Comments on: Police lenient? Skagit County jury: taxpayers should pay

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:52:49 +0000

Bob Lipton,

We’re talking about someone who is drunk, that is, presumptively incapacitated. Hospitalizing such people is hardly an innovation. And no, there wouldn’t be any issue of false imprisonment on the part of the hospital if the detention was ordered by a court. You are aware that defendants who are injured are not infrequently arrested in their hospital beds and chained to them?

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:34:29 +0000

There are several issues involved here. One is the criminalization of actions that may or might lead to bad consequences. This apparently means everything, since I might cut myself while slicing a bagel for breakfast. The other is ‘release into custody’….. and here we have the suggestion, by Mr. Poser, that hopsitals now be used as custodial facilities. Are we going to wind up suing hospitals for false imprisonment on top of everything else?

Bob

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:58:56 +0000

Nevins,

With regard to “released into the custody”, I was thinking primarily of minors being released into the custody of their parents. Another possibility is release to a medical facility.

By: nevins

nevins — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:37:36 +0000

“Unless the defendant can be released into the custody of someone who really can be expected to keep him or her under control, he should be jailed, at least until he is sober again.”
Whoaaa there Bill.
Released into Custody? Now who the hell would accept the responsibility of such a custodial relationship. Joe citizen with the responsibility of ‘custody’ but no effective way to enforce it. I mean, I just can’t handcuff my spouse, roommate, sibling or whoever has been returned home stinking drunk. If there is a need for custody, then the state is the only entity legally empowered to enforce it. And I certainly don’t want the responsibility of any custodial relationship with the drunk; what if they fall down and hit their head on the toilet or choke on their own vomit. Let’s drop them off at your place.

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:24:37 +0000

Note the press release says, “Jurors conclude negligence of State Patrol, Whatcom County, played a role in the accident.”

“Played a role. ”

I don’t dispute they may have played a role but because of the joint & several statute in Washington the deep pockets (read: you, the taxpayer) are on the hook for the entire judgment even though the drunk driver is mostly (entirely?) responsible for the accident. If the jury finds at least 1% of liability (i.e.: “played a role”) on the police or county they buy the whole judgment.

Whenever trial lawyers crow about “holding wrongdoers accountable”–run for the hills. They’re after the money.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:50:32 +0000

Gee, I didn’t think we had a legal system like the Swat Valley. We still have the presumption of innocence and don’t cut off hands or arms as punishment. Instead, we bankrupt defendant’s defending suits that are frivolous and destroy companies with plaintiff’s fraud. In second thought, maybe we are there now.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:50:07 +0000

Colin, if your version of the McDonald's coffee tale comes from Ralph Nader's book, then you haven't read the "true facts" of the story. You might wish to check our many posts on the subject rebutting the Nader/ATLA propaganda.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:36:34 +0000

I agree with Bill. This lady should have been kept in jail. She had a prior was not in compliance with her prior sentance and was caught driving drunk again.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:59:25 +0000

Here in Wisconsin there is a mandatory jail hold for OWI.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:23:43 +0000

Putting aside the legal issues, as a matter of policy I think that the police were in error. DWI should be treated like a crime of violence in that it poses a serious risk of bodily injury or death and in that the offender is likely to continue and/or repeat the offense. Unless the defendant can be released into the custody of someone who really can be expected to keep him or her under control, he should be jailed, at least until he is sober again.