Skip to main content

Good grief!





Man On Trial For Letting Friend Drive Drunk



A 40-year-old laborer is on trial in New Jersey in a groundbreaking case experts say could clear the way for the prosecution of anyone who lets a drunken driver get behind the wheel.



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...
Pangle was killed, along with a man in the other vehicle. Pangle's blood-alcohol content (BAC) was 0.26, more than twice New Jersey's legal limit. Powell, the friend, is being held responsible and has been charged with both deaths; as a result, he faces a possible 15 years in prison.



I'm sorry, but flat-out this is ridiculous. Are state laws so different that this is possible? In California, if the police arrest a drunk driver (or even public intoxication) they are required to hold that person until sober, or is at least sober enough to take care of themself and not pose a danger to others. When you are arrested by the police they are responsible for your welfare, yet here they let him go.



The news story even contends that the police gave Powell the keys to the car as well as directions on how to find it. The case will apparently hinge on how obvious Pangle's intoxication was, which proves the point. How could the police release someone who is "obviously" intoxicated?



Amazing. Seems to me that the local prosecutor is doing his damnest to prevent people from seeing the obvious, that Pangle shouldn't have been released in the first place.



UPDATE: A question, actually. Of what relevance is it to this story to specify that Pangle's vehicle was an SUV?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...