Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 72

Thread: Another example of actually not committing a crime but being charged anyway?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Another example of actually not committing a crime but being charged anyway?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...driving-drunk/
    Story ^^^


    http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part6/6.3-2.htm

    ^^^ Jury instructions regarding reckless endangerment

    Three teenagers have been arrested in Glastonbury, Conn., for not preventing their friend, 17-year-old Jane Modlesky, from driving drunk, NBC Connecticut reports.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Hmmm - law enforcement is not required to protect another, but juveniles are. I must have missed something
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    This is but another example of a law that was written to address one thing being used (perverted?) to address something completely different. It is something that pretty much defines the slippery slope. The next person to be charged will be the one that did not stop on the interstate to remove the muffler that fell of some car, because they should have known that someone else hitting the muffler could wreck.

    What gets my attention is that this is the state applying the criminal code to these teens, as opposed to the parents of the dead teen using this as the basis for a civil suit. I'm guessing all the teens were drinking, but since the state could only prove BAC above the legal limit on the dead teen they are looking for some/any means of punishing them for violating the liquor laws.

    And how does this relate to lawful open carrying? As if one needs to ask - consider the number of times that a person has been charged with disturbing the peace, brandishing, terroristic threats or the like for merely having a lawfully carried holstered handgun in plain sight.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232
    I'm just thinking aloud in print here.

    If the other kids who had already got out of the car were drinking, which is probably a safe guess to make, couldn't any of them have been charged with a DUI if stopped while behind the wheel?

    Isn't a part of the reasoning behind charging someone who is under the influence of alcohol while driving something to do with their driving ability being severely hampered because their judgement is impaired?

    And, if their judgement is too impaired for them to be able to drive, how on earth are they supposed to have the ability to judge whether or not their friend is unable to drive home without incident?

    I see the police are reported to have charged the girl who threw the party over providing alcohol to minors, what about also charging the person who sold that alcohol? Shouldn't they have realized that it might be drank by a teen who would then drive impaired and get in a fatal accident. And, what about the company that made the car she was driving, what about charging them because they didn't do anything to prevent the vehicle being driven by a teen who had been drinking alcohol?

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Actually it is reckless endangerment, they gave her the car by herself, after driving home drunk, in violation of their passenger and hours restrictions. she did not get into her own car and leave by herself, another party drove, got out of the car, gave it to another party, who drove illegally, then left her alone in the car to drive herself.

    you can't absolve yourself of responsbility for dumb actions by claiming immaturatey or that you were buzzed or not a medical expert. it doesn't take a doctor to see when someone is too drunk to drive. the second teen at very least had possession of the motor vehicle and surrendered it to someone who was clearly not capable of driving.

    imagine this, you walk to your house with your girlfriend who's three times over the legal limit, you are carrying, you get home, tell her to walk home herself and give her your gun, and she walks home drunk shooting at things, are you guilty of reckless endangerment? absolutely....

    the law reads this
    a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when (he/she) recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.
    meets the bill to a "T" this isn't a child's game, someone is dead, these kids will get a misdemeanor conviction as a consequence then they can get on with their lives, while knowing their friend will not be able to, because of their reckless conduct.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Actually it is reckless endangerment, they gave her the car by herself, after driving home drunk, in violation of their passenger and hours restrictions. she did not get into her own car and leave by herself, another party drove, got out of the car, gave it to another party, who drove illegally, then left her alone in the car to drive herself.

    you can't absolve yourself of responsbility for dumb actions by claiming immaturatey or that you were buzzed or not a medical expert. it doesn't take a doctor to see when someone is too drunk to drive. the second teen at very least had possession of the motor vehicle and surrendered it to someone who was clearly not capable of driving.

    imagine this, you walk to your house with your girlfriend who's three times over the legal limit, you are carrying, you get home, tell her to walk home herself and give her your gun, and she walks home drunk shooting at things, are you guilty of reckless endangerment? absolutely....

    the law reads this


    meets the bill to a "T" this isn't a child's game, someone is dead, these kids will get a misdemeanor conviction as a consequence then they can get on with their lives, while knowing their friend will not be able to, because of their reckless conduct.
    +1 well said

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hmmm - law enforcement is not required to protect another, but juveniles are. I must have missed something
    +1

    Whats next someone will be charged because they had something attractive to someone else in their yard......oh wait.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hmmm - law enforcement is not required to protect another, but juveniles are. I must have missed something
    not even remotely comparable, the teens did not "fail to prevent" they actively enabled. the car did not belong to the girl, or her family, or any other ownership interest did she have in the car, the teen who's parents owned the car gave her they key when she was *at least* .24, he should never have given the keys to her, by doing so he enabled someone who was obviously not capable of driving to drive.

    as far as I'm concerned, reckless endangerment is not high enough of a charge, this is nothing like a cop not responding to call, this would be like if the cops not only failed to respond to a restraining order call, but told the husband how to disable the alarm to the house....

    this was not a case of someone being charged for failing to act, somone is being charged for FURTHERING someone elses committing a crime.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    not even remotely comparable, the teens did not "fail to prevent" they actively enabled. the car did not belong to the girl, or her family, or any other ownership interest did she have in the car, the teen who's parents owned the car gave her they key when she was *at least* .24, he should never have given the keys to her, by doing so he enabled someone who was obviously not capable of driving to drive.

    as far as I'm concerned, reckless endangerment is not high enough of a charge, this is nothing like a cop not responding to call, this would be like if the cops not only failed to respond to a restraining order call, but told the husband how to disable the alarm to the house....

    this was not a case of someone being charged for failing to act, somone is being charged for FURTHERING someone elses committing a crime.
    I have to agree emn. Enabling is not failing to act and that's why the statute is worded as such for said charges.

    You give a person something they would not have readily had or enable then to do something that wasn't already there and your a part of it

    This ties to bartenders who over serve (enabling alcohol consumption in their presence) then let them walk out. You would not charge every person in the entire bar with it because they didn't given them anything. Another example there was the case where the guy had a girl on a date BOUGHT her many drinks could see she was hammered (video surveillance showed it) then let her drive home. I believe she crashed and killed some one. He was then charged accordingly. I'll cite that case if needed.

    I agree that the bystanders should NOT be charged. So maybe not the other passengers in the car but the person that GAVE the keys is partially responsible.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    not even remotely comparable, the teens did not "fail to prevent" they actively enabled. the car did not belong to the girl, or her family, or any other ownership interest did she have in the car, the teen who's parents owned the car gave her they key when she was *at least* .24, he should never have given the keys to her, by doing so he enabled someone who was obviously not capable of driving to drive.

    as far as I'm concerned, reckless endangerment is not high enough of a charge, this is nothing like a cop not responding to call, this would be like if the cops not only failed to respond to a restraining order call, but told the husband how to disable the alarm to the house....

    this was not a case of someone being charged for failing to act, somone is being charged for FURTHERING someone elses committing a crime.
    So if I give my gun to someone at a range because he wanted to try it out and he ends up killing someone on purpose, then I could be charged with murder?

    Enabling? What the heck is dat? Jabberwocky..

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    So if I give my gun to someone at a range because he wanted to try it out and he ends up killing someone on purpose, then I could be charged with murder?

    Enabling? What the heck is dat? Jabberwocky..
    No. But if he stated " I want to kill someone here bad" THEN you gave him means to do that (gun) then yea I'd say you'd fall under that statute or something similar.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 12-07-2013 at 09:18 PM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No. But if he stated " I want to kill someone here bad" THEN you gave him means to do that (gun) then yea I'd say you'd fall under that statute or something similar.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Exactly. Generally giving a gun to someone at a range will result in nothing bad happening. It would be rare and surprising if it did.

    However, handing the keys for a car to a .24 drunk does not make you wonder IF something bad will happen, but what will happen and how bad will it be!

    The charge is correct, but will likely be pleaded down.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Exactly. Generally giving a gun to someone at a range will result in nothing bad happening. It would be rare and surprising if it did.

    However, handing the keys for a car to a .24 drunk does not make you wonder IF something bad will happen, but what will happen and how bad will it be!

    The charge is correct, but will likely be pleaded down.
    Well, you expect a 17 yr old to have any understanding of the real world (I mean TODAY's 17 yr olds)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No. But if he stated " I want to kill someone here bad" THEN you gave him means to do that (gun) then yea I'd say you'd fall under that statute or something similar.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


    Fred ?!! I thought you were kidding! Ya got me this time.

  15. #15
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, you expect a 17 yr old to have any understanding of the real world (I mean TODAY's 17 yr olds)
    Actually yes I do expect them to have some understanding about the alcohol effects on driving, its general knowledge that drunk driving is bad.... and a girl the size of that young woman in the picture would likely need help to stand up at that BAC. in fact she might have needed hospitalization, and that wouldve been painfully obvious.

    stupidity is not a defense anyway.

    you invented a phony scenario, you lied to the members of OCDO with your choice of thread title. and now you're backtracking that youve been confronted and the real facts exposed. if the 17 year old didnt know that she was too drunk to drive then he should have..... he was willfully ignorant....

    PS, they specifically teach about drunk driving in Drivers ed, which is the only way someone under 18 gets a drivers license....
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-07-2013 at 10:22 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Actually yes I do expect them to have some understanding about the alcohol effects on driving, its general knowledge that drunk driving is bad.... and a girl the size of that young woman in the picture would likely need help to stand up at that BAC. in fact she might have needed hospitalization, and that wouldve been painfully obvious.

    stupidity is not a defense anyway.

    you invented a phony scenario, you lied to the members of OCDO with your choice of thread title. and now you're backtracking that youve been confronted and the real facts exposed. if the 17 year old didnt know that she was too drunk to drive then he should have..... he was willfully ignorant....
    I would expect a 12-year-old to recognize when someone is .24 drunk and to know that driving under that amount of influence is going to result in something bad!

  17. #17
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    No, Eric Peters is either dumb or misinformed.

    read the original NBC connecticutt story, Modelsky was a passenger, the second boy charged got out of the car that belonged to his parents, and gave her the keys when she was .27

    There is no new precedent saying you must prevent someone, this is saying you cannot enable someone resulting in a death and escape responsibility, pay attention and stop believing the false narrative created by the libertarian extremists to sell this case....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, Eric Peters is either dumb or misinformed.

    read the original NBC connecticutt story, Modelsky was a passenger, the second boy charged got out of the car that belonged to his parents, and gave her the keys when she was .27

    There is no new precedent saying you must prevent someone, this is saying you cannot enable someone resulting in a death and escape responsibility, pay attention and stop believing the false narrative created by the libertarian extremists to sell this case....
    Yeah, I just read the story from NBC. Slam dunk acquittal, I would hope. Outrageous that they're being charged. I'm sorry you can't see that.

    Unsurprising given this happened in Ct, where the right to bear arms has been revoked.
    Last edited by 77zach; 12-08-2013 at 08:52 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Yeah, I just read the story from NBC. Slam dunk acquittal, I would hope. Outrageous that they're being charged. I'm sorry you can't see that.
    can't see what? the constitutional right to surrender control of a dangerous object to someone not capable of using it?

    no this is exactly the type of conduct that the reckless endangerment statute was legislated to restrict. there is no affirmative duty to stop a crime from happened, there is also no right to provide the means to commit a crime to someone else who otherwise didn't have those means.

    these kids need to plead guilty, it's the right thing to do, and whatever level of punishment they get will be a bargain. They will be found guilty and no court will overturn that ruling.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    can't see what? the constitutional right to surrender control of a dangerous object to someone not capable of using it?

    no this is exactly the type of conduct that the reckless endangerment statute was legislated to restrict. there is no affirmative duty to stop a crime from happened, there is also no right to provide the means to commit a crime to someone else who otherwise didn't have those means.

    these kids need to plead guilty, it's the right thing to do, and whatever level of punishment they get will be a bargain. They will be found guilty and no court will overturn that ruling.....
    They will probably be found not guilty, and rightly so, unless of course these teenage boys breathylyzed this girl right before giving her the keys, there's no way even a retarded public defender could lose the case. It's ridiculous on its face.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  22. #22
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    They will probably be found not guilty, and rightly so, unless of course these teenage boys breathylyzed this girl right before giving her the keys, there's no way even a retarded public defender could lose the case. It's ridiculous on its face.
    if you need a breathylyzer to tell when someone who is BAC .27 is too drunk to drive then please surrender your drivers license, all firearms, and automobiles... there is no way any reasonable person of average intelligence would believe that someone .27 is "borderline" or ok to drive. no way in hell....
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-08-2013 at 09:07 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  23. #23
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    if you need a breathylyzer to tell when someone who is BAC .27 is too drunk to drive then please surrender your drivers license, all firearms, and automobiles... there is no way any reasonable person of average intelligence would believe that someone .27 is "borderline" or ok to drive. no way in hell....
    Believe it or not, that's actually not true.

    Regardless, these kids have no legal liability to the state. Depending on the totality of the circumstances, the parents of the dead girl might have a civil claim against the adult who purchased the alcohol for the kids. Could see that for sure.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Believe it or not, that's actually not true.

    Regardless, these kids have no legal liability to the state. Depending on the totality of the circumstances, the parents of the dead girl might have a civil claim against the adult who purchased the alcohol for the kids. Could see that for sure.
    a negligent death is always legal liability to the state..... they don't always prosecute, but I consider any death caused by negligence to be a legal liability to the state.

    .27 is when people start dying of alcohol poisoning or need their stomach pumped. if this girl didn't need help to stand at that level she won the big genetic lottery. again, the boys had no duty to give her the car keys, it was not her car, it was his parents, he gave her possession of the car she otherwise had no ownership interest in.

    a civil claim is not good enough when someone is dead. if my relative dies due to extreme negligence of another party I don't want their blood money, I want their ass in prison.

    is the girl responsible for driving drunk? absolutely, and if she was stopped before crashing she'd have gone to jail.

    but the boys are also responsible for surrendering the car that she had no interest in.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    a negligent death is always legal liability to the state..... they don't always prosecute, but I consider any death caused by negligence to be a legal liability to the state.

    .27 is when people start dying of alcohol poisoning or need their stomach pumped. if this girl didn't need help to stand at that level she won the big genetic lottery. again, the boys had no duty to give her the car keys, it was not her car, it was his parents, he gave her possession of the car she otherwise had no ownership interest in.

    a civil claim is not good enough when someone is dead. if my relative dies due to extreme negligence of another party I don't want their blood money, I want their ass in prison.

    is the girl responsible for driving drunk? absolutely, and if she was stopped before crashing she'd have gone to jail.

    but the boys are also responsible for surrendering the car that she had no interest in.
    Some moral responsibility? Most likely. Criminal liability????? Why do you think this made the news? Has this never happened before? I really don't have the will to break this whole thing down, but it made the news because this is the state being way too aggressive

    Do you believe bartenders should be prosecuted if a guy comes into a bar to have some shots and drives away? After 1 shot? 7 shots? 9? 13?

    If I buy that Audi A8 I'm lusting after and I kill myself with it, should the dealership be held responsible? After all, I told the salesman I wanted it because it can go 200 mph?
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •