• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Hmmm - law enforcement is not required to protect another, but juveniles are. I must have missed something :uhoh:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
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?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Hmmm - law enforcement is not required to protect another, but juveniles are. I must have missed something :uhoh:

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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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..
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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!
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state

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....
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.....
 
Top