Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Bystander to fatal accident becomes an accomplice to a hit-and-run homicide in just one sentence   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, accessory after the fact, vehicular homicide, homicides, Legal liability  
•       •       •

17293 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:02 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-22 09:16:19 AM  
No I said "Fleas! I was really itchy"
 
2013-05-22 09:23:54 AM  
The article does make it clear that prosecution has a difficult burden of proof to establish, so I read that as guaranteed no way he gets 6 years.  It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-22 09:25:39 AM  
I don't think he is an accessory because there was no assistance offered, like giving the guy a jump start. He may be guilty of solicitation of the crime of leaving the scene (if he had been charged with that).  If you ask somebody to commit a crime, you may be liable even though you offered no assistance. Depends on whether the jury thinks you were serious.
 
2013-05-22 09:38:44 AM  

factoryconnection: It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"


Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?
 
2013-05-22 09:58:14 AM  

jaylectricity: factoryconnection: It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"

Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?


Both of these and I'll add 'being shiatfaced drunk' to the list.
 
2013-05-22 09:59:22 AM  

jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?


There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.
 
2013-05-22 10:06:20 AM  
This is like one of those questions our criminal law professor would ask back in school.

The answer is no, he's not an accomplice.

But that doesn't change the reality that prosecutors need to be elected, and to do that they need to get their names in the paper.
 
2013-05-22 10:10:41 AM  

factoryconnection: The article does make it clear that prosecution has a difficult burden of proof to establish, so I read that as guaranteed no way he gets 6 years.  It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"


And that's how they screw him over by pushing a plea deal on him and he'll accept it due to a crappy public defender. All because of politics and saving face.
 
2013-05-22 10:10:50 AM  
si0.twimg.com
 
2013-05-22 10:12:23 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: Both of these and I'll add 'being shiatfaced drunk' to the list.


that was my nickname in highschool: But that doesn't change the reality that prosecutors need to be elected, and to do that they need to get their names in the paper.


These are no doubt related.  This kid gets a drunk and disorderly plea and community service once the headlines fade.
 
2013-05-22 10:14:41 AM  

factoryconnection: jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?

There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.


That neither answers my question, nor sheds any new light on your opinion.

Some people are brought up to fear authority. To mistrust the police. To assume that nothing good comes of any encounter with the cops.

This boy had compassion. Unfortunately it was for the people he urged to get out of there.
 
2013-05-22 10:15:09 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: This is like one of those questions our criminal law professor would ask back in school.

The answer is no, he's not an accomplice.

But that doesn't change the reality that prosecutors need to be elected, and to do that they need to get their names in the paper.


Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.
 
2013-05-22 10:16:02 AM  

jaylectricity: factoryconnection: It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"

Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority his friend going to jail?


FTFY
 
2013-05-22 10:17:31 AM  
"...both Bradshaw and Brown are facing charges of vehicular homicide - Brown because prosecutors say she knew or should have known that Bradshaw was in no condition to drive."

This always annoys me.  If she's so drunk that she chooses not to drive, how is she supposed to be clear-thinking enough to consider "Wait a sec. I wonder if my boyfriend is also drunk. Perhaps I should prevent him from driving until such time as he can clearly indicate his sobriety" ?  At least she didn't try to drive herself, which is an improvement over most drunk driving morans.
 
2013-05-22 10:18:56 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jaylectricity: factoryconnection: It is sad the lack of compassion that is demonstrated here, that instead of "WTF, you just ran over these guys!" he instead went with "Screw them, haul ass!"

Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority his friend going to jail?

FTFY


I don't understand. How did you simplifying the sentence change its meaning?
 
2013-05-22 10:19:26 AM  

jaylectricity: factoryconnection: jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?

There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.

That neither answers my question, nor sheds any new light on your opinion.

Some people are brought up to fear authority.

Ok, blame the mother and father for that.

To mistrust the police. To assume that nothing good comes of any encounter with the cops.

That tends to be true if you kill people with your car while driving drunk.

This boy had compassion. Unfortunately it was for the people he urged to get out of there.

 
2013-05-22 10:19:58 AM  
"Toyota Scion"--I'm glad somebody's journalism degree and editorial expertise are enriching Tennessee newspapers.
 
2013-05-22 10:20:40 AM  
"Accomplice" generally requires material aid, which this (advice) is not.  I think the criminal version of this type of assholery is solicitation of a crime, which requires pretty concrete evidence that it wasn't a crime that was going to be committed anyhow.

Basically, they've got nothing on him beyond him being kind of a dick, which isn't actually illegal.

Albeit, if he's shouting at hit-and-run drivers to flee he's probably so damned stupid that his lawyer will lose the IQ points to tell him this through proximity and he'll end up with the plea deal anyhow.

//The people in the car are actual accomplices, as failing to report the crime after the fact does in fact constitute material assistance to a fugitive, since they know his address and phone number and so on.
 
2013-05-22 10:23:03 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: This is like one of those questions our criminal law professor would ask back in school.

The answer is no, he's not an accomplice.

But that doesn't change the reality that prosecutors need to be elected, and to do that they need to get their names in the paper.


Depends on locale. In VA, they are not elected.
 
2013-05-22 10:23:06 AM  
So if I "stumble" upon an underground fight club and I jokingly yell out "Finish him!", am I now an accessory to murder?

/I better start taking a different route home from the bars.
 
2013-05-22 10:23:15 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: FTFY


Wait, I thought the car occupants were strangers to the bystander.  There's no indication in TFA that they knew each other.

Also: In this incident, however, Hawbaker is accused of encouraging Bradshaw to run away, not to commit the crime with which he is charged.

He's charged with being an accessory to a crime (felony, fleeing the scene of an accident with injuries) that no one is being charged with.  His lawyer is right to take this one to trial.
 
2013-05-22 10:24:11 AM  

Yes please: Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.



No, it doesn't.   From the Tennessee Code:

39-11-411.  Accessory after the fact.

(a)
 A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.
 
2013-05-22 10:24:35 AM  

jaylectricity: Some people are brought up to fear authority. To mistrust the police. To assume that nothing good comes of any encounter with the cops.


Nothing good comes from any encounter with the cops.  They're best dealt with by a good attorney.
 
2013-05-22 10:25:19 AM  

Jim_Callahan: "Accomplice" generally requires material aid, which this (advice) is not.  I think the criminal version of this type of assholery is solicitation of a crime, which requires pretty concrete evidence that it wasn't a crime that was going to be committed anyhow.

Basically, they've got nothing on him beyond him being kind of a dick, which isn't actually illegal.

Albeit, if he's shouting at hit-and-run drivers to flee he's probably so damned stupid that his lawyer will lose the IQ points to tell him this through proximity and he'll end up with the plea deal anyhow.

//The people in the car are actual accomplices, as failing to report the crime after the fact does in fact constitute material assistance to a fugitive, since they know his address and phone number and so on.


Wouldn't it depend on how the scene unfolded? Take the extreme case where the boyfriend is weeping, sitting on the curb, and this guy physically pulled him up and shoved him into his car, yelling get outta here! Would that be enough?

Just wondering where the line is.
 
2013-05-22 10:26:03 AM  
Brilliant prosecutor.

Not only have you saved your own ass by not going after well-armed and retaliatory drug dealers, but you also managed to obscure the law for those unschooled in law.

Just like in Miracle on 34th Street, you should expect a little something extra in your government-funded pay envelope. I'll bet pink is your favorite color.

But have no fear, if ever you're the victim of an accident, you'll die in pain in your own blood and vomit because no one will approach the accident site, given your zeal to drive even bystanders away.
 
2013-05-22 10:27:18 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: Yes please: Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.


No, it doesn't.   From the Tennessee Code:

39-11-411.  Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.


How does it not? The felony was obvious, and he told him to flee because of point 3. Totally fits.
 
2013-05-22 10:27:24 AM  
If the guy then went to someone else and told them to jump off a bridge and they did it, would he be guilty of manslaughter too?

The guy probably said something like "You better get out of here man"
 
2013-05-22 10:27:39 AM  
jakerake.files.wordpress.com

does not approve
/dnrtfa
 
2013-05-22 10:30:45 AM  

BitwiseShift: Brilliant prosecutor.

Not only have you saved your own ass by not going after well-armed and retaliatory drug dealers, but you also managed to obscure the law for those unschooled in law.

Just like in Miracle on 34th Street, you should expect a little something extra in your government-funded pay envelope. I'll bet pink is your favorite color.

But have no fear, if ever you're the victim of an accident, you'll die in pain in your own blood and vomit because no one will approach the accident site, given your zeal to drive even bystanders away.


Anyone retarded enough to worry that they will be arrested because of what this guy did is probably too stupid to tend to my wounds without making things worse.
 
2013-05-22 10:31:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: //The people in the car are actual accomplices, as failing to report the crime after the fact does in fact constitute material assistance to a fugitive, since they know his address and phone number and so on.


