What's your take on this? Man arrested after rushing brother to hospital

[kaorder1999]

ROANOKE - Roanoke police released dash cam video of a Sunday night pursuit that led to the arrest of a man rushing his brother to a hospital.

While police admit Raymond Smith was trying to do the right thing by his brother, they said he made a number of bad decisions. He was charged with a DWI and evading arrest.

Police said they clocked Smith driving 80 mph in a 60 mph zone. Smith, whose brother was having a heart attack, refused to pull over when authorities turned on their lights and sirens while following his speeding vehicle, police said.

Authorities said Smith then pulled onto the shoulder of the road of Highway 114, passing cars and traveling another nine miles before reaching his destination at the Baylor Regional Medical Center Grapevine.

"What we would have liked for him to do was immediately have stopped," said Lt. Jerihme Miller, Roanoke Police Department. "We have medics that could have been on site within one to two minutes. There was a local fire station nearby with paramedics and fire trucks, and we could have had paramedics assisting his brother and giving him life-saving treatment much earlier than nine minutes later."

Smith refused a breathalyzer. He was arrested and later bonded out of the Denton County Jail.

Gerard Smith remains in the hospital where he was treated for his heart attack. He is listed in fair condition.

[Bullaholic]

When it ain't your brother= he shouldn't have done it.

When it is your brother= drive first and answer questions later.

What if he would have killed himself or somone else?
That's answered by-What if his brother would have died waiting for paramedics?---might be a worse agony than death. The DWI part in this case does give me pause, however.

[venomous tat2]

the guy was more than likely scared to death and panicked and in that situation you are not thinking clearly and the DWI is more likely a result of him having to rush his brother to the hospital after he had been drinking somewhere . Sounds like he was not about to let his brother die waiting on some help. JMO don't know the whole story.

[95mustang]

He put his brother and may other people in danger by choosing to drive to the hospital instead of calling 911. Do I think he should be arrested for doing it, tough question. If he had not been drinking then no, but the alcohol put the risk much higher for his brother and everyone else that was driving on the road in his path.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

What did happen and what COULD have happend as the police like to point out are two totally different things....I'd trade a DWI for saving my brothers life any time. Thank you sir my I have another. Everyone involved is safe and thats all that needs to be thought about at this point IMO. Not the would could should things.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

nm.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
When it ain't your brother= he shouldn't have done it.

When it is your brother= drive first and answer questions later.

What if he would have killed himself or somone else?
That's answered by-What if his brother would have died waiting for paramedics?---might be a worse agony than death. The DWI part in this case does give me pause, however.
I agree... one of those - you gotta do what you gotta do..

[kaorder1999]

I would like to hear the whole story....where they were, why 911 wasnt called, etc. If Im at home (whether ive been drinking or not) Im calling 911 and NOT transporting anyone I think is having a heart attack. But thats just me

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
I would like to hear the whole story....where they were, why 911 wasnt called, etc. If Im at home (whether ive been drinking or not) Im calling 911 and NOT transporting anyone I think is having a heart attack. But thats just me

I'm with you on this. Common sense tells me call an ambulance. Ambulances can drive fast, even go through red lights and stop signs without getting in trouble.

Whether or not he was intoxicated makes no difference on what he should have done. If he had caused an accident with his erratic driveng, would opinions change?

[44INAROW]

Please allow me to play devil's advocate here (I have no idea the circumstances in the above situation)
say Bob and Joe are 14 miles out in the country fishing. They have been drinking but aren't hammered and are cleaning the fish at the hunting/fishing cabin (14 miles from town, no cell reception) all the sudden, Joe falls flat out on the ground- assuming it's a heart attack or stroke, Bob pulls Joe to the truck and hauls butt to the nearest hospital. Remember - no cell reception. Now, they get into town - should Bob stop at the 7-11 and call 911 or continue 3 miles to the hospital? I am curious to see the replies.. I am not condoning Drinking and Driving.. just playing Devil's Advocate

[95mustang]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
Please allow me to play devil's advocate here (I have no idea the circumstances in the above situation)
say Bob and Joe are 14 miles out in the country fishing. They have been drinking but aren't hammered and are cleaning the fish at the hunting/fishing cabin (14 miles from town, no cell reception) all the sudden, Joe falls flat out on the ground- assuming it's a heart attack or stroke, Bob pulls Joe to the truck and hauls butt to the nearest hospital. Remember - no cell reception. Now, they get into town - should Bob stop at the 7-11 and call 911 or continue 3 miles to the hospital? I am curious to see the replies.. I am not condoning Drinking and Driving.. just playing Devil's Advocate

I don't disagree with you in that scenario. However the incident in question happened in a metropolitan area with several hundred thousand people that had the potential to become additional patients. I honestly don't know if there is a write or wrong answer to this situation. Everyone looks at it different.

