login
BT Police Officers ... a question (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-06-28 9:20 AM in reply to: #2944770 |
Extreme Veteran  751   |  Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a questionCOSkiGirl - 2010-06-25 5:50 PM RiverRat50 - 2010-06-25 3:33 PM Around 15 years ago...drunk driver ran red light at 55+mph and T-boned my car on passenger door (wife in seat)...knocked us 22 feet sideways. Both cars totaled. Volvo reviewed the accident and we were elected to the "My Volvo saved my life club." She, and her mother, were too drunk to stand. Turns out was her 3rd DUI. She did not show up for the mediation re damages (my arm broken and unable to operate for 8 weeks). The state of Georgia convicted her. Her punishment? Banishment. Yes...banishment. She was told not to return to GA for two years. She moved to the Virgin Islands for that duration. If you want to stop DUI...hammer those who drive drunk...don't send them on a Caribbean vacation. I sometimes think we have no one to blame but ourselves. Glad your ex is ok and that you care. Banishment? Are you freaking kidding me? I'm dying to know though, what do you get as part of Volvo's club? A crystal bowl (Insert Idonna "snerk" here...) But the process (submitted by my dealer not me) is fairly rigorous...they have engineers measure impact forces etc and determine likelihood of bodily injury. And I will say that in 15+ years of doing trauma surgery, I never saw a side impact ("T-bone") at that rate of speed without either death, or severe injury. I assume Volvo uses the "club" as a marketing angle, but on the other hand, they seem validated by the safety record of their cars. Good thing to shoot for considering the number of drunk drivers and apparent lack of justice served. Another curiosity...it was a side impact yet the front air bags fired (a very disconcerting thing to experience, (quite violent and smells like car is on fire) as is getting hit that hard without ever seeing it coming. This surprised us, we asked Volvo. It turns out they have G-force sensors that measure the impact of a side collision...if it exceeds a certain amount, the airbags fire because of a statistical likelihood of a secondary collision. We went 22 feet sideways so while we did not hit something else, it seems likely that we could have. Interesting. Edited by RiverRat50 2010-06-28 9:34 AM |
| 2010-06-28 9:40 AM in reply to: #2943438 |
Extreme Veteran 751 | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question Also I agree that if she has time...might be of use to pursue civil action? Might not get the legal system to "do the right thing" re criminal charges due to failure of the system but may still be able to achieve some level of justice and get a legal paper trail established. Perhaps he will learn (doubt) or this can be used against him next time, or increase the likelihood of him losing insurance. It would be great if she/you could play some role in stopping this guy before he kills someone. |
| 2010-06-28 12:52 PM in reply to: #2947855 |
Sensei  Sin City | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question The problem is, because he left, he can't be charged with a DUI but he can be charged with leaving the scene. Just because the ex thought he was drunk based on observation, does not officially make it so. This sucks... In fact, I have heard the scam that if you get into an accident while drunk, leave your car and go to the nearest bar and start drinking more. You then say you were so "shaken up" you needed a drink. Can't prove that you were drunk before that accident. Not that I would ever want to test that. Just going MIA till you sober up is a pretty decent scam since there seems to be a hole in the system as this seems to indicate. |
| 2010-06-28 1:09 PM in reply to: #2947778 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question mr2tony - 2010-06-28 9:07 AM D.K. - 2010-06-28 8:34 AM Agreed. Such BS. She's got his emails that basically say it's OK to leave the scene of an accident if you have to pee and is filing a complaint with the city today. mr2tony - 2010-06-28 9:18 AM OK well here's what the police officer finally said when asked why he didn't issue a citation: The officer who responded to the call filled out the report saying that my ex told the guy it would be OK if he went home to urinate rather than wait for the police to show. Of course she said no such thing, but that's what the cop wrote down. So when she called the police station to ask why the guy wasn't arrested, they said `Well you told him it was OK for him to leave because he had to use the bathroom.' Which again she didn't but that's what the cop wrote down. So then, in arguing with the cop via e-mail, he said ``You have to understand that he had to use the restroom so he needed to get home.'' like it was a valid excuse. I'm sorry, but the Council Bluffs (Iowa) Police Department sounds fairly Mayberryish to me. Apparetnly there it's legal to DUI and hit and run because you have to pee. What is the opint of taking a statement when the statement wasn't taken correctly? Shouldn't it be recorded instead of written? Goggs - I know the mayor of Council Bluffs. Let me know the outcome and if I have to I will give him a call. He owes me anyway. |
| 2010-06-28 4:11 PM in reply to: #2948463 |
| Regular 283 | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question Kido - 2010-06-28 1:52 PM The problem is, because he left, he can't be charged with a DUI but he can be charged with leaving the scene. Just because the ex thought he was drunk based on observation, does not officially make it so. This sucks... In fact, I have heard the scam that if you get into an accident while drunk, leave your car and go to the nearest bar and start drinking more. You then say you were so "shaken up" you needed a drink. Can't prove that you were drunk before that accident. Not that I would ever want to test that. Just going MIA till you sober up is a pretty decent scam since there seems to be a hole in the system as this seems to indicate. Worked for Ted Kennedy. |
| 2010-06-28 5:10 PM in reply to: #2949096 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question Swanny - 2010-06-28 4:11 PM Kido - 2010-06-28 1:52 PM The problem is, because he left, he can't be charged with a DUI but he can be charged with leaving the scene. Just because the ex thought he was drunk based on observation, does not officially make it so. This sucks... In fact, I have heard the scam that if you get into an accident while drunk, leave your car and go to the nearest bar and start drinking more. You then say you were so "shaken up" you needed a drink. Can't prove that you were drunk before that accident. Not that I would ever want to test that. Just going MIA till you sober up is a pretty decent scam since there seems to be a hole in the system as this seems to indicate. Worked for Ted Kennedy. Ha and this guy. This is the email my ex just sent me: ``Basically they are calling it a "he said, she said" situation and since they are saying there was no intent (even though he admitted to hitting me and driving off) he will not be charged. The police officer asked if I really expected this guy to go to jail or something and I said I expected him to have some sort of punishment because he broke the law. He laughed at me and said the accident wasn't bad enough to warrant anything like that. I told him that I was shocked that this guy was getting away with this. He also said that I should have followed him to his residence like he said he did. I told him that he never asked me to follow him home and that I would never follow a strange man to his house, in a city that I am not familiar with, and I'm not stupid. He then said that it wouldn't have mattered anyway that he had to use the restroom and it was an emergency. I told him that his urinary problems should not be an excuse for getting away with a hit and run. He laughed again and basically said it is what it is and there is nothing they are willing to do about it. I asked who I contact to file a complaint. He scoffed and said if I felt that was necessary I would have to drive to the courthouse and do it in person. I asked for the address and he said it really fast. I asked him to say it again since I missed it and he said it super slow like I was an idiot. I am so mad!!!!!'' Yeah way to go Barney Fife. Seriously this guy must know someone if he can get out of a DUI and hit-and-run becuase he had to pee. |
| 2010-06-28 8:54 PM in reply to: #2943438 |
Champion 5807 Henderson NV | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question All he really needed to say is that he wasn't driving the car and he would have got away with everything for sure. Had that happen in Texas. I drunk came down the street hitting every car (except mine..woo hoo). I got outside as his truck came to rest buried into my neighbors car. Had a gun and a lot of empties in the truck and he got out to sit down. He ended up walking home before the cops showed up and when they went to his house he said "I wasn't driving". The cops said that since I didn't see the actual IMPACT I was not a witness. Geeesh he hadn't even stopped moving when I got out there. |
| 2010-06-28 9:27 PM in reply to: #2943438 |
Arch-Bishop of BT 10278 Pittsburgh | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question seriously... this sucks.
I also wonder given the response (or lack thereof) of the police, who this dbag is and what kind of friends he has....