So, if this guy was friends with the driver or passenger - which seems like a reasonable assumption, since he's trying to help them avoid taking responsibility for the accident - wouldn't that mean he also provided 'material assistance' by the same standard?
 
2013-05-22 10:33:32 AM  

vygramul: Anyone retarded enough to worry that they will be arrested because of what this guy did is probably too stupid to tend to my wounds without making things worse.



Obviously you've never seen my EMS skills on TV. Or watched my masterful dialing of 911.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:36 AM  

vygramul: that was my nickname in highschool: Yes please: Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.


No, it doesn't.   From the Tennessee Code:

39-11-411.  Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.

How does it not? The felony was obvious, and he told him to flee because of point 3. Totally fits.


Yep, seems to.  Although I suppose you could argue that if the bystander isn't capable of determining the state of intoxication of the driver, he would not be aware that a crime had occurred, since it hasn't become a  hit and run yet.
 
2013-05-22 10:34:57 AM  

endosymbiont: "Toyota Scion"--I'm glad somebody's journalism degree and editorial expertise are enriching Tennessee newspapers.


It's technically correct, but so is Toyota Lexus, Volkswagen Lamborghini, Fiat Ferrari, BMW Rolls Royce, etc.
 
2013-05-22 10:38:43 AM  

AgentBang: If the guy then went to someone else and told them to jump off a bridge and they did it, would he be guilty of manslaughter too?

The guy probably said something like "You better get out of here man"


"...because you just killed two people and the police are going to be after you."

The guy is a scumbag and was trying to help two other scumbags off the hook.
 
2013-05-22 10:46:46 AM  
A dumb thing to say, but hardly seems to rise to the level of a crime.  With such a low threshold, we'd have a whole lot of Farkers in jail already.
 
2013-05-22 10:48:40 AM  
I didn't know anyone outside of lawmakers and the courts used the word "flee" anymore. Run the fark away, maybe...But "FLEE, DUDE, FLEE!!!" just sounds stupid.
 
2013-05-22 10:50:06 AM  

Bruce Campbell: endosymbiont: "Toyota Scion"--I'm glad somebody's journalism degree and editorial expertise are enriching Tennessee newspapers.

It's technically correct, but so is Toyota Lexus, Volkswagen Lamborghini, Fiat Ferrari, BMW Rolls Royce, etc.


Yeah, you're right, but I have to grip about it more. Technically correct, but not really useful storytelling or reporting. "Be on the lookout for a Toyota Scion! The driver is armed and dangerous." Okay, so do I look for a tC, a Fuse, an xB, or an FR-S?

/hey, I'm old and have to complain about the newspapers and yell at clouds
 
2013-05-22 10:55:08 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: This is like one of those questions our criminal law professor would ask back in school.

The answer is no, he's not an accomplice.

But that doesn't change the reality that prosecutors need to be elected, and to do that they need to get their names in the paper.


THIS
 
2013-05-22 10:55:30 AM  
So leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury is a felony in TN?

36 years ago, in 1977, a man was so drunk he had a 14 year old girl (don't know if she was his daughter or not) drive him to get more beer. On the way, she lost control of the car, ran into the ditch, jammed on the accelerator and smashed into the driver's door of my mother's car, who later died on the way to a larger hospital. The drunk and girl both fled the scene; as far as I know neither of them were ever charged with anything.

/have often wondered why they were never charged
//don't know who it was
///wonder if the girl remembers that day
////damn sure I do
 
2013-05-22 10:55:36 AM  

Perducci: "...both Bradshaw and Brown are facing charges of vehicular homicide - Brown because prosecutors say she knew or should have known that Bradshaw was in no condition to drive."

This always annoys me.  If she's so drunk that she chooses not to drive, how is she supposed to be clear-thinking enough to consider "Wait a sec. I wonder if my boyfriend is also drunk. Perhaps I should prevent him from driving until such time as he can clearly indicate his sobriety" ?  At least she didn't try to drive herself, which is an improvement over most drunk driving morans.


This. I am also curious as to the implied obligation of one person to prevent the action of another.  Legal eagles....please educate me.
 
2013-05-22 10:56:48 AM  

endosymbiont: Yeah, you're right, but I have to grip about it more. Technically correct, but not really useful storytelling or reporting. "Be on the lookout for a Toyota Scion! The driver is armed and dangerous." Okay, so do I look for a tC, a Fuse, an xB, or an FR-S?