[lostaussie]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
Please allow me to play devil's advocate here (I have no idea the circumstances in the above situation)
say Bob and Joe are 14 miles out in the country fishing. They have been drinking but aren't hammered and are cleaning the fish at the hunting/fishing cabin (14 miles from town, no cell reception) all the sudden, Joe falls flat out on the ground- assuming it's a heart attack or stroke, Bob pulls Joe to the truck and hauls butt to the nearest hospital. Remember - no cell reception. Now, they get into town - should Bob stop at the 7-11 and call 911 or continue 3 miles to the hospital? I am curious to see the replies.. I am not condoning Drinking and Driving.. just playing Devil's Advocate If Bob stops at the 7-11 he could call 911 AND get some more beer!!!!

[ziggy29]

Dang, tough situation. I feel bad for the guy, since he almost certainly had no intention to put himself in a position where he'd be drinking and driving. He made the wrong choice to not call 911 most likely, but that's hindsight and he easily could have panicked.

Still, he did it and he needs to be held accountable regardless of the circumstances presuming the police have more evidence than just a refusal to take the field sobriety test. Having said that, it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider the circumstances as a mitigating factor in the sentencing.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by lostaussie
If Bob stops at the 7-11 he could call 911 AND get some more beer!!!!

now that's a thinking response :)

[lostaussie]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
now that's a thinking response :) I'm always here for you:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

IMHO the guy may have saved a life. That is the fact. And we cannot prove that any other action would have worked as well. In a country that is supposed to say innocent till proven guilty the guy should get a medal for doing the right thing. His brother did make it and of that there is no argument. Everything else is what if. And pard on my french but that is bs. I can what if you to death and never prove a single solitary thing.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by kaorder1999


Smith refused a breathalyzer. He was arrested and later bonded out of the Denton County Jail.


This is where I am confused. Was he REALLY intoxicated? Or, did he automatically get the DWI charge because he refused to blow???

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
This is where I am confused. Was he REALLY intoxicated? Or, did he automatically get the DWI charge because he refused to blow???
The article claimed he failed a field sobriety test. This is where the video will come in handy. If he doesn't appear intoxicated in the video, it may be hard to get the DWI to stick, especially under the circumstances.

[big daddy russ]

Let's evaluate the situation in a logical manner from the offender's point of view.

If he gets behind the wheel with a 1.6% BAC (which means he's smashed), there is roughly a 0.8% chance that he's involved in a traffic fatality with an individual that he doesn't know.

We'll be conservative here and say that there was a 5% chance that he would've lost his brother to the extra time that it takes an ambulance to respond (typically 12-15 minutes in a metro area).


There's a natural tendency to want to protect those closest to us. Just looking at those figures and taking a purely logical approach to the situation, I don't know if I can blame him. With a six times greater chance of saving a life he loves over killing someone, those are odds I'm willing to take.

[Farmersfan]

I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please?????

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please?????
so what would you do 14 miles out in the country, without cell reception?

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please?????
Exceptions aren't always written into laws, but judges and juries have the right to consider the circumstances when hearing the case and use common sense and/or show some mercy depending on the details. The officers did their job, and now the DA has to prosecute the case if they think they can get a conviction.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
so what would you do 14 miles out in the country, without cell reception?

Has nothing to do with the situation being discussed above. If you're 14 miles out with no cell reception, do what needs to be done.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Has nothing to do with the situation being discussed above. If you're 14 miles out with no cell reception, do what needs to be done.

my question was in response to this post

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please????? and that DOES have something to do with my question :p

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please?????
I don't think this falls under any exception. He placed others in danger. No arguments with how the cops acted, as long as they didn't interfere with his brother getting to the hospital.

I think it just falls under understandable measures for a dying family member.

Also, we still don't know if he was drunk. I'll wait until we see the video from the field sobriety test.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
my question was in response to this post
and that DOES have something to do with my question :p

If a person drives drunk and gets caught, there are penalties. If, under the circumstances you gave, he is caught, let the law deal with it. Demanding an answer for a problem with no other solution makes the answer no easier.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
If a person drives drunk and gets caught, there are penalties. If, under the circumstances you gave, he is caught, let the law deal with it. Demanding an answer for a problem with no other solution makes the answer no easier.
I said earlier= I am not condoning DWI - for heaven's sake - lighten up Francis.. :doh:
I just asked a person what they would do in the circumstance I posed. Just a friendly debate

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I said earlier= I am not condoning DWI - for heaven's sake - lighten up Francis.. :doh:
I just asked a person what they would do in the circumstance I posed. Just a friendly debate

I know what I would do....I would drive drunk to save a family member and hope and pray that I didn't hurt anyone along the way!!!

So arrest me!!!

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
"What we would have liked for him to do was immediately have stopped," said Lt. Jerihme Miller, Roanoke Police Department.
Speaking of drinking, I wonder if his parents were doing that when they forgot how to spell "Jeremy" on the birth certificate....

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by ziggy29
Speaking of drinking, I wonder if his parents were doing that when they forgot how to spell "Jeremy" on the birth certificate....

:D :clap:

[Bullaholic]

There is no right or wrong answer to this scenario. Those types of things would have to be sorted out after the fact, depending on the outcomes.

I would say that most "control freaks" would elect to take their chances under any circumstances.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by ziggy29
Speaking of drinking, I wonder if his parents were doing that when they forgot how to spell "Jeremy" on the birth certificate....
rofl.......

my last note on this thread. I hope and pray I am never in this predicament (sp)

[Ranger Mom]

I live 12 miles out of town....and I know how long it takes me to get the hospital and how long it takes an ambulance to get to my house.......if it's an emergency where the person can't be moved, I will call the ambulance.

Otherwise, I like my odds of getting them to the hospital myself better than waiting on an ambulance to get out here!!

Heck, I will even meet them halfway, if they want!!:D

[lostaussie]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom

Heck, I will even meet them halfway, if they want!!:D must be where the 7-11 is :D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
What did happen and what COULD have happend as the police like to point out are two totally different things....I'd trade a DWI for saving my brothers life any time. Thank you sir my I have another. Everyone involved is safe and thats all that needs to be thought about at this point IMO. Not the would could should things. I agree, I don't know his reason for refusing a breathalyzer, but chances are he will get off with a good lawyer.

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I agree, I don't know his reason for refusing a breathalyzer, but chances are he will get off with a good lawyer.
In most cases I've heard of where police themselves are busted for DWI, they refused the breath test.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ziggy29
The article claimed he failed a field sobriety test. This is where the video will come in handy. If he doesn't appear intoxicated in the video, it may be hard to get the DWI to stick, especially under the circumstances. Big mistake, never...ever take a field test and then refuse a breath test. The DA and the cop will twist that field test around and bury you with it. I had one drink and made the mistake of driving through a bar parking lot, the second I hit the street I was pulled over and asked to do a field test. I said OK, this should go quick. Imagine my surprise when he looked toward his car an informed me that I failed!! Next step breath test, imagine his surprise when I blew a .01. It only takes 2-3 beers to reach .08 and be hit for DWI, and I am far from impaired after 2-3 beers.:thinking:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ziggy29
In most cases I've heard of where police themselves are busted for DWI, they refused the breath test. That is the smartest thing to do deny and refuse.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Big mistake, never...ever take a field test and then refuse a breath test. The DA and the cop will twist that field test around and bury you with it. I had one drink and made the mistake of driving through a bar parking lot, the second I hit the street I was pulled over and asked to do a field test. I said OK, this should go quick. Imagine my surprise when he looked toward his car an informed me that I failed!! Next step breath test, imagine his surprise when I blew a .01. It only takes 2-3 beers to reach .08 and be hit for DWI, and I am far from impaired after 2-3 beers.:thinking:
I'm always scared of the horror stories. The fact that breathalyzers are terribly inaccurate, the fact that an officer could technically tag you with a DUI even if you don't blow a .08, etc. I know it doesn't happen all the time, but there are those officers that will give a guy a DUI even if he blows a .04.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I'm always scared of the horror stories. The fact that breathalyzers are terribly inaccurate, the fact that an officer could technically tag you with a DUI even if you don't blow a .08, etc. I know it doesn't happen all the time, but there are those officers that will give a guy a DUI even if he blows a .04. It does happen. I understand that 99% of the officers feel they are doing what is right, but with these lower limits it is scary because you don't really know if you are .08 and you will never get me to believe that .08 is drunk. I know for a fact .04 is not and like you I know of people that have been arrested at that level. There has to be a better way, but I doubt it will ever be utilized due to the amount of money that DWI and DUI convictions produce.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by LE Dad
It does happen. I understand that 99% of the officers feel they are doing what is right, but with these lower limits it is scary because you don't really know if you are .08 and you will never get me to believe that .08 is drunk. I know for a fact .04 is not and like you I know of people that have been arrested at that level. There has to be a better way, but I doubt it will ever be utilized due to the amount of money that DWI and DUI convictions produce.
You're absolutely right, which is why any attorney will tell you not to blow. For that matter, most of the professors at Sam Houston who teach criminal justice recommend the same thing. You have much better chances if you don't.

But there's an inherent risk when you don't blow. They automatically suspend your license if you don't, which puts the accused in difficult situation. I've always been told that if you are planning on submitting an alcohol test, ask for a blood test. It's much more accurate than a breathalyzer and at least you have firm proof of what your BAC was.

Some states (Kansas is the only one I can remember off the top of my head) actually refuse to recognize the results of a breathalyzer due the overwhelming body of evidence as to their inaccuracy.

And even with all that said, I wouldn't have a problem blowing if I knew it wasn't such a rigged game. They do what they can to trap the accused, and unfortunately, it works.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I said earlier= I am not condoning DWI - for heaven's sake - lighten up Francis.. :doh:
I just asked a person what they would do in the circumstance I posed. Just a friendly debate

My name is not Francis!!!:taunt:

[piratebg]

Good arrest in my opinion. I get calls all of the time from people calling saying that my so-and-so needs to get to the hospital. I'm driving with my flashers on so tell your officers not to pull me over. My response is always NO!!! My wife called 911 when I was at work saying my then 9mo son was not breathing. I had her drive to the police department where I had EMS and Fire medics waiting. Why? Because I didn't want her putting my son or her in any more danger because she would have been driving like a bat out of hell. If you feel EMS is going to take too long to get to you and you live off the beaten path then arrange to meet somewhere close to your location where they can find you.

