Drunk driver gets up to 12 years for cop’s death in accident he wasn’t involved in

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Mar 10, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/drunk-driver-gets-8-years-for-cops-death-during-dwi-rampage/

    Whisky Tango Foxtrot, in know it's the NY post, but how the hell can this be real?
     
  2. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 601

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    The passenger wasn't Steven Avery was he?
     
  3. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
  4. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #4
    I initially assumed he must have been a passenger, but reading the article makes things much clearer: He was drunk driving and caused a couple of accidents.

    The officer was killed attending the accidents the drunk driver had caused. I have very little sympathy with anyone who drinks and drives and I tend to agree with the courts on this one - IMO there is a correlation between his drunk driving and the death of the Police Officer
     
  5. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 601

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    Indeed the drunk driver was the reason the copper was there so deserves jail IMO.
     
  6. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    I agree with it mostly, but for some reason I get a feeling that the victim being a Cop made the punishment more severe.

    I just wish cops would get these types of sentences.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ex-rcmp-cpl-monty-robinson-gets-12-month-conditional-sentence-1.895563

    this cop killed a guy while under the influence, he then used his influence to obstruct justice. He gets 1 month house house arrest.

    He is convicted of perjury a few years later for his involvement in killing another person.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-in-robert-dziekanski-perjury-case-1.3166318
     
  7. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #7
    What a joke. Cop could have easily been hit and killed at a different accident.

    Once again proof that America has different laws when a cop is involved. All hail your gestapo overlords.

    What's next? You get pulled over for running a stop sign, cop gets hit and killed when walking up to your car to give you a ticket, and you get charged for manslaughter? Because that would basically be the same situation as this.
     
  8. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #8
    Wait. So say a cop pulled over to help a civilian change a flat tire or something. If another car somehow ended up hitting the cop while in the breakdown lane, the innocent person who needed help changing a flat tire would be charged in the cop's death..?
     
  9. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #9
    So instead of James Ryan being drunk lets say he had some kind of medical condition like a heart attack while driving and crashed. Ryan survived but the SUV still hit and killed the cop that responded to the accident. Should Ryan still go to jail?
     
  10. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10

    We can go further. Let's say a cop does an illegal stop of a vehicle and while stopped a bus tries to avoid a collision with the police car which results in multiple fatalities on the bus. Would the police officer be charged with multiple counts of manslaughter?
     
  11. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    I think the point is that James Ryan made the decision to get drunk, the decision to drive drunk- a crime, and therefore caused two accidents (reasonable to conclude due to his drinking), and creating the opportunity for this third accident- the cop getting hit.

    If James Ryan was not drunk but had a heart attack while driving, he would not have made the conscious decision to endanger others. Same with getting a flat tire, that's an act of God. These are not crimes, but drunk driving is. A speeding ticket might be a grey area- but I doubt it as speeding (unless reckless) is not a crime but a violation of municipal code.
     
  12. mdhwoods macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #12
    Ryan caused the accident that eventually caused the death of the cop. His drunk driving cause a previous accident where the cop was killed. He should be jailed.
     
  13. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #13
    Those are good points, but the officer death should only be used to influence the penalty of the crime that was committed. Many DUI's get no prison time, but in this case I would give Ryan the maximum penalty for the actual offence committed. It is a slippery slope to add charges that are no appropriate IMO.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    I also love the double standard about making decisions when drunk.

    We hear now that people can't make the decision of consenting to sex when drunk, but they're supposed to be able to make the decision if they're tok drunk to drive?

    What a ridiculous double standard.
     
  15. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #15
    You are wrong about people not being able toconsenting when drunk, only women can't consent

    upload_2016-3-11_10-12-59.png
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    See my previous post. If you can't make a conscious decision to consent to sex while drunk, how can you make a conscious decision to drive?
    Guess this means only men can drive drunk too.
     
  17. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    I agree. I think he can only be minimally be held responsible for the 3rd accident- whether that be maximizing his direct charges or minimally charging him for the indirect results.

    I suspect this is in place to maximize charges if others fall through. Or perhaps in this case to maximize punishment as it was a cop or to make an example that drunk driving won't be tolerated.

    That said, I'm not sure where you can reasonably draw the line. If I murder you and a baby dies on the other side of town because the only amblulance is caught up dragging away your body, am I responsible?

    DUI laws are strange. CT made a law- mandatory jail time for DUI's after your first. Unfortunately there were so many repeat offenders the jails could not accomodate the repeat offenders. I used to work with an elderly man, now a recovered alcoholic, in Mass (age 70's?) who had like 11 DUI's and multiple totaled BMW's, and somehow could still drive (he did go to jail at one point). I had a patient who was on vacation in the Midwest and got her first DUI and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.
     
  18. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #18
    I can't believe the actual driver wasn't charged with anything. The only way this makes any sense at all is if the drunk driver caused the cars in the first accident to come to a halt in a location that was completely unobservable and unexpected to the driver actually involved in the fatal accident.
     
  19. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #19
    I have no comment on the thread topic but just offering food for thought on your post.

    DUI should not be referred to as "drunk driving" because it causes people to think as you are.

    DUI is merely driving under the influence of drug or alcohol (or the combination) where the safe operation of a vehicle is impaired.

    Being drunk is a vague and ambiguous term and I'm not aware it having a legal definition. But most of us see it implying a person is so intoxicated they are a danger to them self or others.

    A person in public with a BAC of .08 isn't necessary "drunk" in public.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    What if someone drink drove and caused an accident in a gang area and a gangster shot the cop. Should we blame the drink driver?

    This frankly seems an appalling precedent to set.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2016 ---
    But you always have to drive so you can stop. I mean there could have been a deer on the road or someone could have broken down.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2016 ---
    I disagree. There is a difference. You shouldn't drive after you've had more than one beer. You shouldn't have sex when you've had more than maybe 5 beers - or when you the person you are ****ing is basically paralytic.
     
  21. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #21
    So people who commit DUI's should be let off the hook?

    Rape is obviously a very complex subject when you factor in alcohol and consent and previous sexual relationships.

    In a DUI one chooses voluntarily to drink and not to take appropriate measure not to drink and drive. In some places, others can be found partially responsible, such as the bar serving them. DUI's, like most crimes, does require one to consent or decide to commiting it.

    In the case of a DUI, it's the driver's fault they got drunk and crashed their car. In rape, the rapist is intentionally taking advantage of an impaired person. It's not the rape victim's fault they rapist is taking advantage of them.

    I work with many alcoholics. Many of them are consciously aware of intentionally driving drunk. Some people of course black out and drive, but they're still responsible for ingesting too much alcohol. It's not like someone forces them to drink alcohol and then forces them to drive a car.

    There may be somewhat of a double standard, but the intent and consequences of either situation are very different.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2016 ---
    I suppose you could argue that had it not been for the drunk driver's accidents, the 3rd accident would have never happened. A cop walking into a gang infested area could have resulted in a murder regardless.

    I think there is a difference between an accidental death as a result of someone's actions, versus the intentional murder of an unrelated, 3rd party.
     
  22. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    Phew. Thankfully men who are drunk when they proposition are innocent by reason of temporary insanity. Oh, wait...
     
  23. Mr. Buzzcut macrumors 65816

    Mr. Buzzcut

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio
    #23
    If you push someone off a balcony and they kill someone below, you the pusher should be held solely responsible.
     
  24. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #24
    The cop was struck by an SUV driver who claims he never saw him or the wreckage he crashed into. That act of negligence on the part of the SUV driver is what ultimately caused the cop's death.

    What if I park illegally, and a cop standing next to my car writing me a ticket gets hit by a tractor-trailer? Am I responsible for that, not the tractor-trailer driver?
     
  25. Mr. Buzzcut macrumors 65816

    Mr. Buzzcut

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio
    #25
    I read wrong at first. Thought the cop died in one of the two initial accidents. I guess it comes down to the degree of negligence. If you parked in the middle of the highway and someone died because of it, sure, your fault.
     

Share This Page