Our you could just say, "be on the lookout for an armed douchebag" and you'd probably spot the car immediately.
 
2013-05-22 10:58:38 AM  

floggingworks: This. I am also curious as to the implied obligation of one person to prevent the action of another. Legal eagles....please educate me.


Everyone is self-reliant and bootstrappy and can make their own decisions, but we still reserve the right to nail you for not doing what we want you to.
 
2013-05-22 11:03:03 AM  

floggingworks: Perducci: "...both Bradshaw and Brown are facing charges of vehicular homicide - Brown because prosecutors say she knew or should have known that Bradshaw was in no condition to drive."

This always annoys me.  If she's so drunk that she chooses not to drive, how is she supposed to be clear-thinking enough to consider "Wait a sec. I wonder if my boyfriend is also drunk. Perhaps I should prevent him from driving until such time as he can clearly indicate his sobriety" ?  At least she didn't try to drive herself, which is an improvement over most drunk driving morans.

This. I am also curious as to the implied obligation of one person to prevent the action of another.  Legal eagles....please educate me.


She owned the vehicle.  She allowed an intoxicated person to use the vehicle.  Ergo, she supplied material support to that other person committing a crime, to wit: DUI.

No different than allowing someone with a suspended license to borrow your car: if you know their license is suspended, then you've committed a crime by providing material support to their law-breaking.
 
2013-05-22 11:03:21 AM  

doyner: floggingworks: This. I am also curious as to the implied obligation of one person to prevent the action of another. Legal eagles....please educate me.

Everyone is self-reliant and bootstrappy and can make their own decisions, but we still reserve the right to nail you for not doing what we want you to.


A dangerous precedent.  I would like the pendulum to swing further in the direction of  self-reliant and bootstrappy and can make their own decisions .  Add on being responsible for those decisions and we have a winner!
 
2013-05-22 11:05:17 AM  

FrancoFile: floggingworks: Perducci: "...both Bradshaw and Brown are facing charges of vehicular homicide - Brown because prosecutors say she knew or should have known that Bradshaw was in no condition to drive."

This always annoys me.  If she's so drunk that she chooses not to drive, how is she supposed to be clear-thinking enough to consider "Wait a sec. I wonder if my boyfriend is also drunk. Perhaps I should prevent him from driving until such time as he can clearly indicate his sobriety" ?  At least she didn't try to drive herself, which is an improvement over most drunk driving morans.

This. I am also curious as to the implied obligation of one person to prevent the action of another.  Legal eagles....please educate me.

She owned the vehicle.  She allowed an intoxicated person to use the vehicle.  Ergo, she supplied material support to that other person committing a crime, to wit: DUI.

No different than allowing someone with a suspended license to borrow your car: if you know their license is suspended, then you've committed a crime by providing material support to their law-breaking.


Makes sense and I should have read the entire article.  Assumed it was the drivers vehicle and we all no what assuming does.
 
2013-05-22 11:13:19 AM  
^know

/getting some coffee
 
2013-05-22 11:16:26 AM  
Well what if he advised him to take a shiat in the street, is he an accomplice to shiatting in the street? I have trouble comprehending how this guy is suddenly committing a crime because he simply said something to someone who may have been guilty of a crime.

I can see the "Don't yell FIRE" in a theater, and "Don't say "bomb"" and the airport, and Don't say "Bong" in the head shop, and don't say "give me all the money" at a bank. All those make some sense. I just don't see how some guy outside a bar saying "oh damn dude, you better GTFO" is suddenly an accomplice.

Ultimately, the driver was in control of(and responsible for) his own actions, why suddenly is he not when a total stranger suggests something? Seems a bit bizarro world to me.
 
2013-05-22 11:25:58 AM  

Bendal: /have often wondered why they were never charged


That is mortifying.  The letter of the law and its application are two different things, however.  Your family just got screwed by a lazy prosecutor, or worse the driver was a good ol' boy friend of the DA, and a much-different concern about DUI back then.
 
2013-05-22 11:31:54 AM  
So everyone who was cheering "Go OJ! Go!" during the slow bronco escape should be in jail?
I don't see how "Dude, I'd haul ass if I where you" is being an accessory. If he shoved him back in his car and said "Go! I'll distract the cops" then sure. But for this? Charge him with being a douchebag or something, but this is stupid.
 
2013-05-22 11:32:24 AM  

factoryconnection: jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?

There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.


As a bystander you can't leave the scene of an accident, but you can stand there and twiddle your thumbs if you want.
 