|
| 2010-06-29 7:23 AM in reply to: #2943438 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question just reading this boils me up inside. i really feel for you and your ex for being in such a crappy situation. it's pathetic that the police dept, that should be on your side, is so unwilling to help. for them to openly admit that the excuse of needing to pee constitutes an emergency reason to flee the scene of an accident is proof that they are just lazy....plain and simply....lazy. Edited by antlimon166 2010-06-29 7:25 AM |
| 2010-06-29 7:35 AM in reply to: #2943438 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question in addition to complaining at the courthouse, have her submit all emails and case records to her insurance. she has to get her car fixed, so they will pay it, but they will want their money back, and they will get this d-bag to pay. it won't be quick, but they do NOT like giving out free money. i understand not issuing the DUI. but when the guy ADMITTED TO HITTING HER CAR AND LEAVING TO PEE, how can he NOT be charged with hit and run? wtf??? |
| 2010-06-29 7:50 AM in reply to: #2950132 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question Take it one level higher and get the county or State Police involved? I know threatening a lawsuit for dereliction of duty can usually get things moving. |
| 2010-06-29 8:39 AM in reply to: #2943665 |
Master 1963 | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question jdwright56 - 2010-06-25 11:55 AM You see, this is the kind of thing that gets me riled up when people start talking about protecting "civil liberties" What about your ex wife's liberties? Who is protecting them? I don't see. I'm not seeing how "civil liberties" fits into this conversation. As one who considers myself one of those people constantly advocating for civil liberty, I also constantly advocate personal responsibility. This guy made a choice to drink and drive and obviously does not want to take responsibility for his actions, unfortunately it doesn't look like he'll be made to pay either. When found guilty, punishing people for their criminal choices/action is the appropriate response. Not the typical response: more laws, more regulation, and possibly the oft-suggested "sobriety checkpoint" (illegal search and possibly seizure in my opinion as driving down a road is not probably cause) which casts a net affecting the liberty of many, and for what?So, we can't charge the guy with being intoxicated becasue he took off. Then it becomes a he said, she said. What about the fact that she called 911 dispatch and told them that this guy was running? I believe they should have a recording of that conversation. What about the fact that the law says that if the damage is over $500 that you must wait for the police (do you know how little damage constitutes $500?) This kind of stuff really annoys me and I would be willing to bet that this guy called a friend with a legal background and said - "Dude, I F'd up and did this, what should I do?" and he was told exactly what to say. Now, I say "unfortunately" he won't be made to pay because there is no conclusive proof that he was drunk. In, our system, we need a little bit more than the testimony of an eye witness to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it's really painful because it seems to clear the guy is guilty. But if you rear ended someone sober and they later reported to the police, for no particular reason, that you were drunk and the police listened to that testimony as gospel and threw you in jail, you'd probably see the value in the way burned of proof works. Our legal system isn't perfect and it can create unfortunate situations but by and large it works. Karma's a b*tch and this guy will get what's coming, though I sincerely hope he doesn't have to take anyone out with him. I would suggest civil action if nothing else, small claims can at least get your car fixed if his insurance will not pay. |
| 2010-06-29 8:33 PM in reply to: #2943438 |
Extreme Veteran 331 Latonia, Kentucky (near Cincinnati) | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question Here is something you haven't heard. You're ex-wife can go file charges HERSELF for leaving the scene of an accident. So few people know that they can file charges themselves...just like a police officer. Here in KY, you just waltz on down to the County Attorneys office, and file the charges yourself. SHE is the witness and can use the accident report as part of her evidence, as well as the 911 tape. TA DA! |
| 2010-06-29 11:51 PM in reply to: #2944747 |
Master 1890 Cypress, CA | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question RiverRat50 - 2010-06-25 2:33 PM Around 15 years ago...drunk driver ran red light at 55+mph and T-boned my car on passenger door (wife in seat)...knocked us 22 feet sideways. Both cars totaled. Volvo reviewed the accident and we were elected to the "My Volvo saved my life club." She, and her mother, were too drunk to stand. Turns out was her 3rd DUI. She did not show up for the mediation re damages (my arm broken and unable to operate for 8 weeks). The state of Georgia convicted her. Her punishment? Banishment. Yes...banishment. She was told not to return to GA for two years. She moved to the Virgin Islands for that duration. If you want to stop DUI...hammer those who drive drunk...don't send them on a Caribbean vacation. I sometimes think we have no one to blame but ourselves. Glad your ex is ok and that you care. I haven't been in the state of Georgia for at least two years--if I got caught DUI there would I get credit for banishment served? To the OP, it does seem like the guy should have been cited for leaving the scene, since he admitted it. I doubt if they could ever get him on DUI, though, without a field sobriety test and breathalyzer. I think even if a cop had witnessed him "appearing drunk" they'd have trouble making it stick without those. |
| 2010-06-30 8:11 AM in reply to: #2952009 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: BT Police Officers ... a question timebaron - 2010-06-29 8:33 PM Here is something you haven't heard. You're ex-wife can go file charges HERSELF for leaving the scene of an accident. So few people know that they can file charges themselves...just like a police officer. Here in KY, you just waltz on down to the County Attorneys office, and file the charges yourself. SHE is the witness and can use the accident report as part of her evidence, as well as the 911 tape. TA DA! Really??? I'll look into that. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK