea?

1 part Smirnoff® vodka
1 part tequila
1 part rum
1 part gin
1 part triple sec
1 1/2 parts sweet and sour mix
1 splash Coca-Cola®


It is fairly safe to assume that his blood alcohol level was over .08 when he got behind the wheel of his car if he consumed those 4 Long Island Iced Teas.