Smarty

Ask me what wise-ass????? You want to get cute with me, I am not the one.

The facts of this case are nothing like the previous thread, I am not taking the bait, start your sh*t with someone else.

Smarty

Exactly!

bajaholic

I'll ask directly, How is being accused of intoxication any different regardless of what happened?

We have philosophical differences in the way we look at responsibility of ones actions, you made that VERY clear in the other thread. I am just trying to understand/learn your position on this one, and how you would represent them, try to get them a reduced sentence, take full responsibility or plead not guilty and go for the full acquittal. Being a well known, successful DWI Attorney, this certainly would not be your first case like this. (Accident caused by alleged BWI/DWI that caused injuries

Its not necessarily a smart ass thing, you pointed Out I was wrong in your opinion before, just trying to understand your position now, that there is slightly different circumstances, but less lethal?

Smarty

Yes, I would defend her, if she paid me. that is my job. I have represented client's accused of vehicular homicide, assault by auto, all DUI related. If a defendant is wrong (guilty), than they wrong,, I can only minimize damage, but the facts and circumstances of this case aren't similar-analogous to this case at all wher a handcuffed suspect drowned in police custody. No one in this present case was is custody and handcuffed.

Entrapment? I never ever mentioned the word entrapment, try again. Any one accused of anything in your view is guilty, so there you have we have a difference opinion....I do not know all the facts of the case for me to speculate is nothing more than wasted keystrokes replying to your nonsense.

God gave us free will, self determination.....you stick with with you do, I will keep defending those accused of criminal, and motor vehicle offenses.

Smarty

I am not interested in giving you my legal opinion on the internet, call me at 856-449-0939, I will discuss your problem with me then.

Stephen R. Jones

bajaholic

I believe people should not Drink and Drive, bottom Line... When people continue to get less punishment they have no incentive to NOT do it again. Choices have ramifications, Good and Bad. There is 2 sides to every situation, I want to make mine clear (I believe I have) and since you get paid to give yours, I think it is only fair, we understand your side.

If you feel you are being picked on, sorry..... But you opened that door previously with your strong direct opinion of how everyone else was wrong that didn't agree with you. If you are going to paste and cut, might as well add the other post in it's entirety, so they can get a full picture of your intent.

Personally I feel my point has been made now... have a great rest of the week...

Smarty

Mike,

This is the reference to a prior thread her is information exchange

Quote Originally Posted by bajaholic View Post
I Respectfully disagree.... It has EVERYTHING to do with what put the kid in the position in the first place. His decisions put him in that position.

The WP is on the lake for protection of everyone that is not operating in an unsafe manor. The kid jumped by the accounts of the witnesses, he too made that decision. Ramnifications are learned ALWAYS after the fact, rarely are they learned ahead of time.

Yes... The WP officer had him in custody, He placed cuffs on him to protect himself from being accosted by the arrest'y (SOP) He placed a PFD on him, and was driving the boat to unload and book him. The WP Boat was NOT in an accident, Didn't throw him overboard (according to witnesses) nor were there any actions by the WP officer to make the kid get up and jump off by any of the accounts that have been witnessed. I Just don't see where the WP didn't provide prudence in his duties? The kid made the decision and acted on it... He is responsible for his own actions...

Again I ask: What if the kid caused a larger accident, killed a bunch of people (maybe even one of your own friends/family) Would you be *****ing about the WP not having caught him if he had witnessed something, possible as trivial as beer can overboard? I am guessing they would still be on the chopping block...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
I have handled hundreds of DUI cases in New Jersey, I completely disagree with your assumptions, that young man died, he was handcuffed, end of story. You are assuming he was impaired, you don't know that, nor was it proven, only alleged, his BAC could have been under the legal limit, but regardless the police are responsible for safe transport of the suspect-defendant.

I don't deal with what if's, I deal with what what happened, he is dead it was preventable, this is bullsh*t he is dead. The WP is responsible once he is in their custody.


Link to the thread where this was posted (BUI suspect drowned in police custody) http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/g...rowning-4.html

On Time

It seems quite simple. Drunk or sober, once cuffed you are in custody and the police just became responsible for your safety. A cuffed detainee clearly has less ability to do many things, including fight, flee or swim. That is the reason for cuffing in the first place. If you suffer harm because of their negligence while cuffed, they are liable because you were in their custody, and it doesn't matter if you were drunk or not. Smarty is that correct?

Smarty

It doesn't matter if the suspect was drunk or not. If the suspect, in custody, did not do anything to cause harm to his or her self and the officer's actions or inaction caused the suspect harm the officer is liable. The suspect would now be labeled as the plaintiff in a law suit against the officer, law enforcement agency. It is the duty of the officer to exercise reasonable care. It all boils down to the facts, and there are so many cases, and while you and I can agree that suspect may not of been acting in a manner that contributed to his or her injury, a Judge could see it other wise.

As I said before I will not take case against a police officer (personal reasons), even if the officer is clearly wrong. I will defend the suspect in the Criminal Courts, but I will not take the same case in the Civil Court

In the case in other thread where the 20 year drowned while in custody, that case will be interesting from a legal point of view in that there are supposed witnesses who claim the suspect intentionally jumped into the water, if that is the case, I am not sure how the Missouri court will rule, my opinion is clear in other thread, the officer did not exercise a reasonable duty of care, the suspect's life vest became undone, he sank in 80 feet of water and drowned. was the life- vest properly secured? If the suspect was so impaired shouldn't he have been properly secured to the leaning post, seat, or anywhere so that he did not have the ability to be ejected form the boat by his own volition or otherwise? If securing the suspect during transport in the WP boat was not an option, then wouldn't it have been prudent ot have a second officer on board? As you can see there are alot of questions that would help in a lawsuit for the family of the 20 year old in other thread, but a Missouri Court doesn't care about a New Jersey lawyer's opinion.

ICDEDPPL

Seems real ****ty to handcuff somebody on a boat. You fall in the water and now what?