I've seen an accident where a man's wife was in labor and he decided that he could get the hospital faster. Luckily there were no serious injuries in that instance but accidents do happen.

This guy here, if he was drunk, driving through red lights/stop signs, and driving on the sidewalk, then he got what was coming. If he had hit or killed someone, everyone would be screaming at him for not dialing 911. This is why we have emergency vehicles and paramedics/EMTs. I'm sorry but stuff like this really pisses me off sometimes.

[navscanmaster]

Did the police properly handle this situation, according the facts presented to us? Yes. Will a judge or grand jury consider the circumstances and either decline to indict or drop/reduce the charges? Probably.

The only hard thing is that gray area we all noticed. What would you do if it were your brother? Should the justice system use him as an example of what will happen when you let your emotions overrule the law? Yeah, I would not want to be involved this case, and people will criticize the outcome no matter what.

[Old Dog]

How you respond to this situation is different for everyone, you just have to do what you think is best AND be responsible and accept the punishment for what you did wrong legally............

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
Did the police properly handle this situation, according the facts presented to us? Yes. Will a judge or grand jury consider the circumstances and either decline to indict or drop/reduce the charges? Probably.

The only hard thing is that gray area we all noticed. What would you do if it were your brother? Should the justice system use him as an example of what will happen when you let your emotions overrule the law? Yeah, I would not want to be involved this case, and people will criticize the outcome no matter what.
Well said.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

A good attorney can use loads of pathos to convince a jury to bring back a not guilty verdict in this case pretty easily. It's the natural survival instinct to do whatever it takes to protect not only yourself but the people you love and cherish. The man didn't know there was an ambulance close by and he made a snap decision to do what he thought was best for the health and survival of his brother. Nobody was hurt in the incident and his brother survived. Sounds to me like he made the right decision.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have never read the "EXCEPTION" in the law that says you can drive drunk if it's an emergency! Can someone point that out to me please?????

Easy the law says drunk is if a skinny man takes a sip. Remember that we are talking about the legal definition of drunk.

And for the simple minded, since when is justice about a rule book. I suppose driving after two beers and being arrested is worth a man's life....... or not.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Easy the law says drunk is if a skinny man takes a sip. Remember that we are talking about the legal definition of drunk.

And for the simple minded, since when is justice about a rule book. I suppose driving after two beers and being arrested is worth a man's life....... or not.

The law says nothing about girth being a measure of impairment. And the law deals with impairment, not whether someone is "drunk". Perhaps you can give a better solution to determining degree of impairment than simple skills test and blood alcohol content?

The case in question will probably never go to court. A plea bargain will get it reduced to some misdemeanor and "justice" will have been done.

Should the man have driven while "legally" intoxicated? Let the circumstances speak for themselves. Yes, he arrived safely and his brother lived. Did he endanger anyone? That's for the court to decide, not YOU.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Let's evaluate the situation in a logical manner from the offender's point of view.

If he gets behind the wheel with a 1.6% BAC (which means he's smashed), there is roughly a 0.8% chance that he's involved in a traffic fatality with an individual that he doesn't know.

Logical thinking would tell me anyone with a 1.6% BAC would be dead and unable to help anyone.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
A good attorney can use loads of pathos to convince a jury to bring back a not guilty verdict in this case pretty easily. It's the natural survival instinct to do whatever it takes to protect not only yourself but the people you love and cherish. The man didn't know there was an ambulance close by and he made a snap decision to do what he thought was best for the health and survival of his brother. Nobody was hurt in the incident and his brother survived. Sounds to me like he made the right decision.
Are you an attorney?:D I agree with you. He made a snap decision because of the emotion surrounding a loved one. If put in his situation I would've done the same thing and took my chances. A jury would be heartless not to see that. Of course, I don't know the full story, but an ambulance normally would take longer to get there than it would take him to drive him to the hospital. After all, the ambulance has to make the trip TO his location AND to the hospital, and in most circumstances that would actually come close to DOUBLING the time for his brother to get the needed care to save his life. With that being said, the police did their job and should be commended, but under these particular circumstances I think this man should be able to get off without a DUI. I'm thankful his brother survived, and nobody else got hurt.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Logical thinking would tell me anyone with a 1.6% BAC would be dead and unable to help anyone.

I think he meant .16, which isn't that bad.

[kaorder1999]

this is honestly an issue that could go back and forth FOREVER since it comes down to peoples morals and beliefs, well beyond the law.

My take...

Maybe he saved the guys life or maybe he put him at a bigger risk of death....tought part is, we will never know!!! Thats what makes this debate so difficult...nobody knows

If I'm put in the same situation i cant 100% say what I would do. I know as I sit here right now in a peaceful state of mind I would say I would call 911 and not transport him. But I also understand that when an emergency presents itself, you dont think the same, especially when alcohol is involved.

If I am this dude and the decision I made was to transport my brother and not stop when police sirens follow me then I have to say that I would have to accept all consequences. I'd explain myself to a judge and just hope that the judge has mercy on me. Simple as that.

Someone talked about what could have happened and what ifs and such...well...thats what DWI's are all about. WHAT IFS, WHAT COULD HAPPEN....etc. Sometime DWI's are issued after major damage is done (accidents) but I would say the majority of them end up with the driver being safe and others around them safe. So because of that I cant help but think about the what ifs. What if Im on my motorcycle and this dude doesnt see me while hes speeding eratically trying to get his brother to the hospital? Thats the problem I have with it. Leave the fast driving and the emergency run up to the people trained in those situations....the emergency personnel. What would be wrong with pulling over as soon as the police officer turns his lights on and then frantically getting the brother into the police officers vehicle or just in their care as they call for medical help?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The law says nothing about girth being a measure of impairment. And the law deals with impairment, not whether someone is "drunk". Perhaps you can give a better solution to determining degree of impairment than simple skills test and blood alcohol content?

The case in question will probably never go to court. A plea bargain will get it reduced to some misdemeanor and "justice" will have been done.

Should the man have driven while "legally" intoxicated? Let the circumstances speak for themselves. Yes, he arrived safely and his brother lived. Did he endanger anyone? That's for the court to decide, not YOU.

But respectfully I disagree. IMHO, a mans life is worth far more than the letter of the law. And girth does readily affect the large majority of alcoholic affects. for the record. My discussion was mainly to point out that impairment in this situation could as easily been related to panic, shock or other extenuating circumstances and if the guy was drunk and still saved a life while hurting no one is the key. If there is no victim there is no crime. IF no one was hurt and the cops had not chased him, he would be a hero. Just because the cops did not like it should change the fact that he saved a life and they cannot prove otherwise. You are discussing the enforcement of the rule which in this case affected no one and saved a life, not a crime with innocent people hurt.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But respectfully I disagree. IMHO, a mans life is worth far more than the letter of the law. And girth does readily affect the large majority of alcoholic affects. for the record. My discussion was mainly to point out that impairment in this situation could as easily been related to panic, shock or other extenuating circumstances and if the guy was drunk and still saved a life while hurting no one is the key. If there is no victim there is no crime.

I agree with that.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But respectfully I disagree. IMHO, a mans life is worth far more than the letter of the law. And girth does readily affect the large majority of alcoholic affects. for the record. My discussion was mainly to point out that impairment in this situation could as easily been related to panic, shock or other extenuating circumstances and if the guy was drunk and still saved a life while hurting no one is the key. If there is no victim there is no crime.

I just cant agree with the no victim, no crime thinking. Just cant. And im thinking outside of this case....I saw a dude getting in his car last night to leave from the sports bar I was at and the dude fell down trying to get in his car. The bar owner gave me his keys to his truck and asked me to follow him as he took this couple home which was just a couple blocks away. That dude MIGHT have made it home safe with no victims BUT.....at the same time he could have killed himself or others.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
I just cant agree with the no victim, no crime thinking. Just cant. And im thinking outside of this case....I saw a dude getting in his car last night to leave from the sports bar I was at and the dude fell down trying to get in his car. The bar owner gave me his keys to his truck and asked me to follow him as he took this couple home which was just a couple blocks away. That dude MIGHT have made it home safe with no victims BUT.....at the same time he could have killed himself or others.

But that is a rule that is enforceable. What I am saying is that in the other situation the guy was not falling down drunk, no one was hurt, and he should be lauded. But I do believe that we are so involved now in the rules that we forget the intent. The intent is to save lives and injuries in dwi. Well the guy saved a life and did not injure anyone in the process. Imagine that.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But that is a rule that is enforceable. What I am saying is that in the other situation the guy was not falling down drunk, no one was hurt, and he should be lauded. But I do believe that we are so involved now in the rules that we forget the intent. The intent is to save lives and injuries in dwi. Well the guy saved a life and did not injure anyone in the process. Imagine that.

oh...i agree but I cant take my mind off of the what-ifs. Guess my mind is just trained to think like that

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But respectfully I disagree. IMHO, a mans life is worth far more than the letter of the law. And girth does readily affect the large majority of alcoholic affects. for the record. My discussion was mainly to point out that impairment in this situation could as easily been related to panic, shock or other extenuating circumstances and if the guy was drunk and still saved a life while hurting no one is the key. If there is no victim there is no crime. IF no one was hurt and the cops had not chased him, he would be a hero. Just because the cops did not like it should change the fact that he saved a life and they cannot prove otherwise. You are discussing the enforcement of the rule which in this case affected no one and saved a life, not a crime with innocent people hurt.

Ah, and there you have it. Size can affect how much alcohol it takes to cause impairment, but that does not change the fact that at some point a person is impaired whether he is obese or rail thin. My question to you was that if the current rule of .08 is not, in your opinion, a valid measure, and the simple agility tests are often not a valid indicator, then what do you propose the test should include? I don't think there is one completely accurate measure, but that does not mean there should be no rule whatsoever. That would be akin to each person deciding for himself at what speed he can "safely" drive.

As far as if there is no victim there is no crime, I would use a similar example of someone driving at at excessive speed, but it should be OK if no one gets hurt? Come on now.

Whether or not the cops "liked it" had nothing to do with the man being charged with DUI. There is an accepted rule of law that defines what constitutes DUI and the police followed it. Never a case of the police making the decision base on personal preference.

Now, did the man do the right thing in taking his brother to the hospital? It worked, and fortunately no one was injured by his driving ability or lack thereof. Should he be punished? Let the law decide. I honestly believe justice will prevail in this situation.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Ah, and there you have it. Size can affect how much alcohol it takes to cause impairment, but that does not change the fact that at some point a person is impaired whether he is obese or rail thin. My question to you was that if the current rule of .08 is not, in your opinion, a valid measure, and the simple agility tests are often not a valid indicator, then what do you propose the test should include? I don't think there is one completely accurate measure, but that does not mean there should be no rule whatsoever. That would be akin to each person deciding for himself at what speed he can "safely" drive.

As far as if there is no victim there is no crime, I would use a similar example of someone driving at at excessive speed, but it should be OK if no one gets hurt? Come on now.

Whether or not the cops "liked it" had nothing to do with the man being charged with DUI. There is an accepted rule of law that defines what constitutes DUI and the police followed it. Never a case of the police making the decision base on personal preference.

Now, did the man do the right thing in taking his brother to the hospital? It worked, and fortunately no one was injured by his driving ability or lack thereof. Should he be punished? Let the law decide. I honestly believe justice will prevail in this situation.

I have learned that in any case the law is unfair at some point. Unless you have been to court in a case that puts you unfairly at risk and this is one such case then you should not assume the law will work. We send innocent men to jail all the time for things they did not do. This is one such case where the law should be about the intent and not the letter. Since when is justice simply about the rule book?

[PPSTATEBOUND]

No victim no crime.
:)

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I have learned that in any case the law is unfair at some point. Unless you have been to court in a case that puts you unfairly at risk and this is one such case then you should not assume the law will work. We send innocent men to jail all the time for things they did not do. This is one such case where the law should be about the intent and not the letter. Since when is justice simply about the rule book?
I agree.
I have never been arrested for DUI, but I do know of several people that have. Some were impaired, but some were not. .08 is not a good measure and the field test are subjective at best. I posted earlier that I was informed that I failed a field test after 1 beer, that was consumed much earlier. The fact that I answered the question "have you been drinking?" honestly led me to be detained and scrutinized. DUI is no longer about saftey it is about a revenue source, that is why 4,5,and 6 DUIs later these people are still on the street.:thinking:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I have learned that in any case the law is unfair at some point. Unless you have been to court in a case that puts you unfairly at risk and this is one such case then you should not assume the law will work. We send innocent men to jail all the time for things they did not do. This is one such case where the law should be about the intent and not the letter. Since when is justice simply about the rule book?

And I never posted anything that indicated the driver should or should not be punished, just that justice should take its course. It's a bit anecdotal to decide that all justice is unfair because you feel you were dealt with unfairly. I could quote case after case where justice appears to have been done. Do I feel this case is unfairly prejudicial against the driver? Absolutely not!

My own opinion is that the police did nothing wrong in enforcing the law. I hope the man gets off with a stern warning. That's up to a court, though.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I agree.
I have never been arrested for DUI, but I do know of several people that have. Some were impaired, but some were not. .08 is not a good measure and the field test are subjective at best. I posted earlier that I was informed that I failed a field test after 1 beer, that was consumed much earlier. The fact that I answered the question "have you been drinking?" honestly led me to be detained and scrutinized. DUI is no longer about saftey it is about a revenue source, that is why 4,5,and 6 DUIs later these people are still on the street.:thinking:

To protect and serve...just another myth I was told about as a child.

[Farmersfan]

I smell a ton of hypocricy in here these days. Some of the very people who are expecting these cops to use "judgement" and "common sense" would be the first ones screaming if a story is posted about a cop that actually DID use judgement and it went against what they thought was right!!!!!
Most likely this gentleman will get off with a slap on the wrist. (and rightfully so). But if they throw the book at him it would be correct also........
My problem originally wasn't with his decision to drive under the influence because let's face it, most of us don't know when we are under impairment. My problem comes from the fact that he didn't stop when the cop signaled him to stop.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
To protect and serve...just another myth I was told about as a child.



Way off base on this one PP! Law Enforcement does an amazing job considering how much this society has tyed their hands. It's an impossible job and becoming more impossible by the day.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And I never posted anything that indicated the driver should or should not be punished, just that justice should take its course. It's a bit anecdotal to decide that all justice is unfair because you feel you were dealt with unfairly. I could quote case after case where justice appears to have been done. Do I feel this case is unfairly prejudicial against the driver? Absolutely not!

My own opinion is that the police did nothing wrong in enforcing the law. I hope the man gets off with a stern warning. That's up to a court, though.

And this is where you miss my point. When the man saved a life justice should be ok we will let you off with a warning since the situation demanded emergency action. Because in the end, his own flesh and blood got to the hospital alive and save because of his "impaired" judgement. I was always under the impression that the facts bear themselves out and the fact was that he got him there without hurting anyone.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Way off base on this one PP! Law Enforcement does an amazing job considering how much this society has tyed their hands. It's an impossible job and becoming more impossible by the day.

Another elbow Farmersfan....you have no idea what I have been thru with these people. But your comment has been filed in the appropriate slot.:eek: and appreciated as always

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And this is where you miss my point. When the man saved a life justice should be ok we will let you off with a warning since the situation demanded emergency action. Because in the end, his own flesh and blood got to the hospital alive and save because of his "impaired" judgement. I was always under the impression that the facts bear themselves out and the fact was that he got him there without hurting anyone.

IMO, neither you nor I have the sole right to decide guilt or innocence when someone is charged with a crime or even if they should be. I certainly don't want to be put in that position, and I don't want you or anyone other single citizen deciding whether or not I am guilty.

I agree in hoping nothing too bad happens to him, but just let him go and forget about it because one of us decides it is the right thing to do? No thanks. If that scenario worked out, someone else could just decide he is guilty and lock him up for six months. That's why we have courts. Always correct? No, but better than summary judgement! If the courts let him off, great.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And this is where you miss my point. When the man saved a life justice should be ok we will let you off with a warning since the situation demanded emergency action. Because in the end, his own flesh and blood got to the hospital alive and save because of his "impaired" judgement. I was always under the impression that the facts bear themselves out and the fact was that he got him there without hurting anyone.



I know this wasn't directed at me but I have to respond. You make some very good points but fail to list all the facts. The OTHER facts in this case that you want to overlook are:

1. He drove a vehicle while under the influence!
2. He drove irradically and apparently broke numerous traffic laws in the process.
3. He refused to stop when instructed to do so by Police Officers.
4. The situation demanded emergency action and he chose the illegal route when he had access to a legal means of providing action.


Do your facts outwiegh my facts???? I don't think so but apparently you do. That's why we have judges to decide because obviously if it were up to us we would be split.


Also you don't seem to understand that LAWS are in place to proactivily prevent things from happening. They are not contingent on the outcome of the action that they are designed to stop. We don't allow people to just do whatever they decide they need to do then prosecute them based on the OUTCOME of those decisions.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Another elbow Farmersfan....you have no idea what I have been thru with these people. But your comment has been filed in the appropriate slot.:eek: and appreciated as always





You are correct PP! I have no idea what you have been through. I would be willing to lend a sympathetic ear though! But I do know what I have been through for almost 50 years and I also know other people who have had a lot of problems with law enforcement. Without commenting on YOUR particular situation I will simply say that in my opinion if someone has a lot of problems with law enforcement it is normally brought on themselves! People who hate cops because they get a lot of speeding tickets should realize that it's the speeding that causes it, not the cops!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I know this wasn't directed at me but I have to respond. You make some very good points but fail to list all the facts. The OTHER facts in this case that you want to overlook are:

1. He drove a vehicle while under the influence!
2. He drove irradically and apparently broke numerous traffic laws in the process.
3. He refused to stop when instructed to do so by Police Officers.
4. The situation demanded emergency action and he chose the illegal route when he had access to a legal means of providing action.


Do your facts outwiegh my facts???? I don't think so but apparently you do. That's why we have judges to decide because obviously if it were up to us we would be split.


Also you don't seem to understand that LAWS are in place to proactivily prevent things from happening. They are not contingent on the outcome of the action that they are designed to stop. We don't allow people to just do whatever they decide they need to do then prosecute them based on the OUTCOME of those decisions.

But the simple fact you miss are the exenuating circumstances. Next time your brother is dying in the car beside you, let me see if you stop at all the stop signs, and obey every traffic law. I can tell you that you do not now do so. Did you use your use your turn signal at every turn. No. should we now call the cops to right you a ticket? And your brother was not even on the verge of death. Beware the glass house. Its right next to holier than thou.
Then on the choice of the "legal" action comes the question if he had taken the time would his brother have died? And would you take that chance? If you feel prepared to let your family die so you do not run a light, pass on the right, speed, or miss a stop sign all while not hurting anyone, please feel free to do so. I chose life for my family.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But the simple fact you miss are the exenuating circumstances. Next time your brother is dying in the car beside you, let me see if you stop at all the stop signs, and obey every traffic law. I can tell you that you do not now do so. Did you use your use your turn signal at every turn. No. should we now call the cops to right you a ticket? And your brother was not even on the verge of death. Beware the glass house. Its right next to holier than thou.




