ADVERTISEMENT

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

He's guilty of negligent manslaughter. It was proper for the cop to be there. It doesn't appear that there'd been adequate time to clear the wreck. There's really no break. It's the same accident. Somebody hit his crashed car and careened into the police officer.
 
That is my question.. At what point in time is the crime no longer being committed in this specific case? Is it as soon as he is out of his vehicle and failed the test. Is it once he is in the back of the police car? Is it once he is in jail and in custody of the jail? Is it after he is convicted?
 
Had Ryan not been driving drunk, none of this would have happened and the Officer's wife would not be a widow. It's a chain of events that began with Ryan's actions.

If another driver had caused a fender bender and a cop taking a report at the scene is killed..... I don't know if this result makes sense.
 
What if the truck driver was speeding or not speeding, but too fast for the conditions? I agree with the ruling, but how far does the chain of events go with the person being responsible.
I don't like it at all, it just opens the door a little wider for the government to overreach which they are already prone to do.
 
If another driver had caused a fender bender and a cop taking a report at the scene is killed..... I don't know if this result makes sense.
So as others have posted.....if this precedent is set...then if the guy had a tail light out and was pulled over.....cop killed by passing motorist.......cop never would have been there if not for motorist with bulb that failed. Same result? I mean if butterflies in Africa cause hurricane Andrews shouldn't we kill all the butterflies? Shouldn't all of these occurrences be stand alone? If the drunk guy was running through traffic and a pursuing cop gets killed then the guy should be held accountable. But if cop is on scene of something and doesn't exercise due caution or if passing motorist exercises undue caution at crash scene then aren't those guys culpable?
 
Am I reading this right? The guy on the side of the road is charged and convicted of murder, but the driver who actually struck the policeman was not charged with anything?
 
Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people that I never met and that I never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a s**t. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and f***in' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the f***in' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the schrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.
Very nice
 
This is crazy and will never hold up through appeals (I would think).
 
So as others have posted.....if this precedent is set...then if the guy had a tail light out and was pulled over.....cop killed by passing motorist.......cop never would have been there if not for motorist with bulb that failed. Same result? I mean if butterflies in Africa cause hurricane Andrews shouldn't we kill all the butterflies? Shouldn't all of these occurrences be stand alone? If the drunk guy was running through traffic and a pursuing cop gets killed then the guy should be held accountable. But if cop is on scene of something and doesn't exercise due caution or if passing motorist exercises undue caution at crash scene then aren't those guys culpable?

At some point, assigning blame (even if a logical connection exists) seems ridiculous. If, for example, a mugger chased a guy into the street where the victim was killed, you would charge the mugger with his death....manslaughter, whatever. This makes sense. If, however, a would-be victim is upset a day after escaping a mugging and steps into traffic, it becomes more problematic to connect him with the death. It is still connected, but not really foreseeable. We sort of naturally see that connected events have a reduced connection as time passes.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT