Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Victim’s family sues over hit-and-run fatality

The sons of a 60-year-old Lawrence man killed a year ago in a car accident are suing the driver in the hit-and-run crash.

May 12, 2009

Advertisement

The sons of a 60-year-old Lawrence man killed a year ago in a car accident are suing the driver in the hit-and-run crash.

Thomas Crum was killed May 4, 2008, at Sixth Street and Gateway Drive.

His three sons are suing the other driver involved for negligence. The lawsuit, filed in Douglas County District Court, claims Jake Deckert “failed to keep a proper lookout” and “failed to yield the right-of-way.” They’re seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

Deckert pleaded guilty in September to leaving the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and driving under the influence of alcohol.

A judge sentenced him to 14 days in jail, followed by two years of probation.

Comments

SirReal 5 years, 6 months ago

No it wasn't settled,... the kid spent two weeks in jail for murdering somebody, justice was not served. When he stepped into his vehicle drunk, he was wielding a deadly weapon and someone died. This case is far from over, believe me, and it wasn't even the first time this kid had driven drunk either.

compmd 5 years, 6 months ago

settled: I do not think this word means what you think it means.

workinghard 5 years, 6 months ago

I think the kid is lucky they are only suing for $75,000, it could be a lot more.

ally 5 years, 6 months ago

I agree with SirReal. I was shocked when I heard Deckert only got two weeks in jail, what a cruel joke to the family of the victim. I wonder why they suing for only 75,000? Anyone who is driving drunk and has previous DUI's and leaves the scene of accident should have a much stronger sentence than two weeks jail time what was the judge thinking?

introversion 5 years, 6 months ago

As I remember, Thomas Crum's B.A.C. was high enough that he could have just as easily been in Mr. Deckert's seat right now.

Unfortunately for Mr. Deckert, even though that could have been the case, the facts are that it didn't happen to work out that way.

RoeDapple 5 years, 6 months ago

Doubt that Jake will post to plea 'his side'. He does have that option. He took that option away from Tom. Looks like Jake will have to see just how deep Dad's pockets will go

think_about_it 5 years, 6 months ago

One drunk pulled out in front of another and now the one that survived is being sued.

redmoonrising 5 years, 6 months ago

If you will notice, it reads "for more than $75,000." It could just as easily be $75,000,000. By doing this, we are prevented from knowing the exact amount that litigants are seeking in lawsuits. I don't know if this is done to protect parites in a lawsuit or to cover up the greed of those who sue. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be on a jury for this one.

jaberwaky 5 years, 6 months ago

At some point during the lawsuit, the defense attorney's will require the plaintiff to state the excat amount of damages they are claiming. The plaintiff will have to itemize the damages.

Linda Aikins 5 years, 6 months ago

cover up the greed? These young men lost their father!!! I would hope that their "greed" would deter others from doing the same thing. If it happened to one of your parents and it was by someone doing something they didn't have to, I wonder if you would sit back and do nothing...

mapletree 5 years, 6 months ago

musbhiorlo (Anonymous) says…

one drunk failed to yield the right-of-way to the other drunk. the sons should sue the bar that served their dad alcohol or the bar that served deckert alcohol.

How is this a bar's fault? The bartender didn't force either of them to drive a car. Plenty of people have enough sense to call a cab, call a friend, or stop drinking. Just because these two didn't, doesn't mean the bartender should get blamed.

Steve Jacob 5 years, 6 months ago

Tell me that I am wrong, but even if a judge says the victim was 50% at fault, (the other driver the other 50%) , he is still going to pay a good chuck of change.

mapletree 5 years, 6 months ago

musbhiorlo (Anonymous) says…

mapletree -

Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons. A drunk person cannot collect for injury to himself, but a third party injured by the actions of a drunk person can collect from a bar or tavern under certain circumstances.

========

Yes, I'm aware of that. Kansas does not.

That still doesn't answer the question- "how is this the bar's fault?" Just because a state might allow you to hold someone else responsible for your mistake, doesn't mean it's right.

RoeDapple 5 years, 6 months ago

"Seeking more than $75,000" hardly looks like greed to me. More likely, these young men are trying to recover the medical, legal and other expenses that the estate of Tom Crum is responsible for. Tom was air lifted to a Kansas City hospital. Haven't I read on these threads that this runs about $21,000? Who knows what emergency room, doctor and staff, supplies, legal fees, etc. could have come to for this tragic event. I seriously doubt if these young men have the price of a cup of coffee left between them when this is settled.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

FYI,

The criminal case is over.

