UPDATE: ACQUITTED of manslaughter, judge declares mistrial in DWI case...

[jjones]

Too many questions abound in this case.

Was the drunk driver still drunk when police released him? If so, why was he released when still intoxicated and under arrest for drunk driving? Also, did they give him a new breathalizer test just before release to determine intoxication?

What does "custody" mean legally in this case? Were the responsibilities of release under custody appropriately explained?

If the drunk driver cannot be proven to have been still drunk at release, how is the defendant responsible for someone who is not even legally drunk? Was he legally bound to take this person home?

It would be very difficult for me to find any guilt towards the defendant unless it could be shown, by a breathalizer test taken just before release, that the drunk driver was in fact still drunk. And when they turned him over to the defendant they expressly informed him that his friend was still drunk and that the responsibility of custody was fully explained.

Even if all of this were true, I still question the release of this drunk driver altogether. The police are there to protect the welfare of the community. Why would they release someone arrested for drunk driving before he's sobered up? There's what needs looking at.

 

[Pennstate]

The friend was released into his custody. He WAS responsible for the friend's actions. What I think needs to be answered by the jurors is how far did his responsibility for his friend go.


This is a rediculous logic. Lets say someone's son got drunk and killed someone witha car. Now, should the parents face criminal charges just because they have custody of their son? In this case, the definition of "custody" is even mopre loose.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Why would they release someone arrested for drunk driving before he's sobered up? There's what needs looking at.

i agree with what u said...and this is why there is now a law in Jersey that a car must be impounded for at least 12 hours after a someone is arrested for DUI...but its not like they cant get another car...u think the rule would be, a person can not be released for 12 hours after being arrested for DUI...cause the cops are allowed to keep u for 24(or even more if its a weekend) before they charge u

 

[Squisher]

Even if they had waited for him to sober up, there was a three hour delay between being dropped of at his car and the collison.


A lot can happen in three hours.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
The friend was released into his custody. He WAS responsible for the friend's actions. What I think needs to be answered by the jurors is how far did his responsibility for his friend go.


This is a rediculous logic. Lets say someone's son got drunk and killed someone witha car. Now, should the parents face criminal charges just because they have custody of their son? In this case, the definition of "custody" is even mopre loose.

You're confusing the custody in those situations. When someone is released into your custody, the police department is basically saying you can take him with you, but if anything happens, you can be held accountable. As I said before, it's like cosigning for a loan where the bank says your friend can have the money, but if anything happens, you can be held accountable as well.

When you have a kid, there is no such agreement with the police department, although in some cases there probably should be.

Edit: This is all only if he actually had to sign a paper to get his friend out of jail. I'm not sure what the specifics of that are.

 

[Viper GTS]

Update at the top.

Viper GTS

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: Stark

Are you forgetting the fact that the guy drank more AFTER he was returned to his vehicle? We have no way of knowing how drunk/sober he was at that point (nor does anybody), but the very fact that he returned to drinking before driving home should eliminate any blame on the man who is now on trial.

So the guy probably took him back to a bar where the car was. He went to the police station to get his buddy who was just picked up for DUI and he takes him back to a bar and leaves. In my book, that's neither being a friend or a responsible human being.

When he went out of his way to go to the police station, he took on a burden of responsibility. If he didn't want to get involved, he never should have bailed his "friend" out. Now he should be held accountable for his horrible judgement.

That's like you're conviciting the guy for his stupidity. If we could do that, our prison would be soooo overcrowded. There are no details between time Powell drop his friend off at his car and when his friend got into the accident. And the car is not necessary at the bar. I don't know, if you are convicted of DUI.. shouldn't you be IN a car driving? So, the car must've been impounded, maybe? What if he dropped his friend off at the car impound station? And his friend instead of going straight home went to a bar and got himself drunk then driving home. If that's the case, wouldn't it be the bar owner's responsibility now? Since the friend walked out of the bar alone and drunk. Shouldn't the bar be responsible for not stopping the guy from leaving the bar drunk? Seems to me, the bar owner is more directly responsible for the accident. Of course, the person who is most responsible for the accident would be the drunk driver himself.