Am I my brother's keeper?

[DinoDoc]

Landmark Drunk Driving Accountability Trial

A 40-year-old laborer is on trial in New Jersey in a groundbreaking case experts say could clear the way for the prosecution of anyone who lets a drunken driver get behind the wheel.

Kenneth Powell was asleep at home two years ago when police called and asked him to pick up best friend Michael Pangle, who had been arrested for drunken driving after a drinking session in a strip club.

Powell picked up Pangle and took his friend back to his sport utility vehicle, which was parked beside the road where he'd been arrested.

Pangle, 37, drove off into the night. Less than an hour later, his SUV collided with another car, killing him and 22-year-old Navy Ensign John Elliott, who was headed to his mother's birthday party.

Tests revealed Pangle had a 0.26 blood-alcohol content when he died, more than twice the legal limit.

Prosecutors blamed Powell for letting Pangle get behind the wheel and charged him with both deaths. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted of manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault by auto.

"Kenneth Powell made a series of conscious decisions to set that whole thing in motion, even though he knew better," prosecutor Michael Ostrowski told jurors July 17. "Nobody is here saying he intended anyone to get hurt. But he intended to set that reckless conduct in motion, knowing there was a real risk."

Lawyers for Powell, who has yet to talk publicly about the case against him, contend that State Police bear responsibility for giving Pangle his car keys and giving him directions back to the vehicle.

Holding Powell accountable would allow the prosecution of toll takers, gas station attendants and anyone else who encounters a drunken driver and fails to stop him from driving, defense attorney Carl Roeder said.

The case marks the first time a friend with no direct involvement in a drunken driving accident has been charged for not stopping the driver involved, according to defense attorneys and Mothers Against Drunk Driving officials.

Frank K. Russo, a defense lawyer and former Florida prosecutor, says Powell's fate will hinge on whether witnesses show that Pangle was so obviously drunk when Powell met him at the police station that he should have known his friend posed a threat to other drivers.

"As a third party, to what extent are you obligated to take the keys?" Russo said. "You could be setting yourself up for battery or a disorderly conduct charge if you get into a fight and a neighbor or someone else calls to report it."

Gary Trichter, a lawyer who heads the Houston-based National College of DUI Defense Inc., said he knew of no other case in which a third party like Powell — who hadn't served any alcohol to Pangle and didn't own or operate the vehicle — has been charged.

He said it was wrong to hold Powell accountable when State Police had implicitly given their approval by releasing him and giving him his keys back.

"Let's take this to its logical conclusion. The state, by prosecuting this guy, is saying this guy should have fought him, used physical force to stop him," Trichter said.

The case has already changed New Jersey law. The Legislature passed a bill last year giving police the power to impound the vehicles of drunken drivers for up to 12 hours after their arrest. Similar federal legislation is pending.

"The introduction of (that legislation) has given us hope that John did not die in vain, that he will not be forgotten and that in his name, lives will be saved across the nation," said Elliott's father, William Elliott.

How would you vote if you were on the jury in this case and why?

[orange]

not guilty. Stupid yes, but not his responsibility. After arresting someone for drunk driving you do NOT give them their keys back nor do you call someone else to get them a ride home.

Bad call by the police, I say

[Roland]

" Kenneth Powell was asleep at home two years ago when police called and asked him to pick up best friend Michael Pangle, who had been arrested for drunken driving after a drinking session in a strip club.

Powell picked up Pangle and took his friend back to his sport utility vehicle, which was parked beside the road where he'd been arrested."

What exactly happened ? Did police just let him go, or did they ask Powell to take the other guy home ?

[Pekka]

I'd vote guilty for letting him drive, not guilty for those deaths. You shouldn't let your buddy drive drunk, I agree you should even get physical and fight before letting it happen.
But I woudln't blame it on the guy they got killed.. The guy who did it is already dead.