2013-05-22 11:43:03 AM  
The prosecutor is probably technically correct( the best kind) but the jury is probably gonna be sympathetic to the guy unless he has a rap sheet a mile long and should have still been in prison instead of bystanding.
 
2013-05-22 11:43:05 AM  
Did they charge the guys that built the car and the street?  What the parents of the  folks that were hit?  Were they not all accessories before the fact?
 
2013-05-22 11:45:51 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: Yes please: Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.


No, it doesn't.   From the Tennessee Code:

39-11-411.  Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.


3 he is probably technically guilty of.
 
2013-05-22 11:50:41 AM  

MythDragon: Charge him with being a douchebag or something, but this is stupid.


I thank God daily that being a douchebag isn't illegal.

jeblis: As a bystander you can't leave the scene of an accident, but you can stand there and twiddle your thumbs if you want.


Can I jerk off?
 
2013-05-22 11:53:15 AM  
"It may not make sense to a layperson, but it's the law," he said.

Here's a novel farking concept: Write the laws that DO make sense to the layperson.
 
2013-05-22 11:55:23 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MythDragon: Charge him with being a douchebag or something, but this is stupid.

I thank God daily that being a douchebag isn't illegal.

jeblis: As a bystander you can't leave the scene of an accident, but you can stand there and twiddle your thumbs if you want.

Can I jerk off?


Pretty sure jerking off in public would get you charged with indecent exposure at the minimum and on the sex offender registry.
 
2013-05-22 11:55:32 AM  
The bystander gets the charges dismissed.

The girl plea bargains to a really short misdemeanor probation.

The driver does prison time for drunken felony hit-and-run vehicular dual homicide.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:36 PM  

farkstorm: The bystander gets the charges dismissed.

The girl plea bargains to a really short misdemeanor probation.

The driver does prison time for drunken felony hit-and-run vehicular dual homicide.


Sounds bout right
 
2013-05-22 12:04:23 PM  

farkstorm: The bystander gets the charges dismissed.

The girl plea bargains to a really short misdemeanor probation.

The driver does prison time for drunken felony hit-and-run vehicular dual homicide.


And nobody jerks off? Sounds anti-climactic if ya ask me...
 
2013-05-22 12:07:46 PM  
How hot was the drivers girlfriend? Did the guy think that if he made the suggestion to run he might get lucky with her? Mitigating factors people, look at it from every angle.
 
2013-05-22 12:10:07 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: farkstorm: The bystander gets the charges dismissed.

The girl plea bargains to a really short misdemeanor probation.

The driver does prison time for drunken felony hit-and-run vehicular dual homicide.

And nobody jerks off? Sounds anti-climactic if ya ask me...


Kyle Anderson with the District Attorney's office

is jerking off because he read his name in USA Today.
 
2013-05-22 12:21:43 PM  
www.gannett-cdn.com

Is this guy the bastard son of the singer from Fine Young Cannibals?
 
2013-05-22 12:26:44 PM  
I'm not a lawyer.. but...
I envision a scene where the couple hit the victims, and paused/hesitated, while this guy said "Get outta here before the cops show up!"  Or even "It wasn't your fault, I saw the whole thing, but you're drunk, so you'd better get out of here."

Presumably, his words COULD have inspired the two drunks to leave, which would constitute "aid",  thereby becoming an accessory after the fact :
 who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender through Providing or aiding in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.
 .

His "intent" is the critical thing here though.  If he had said "oooh, yer gonna get sent to PMITA Prison" his intent could be to ridicule them or it could have been said to spur them into action, and the "thought police" might never be able to positively identify his intent to jurors.

Also, the wording of the law suggests that he might have to be aware that a felony has been committed.  If he underestimated what damage was done in the accident, or his evaluation was impaired by his public intoxication, it should limit his liability.  However, if he was publically intoxicated, his drunken state doesn't excuse him from rational decisions because he was already breaking the law.  (otherwise drunk driving couldn't be prosecuted).

Personally, I think the passenger shouldn't automatically be an accessory, unless they can be charged with public intoxication.  Again, alcohol stupidity isn't a viable legal excuse, IF the person isn't in a private residence or whatever.  However, considering that they were drinking in such a way that their judgement was impaired, and they were in public, they have no excuse for supporting the drunk driver by riding with them.   Accessory to the accident?  Yes.  Leaving the scene? not automatically, unless they come right out and explain that they were trying to drive away,  or encouraging the driver to leave.  If they testified that they tried to stop the driver.. then that should be enough to clear them of the "leaving the scene" crime.
 
