[ul]
[li]Michael Pangle got drunk and went out driving.[/li][li]Pangle was picked up by the police.[/li][li]The police called his best friend, Kenneth Powell to come pick him up.[/li][li]The police give Pangle pack his car keys.[/li][li]Powell picked up Pangle and drove him to his (Pangle’s) car.[/li][li]Pangle gets in his car, hits another car, killing both himself and the other driver.[/li][li]The police have arrested Powell and charged him with manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault by automobile.[/li][/ul]
Now then, I’m in favor of booking this guy (Powell) for driving the drunk back to his car, rather than taking him home and coming back for the car later. The charges may be a bit excessive for someone who didn’t actually do the killing, but that’s not the debate I want to start.
Further down in the article, the reporter notes some observations by the defense attorney. He asserts that if this charge is allowed to stand, then anyone who encounters a drunk driver and doesn’t stop them could be charged if an accident happens.
To relate a personal story: About 10 years ago I went to a wedding. My best friend was also invited to the same wedding. I went with my fiance and he went with his wife (or fiance – I don’t remember if they were married yet at the time). My friend got a bit tipsy at the wedding and I offered to drive him home. He refused. I asked him more firmly for the keys. He again refused. Short of hitting him (and opening myself up to a possible assault charge) I don’t think I could have gotten the keys from him that night. I spent a good twenty minutes arguing with him on the matter before I (very) reluctantly gave up. His wife went home with him too. Thank God nothing happened, but I hate to think that following the precedent set by this arrest, I could have been criminally liable as well (since, in the end, I didn’t stop him, even though I probably could have hit him). To this day, I do regret not having done more [I’m not sure what more I could have done anyway] to stop him.
This is a concern that the defense attorney himself makes in the story. To what extent should I have gone to stop him? Should I have gotten myself arrested for battery?
The point comes down to this: if he hit and killed someone that night, should I have been thrown in jail?
The difference between your anecdote and the featured story is that Powell had to actively provide the transportation to Pangle’s car. You would have had to have actively intervened to prevent your friend from driving. If Pangle had become belligerent, Powell needed only to stop his car and get out (to avoid being assaulted by Pangle) and refused to provide the transportation.
Without getting into the issue of what crimes Powell may be liable for, the defense attorney is trying to create a scare-tactic scenario that is not viable under law.
Horrible, horrible decision to prosecute.
Legally, there are two problems. First is causation - sure Powell is a “but-for” cause - but for his driving Pangle to his car, Pangle wouldn’t have driven drunk to his death.
However, there is an intervening cause - Pangle. He chose to get in and drive into the accident. Intervening causes destroy the responsibility of the preceding causes. And we have to consider Pangle an intervening cause. If we don’t, we are saying that he was not responsible for his actions, because he was drunk. And that would destroy the basis for drunk driving laws - drunks are responsible for their actions.
Second is recklessness. (Depending on jurisdiction) recklessness means that you willfully blind yourself to a situation that is likely to lead to death. And for all the drunk driving deaths in this country, the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers make it home safe.
On a more general level, the concept of holding one responsible for another’s actions is a bad one. When you look at it, the theoretical underpinnings of this case is the same as the fast food lawsuit.
Sua in this case, the friend however had specific information - that this guy was not safe to drive was too drunk, since the police had already charged him. I’m seeing a specific obligation here, to not allow this man to drive at this time. Yes, the drunk himself is also liable, but so, IMHO is the friend.
It’s different to me, than the casual party situation that zev describes, because in this case, the friend was made aware that the BAL was too high to safely drive, and yet, not only did he not prevent it, he actually aided that action by dropping the guy off at the car w/his keys.
Are you really saying that there’s no culpability when you knowingly not only allow, but in fact facilitate, go out of your way to see that the drunk to drives their car?
[quote]
However, there is an intervening cause - Pangle. He chose to get in and drive into the accident. Intervening causes destroy the responsibility of the preceding causes. And we have to consider Pangle an intervening cause. If we don’t, we are saying that he was not responsible for his actions, because he was drunk. And that would destroy the basis for drunk driving laws - drunks are responsible for their actions. {/quote]
I’m not so sure that Pangle is an intervening cause. (IANAL, so forgive me if I don’t put this quite right) . Isn’t it at least as likely (if not more) that Pangle and Powell at some point planned for Powell to drop Pangel at his car so that Pangle could drive home, making Powell an accomplice? We know that Powell drove Pangle to his car, and that Pangel chose to drive. We don’t know the order in which those choices were made, but I, for one, find it far more likely that Pangel chose to drive and then Powell aided him in acomplishing his goal, than that Powell drove Pangle to his car and with no expectation that Pangle would drive. ( For one thing, if Powell didn’t know Pangle was going to drive, why drive him to the car instead of home?)
I’m aware of that, wring. It doesn’t change my analysis.
Morally, Powell is piece of crap. But legally, he’s not responsible for the deaths - Pangle is. It’s really an either/or situation; Powell is an independent actor or he is not. And if he is not, alcohol becomes carte blanche to do whatever you want.
Besides, when you get right down to it, Powell probably had no legal right to withhold the car keys from Pangle.
Missed your post, doreen. Hmm, conspiracy or aiding and abetting liability. Possible.
'Course, this is theoretical. It appears that the Powell is not being charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting - he’s being charged with the direct crimes themselves. From the language the prosecutor, they are using a recklessness theory, not a conspiracy theory.
I missed something, too. Didn’t catch that he was charged with Pangel’s death,somehow I thought he was only charged with the other friver’s death. I don’t think accomplice liabilty works for Pangel’s death.
Let me get this straight… Powell is in bed sleeping. Meanwhile police are arresting his friend for drunken driving. The police call Powell and tell him to come get his friend. Meanwhile they give his friend his keys back and tell him where his car is! Powell shows up, probably barely awake, and his friend probably tells him he can drive fine, and shows the returned keys as proof. Powell then follows the directions from the police to find the car. After the accident the police, in an attempt to divert attention away from their mistakes, decide to go after the person who is the least responsible of all parties involved.
I’m actually having a hard time explaining why this is so terrible, probably because it just seems so obvious to me. A drunk driver is responsible for his own actions. People should not be required to physically assault a drunk to take their keys away. If anything is to blame other than the actual drunk driver, it is the fact that the police gave the drunk driver his keys and the location of his car.
Of course you can imagine that Powell was conspiring with Pangle to create danger. Maybe he was, but it just seems unlikely to me. Are you suggesting that he didn’t want to drive Pangle home, so he preferred to let him drive drunk? Why wouldn’t he want to drive his best friend home? Isn’t it way more likely that Powell was just really tired and disoriented from being woken up by the police, and Pangle convinced him that he was sober enough to drive?
Finally: Is it fair that the police gave Pangle his keys and the location of his car and then just transferred all responsibility over the situation to a regular citizen who they just woke up?
Didn’t the police have a responsibility to hold Pangle until he was sober, before they released him? I thought that was the whole purpose of “the drunk tank”. Why would there be a crime known as public intoxication if the police are going to simply put drunks out on the street?
Oh, wait a minute, the article cited in the OP says that Powell’s attorneys have already stated…
There, that was my point exactly.
How can the prosecutor claim that Powell…
when the police are the ones who called Powell at 2AM and asked him to pick Pangle up?
IMHO, the police are guilty and should have their asses sued off by Pangle’s victim(s?). They are the ones who had him in custody and released him. They created the danger. From what I make of the article, Powell did what he was instructed by the authorities to do.
It would be interesting to learn the outcome of this case.
The article says: "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."
It seems to me there are only a couple ways that Powell could know that Pangle was drunk when he dropped him off at the car. A) He was drunk when the police released him, giving him the keys and the location of his car, B) Pangle was sober when released by the police and he and Powell stopped for a couple of six-packs for Pangle who drank one of them on the way to the car.
If Pangle were sober at release, as the police routinely check before release around here, and none was bought on the way then Pangle must have stopped to buy beer or other alcohol after Powell dropped him at his car.
It doesn’t take all that long to get drunk. I happened to drop in at our local court one day and some guy was being arraigned for DUI. The circumstances were that he had been released OR at about 10:00 AM after arraignment for a previous DUI. His wife then dove him back to a neigboring town about 60 miles away over a mountain road where average speed wouldn’t be over about 40 MPH, if that. At about 12:30 PM he was rearrested for DUI in that town.
Pangle could have been sober when Powell let him out and really drunk not too long after.
If anyone else besides the driver should be held responsible for this, it would be the strip joint that let him leave the place drunk and get behind the wheel (I’m iffy on whether or not bars should be held responsible for patrons who drive drunk).
I’m wondering what would have happened if this guy had told the cops “no, I’m in bed, I’m not picking him up, deal with him yourself.”
Since when was it this guy’s job to babysit his friend?
Long ago in a galaxy far, far away, I had a roommate busted for drunk driving. He called me at 3am to be picked up.
The Police told me when I picked him up that he was not allowed to drive for eight hours. By picking him up I was under a legal obligation to prevent him from driving for those eight hours, or I could be charged.
The state was Wisconsin.
WAG - In thinking back, maybe this falls under the same laws were a bartender who sells alcohol to someone they reasonably believe is already drunk is liable if that individual later drives and is busted for drunk driving.
I think the key is I was under a legal obligation to prevent him from driving for eight hours. If he had overpowered me (he was six inches taller and 100 pounds heavier than me), took a set of car keys and sped off in those eight hours, I would be OK as long as I called the cops.
In any case, I took him home and he fell asleep for 12 hours.
If anyone else besides the driver should be held responsible for this, it would be the strip joint that let him leave the place drunk and get behind the wheel (I’m iffy on whether or not bars should be held responsible for patrons who drive drunk)
Clarification:
If the bar is responsible at all (and I’m iffy, like I said), it wouldn’t be for the deaths, it would be for the guy getting loaded and getting picked up to begin with. Maybe if he had never left the place drunk to begin with, he wouldn’t have gotten picked up, then released, etc, etc.
While I’m at it, SHOULD bars be held accountable when they let someone leave who is obviously drunk?
The Police told me when I picked him up that he was not allowed to drive for eight hours. By picking him up I was under a legal obligation to prevent him from driving for those eight hours, or I could be charged.
If that rule was common knowledge, nobody would ever pick up their drunk friends at the jail again.
(Which may not be such a bad thing … let the cops actually do their jobs for once …)
I think the issue centers on this question: Was Pangle released directly into Powell’s custody, or was he simply set free to the world in general, with Powell only there to give him a ride?
If he was released into Powell’s custody, shame on the police for expecting a private citizen to keep Pangle under control. If Pangle posed a threat, he should have been kept in custody.
If Powell’s only function was to give Pangle a ride back to his car, what about all the other possible scenarios that could have played out?
If Pangle was indeed simply set free, he might have taxied, bussed, hitchhiked, or walked back to his own car. Or perhaps he could have even stolen one of the cars out of the police parking lot and then had a crash. Who would have been responsible in those cases?
Deflate the tires, and if you are arrested for it demand a trial by jury. If I’m on the jury, it’s a walk.
Here in California, AFAIK, the cops are supposed to hold the drunk drivers a certain period—8 hours, I think—before releasing them. Gives them enough time to sober up.
I don’t know about you guys, but I have no means for determining if a guy I am picking up at the cop shop is still legally drunk.
Did the cops TELL Powell that under no circmstances was his passenger to be allowed to drive? If they did, then prosecute the SOB. If they didn’t, then it’s the cops who screwed up.