[Q Classic]

ok, so, in this twisted world known as a lawyer's paradise, you can get your arse sued off if you help someone out-- some of that good samaritan stuff just doesn't pay off...

but if you just plum don't care, you can still get your arse sued off...

hm... methinks those crazy loners in idaho and oregon have got it right. who needs friends and social networks when anything you can do can cause legal repercussions?

[loinburger]

I might vote guilty if the charge was reckless endangerment or something along those lines. There's no way I'd convict this guy of manslaughter or assault or whatever have you.

[drake]

Moral of the story? If the cops call you to pick up your friend in the middle of the night, tell em to get ****ed.

Someone arrested for DUI should have a mandatory "sleep it off" period in a cell, which insures that they don't allow a drunken idiot back into the public to start.

If this guy is guilty of anything, the police go down with him, as they were just as negligent.

[Richelieu]

One of my cousins once called me at about 3:30 am to go pick him up at the police station. He'd been stopped while on his way back home and was drunk, but the cops didn't have a breathalizer with them (don't ask why).
Since this was on a country road and late at night, they had to wait for about 1:30 hrs according to my cousin for the tow truck to arrive. That's how they do it where i come from. They don't leave the car there, they put it in storage.
Anyways...
When they finally got to the station, he passed his breathalizer - he was at something like .075 and .08 is the limit. So he asked for his car keys back.
The cop told him that she wouldn't give them back to him since he wasn't in any shape to drive even though he had passed the test. She said she was making a judgement call.
That's when he called me.
And i agree with the cop 100% on this one.

[Gary]

I think the verdict here hinges on how much one can expect of a member of the public who you have no knowledge of. Can a public authority assume they are or average intelligence, or have they a responsibility to err on the side of caution ?

Another point is whether, having been taken to gaol by the police, is the drunk now no longer considered responsible for their actions ?

I think it fair to say that if the police have asked if you will pick up your drunk friend, they are not asking you to drop him back off so he can commit another offence. In those circumstances it is unreasonable for you to come to any other conclusion.

It's not that you are generally your brother's keeper to that extent, but by agreeing to pick up the drunk friend you have assumed responsibility. (I'm going with the idea that the drunk is considered to have lost any responsibility for themselves at this point. ) Responsibility was first with the police, then with the person who took over.

Do the police have the right to pass responsibility over just like that ?

The police want to look at their normal practice. Drunks are normally thrown in gaol to sleep it off aren't they ? If not, maybe they should be. Given that the police ought to be familiar and have a procedure to follow, did they make it clear what they expected ? If not, they should have.

(The fact that the guy was given info on the vehicle whereabouts should not be relevant, so probably will be. The info was given so the people involved could sort out collection next day. The police presumably trying to wash their hands of the incident. The lawyer ought to be "barking up the wrong tree" there, but being cynical of courts and lawyers, it's probably the winning strategy after all.)

Seems to me all parties acting like idiots, and one, the drunk, paid the ultimate price.

The other driver's family will obviously want to see something other than a whitewash, but with responsibility seemingly split at least 2 ways, and arguably 3, an actual prison term may be a bit harsh. And difficult if you're going to try to lock up the whole of the police station.

Is it an automatic gaol sentence for manslaughter ? Hmmm

On further thoughts I think the police have no right to assume any other member of the public have 2 brain cells to rub together, and are therefore probably the most culpable. Stern warnings and slapped wrists all around ?

[Urban Ranger]

It depends on how the police instructed Powell at the station. If the police said, "Take your friend home, make him sleep it off, then pick up his car when he's sober." Now that would be a pretty open and shut case of negligence given what happened, but it still wouldn't be manslaughter in my book.

If the police just dumped this other guy on him, the case can go a whole lot many directions.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If the police just dumped this other guy on him, the case can go a whole lot many directions.

And if that happened, someone will probably sue the police.

[Zkribbler]

This is not a case of a "friend letting a friend drive drunk" or of a "brother's keeper." This is a case where a guy steps in and makes matters far worse. Instead of taking his drunk friend home, Powell drove his friend something like 45 miles back to his car, gave him the keys and let him drive.

If you put a loaded gun into the hands of a three-year old, and the kid kills someone, you're responsible for the death. If you put an drunk into a car and turn him loose on the public highways, you're responsible for the person(s) he kills.

I don't care how detailed the police's instructions were to Powell. Any idiot knowns you don't put a drunk behind the wheel of a car.

[Arrian]

I think this guy Powell is guilty of reckless endangerment, but not manslaughter. Terrible decision.

I had a friend get caught for DUI. Since no one in the care was sober enough to drive it, the cops had it towed. Simple as that. So how did this guy get his car back?? Did the cops just leave it on the side of the road and take the guy to the station (apparently 45 mins away)? Wierd, at the very least.

-Arrian

[Loif]

No doubt in my mind - GUILTY.

The police called him to pick up a friend. He was drunk. Powell should have driven him to his house (or Powell's house) and had him sleep it off. You don't give car keys to someone who has been indulging. That's just a recipe for disaster.

[Kepler]

Extraordinarily stupid, but not guilty of manslaughter!

You might as well say the cops are guilty because they set it in motion by calling Powell. Had they not done so, the deaths would not have taken place.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Loif
The police called him to pick up a friend. He was drunk. Powell should have driven him to his house (or Powell's house) and had him sleep it off.

One can just as easily turn this line of reasoning around and say that the police are guilty because they realesed a man who was way over the legal the BAC limit back on the streets and gave him his keys back.

[Chris 62]

So we have reached the stage of bad judgement=manslaughter.

Insane.

There is also the matter of there being no law against someone not serving drinks preventing someone from driving.
The prosecuter is asking the jury to deliberate a judgement call, when the jury cannot be postion of all the facts (they can't speak to the dead man, they have no way of knowing how he was acting).

I would be counter-sueing the hell out of Jersey for false arrest and imprisonment, and defimation of character.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Chris 62
So we have reached the stage of bad judgement=manslaughter.

Insane.

No, typical. "Gee, I thought it'd be a good idea to drive 65 miles per hours passed a school at 3:00 p.m., but now I see that was bad judgment." Manslaughter is defined as a negligently caused homicide.

There is also the matter of there being no law against someone not serving drinks preventing someone from driving.

Whew, too many negatives in that sentence. Bartenders are ususally not targetted because they have no specific knowledge the drunk is going to be driving. In California, there's a special law on this.

The prosecuter is asking the jury to deliberate a judgement call, when the jury cannot be postion of all the facts (they can't speak to the dead man, they have no way of knowing how he was acting).

I would be counter-sueing the hell out of Jersey for false arrest and imprisonment, and defimation of character.

I've seen the police video of the drunk-driving arrest. The guy is so drunk, he can hardly stand up. There's was also a breath-alyzer or blood test. I don't remember now whether the results were twice the legal limit or 0.20.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
No, typical. "Gee, I thought it'd be a good idea to drive 65 miles per hours passed a school at 3:00 p.m., but now I see that was bad judgment." Manslaughter is defined as a negligently caused homicide.

Just once, I'd like to see me quoted WITHOUT an assinine example that is so rediculous as to be laughable following it.
The actual statue says "to cause harm by action", that would mean placing the guy behind the wheel, not some stupid nonsense about speeding through a school zone.
Why did you feel it neccessary to post something so stupid as that as an example?

[quote]Whew, too many negatives in that sentence. Bartenders are ususally not targetted because they have no specific knowledge the drunk is going to be driving. In California, there's a special law on this.[/quoye]We are talking New Jersey here, and there IS such a law, and they ARE targeted.

I've seen the police video of the drunk-driving arrest. The guy is so drunk, he can hardly stand up. There's was also a breath-alyzer or blood test. I don't remember now whether the results were twice the legal limit or 0.20.

If he is so obviously impared, why is he being released?
You just gave the defense even more.
People are resoncible for their OWN actions, not others.
This case reminds me of the final seinfeld episode, where they arrest the cast for not trying to prevent an ARMED robbery.

The fault here lies with the dead driver and the police that arrested him and then released him.

[chequita guevara]

There's a good case for 2nd degree murder here. He created a dangerous situation which any reasonable person would assume could cause the death of another person. That's beyond simple negligence.

The law considers being drunk an impairment on judgement, so the drunk driver himself (we he still alive) does not hold all of the responsibility. His friend, however, had no such impairment (maybe sleep deprivation). He had to know that letting his friend drive as drunk as he was might very well result in someone's death.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Chris 62

The actual statue says "to cause harm by action", that would mean placing the guy behind the wheel, not some stupid nonsense about speeding through a school zone.

Hmm, this seems to be the source of our disagreement. I see little legal or moral difference between causing a death by speeding through a school zone and causing a death by putting a drunk behind the wheel of the car.

People are resoncible for their OWN actions, not others.
This case reminds me of the final seinfeld episode, where they arrest the cast for not trying to prevent an ARMED robbery.

The fault here lies with the dead driver and the police that arrested him and then released him.

The difference between Seinfield and this case is the difference between passivity and activity. The Seinfield people did nothing, while Powell transported the drunk to his car and gave him his keys. The law (usually) imposes no duty to act but, when a person chooses to act, the law then imposes a duty to act reasonably.

BTW: There is no question the drunk driver is also responsible.

Question: I don't understand why you believe the police are more cupable than the friend. The police released the driver into the custody of his friend with instructions to take him home. How did that act put the public at an unreasonable risk of harm??

[Oerdin]

I still like to believe that each of use is responsible for our own actions. As a friend I would have tried to be more forceful with a drunk companion but in the end it was the drunk who killed three people that night. Not his friend and not the police.

[Loif]

Yes, but the friend should have been more responsible and shouldn't have driven the guy BACK to his car and given him back the car keys. What the heck was he thinking? A responsible person just doesn't do things like that.

[Shi Huangdi]

Not guilty. Yes, he should have been smarter, but you should not be resposnsible for the actiosn of another man.

"A responsible person just doesn't do things like that."

He wasn't responsible at all for his brother. And if they didn't want the man to drive, the police shouldn't have returned the car keys.

[chequita guevara]

BD, the law is fairly clear with something like this, if you create a situation in which it is likely that someone will die, you may be charged with 2nd degree homocide. I forget the exact term. If they offer this guy 1st degree mansluaghter, he should take it cuz a jury will convict.

[Loif]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Not guilty. Yes, he should have been smarter, but you should not be resposnsible for the actiosn of another man.

I disagree. If people aren't expected to be responsible for the actions of others then the world as a whole is in a lot of trouble. Whatever happened to looking out for one another?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BD, the law is fairly clear with something like this, if you create a situation in which it is likely that someone will die, you may be charged with 2nd degree homocide. I forget the exact term. If they offer this guy 1st degree mansluaghter, he should take it cuz a jury will convict.

The operative word here being 'likely'; while it is indeed dangerous, I strongly doubt that driving drunk is likely to be lethal. If it were, there'd be a lot fewer drunk drivers, since most of them would be dead.

[Loif]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


The operative word here being 'likely'; while it is indeed dangerous, I strongly doubt that driving drunk is likely to be lethal.

Tell that to someone who has lost a friend or loved one to a drunk driver.

[The Mad Monk]

Tell that to someone who actually has the statistics.

What percent of DUIs end up with a fatality?

FWIW, I lost a cousin in a DUI seven years ago. she was twenty-four.

[chequita guevara]

With as much alcohol as was in his blood stream? Dude was measured at .26. I'm surprised he could walk, let alone drive. He was an accident waiting to happen.