ChileRelleno 0 #26 March 19, 2004 His actions/inactions resulted in the loss of a human life. He is dealing with a felony offense, not a traffic ticket. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #27 March 19, 2004 QuoteSorry, but this pisses me off, I'm with you Lisa, there's no reason to treat him like this.Quote Yes, there is. He is being held for a felony offense not a traffic ticket.... A person died, this wasn't a fender-bender! ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChileRelleno 0 #28 March 19, 2004 QuoteSo the officer became judge and jury eh? I believe that's "against" the law..... That was definitely not necessary....... Give me a break here people... The "officers" on the scene investigated a fatal accident and found the driver of said vehicle to be at fault, he was then arrested and taken for booking in a felony case of vehicular manslaughter. Please tell me how that is being judge and jury? ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChileRelleno 0 #29 March 19, 2004 QuoteSo what your saying is that all seniors who commit a vehicle code offense should be arrested???? This is not a traffic offense, this a criminal offense, a felony. Do not pass go,do not collect $200.00. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChileRelleno 0 #30 March 19, 2004 QuoteBut that's exactly what would have happened if he'd had a California driver's license instead of one from out of state. Since he wasn't under the influence and it wasn't premeditated, had he been a resident of California he would have been released on his own recognizance at the scene. Bytch, I have to disagree, no one is going to OR'd at the scene of a fatal accident if vehicular manslaughter charges are being brought against them. They will be going to jail whether local or not. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wingnut 0 #31 March 19, 2004 Quote like the idea of motorcyclists wearing those silly orange vests for this very reason - when I get my next bike I'm seriously considering buying and wearing one even if it does make me look like a goofball. in the airforce they make us wear em... well "reflective clothing" but i always just used one of em cuz it was light weight, and i could cram it in my helmet when i was done ridding......being a rider and car driver i know about bikes and have even not seen em a time or two until they passed me....one thing to always do is ride so that you can be seen better...... and to ride defensivly.... wonder what kind of bike the guy was riding.......... as for the handcuffed and jail thing, well i think that anyone and i mean anyone that kills someone in an acident and is found to be at fault (cited) should be taken to jail to be processed... not necisarily kept there just taken thwere to fill out the opaperwork a charge like manslauter would take........ ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #32 March 19, 2004 Lisa & David, What happened sucks for everyone involved. No question about it. I'm sorry you were witness to it, but glad your family pitched in and helped. Another factual take on that type of situation: My wife was in the car with her father when they got hit by another car. It was the other person's fault. They were going way too fast and I think that alcohol was involved. My wife's father was killed. The other person got a ticket, because it was their fault. They paid the ticket, and later fought (and won) in court, that they couldn't be charged criminally because they had already been cited, admitted their guilt, waived trial and been given a judgement (fine) by paying the ticket. Nothing further could be done because of double jeopardy. It was after that incident (when my wife was 16), that Maryland started changing their policy about giving tickets after accidents with injuries. Now, they don't. It preserves the rights of the victims not to just give the guilty party a ticket and call it done. It is better for the people to have to go through a short visit to the detention facility or police station. It isn't that big of a deal, when compared to the trauma they inflicted on others, even if accidently. The police should be courteous, and do their job as gently as possible in the type of situation where it wasn't intentional and the people are sad about it (and still in shock). But they need to follow through anyway. Sometimes it just doesn't seem right, but occasions like that are the reverse of the one my wife went through, where the person that killed her father got off with just a traffic ticket. Like I said, nobody wins. Hang in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nightjumps 1 #33 March 19, 2004 After reading the thread (so the politicians and DMV will step in, blaming the officer, etc.), I was intrigued. As it turns out the CHP WAS doing what was directed by those politicians and DMV according to law. The Officer's sole judgement in the matter is taken out of the equation. According to California law: "Vehicular manslaughter;" in some jurisdictions is just included under the more general term "involuntary manslaughter". The offense consists of (1) driving, (2) while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or alcohol and drugs, (3) resulting in the death of another human being, (4) caused by the drivers's independent negligence or violation of a traffic law. California Penal Code section 191.5 I used to have a sticker on my Harley that said, "I don't give a shit how they do it in California." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #34 March 19, 2004 QuoteBytch, I have to disagree, no one is going to OR'd at the scene of a fatal accident if vehicular manslaughter charges are being brought against them. They will be going to jail whether local or not. Oh. Okay. The people I know who've been at fault in fatal accidents but weren't drunk and were released on their OR at the scene must have been lying about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites weegegirl 2 #35 March 19, 2004 i'm sorry for everyone involved here, including you bytch. that is a very painful event. my father turns 83 next month. he still drives. he's a pretty witty 83 year old... still with it mentally and more-or-less physically. every year my siblings and i (i'm the youngest of 9) have the "should dad still drive?" debate. i still think in his case that he is okay. but one of these years, i'm sure i will give in and say we should take his vehicle from him. we can do this seeing as we pay for it. the problem with taking my father's license away from him, is that it WILL kill him. certain things make people "old" mentally, and one of them is taking their freedom to get around away. i will not let him be a threat to society, but we as a country need to take better care of our elders. give them MORE options for getting around town and running their errands, etc. we can't just take their freedom from them and let them rot because they have reached a certain age. these are just my thoughts. i deal with this on a very personal/close-to-home level all the time. again, sorry for the situation, bytch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites efs4ever 3 #36 March 19, 2004 Clicky One of my rants about that kind of power.Russell M. Webb D 7014 Attorney at Law 713 385 5676 https://www.tdcparole.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #37 March 19, 2004 QuoteOh. Okay. The people I know who've been at fault in fatal accidents but weren't drunk and were released on their OR at the scene must have been lying about it. Wow, how many people do you know who were at fault in fatal accidents? From all the above, I don't see any indication that the person was treated differently just because of his age. That's the issue, not the arrest, but the assumption that the arrest was due to his age and not some other reason. Sorry your son had to see this. I hope is was an opportunity for you to discuss responsible driving with him. That lesson will stick. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #38 March 19, 2004 If the driver was 16-19 y.o., and the CHP Officer did the same thing would your opinion be different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #39 March 19, 2004 QuoteWow, how many people do you know who were at fault in fatal accidents? Two. QuoteSorry your son had to see this. I hope is was an opportunity for you to discuss responsible driving with him. That lesson will stick. Overall, he's a more responsible driver than I am already. Hell, he's a more responsible person than I am already. btw the dbriggs that posted earlier in this thread? That's my son. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #40 March 19, 2004 I am sorry for all the parties involved. I think it is a good idea for people to be retested. Make it once every ten years or something. I have been almost killed many times by bad drivers lots of them were older people. I know if someone I loved was killed because some one should have not been behind the weal. I would want them treated like a criminal. If you are incapable of driving no matter what the reason be alcohol, drugs, or being too old you should not drive.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #41 March 19, 2004 The cost of periodic re-testing would be large. But it makes some sense. Maybe if people were to take Defensive Driving (or, for when reaction times decrease, and they DO), the AARP Drive Alive at 55 class, then the re-test could be waived or the frequency lessened. Kids are lousy drivers often; their bag of experience is often so small that they HAVE to evaluate many more pieces of an emergent situation to deal with it. And the more pieces you ahve to evaluate, the longer it takes. Older people have decreased reaction times, decreased sight, and decreased hearing. Being people, they don't want to admit they've been as affected as they have been often. Really. But they're used to their capabilities at their peak, not declining -- that's the advantage of the AARP class. My dad's 86 and had to give up his license 8 years ago when his vision started to go in a big hurry. His driving skills had, frankly, begun to deteriorate before that, because he still relied on his formerly-extraordinary reaction time, and didn't want to feel old by driving slower. Every time you see someone old driving a land yacht, going 35 exactly right there in front of you!, consider that they're probably trying to keep the situation within their capabilities, and they're holding on to their independence as long as possible. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #42 March 19, 2004 Quote...Every time you see someone old driving a land yacht, going 35 exactly right there in front of you! ...In the left lane, right blinker on for the past 10 miles, brights on at 12 noon, winshield wipers going in clear weather.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChileRelleno 0 #43 March 19, 2004 Were the people you know charged with manslaughter? i.e. vehicluar or involuntary ect... I find it very hard to believe that the CHP is going to release any accused felon without being booked, however if for some reason their fault or level of fault in a fatality accident only warranted a misdemeanor level offense then I can see a ticket being issued. Officers work under some set rules regarding their actions in some scenarios, sometimes they don't have a choice in what procedure they must follow, regretful even to the officer sometimes. My father was a sheriffs deputy for 15 years and did alot of things he'd rather not have done. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #44 March 19, 2004 QuoteI think that's totally fucked up. Can someone please explain to me why is it necessary to handcuff and haul away an 84 year old man who hasn't been drinking and isn't on drugs because he made a left turn at the wrong time? Because he violated the law by failing to yield the right of way, and caused someone to die. If the dead motorcyclist was someone from your family, I'll bet you wouldn't want the man who killed him to walk away free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #45 March 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think that's totally fucked up. Can someone please explain to me why is it necessary to handcuff and haul away an 84 year old man who hasn't been drinking and isn't on drugs because he made a left turn at the wrong time? Because he violated the law by failing to yield the right of way, and caused someone to die. If the dead motorcyclist was someone from your family, I'll bet you wouldn't want the man who killed him to walk away free. Holy shit. A specific issue and situation where John and I agree. The apocalypse may now commence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freefallfreak 0 #46 March 20, 2004 Hi Hon, This may not be the real reason they did what they did but here goes my take on it. Consider this - if the older couple is from a different state, it's possible that the law wants to be sure he/she shows up for the court date - ie. A bail/bond that will assure the presence of the accused. This couldn't be done on the side of the road, hence, the booking? Just a thought? FFF P.S. It's good to see that there is someone showing responsibility in your family, lol, (DBriggs)...hehehe. I read his post and it makes more sense than a few here...hehehe. "Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #47 March 20, 2004 I disagree. This is tragic and the old man was at fault but common sense should come into play when dealing with situations. Yes, the law says one thing but a cop should be able to use his own good judgement and do the right thing. The guy is probably misserable with grief already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Snowwhite 0 #48 March 20, 2004 My father in law had been having memory problems, reaction problems and vision and hearing problems. My mother in law told him that she had gotten a message from the doctor that the Father in Law shouldn't drive anymore. She took him to the drivers license bureau to trade in his license for an id card. Ray has now been without a license for 2 years. Turns out, no doctor ever said a thing. Crafty, smart woman! She took a menace off the street, and didn't have to be the one to break his heart. I am tucking this one away to use on her son, if it is ever necessary.skydiveTaylorville.org freefallbeth@yahoo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JoeyRamone 0 #49 March 20, 2004 What the hell is an 84 year old man doing driving. He killed someone. What if that was your husband or brother the old man killed. We have laws in this country for a reason, they do not have any age limits, 84 or 24 the police need to also do the job at hand. The old man just killed a person, what should they do give him some popcorn and tell him no big deal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #50 March 20, 2004 QuoteI disagree. This is tragic and the old man was at fault... The guy is probably misserable with grief already. Probably not as much grief as the family of the dead man. You have to be alive to grieve. He committed negligent homicide. Why should we feel sorry enough for him to exclude him from arrest and booking for his crime? If he was an 18-year-old punk, would you feel the same you? His age is irrelevant. He killed someone. He's got to pay the price. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
ChileRelleno 0 #28 March 19, 2004 QuoteSo the officer became judge and jury eh? I believe that's "against" the law..... That was definitely not necessary....... Give me a break here people... The "officers" on the scene investigated a fatal accident and found the driver of said vehicle to be at fault, he was then arrested and taken for booking in a felony case of vehicular manslaughter. Please tell me how that is being judge and jury? ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #29 March 19, 2004 QuoteSo what your saying is that all seniors who commit a vehicle code offense should be arrested???? This is not a traffic offense, this a criminal offense, a felony. Do not pass go,do not collect $200.00. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #30 March 19, 2004 QuoteBut that's exactly what would have happened if he'd had a California driver's license instead of one from out of state. Since he wasn't under the influence and it wasn't premeditated, had he been a resident of California he would have been released on his own recognizance at the scene. Bytch, I have to disagree, no one is going to OR'd at the scene of a fatal accident if vehicular manslaughter charges are being brought against them. They will be going to jail whether local or not. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut 0 #31 March 19, 2004 Quote like the idea of motorcyclists wearing those silly orange vests for this very reason - when I get my next bike I'm seriously considering buying and wearing one even if it does make me look like a goofball. in the airforce they make us wear em... well "reflective clothing" but i always just used one of em cuz it was light weight, and i could cram it in my helmet when i was done ridding......being a rider and car driver i know about bikes and have even not seen em a time or two until they passed me....one thing to always do is ride so that you can be seen better...... and to ride defensivly.... wonder what kind of bike the guy was riding.......... as for the handcuffed and jail thing, well i think that anyone and i mean anyone that kills someone in an acident and is found to be at fault (cited) should be taken to jail to be processed... not necisarily kept there just taken thwere to fill out the opaperwork a charge like manslauter would take........ ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #32 March 19, 2004 Lisa & David, What happened sucks for everyone involved. No question about it. I'm sorry you were witness to it, but glad your family pitched in and helped. Another factual take on that type of situation: My wife was in the car with her father when they got hit by another car. It was the other person's fault. They were going way too fast and I think that alcohol was involved. My wife's father was killed. The other person got a ticket, because it was their fault. They paid the ticket, and later fought (and won) in court, that they couldn't be charged criminally because they had already been cited, admitted their guilt, waived trial and been given a judgement (fine) by paying the ticket. Nothing further could be done because of double jeopardy. It was after that incident (when my wife was 16), that Maryland started changing their policy about giving tickets after accidents with injuries. Now, they don't. It preserves the rights of the victims not to just give the guilty party a ticket and call it done. It is better for the people to have to go through a short visit to the detention facility or police station. It isn't that big of a deal, when compared to the trauma they inflicted on others, even if accidently. The police should be courteous, and do their job as gently as possible in the type of situation where it wasn't intentional and the people are sad about it (and still in shock). But they need to follow through anyway. Sometimes it just doesn't seem right, but occasions like that are the reverse of the one my wife went through, where the person that killed her father got off with just a traffic ticket. Like I said, nobody wins. Hang in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightjumps 1 #33 March 19, 2004 After reading the thread (so the politicians and DMV will step in, blaming the officer, etc.), I was intrigued. As it turns out the CHP WAS doing what was directed by those politicians and DMV according to law. The Officer's sole judgement in the matter is taken out of the equation. According to California law: "Vehicular manslaughter;" in some jurisdictions is just included under the more general term "involuntary manslaughter". The offense consists of (1) driving, (2) while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or alcohol and drugs, (3) resulting in the death of another human being, (4) caused by the drivers's independent negligence or violation of a traffic law. California Penal Code section 191.5 I used to have a sticker on my Harley that said, "I don't give a shit how they do it in California." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #34 March 19, 2004 QuoteBytch, I have to disagree, no one is going to OR'd at the scene of a fatal accident if vehicular manslaughter charges are being brought against them. They will be going to jail whether local or not. Oh. Okay. The people I know who've been at fault in fatal accidents but weren't drunk and were released on their OR at the scene must have been lying about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weegegirl 2 #35 March 19, 2004 i'm sorry for everyone involved here, including you bytch. that is a very painful event. my father turns 83 next month. he still drives. he's a pretty witty 83 year old... still with it mentally and more-or-less physically. every year my siblings and i (i'm the youngest of 9) have the "should dad still drive?" debate. i still think in his case that he is okay. but one of these years, i'm sure i will give in and say we should take his vehicle from him. we can do this seeing as we pay for it. the problem with taking my father's license away from him, is that it WILL kill him. certain things make people "old" mentally, and one of them is taking their freedom to get around away. i will not let him be a threat to society, but we as a country need to take better care of our elders. give them MORE options for getting around town and running their errands, etc. we can't just take their freedom from them and let them rot because they have reached a certain age. these are just my thoughts. i deal with this on a very personal/close-to-home level all the time. again, sorry for the situation, bytch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
efs4ever 3 #36 March 19, 2004 Clicky One of my rants about that kind of power.Russell M. Webb D 7014 Attorney at Law 713 385 5676 https://www.tdcparole.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 March 19, 2004 QuoteOh. Okay. The people I know who've been at fault in fatal accidents but weren't drunk and were released on their OR at the scene must have been lying about it. Wow, how many people do you know who were at fault in fatal accidents? From all the above, I don't see any indication that the person was treated differently just because of his age. That's the issue, not the arrest, but the assumption that the arrest was due to his age and not some other reason. Sorry your son had to see this. I hope is was an opportunity for you to discuss responsible driving with him. That lesson will stick. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #38 March 19, 2004 If the driver was 16-19 y.o., and the CHP Officer did the same thing would your opinion be different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #39 March 19, 2004 QuoteWow, how many people do you know who were at fault in fatal accidents? Two. QuoteSorry your son had to see this. I hope is was an opportunity for you to discuss responsible driving with him. That lesson will stick. Overall, he's a more responsible driver than I am already. Hell, he's a more responsible person than I am already. btw the dbriggs that posted earlier in this thread? That's my son. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #40 March 19, 2004 I am sorry for all the parties involved. I think it is a good idea for people to be retested. Make it once every ten years or something. I have been almost killed many times by bad drivers lots of them were older people. I know if someone I loved was killed because some one should have not been behind the weal. I would want them treated like a criminal. If you are incapable of driving no matter what the reason be alcohol, drugs, or being too old you should not drive.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #41 March 19, 2004 The cost of periodic re-testing would be large. But it makes some sense. Maybe if people were to take Defensive Driving (or, for when reaction times decrease, and they DO), the AARP Drive Alive at 55 class, then the re-test could be waived or the frequency lessened. Kids are lousy drivers often; their bag of experience is often so small that they HAVE to evaluate many more pieces of an emergent situation to deal with it. And the more pieces you ahve to evaluate, the longer it takes. Older people have decreased reaction times, decreased sight, and decreased hearing. Being people, they don't want to admit they've been as affected as they have been often. Really. But they're used to their capabilities at their peak, not declining -- that's the advantage of the AARP class. My dad's 86 and had to give up his license 8 years ago when his vision started to go in a big hurry. His driving skills had, frankly, begun to deteriorate before that, because he still relied on his formerly-extraordinary reaction time, and didn't want to feel old by driving slower. Every time you see someone old driving a land yacht, going 35 exactly right there in front of you!, consider that they're probably trying to keep the situation within their capabilities, and they're holding on to their independence as long as possible. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #42 March 19, 2004 Quote...Every time you see someone old driving a land yacht, going 35 exactly right there in front of you! ...In the left lane, right blinker on for the past 10 miles, brights on at 12 noon, winshield wipers going in clear weather.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #43 March 19, 2004 Were the people you know charged with manslaughter? i.e. vehicluar or involuntary ect... I find it very hard to believe that the CHP is going to release any accused felon without being booked, however if for some reason their fault or level of fault in a fatality accident only warranted a misdemeanor level offense then I can see a ticket being issued. Officers work under some set rules regarding their actions in some scenarios, sometimes they don't have a choice in what procedure they must follow, regretful even to the officer sometimes. My father was a sheriffs deputy for 15 years and did alot of things he'd rather not have done. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 March 19, 2004 QuoteI think that's totally fucked up. Can someone please explain to me why is it necessary to handcuff and haul away an 84 year old man who hasn't been drinking and isn't on drugs because he made a left turn at the wrong time? Because he violated the law by failing to yield the right of way, and caused someone to die. If the dead motorcyclist was someone from your family, I'll bet you wouldn't want the man who killed him to walk away free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #45 March 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think that's totally fucked up. Can someone please explain to me why is it necessary to handcuff and haul away an 84 year old man who hasn't been drinking and isn't on drugs because he made a left turn at the wrong time? Because he violated the law by failing to yield the right of way, and caused someone to die. If the dead motorcyclist was someone from your family, I'll bet you wouldn't want the man who killed him to walk away free. Holy shit. A specific issue and situation where John and I agree. The apocalypse may now commence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefallfreak 0 #46 March 20, 2004 Hi Hon, This may not be the real reason they did what they did but here goes my take on it. Consider this - if the older couple is from a different state, it's possible that the law wants to be sure he/she shows up for the court date - ie. A bail/bond that will assure the presence of the accused. This couldn't be done on the side of the road, hence, the booking? Just a thought? FFF P.S. It's good to see that there is someone showing responsibility in your family, lol, (DBriggs)...hehehe. I read his post and it makes more sense than a few here...hehehe. "Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #47 March 20, 2004 I disagree. This is tragic and the old man was at fault but common sense should come into play when dealing with situations. Yes, the law says one thing but a cop should be able to use his own good judgement and do the right thing. The guy is probably misserable with grief already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 0 #48 March 20, 2004 My father in law had been having memory problems, reaction problems and vision and hearing problems. My mother in law told him that she had gotten a message from the doctor that the Father in Law shouldn't drive anymore. She took him to the drivers license bureau to trade in his license for an id card. Ray has now been without a license for 2 years. Turns out, no doctor ever said a thing. Crafty, smart woman! She took a menace off the street, and didn't have to be the one to break his heart. I am tucking this one away to use on her son, if it is ever necessary.skydiveTaylorville.org freefallbeth@yahoo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyRamone 0 #49 March 20, 2004 What the hell is an 84 year old man doing driving. He killed someone. What if that was your husband or brother the old man killed. We have laws in this country for a reason, they do not have any age limits, 84 or 24 the police need to also do the job at hand. The old man just killed a person, what should they do give him some popcorn and tell him no big deal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 March 20, 2004 QuoteI disagree. This is tragic and the old man was at fault... The guy is probably misserable with grief already. Probably not as much grief as the family of the dead man. You have to be alive to grieve. He committed negligent homicide. Why should we feel sorry enough for him to exclude him from arrest and booking for his crime? If he was an 18-year-old punk, would you feel the same you? His age is irrelevant. He killed someone. He's got to pay the price. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