I would vote to slap this man on the wrist and let him go! And I am far from perfect. That is not the intent of my statement. And all the things you say will probably be taken into account by the judge and he will be set free with very little punishment.
But "Extenuating" circumstances as you put it, are completely subjective. You claim he did what he had to do! I say he did exactly the opposite of what he had to do! You say he saved his kins life! I say he put his kins life at risk! (along with everyone else). So who is right? I'll tell you who is right. THE LAW!!!! End of story. We can be greatful if the judge lets him off because things turned out ok but we can also be thankful if the judge throws the book at him because we don't want drunk people speeding through our streets, driving dangerously and refusing to stop for cops! (For any reason). Which way to we turn?
Good discussion.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I would vote to slap this man on the wrist and let him go! And I am far from perfect. That is not the intent of my statement. And all the things you say will probably be taken into account by the judge and he will be set free with very little punishment.
But "Extenuating" circumstances as you put it, are completely subjective. You claim he did what he had to do! I say he did exactly the opposite of what he had to do! You say he saved his kins life! I say he put his kins life at risk! (along with everyone else). So who is right? I'll tell you who is right. THE LAW!!!! End of story. We can be greatful if the judge lets him off because things turned out ok but we can also be thankful if the judge throws the book at him because we don't want drunk people speeding through our streets, driving dangerously and refusing to stop for cops! (For any reason). Which way to we turn?
Good discussion.

This is much simpler tho. Did his brother and he survive? was anybody hurt? Then waive the issue. It was an emergency. If someone was hurt then by all means. This is an indication of a mentality which says the rules are more important than the situation. When we get to a zero allowance policy we all go to jail. There are exceptions to every rule and common sense would agree that no one getting hurt and his brother living would indicate no blood no foul. If anybody throws the book at him this would be a grave miscarriage of justice where the rule book matters more than the people it was intended to protect. It would mean we no longer have the basic rights which the framers of the constitution said we have because then someone can come up with a reasonable law saying I am protecting someone and the rights are less and less. IT has been and is happening before our eyes and the arguements you make are the ones that support that outcome where we lose our rights.

[ziggy29]

Having thought on this more, I think "deferred adjudication" might be an appropriate outcome in this case.

Under that, this guy would get a probationary period (say, 2-3 years) and if he doesn't screw up during that period, the charges are dismissed and nothing ever appears on his criminal record about the conviction. He can truthfully say he's never been convicted.

If he screws up again with an alcohol-related incident in that time frame, he's "violated" the probationary period, the conviction is entered into his record and he is sentenced.

Seems like a reasonable answer here given the circumstances.

[navscanmaster]

Originally posted by ziggy29
Having thought on this more, I think "deferred adjudication" might be an appropriate outcome in this case.

Under that, this guy would get a probationary period (say, 2-3 years) and if he doesn't screw up during that period, the charges are dismissed and nothing ever appears on his criminal record about the conviction. He can truthfully say he's never been convicted.

If he screws up again with an alcohol-related incident in that time frame, he's "violated" the probationary period, the conviction is entered into his record and he is sentenced.

Seems like a reasonable answer here given the circumstances.

:thumbsup:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
ThDid his brother and he survive? was anybody hurt? Then waive the issue.
So it's okay to break the law if no one's hurt? :thinking: The man did what he felt like he had to do. And if in the same shoes, I can't honestly say that I would do any different! BUT the police did what was right - enforce the law.

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I know what I would do....I would drive drunk to save a family member and hope and pray that I didn't hurt anyone along the way!!!

So arrest me!!! So would I!!!

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
So it's okay to break the law if no one's hurt? :thinking: The man did what he felt like he had to do. And if in the same shoes, I can't honestly say that I would dod any different! BUT the police did what was right - enforce the law.
Yeah, I give props to the police based on what I've heard. It sounds like everything was done appropriately and professionally. I don't think I've heard any significant complaints about how the police handled it. They did their job and it sounds like they did it pretty well here. They helped his brother get medical help and arrested someone they caught breaking the law.

The real moral and ethical dilemma is what to do from here in terms of charges and sentencing. I'm not comfortable with letting him walk completely, but I'm also not comfortable with ruining his life with the scarlet letter of a DWI conviction under the circumstances. -- particularly if he's never been in any legal trouble before.

And as an added aside, this case is a perfect example of why I think most "zero tolerance" laws are stupid. Extenuating circumstances almost always matter in terms of common sense and in balancing justice with mercy.

[sinfan75]

More than likely (if 1st offense) it'll be a DNF. Especially the circumstances. May lose his license for a year.

[sinton66]

Just a note here, most of you are assuming the guy was drinking. May not have been. Texas law says if you refuse a breathalyzer you're automatically DWI. He'll need a good lawyer.

[ronwx5x]

Considering all that happened, my guess is the police had very good cause to believe he was drinking. He probably wasn't asked to undergo a breathalyzer test out of spite, so they probably wouldn't invite bad publicity just to harass him. My take? Valid assumption there was cause to believe he was drinking.