2013-05-22 12:52:10 PM  
oh no.... I give free legal advice on the internets all the FARKING TIME.

/never again
 
2013-05-22 12:55:07 PM  
Does he self identify as black?
 
2013-05-22 12:59:14 PM  
being Black and in Tennessee is a prison life term for your skin flakes littering on the sidewalk.


/Also: passenger: "how da fark was I to know the driver was to drunk to drive? I was shiatfaced myself. And sorry that I didn't report the driver instantly for his hitting those traffic cones that were wearing clothes".
 
2013-05-22 01:12:57 PM  

that was my nickname in highschool: Yes please: Accessory after the fact, as it says in the article.  May be a difficult conviction to get, but it probably fits.


No, it doesn't.   From the Tennessee Code:

39-11-411.  Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.


Looks like 2 or 3 could fit, depending on what was actually said.

"Dude, the cops are coming; run!" would do for 3.

"If I was you, I'd haul ass!" would do for 2.
 
2013-05-22 01:16:17 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: "It may not make sense to a layperson, but it's the law," he said.

Here's a novel farking concept: Write the laws that DO make sense to the layperson.


Yeah, that statement jumped out at me, too.  Due process starts with fair notice of what, exactly, is prohibited.  A "layperson" has to be able to figure it out from a plain reading of the law or the law is unconstitutionally vague.
 
2013-05-22 01:18:18 PM  

jeblis: factoryconnection: jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?

There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.

As a bystander you can't leave the scene of an accident, but you can stand there and twiddle your thumbs if you want.


Where did you get the idea that bystanders can't leave the scene of an accident?  Happens all the time and I've never heard of anyone busted for it.
 
2013-05-22 01:21:27 PM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2013-05-22 01:21:51 PM  

Bendal: So leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury is a felony in TN?

36 years ago, in 1977, a man was so drunk he had a 14 year old girl (don't know if she was his daughter or not) drive him to get more beer. On the way, she lost control of the car, ran into the ditch, jammed on the accelerator and smashed into the driver's door of my mother's car, who later died on the way to a larger hospital. The drunk and girl both fled the scene; as far as I know neither of them were ever charged with anything.

/have often wondered why they were never charged
//don't know who it was
///wonder if the girl remembers that day
////damn sure I do


That is not a CSB at all! =(

Sorry for your loss - that totally sucks.
 
2013-05-22 02:09:17 PM  
The article says he has to be aware a felony was committed.   A car accident is not automatically a felony in that state.   So the state is going to have to prove he somehow knew what he just saw was more than an accident.

Did he see the victims at all before he said whatever he said?  The article does not make that clear.  He might have been there but not looking, then the accident happens and he turns to look.   At that point if all he sees is a crashed car and tells them to run for it- no crime.   If he saw the people get hit, or if he said to run for it because you ran someone over, that's a crime.
 
2013-05-22 02:17:15 PM  

Birnone: The article says he has to be aware a felony was committed.   A car accident is not automatically a felony in that state.   So the state is going to have to prove he somehow knew what he just saw was more than an accident.

Did he see the victims at all before he said whatever he said?  The article does not make that clear.  He might have been there but not looking, then the accident happens and he turns to look.   At that point if all he sees is a crashed car and tells them to run for it- no crime.   If he saw the people get hit, or if he said to run for it because you ran someone over, that's a crime.



You should read more of TFA:

In Tennessee, fleeing the scene of a property accident is a misdemeanor, and fleeing the scene of a personal injury accident is a felony.
 
2013-05-22 02:32:32 PM  

banandar123: I didn't know anyone outside of lawmakers and the courts used the word "flee" anymore. Run the fark away, maybe...But "FLEE, DUDE, FLEE!!!" just sounds stupid.


Ah hem.

 The correct vernacular is "FLY YOU FOOLS!"
 
2013-05-22 02:38:58 PM  

Bendal: So leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury is a felony in TN?

36 years ago, in 1977, a man was so drunk he had a 14 year old girl (don't know if she was his daughter or not) drive him to get more beer. On the way, she lost control of the car, ran into the ditch, jammed on the accelerator and smashed into the driver's door of my mother's car, who later died on the way to a larger hospital. The drunk and girl both fled the scene; as far as I know neither of them were ever charged with anything.

/have often wondered why they were never charged
//don't know who it was
///wonder if the girl remembers that day
////damn sure I do



Ummm, of course it's a felony in TN...in fact pretty sure it's a felony everywhere (maybe wasn't in 77?).  You sure they were caught?

