• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Presume for a moment that the DUI friend was now sober...

Where else, besides his car, would you suggest he be taken?

Viper GTS
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

well considering the police arrested him for DUI, i doubt his car was still at the bar, it was probably at the police station. Plus like said before i doubt the police released him while he was still drunk
 
Once again, radicalism has crept into our legal system, attempting to establish the precedents that will lead us once again to prohibition of alcohol. 😉
 
Sorry, but if you are going to hold a 3rd party responsible for a drunk driver upon his release from jail, then the only logical conclusion is that drunk drivers should never be released from jail.



 
Originally posted by: Stark
Well, that's fine and all, but just how far do you have to go to be considered "responsible"?
Click to expand...
Driving your drunk friend back to his car is probably not considered responsible by any reasonable human being. The guy was an accessory to murder.

Just like a woman who lets her drunk boyfriend molest her kids... people who assist evil are themselves evil and deserve justice.
Click to expand...

He did nothing to assist evil. You compare apples and oranges and try to pretend they're the same.
Like the "woman who lets her drunk boyfriend molest her kids" analogy. That is something that generally happens repeatedly over a long period of time, usually with the woman present. In this case, it only happened once, and the person who you say "assisted evil" wasn't even there.
He picked up his loser friend from jail and dumped him off. He probably thought he was doing the right thing. Now he faces 15 years. And why? Because judgemental anti-freedom people like yourself want to make sure that someone is always held to blame for the smallest thing. So, in this case, because the person actually responsible was so thoughtless as to kill himself in the act of his crime, well... we'll just dig up the last person who saw him or did that criminal a kindness in his life and crucify that person, won't we?
rolleye.gif

 
I do agree they are reaching hard to charge this guy with manslaughter. But, i can maybe see charging him with aiding and abedding. The friend was drunk, he was let out on bail to you. Do you take him back to his car? I wouldn't. I would have dropped him off at his house. Sort of like handing an arsonist a book of matches then being shocked he lit something on fire. That was recklace and stupid.

Yes, he didnt kill the person. Yes, he didn't give the guy the alcohol to get more lit up and drive. But, he did provide him with access to the "weapon" in which the manslaughter occurred. On that point, I would at least be swayed to rule. Saying he is ultimately responsible for the death or the actions of the friend is way more of a civil liberties argument.
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Presume for a moment that the DUI friend was now sober...

Where else, besides his car, would you suggest he be taken?

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

He should've taken him home and worried about the car the next day. If a friend of mine gets busted for DUI, the last thing I'm going to do with them is put them back in their car.
 
Here's how I'd look at it as a Juror:

Was the drunk driver releasesd while still drunk? If so, convict. Reason is, if your friend is still drunk you TAKE HIM HOME, not to his car. Furthermore, if he was released while still drunk, bring up the police on the exact same charges as this defendant.

Was the drunk driver released sober? If so, acquit. Reason is, the man is now sober and is able to be responsible for his own actions. That he started drinking and driving again is the drunk's fault, not his friend's.
 
Originally posted by: Ime
Here's how I'd look at it as a Juror:

Was the drunk driver releasesd while still drunk? If so, convict. Reason is, if your friend is still drunk you TAKE HIM HOME, not to his car. Furthermore, if he was released while still drunk, bring up the police on the exact same charges as this defendant.

Was the drunk driver released sober? If so, acquit. Reason is, the man is now sober and is able to be responsible for his own actions. That he started drinking and driving again is the drunk's fault, not his friend's.
Click to expand...

I don't think his being responsible is the question here. 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.
 
He should be found guilty, maybe not of manslaughter, but a felony none the less.

This is what he did....

Signed someone out and said HE would take responsibility for him. THEN drives a DRUNK back to his car that either has alcohol in it or is at a bar. Why even back to his car. He should have taken him home and let him get the car the next day. He did not act or behave in a responsibility manner. And as such he is guilty, period.

If he could not handle that level of responsibility, then he should have let his friend stay in jail for the night.


My current roommate got someone out for Drunk driving. The first thing he wanted to do was go get his car. Without even thinking he said no, I am driving you home. The drunk wined that it would get towed and cost him money. Well my roommate did the right thing and said you don't need to drive any more tonight. Thats whay this guy SHOULD have done. If he did his responsibility, then people would not have died that night. Death is something you can never take back.
Maybe some people will learn from his mistake and either not drive if you drink, or bail someone out and let them drive.
 
Originally posted by: Ime
Here's how I'd look at it as a Juror:

Was the drunk driver releasesd while still drunk? If so, convict. Reason is, if your friend is still drunk you TAKE HIM HOME, not to his car. Furthermore, if he was released while still drunk, bring up the police on the exact same charges as this defendant.

Was the drunk driver released sober? If so, acquit. Reason is, the man is now sober and is able to be responsible for his own actions. That he started drinking and driving again is the drunk's fault, not his friend's.
Click to expand...

Either way, I would acquit. Why? Re-read my first post in this thread. If he was released while still drunk (and because someone has to be held to blame
rolleye.gif
) then the fault lies first with the police (for obvious reasons). But, like I said "Government must be blameless, therefore an innocent bystander must be punished."
People, there is no "Good Samaritan" Law. You are not responsible for the actions of others, especially if you played no part in those actions, as was the case here. As it is, this case is about revenge. Someone must be blamed. Like I said before, because the actual criminal was so thoughtless as to kill himself in the act of his crime, and therefore left government with no scapegoat, another has been found to bear the blame. Had the drunk-n-drivin killer the foresight to survive his crime, then his friend (now on trial) probably would never have seen the inside of a courtroom, except maybe to testify.
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
He should be found guilty, maybe not of manslaughter, but a felony none the less.

This is what he did....

Signed someone out and said HE would take responsibility for him. THEN drives a DRUNK back to his car that either has alcohol in it or is at a bar. Why even back to his car. He should have taken him home and let him get the car the next day. He did not act or behave in a responsibility manner. And as such he is guilty, period.

If he could not handle that level of responsibility, then he should have let his friend stay in jail for the night.


My current roommate got someone out for Drunk driving. The first thing he wanted to do was go get his car. Without even thinking he said no, I am driving you home. The drunk wined that it would get towed and cost him money. Well my roommate did the right thing and said you don't need to drive any more tonight. Thats whay this guy SHOULD have done. If he did his responsibility, then people would not have died that night. Death is something you can never take back.
Maybe some people will learn from his mistake and either not drive if you drink, or bail someone out and let them drive.
Click to expand...

And I might agree with you... if this was civil case. But it's not. It's a criminal case in which the person in question is being charged with the crimes as though he was the one who committed them.
If you can't see the difference, if America can't see the difference, if those jurors can't see the difference... well, then God have mercy on us all.


 
Obviously, we have not been given enough of the facts to come to a conclusion of guilt.

How long had Pangle been in jail?

How drunk was Pangle when Powell dropped him off at his car?

Was Powell able to determine whether or not Pangle was sober enough to drive?

Who provided Pangle with the additional alcohol after his release?

What explanation of his responsibility did Powell receive from the police at the time of Pangle's release?
 
This is why I don't have friends, I don't want their problems interferring with my life. It's either that or I'm just a complete a$$ and noone likes me.🙁
 
You know... there are 2 sides to this one...

Argument for DA - The drunk was released to the person, and was in his custody until he regained sobriety. As a result, he knowingly, willfully, negligently, or recklessly released this guy on the streets.

Argument for the defense - There is no legally recognized duty. How can my client be liable where no duty previously existed?

I have to agree with the defense on this one.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
This is why I don't have friends, I don't want their problems interferring with my life. It's either that or I'm just a complete a$$ and noone likes me.🙁
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because you're an accountant.😛
 
I think this is ricockulous for two reasons:

1) If this guy is to be held accountable it means indirectly that the drunk driver was not totally responsible - that is taking away responisbility of drunk people saying "Well you're drunk so you couldn't have known better." In all other areas the law doesn't make that allowance (as it shouldn't).

2) If bystanders are now to be held accountable for this what if you're at a party with 30 people and some guy leaves. Who's responsibility is it to not allow him to? His best friend? The person he was talking with the longest? Or will all 30 people be in court for vehicular homicide?

It's about as dumb as sueing a porsche dealership because a guy just bought his new 911 and got into an accident - something far more likely than would happen to somebody in a new cavalier.

Or suing a gun manufacturer.

Or whoever.
 
This is repenisculous. I could see may, and I do mean maybe, negligent homicide, but that is really stretching it.
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
He should be found guilty, maybe not of manslaughter, but a felony none the less.

This is what he did....

Signed someone out and said HE would take responsibility for him. THEN drives a DRUNK back to his car that either has alcohol in it or is at a bar. Why even back to his car. He should have taken him home and let him get the car the next day. He did not act or behave in a responsibility manner. And as such he is guilty, period.
Click to expand...

Nice assumptions there.

Scenario 3 - Friend drives SOBER friend to car at police impound lot. SOBER idiot drives to a bar and gets drunk. Now that he's drunk he drives and gets in the accident.

All you "he should've taken him home" people are missing the point. If this guy was so inclined to drink as to start drinking again immediately after getting out of jail for drunk driving then who's to say he wouldn't gotten a cab back to his car (after his responsible friend dropped him off at home), gotten drunk again and this time plowed into a bus full of 6 year old children?

Sounds to me like the drunk wanted to get drunk again. Driving him home might have or might not have stopped this. I seriously doubt he was still drunk when his friend dropped him off at his car. If he WAS still drunk, he shouldn't have been released.
 
This is exactly why I hate the legal system. May all those that blame this man rot in hell, where they deserve to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top