They likely couldn't charge the girl as she was a minor.  Maybe, as strange as it sounds, in '77 there was no law actually broken by the father?  Maybe the drunk could have been "somebody"...who knows but it sucks to lose someone like that.

I'm sure the girl remembers, and I'm guessing the lack of sense the adult showed when allowing a kid to drive carried over through the moments after the accident....ultimately it was all the adult's fault, not hers.   I feel almost as bad for her as I do for you as she has had to live with killing someone.
 
2013-05-22 02:42:48 PM  
So the expectation is for a drunk to fix the leaking meat bags over giving shiatty advice?

Really?

Have people never been to a bar? If he helped the dead/dying he would be hit with practicing without a license WHILE drunk. Should he have just sat there and laughed? Probably so, but drunks talk out their ass, a lot. Drunks listen to other drunks talking out their ass, a lot. It was a fight or flight response and well beer won out.

The dude was likely to run regardless of the "legal counsel" the other drunk gave him. Putting this on the dude won't bring back the dead, nor will it deal with the real issue which was the drunk driver.
 
2013-05-22 02:55:15 PM  

2KanZam: Bendal: So leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury is a felony in TN?

36 years ago, in 1977, a man was so drunk he had a 14 year old girl (don't know if she was his daughter or not) drive him to get more beer. On the way, she lost control of the car, ran into the ditch, jammed on the accelerator and smashed into the driver's door of my mother's car, who later died on the way to a larger hospital. The drunk and girl both fled the scene; as far as I know neither of them were ever charged with anything.

/have often wondered why they were never charged
//don't know who it was
///wonder if the girl remembers that day
////damn sure I do


Ummm, of course it's a felony in TN...in fact pretty sure it's a felony everywhere (maybe wasn't in 77?).  You sure they were caught?

They likely couldn't charge the girl as she was a minor.  Maybe, as strange as it sounds, in '77 there was no law actually broken by the father?  Maybe the drunk could have been "somebody"...who knows but it sucks to lose someone like that.

I'm sure the girl remembers, and I'm guessing the lack of sense the adult showed when allowing a kid to drive carried over through the moments after the accident....ultimately it was all the adult's fault, not hers.   I feel almost as bad for her as I do for you as she has had to live with killing someone.


Oh I don't blame the girl; I assign all the blame to the drunk who had her drive a car she wasn't capable of handling. I just have always wondered if she (and him too I guess) ever did something with their lives as a result of that incident, or what happened to them in general.
 
2013-05-22 02:55:36 PM  

FrancoFile: Birnone: The article says he has to be aware a felony was committed.   A car accident is not automatically a felony in that state.   So the state is going to have to prove he somehow knew what he just saw was more than an accident.

Did he see the victims at all before he said whatever he said?  The article does not make that clear.  He might have been there but not looking, then the accident happens and he turns to look.   At that point if all he sees is a crashed car and tells them to run for it- no crime.   If he saw the people get hit, or if he said to run for it because you ran someone over, that's a crime.


You should read more of TFA:

In Tennessee, fleeing the scene of a property accident is a misdemeanor, and fleeing the scene of a personal injury accident is a felony.


In the article it says for him to get that 6 year sentence then he has to see a FELONY.  A misdemeanor  means nothing in this context.  Nowhere in the article does it say he saw a personal injury accident.  He did see a property accident though, we know that from the fact that he advised the driver to leave the scene of said accident.
 
2013-05-22 03:40:37 PM  

Bendal: Oh I don't blame the girl; I assign all the blame to the drunk who had her drive a car she wasn't capable of handling. I just have always wondered if she (and him too I guess) ever did something with their lives as a result of that incident, or what happened to them in general.



Her tormented mind an drunken father likely drove her to drug abuse and stripping.  She is likely now a 50 year old addition to a "faces of meth" poster.
 
2013-05-22 03:54:03 PM  
What I find interesting is that they are charging the passenger because "she knew he was to drunk to drive".  WTF?

Like someone was saying above, are they going to charge his boss for being mean to him that day causing him to want to drink?
 
2013-05-22 03:58:54 PM  
"The District Attorney's Office commonly charges vehicle owners with driving under the influence for allowing a drunk person to drive their car. "

Wow what a screwed up law.
 
2013-05-22 04:13:33 PM  

Perducci: "...both Bradshaw and Brown are facing charges of vehicular homicide - Brown because prosecutors say she knew or should have known that Bradshaw was in no condition to drive."

This always annoys me.  If she's so drunk that she chooses not to drive, how is she supposed to be clear-thinking enough to consider "Wait a sec. I wonder if my boyfriend is also drunk. Perhaps I should prevent him from driving until such time as he can clearly indicate his sobriety" ?  At least she didn't try to drive herself, which is an improvement over most drunk driving morans.


And not to be sexist or anything Men still usually drive when they go out regardless of who owns the car so he probably already had the keys and it wasn't even discussed.
 
2013-05-22 04:25:46 PM  

Bendal: So leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury is a felony in TN?

36 years ago, in 1977, a man was so drunk he had a 14 year old girl (don't know if she was his daughter or not) drive him to get more beer. On the way, she lost control of the car, ran into the ditch, jammed on the accelerator and smashed into the driver's door of my mother's car, who later died on the way to a larger hospital. The drunk and girl both fled the scene; as far as I know neither of them were ever charged with anything.

/have often wondered why they were never charged
//don't know who it was
///wonder if the girl remembers that day
////damn sure I do


That's farking horrible man I'm so sorry. Now for the brights side. If the police know who it was You can still have charges pressed as there is no statute of limitations that I know of on homicide. May still be able to seek recourse civilly depending on your state.
 
2013-05-22 04:42:04 PM  

IRQ12: What I find interesting is that they are charging the passenger because "she knew he was to drunk to drive".  WTF?

Like someone was saying above, are they going to charge his boss for being mean to him that day causing him to want to drink?


As mentioned above, she owned the car.  She allowed an intoxicated person to use her property = she's an accessory.

If you come to me shiatfaced to borrow my chainsaw, and I let you, and then you go cut your psycho ex-girlfriend with it, I'm an accessory to the crime.

/don't let drunk, stoned, crazy, or stupid people use your stuff.
 
2013-05-22 04:42:55 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: farkstorm: The bystander gets the charges dismissed.

The girl plea bargains to a really short misdemeanor probation.

The driver does prison time for drunken felony hit-and-run vehicular dual homicide.

And nobody jerks off? Sounds anti-climactic if ya ask me...


We naturally assumed you would.
 
2013-05-22 04:49:11 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: jeblis: factoryconnection: jaylectricity: Lack of compassion? Or primal fear of authority?

There were victims lying in the street in front of him, and yet there was no action to help them instead of shielding the drunken bozos (strangers, at that) that did the crime.

As a bystander you can't leave the scene of an accident, but you can stand there and twiddle your thumbs if you want.

Where did you get the idea that bystanders can't leave the scene of an accident?  Happens all the time and I've never heard of anyone busted for it.


If you witness the accident by law you arent supposed to leave. Are they gonna go full on CSI on you and try and put you in jail? probably not.
 
2013-05-22 05:03:36 PM  

FrancoFile: IRQ12: What I find interesting is that they are charging the passenger because "she knew he was to drunk to drive".  WTF?

Like someone was saying above, are they going to charge his boss for being mean to him that day causing him to want to drink?

As mentioned above, she owned the car.  She allowed an intoxicated person to use her property = she's an accessory.

If you come to me shiatfaced to borrow my chainsaw, and I let you, and then you go cut your psycho ex-girlfriend with it, I'm an accessory to the crime.

/don't let drunk, stoned, crazy, or stupid people use your stuff.


Don't let stupid people make laws either.  That law is retarded because it basically requires a person to make other peoples judgement for them.  I know people who can *act* completely sober when they'd probably blow a .2.

That's what sucks about alcohol laws; no matter what they are they go through once proposed because no one wants to be seen as being weak on the issue.

I don't know how a rational human could think those two should share the same culpability.  Or that it's reasonable to expect a person know how much another is fit to drive.
 
2013-05-22 05:08:25 PM  
Netrngr: ....

If you witness the accident by law you arent supposed to leave. Are they gonna go full on CSI on you and try and put you in jail? probably not.

What bathroom wall did you read that on?
 
2013-05-22 05:51:07 PM  
He was just reciting lines from Forrest Gump out of shock.
 
2013-05-22 06:24:34 PM  

FrancoFile: /don't let drunk, stoned, crazy, or stupid people use your stuff.


I'm not qualified to make that determination.
 
2013-05-22 07:48:46 PM  
I imagine they just want to scare him a little, which is reasonable IMHO. You don't witness a crime and then helpfully suggest to the perp that he run away. That's just not how a responsible member of society behaves.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report