This is a civil case.

OzChicklet 5 years, 6 months ago

@RoeDapple - The estate of Mr Crum is responsible for the debt incurred, not the sons. If there is not enough money in the estate, then that is the end of it. Additionally, surprisingly enough, if no claims are made to the estate, then the bills go unpaid.

A very tragic situation for all.

lawthing 5 years, 6 months ago

Had he killed a firerfighter he would have got life!

hawkergrl 5 years, 6 months ago

Filing a civil suit after an accident is not something out of the ordinary. Why does everyone posting seem so up in arms about this. This is why we have such things like auto insurance, liability coverage!

lawthing 5 years, 6 months ago

14 days in coounty jail for killing someone with a car.

That could be why everyone is up in arms

TheYetiSpeaks 5 years, 6 months ago

My concern is this: I presume that the reason the DA did not go for a bigger charge was that he knew that all the facts would point to the accident being just that, an accident, and Deckert could have been cleared of the bigger charge. For leaving the scene he got what he deserved (debatable, but under the letter of the law). My concern is that in a civil case the defense lawyer is not going to pull any punches and everything will come out and it probably wont make Mr. Crum look too good, leaving the sons big lawyer bills and tarnishing (from an outside standpoint) the memory of their father.

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

lawthing (Anonymous) says… "14 days in coounty jail for killing someone with a car. That could be why everyone is up in arms."

That and he fled the scene to go change his booze cruzin my face page. He is a disgusting POC. While constantly pointing the dead body's BAC he and his supporters forget to mention he fled from the scene to allow a man to die in the street so as to AVOID his BAC to be measured. The $75,000 in the pleading is "at least" and only pro forma pleading. Hopefully they get lots more.

TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says… "My concern is this: I presume that the reason the DA did not go for a bigger charge was that he knew that all the facts would point to the accident being just that, an accident, and Deckert could have been cleared of the bigger charge."

You presume incorrectly. Accidentally killing someone as opposed to intentionally killing someone? See above as to why the charges were what they were. The lack of evidence to support larger charges was due to fleeing the scene. Under those circumstances hard to get beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard only) on intoxication. In the civil suit the standard will be much lower and the jury will be allowed to consider his actions prior to killing and after killing the victim.

They will easily come to the conclusion he was hammered while booze crusin, killed the victim, then fled the scene and find easily find him over 50% liable in the death.

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

srj (Anonymous) says… "Tell me that I am wrong, but even if a judge says the victim was 50% at fault, (the other driver the other 50%) , he is still going to pay a good chuck of change."

Kansas follows a system using the modified comparative negligence – 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less, with the resulting damage award reduced by the injured party’s amount of fault. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparat...

ksdivakat 5 years, 6 months ago

"I haven't read comments of anyone “supporting” this kid's actions, merely pointing out that there was not as much difference between the victim and the perpetrator as one might be led to believe."

Huge difference!!!! One is dead, the other is not!

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says… "I haven't read comments of anyone “supporting” this kid's actions, merely pointing out that there was not as much difference between the victim and the perpetrator as one might be led to believe."

If you don't see much of difference between killing someone and then cowardly fleeing the scene or dying in the street, then I suspect there is not a lot anyone can, or would want to say you. Being an optimist I'll give it a try anyway. It is hard to run home and change your vanity myface page to eliminate all references about how much you like to go booze crusin when your lying dead in the street.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

mustboffmyrocker: "the sons should sue the bar that served their dad alcohol or the bar that served deckert alcohol"

By all means. Because 'personal responsibility' these days means there's someone else to blame. The heifers that spend their lives in Mickey D's drive-thru should sue for their obesity and heart disease. People who get killed without wearing seatbelts should sue the Big Three for allowing their car to operate without the seatbelt being engaged. Users who contract Aids through dirty needles should sue the government for not having a disposable needle distribution program. College students should sue the university when they fail out for not making them study more. Pedophiles should.........aw, forget it.

middleoftheroad 5 years, 6 months ago

For a bar/establishment to be at "fault" wouldn't it needed to have done something wrong? Last I checked, serving an of-age person a legal substance isn't wrong. I agree with whoever pointed out personal responsibility. There is WAY too much finger-pointing.

In regard to the suit...tragic all the way around. Should a suit be filed? None of us know because none of us have all the facts. I can't judge because I don't know the actual situation with ALL the facts. All I know is that my thoughts are with both families as neither of them will ever be the same.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

"you can't assign 100% responsibility for the accident to either driver"

Perhaps not to one, but to both combined? Absolutely!

" jaywalker does a bar have responsibility?"

No. A bar isn't responsible for how people get to its establishment, so why would it be 'responsible' for how they get home? Most bars will cut someone off if they're obviously hammered, but I don't believe that was the case here. By your rationale, there would either have to be a two drink maximum, a breath-alyzer test before serving a drink, or all bars would have to be abolished. How 'bout both these drivers drank at home, then went out driving and got in the wreck; should the liquor stores where they bought the alcohol be liable?
Alcohol is legal. Bars are legal establishments. The personal responsibility of the customers is the only standard. You 'agree' with my sarcastic hypotheticals in the last post? How 'bout a guy buys a gun legally and then uses it to kill someone? Sue the gun manufacturer?
Sorry, mustb, you're incredibly wrong on this.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Bars may have some responsibility here.

Judgment is the first faculty to go when drinking - someone who's been drinking may think they're ok to continue when they're quite drunk.

In this case, perhaps a sober bartender has a responsibility to cut them off.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

"perhaps a sober bartender has a responsibility to cut them off."

Then a non-smoking clerk has the responsibility not to sell cigarettes to someone with a cough. The thin drive-thru employee has the responsibility not to sell the value meal and shake to the behemoth in the car. The doctor has the responsibility when the pain killers they prescribe are taken 4 at a time.

Come on, jafs, you're usually one of the more rational posters on these boards. I'd say a bartender should cut someone off if they're obviously and severely inebriated. I did it when I tended in Lawrence. But the buck ends with the person who engages in the activity. When you enter a bar you're aware of all the consequences. Just because you enter a bar does not cede all authority and responsibility for your future actions to the person working behind it. That's preposterous.

Does anyone know if these two had a BAC that was way off the charts? And if so, does anyone know if they'd been drinking elsewhere, like at home or at a friends home? Eithe way - You drink and drive = YOUR fault!

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

Also, just because a bartender cuts someone off doesn't mean that person won't jump right in the car and drive off to the next bar.
Ya got money to drink out on the town ya got money for a taxi. Called a lot of cabs in my day, too. But just 'cuz I called for one doesn't guarantee they'll wait for it or take it. What's the bartender 'sposed to do? Handcuff 'em and steal their keys?

domino 5 years, 6 months ago

Used to work in a supper club - not a bar - but alcohol was served. Had a lady from ABC come in and do a training session on KS liquor laws. This has been 6 or 8 years ago, so may have changed, but at that time, we were told that if we could be held responsible if we served or continued to serve someone alcohol and they were in an accident after they left our establishment. So unless it has changed, the server as well as the drinking establishment can be held to some level of accountability/responsibility.

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says… “One of the men was incredibly unfortunate and lost his life as a result of the combination of his and the other man's choices."

What evidence do you have that the victims drinking in anyway led to his death? Had he been driving completely sober the result would have been the same. Deckert drunk driving AND running a stop sign hitting the victims car that was driving within his lane was the cause of this accident, not the victims drinking. Any other car and driver no matter their condition (if they were driving in their lane) would have been hit by Deckert.

If your point is the victim MIGHT have been able to avoid being hit by Deckert if he had not been drinking well that is pure speculation. The facts are Deckert's acts and failure to acts are the cause of the fatal accident, not the victims. If both cars had run stop signs and slammed into each other you would have a valid point, but that simply is not the case here.

TheStig 5 years, 6 months ago

I think Sigmunds point is that there is no evidence that the victims driving was in anyway impaired not matter the BAC. He wasn't weaving, speeding, running stop lights. His car didn't hit Deckerts, Deckert slammed into him. However, Deckert's running of the stop sign and slamming into traffic is evidence of impaired driving and his fleeing the scene and changing his booze crusin facebook page is evidence he knew he DUI.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

jaywalker,

Thanks for the compliment!

I did say "some" responsibility, and "perhaps" to qualify my statement. And, I certainly wouldn't argue that the individual who chooses to drink and drive doesn't bear the major part of the responsibility involved. But I know for a fact that once people start drinking, their judgment becomes impaired, leading to poor decision-making.

Your examples aren't completely relevant, as they seem to involve poor decisions which don't hurt or kill others. The problem with drunk driving is obviously that it does often injure or kill others who have not been drinking and driving.

littlejaks04 5 years, 6 months ago

Just so you know in an accident like this the family is not who gets sued it is the car insurance company and they usually have a cap for what the family can sue for.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs,

Please don't misconstrue that post as heavily critical of your comment, not what I meant to convey, but upon reading it again the tone does seem harsh.

I should have given you props for the 'gradual impairment' point, that is valid, no doubt. However, I would still argue that me, you, or Ben the bartender should not inevitably become 'my brother's keeper' because someone else engaged in an activity that has a natural progression. Not only that, but it should be taken into account that there's often more than one tender, the bar could be jammed with a couple hundred people, and the 'hammered' person may not be the one going to the bar to buy the drinks. Trying to keep tabs on all that in order to avoid a lawsuit? Tough sell. Yeah, it's tough to draw completely relevant comparisons, I tried to choose things that led to medical issues and/or possible causes of death, but they all came out long term whereas this is more immediate. I had one in an earlier post though where I asked if these men were drinking home alone, went driving, and then this happened would the liquor stores where they bought their alcohol then be subject to a suit? Or perhaps they bought it and drank while they drove away, again....... is the liquor store clerk liable? Not a chance, in my estimation. There was an incident in a nearby college town recently (Athens, Ga.) where a college kid hit and killed a 12 year on a bike. The father is trying to file suit against the bars, tenders, and servers that sold to him. The rub in this case is it was 3 a.m.. I believe the kid drinking is liable, not the bars, but how 'bout the father's culpability for his son out riding down the middle of a four lane street in the middle of the night? And he wants to sue someone else? (This particular case is a blatant money-grab, though, where the topical case doesn't seem to be)

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

littlejaks04 (Anonymous) says… "Just so you know in an accident like this the family is not who gets sued it is the car insurance company and they usually have a cap for what the family can sue for."

Actually the driver is sued and the fact that there is or is not insurance is not mentioned to the jury as it may prejudice the jury to give a larger award. Any amount above any insurance coverage (which will not be mentioned) will be the responsibility of the driver. Under these circumstances the insurance company will most probably settle for policy limits and any amount above that will be Deckert's responsibility.

The drivers family will probably not be a part of this law suit as Deckert wasn't a minor. But if they owned the car, paid his insurance, and knew he often went booze crusin they might be liable based upon negligent entrustment and then their insurance and wealth could be attached to satisfy any judgement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligen...

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…"I have never claimed that I wasn't speculating to some degree. I should point out that you are speculating as well: We don't know what would have happened if one of the men had been sober."

We can be fairly certain that if Deckert hadn't run a stop sign and slammed into traffic on 6th Street this accident would not have happened. You might want to brush up on your proximate cause analysis.

In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximat...

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

Figures, musb, makes as much sense as your other posts.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

jaywalker,

Not a problem - I enjoyed the compliment!

It is difficult to sort out issues of responsibility. In the case of someone who buys some booze at a liquor store, goes home and drinks and drives, I guess I wouldn't ascribe responsibility to the store owner. The difference about serving drunks at a bar is that they can see the person is drunk and, therefore, not exercising good judgment.

If you saw someone wandering around in a dazed and confused fashion who was about to wander into the street against the light, would you help/stop them?

If you didn't and they got hit by a car, who's responsible?

What if they were drunk?

What if they had a concussion from a fall and weren't drunk?

What if they were hit by a drunk driver?

If you see someone driving in a hazardous fashion, do you have a responsibility to notify the authorities?

And, finally, what if the liquor store owner is fully aware that the person they are selling booze to is an alcoholic and has had several serious consequences in their life from that already (like DUI's, etc.)?

Do they bear any responsibility there?

stellamaris 5 years, 6 months ago

I read through about as much of this as I could without seriously getting upset.

You guys talk about these people as if they were characters in your sick comics you read before breakfast.

That kid, who killed Tom (that is the man who was killed), should have been in jail for much longer than just a mere matter of days. Yes, both of them were drunk, but one of them left the scene and allowed the other to die.

The difference between Tom and that kid was that Tom was an excellent neighbor and part of the block that I live on. He was the nicest man I have ever met, and on numerous occasions went out of his way to take care of me when I was pregnant. He made life living next to him feel like there were always people around you to care about you.

It was Tom's birthday celebration the night that kid hit him and killed him. He may have been drunk, but if it were him who hit that kid, he would've stopped. He would've helped him. He would've done something, because that is who he was.

I remember the morning after he died. Everyone on this block was missing someone important to them. And his sons were missing their father. His sons are some of the nicest people I know as well, and I can only conclude that this was because their father was the same.

For those of you who think you know everything, who believe you are educated and make unbelievably ignorant remarks about the case being closed, or that the sons are greedy, or that Tom was just as much to blame as this kid, you need to think about WHO HE WAS. His children have families of their own, and probably need this money to pay for all the crap this kid put their family through.

TheStig 5 years, 6 months ago

Wow what a coincidence! One of the LJW most frequently banned users Sven also met the victim the night he was killed and was shocked the next day.

kateku 5 years, 6 months ago

Stella -- "that kid's" name is Jake and he was in an accident in wich your friend Tom was also driving drunk. Both drivers were DRUNK, they are both at fault. He didn't allow Tom to die. You are giving "that kid" too much power. You think if he would have stopped, he would have saved Tom? You all can talk about how things would have been if it were the other way around, but you really have NO clue. Tom was drunk and and as Jake proved, drunks can not be counted on to do the right thing.

I'm praying for the families of both men.

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

kateku (Anonymous) says… "Stella — “that kid's” name is Jake and he was in an accident in wich your friend Tom was also driving drunk. Both drivers were DRUNK, they are both at fault."

You are very much mistaken. There was absolutely no evidence that Tom's driving was in any way impaired despite his BAC. All the evidence at the criminal trial was that Jake ran a stop sign and slammed into Tom's car killing him. He then fled the scene to go change his booze cuzin myface pages and remove pictures of himself passed out behind the wheel. There has never been a legal finding that Tom was at fault in the least or that his BAC in anyway contributed to the accident. If Tom had been completely sober Tom would be just as dead and Jake would still be a cowardly POS punk.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs,

"If you saw someone wandering around in a dazed and confused fashion who was about to wander into the street against the light, would you help/stop them?" Absolutely, in fact I actually saved a good friend's life one morning when he stepped in front of a bus freshman year on campus!

"If you didn't and they got hit by a car, who's responsible?" Well, I'd like to hope anyone would act in that situation, but I don't know if you could lay responsibility at the feet of the bystander. Some people just don't act quick enough or freeze up in moments of crisis.

"What if they were drunk?" I don't believe that changes my above answer.

"What if they had a concussion from a fall and weren't drunk?" Again, same as above.

"What if they were hit by a drunk driver?" If it was determined drunk driving was responsible for the contact, the driver's responsible.

"If you see someone driving in a hazardous fashion, do you have a responsibility to notify the authorities?" I have, but acted from a moral obligation, not a sense of responsibility.

"And, finally, what if the liquor store owner is fully aware that the person they are selling booze to is an alcoholic and has had several serious consequences in their life from that already (like DUI's, etc.)? Do they bear any responsibility there?" Absolutely not. Again, they are not their brother's keeper. Someone might act under moral obligation, but the alcoholic bears the responsibility for his own actions. Each man to his own actions must answer to the consequences.

We'll agree to disagree here. From my perspective and experiences, if I go out for some drinks and then decide to get behind the wheel I would never be thinking 'this is the fault of the person who was doing their job and served me what I asked for.' Accountability and responsibility lie at the feet of the offender. Just my opinion. If someone is obviously inebriated to a severe degree and the tender knows he's drivin' when he leaves he still has no power to stop him. Cutting them off stops them from drinking at that establishment, but you'd have to enact laws that say a person cannot drink enough to become drunk to make a bar worker liable. A .08 is a couple drinks. If we held all bar workers liable for every drunk driving accident there would be no bars period.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

jay,

I'm not sure of the distinction between moral obligations and responsibilities. What is that?

Also, I'm not arguing for 100% either way - it seems to me in many situations there are shared responsbilities.

"Not my brother's keeper" is from a Bible story, if I remember correctly, in which that attitude is not held up as a wonderful way to live.

I don't particularly care what the drunk driver thinks as far as who's responsible - people can't think well when drunk.

And, you didn't really answer some of the questions - ie. if a drunk wanders into the street and gets killed by a car, who's responsible?

I believe the law allows for a nuanced answer - eg. contributory negligence. That is a recognition that these are not black and white situations.

And, if a bartender sees that someone has had enough to drink and refuses to serve them further, that should take care of their obligation/responsibility.

It wouldn't prevent all drunk driving accidents, but it would probably prevent some.

Again, not black and white - the person themselves, bartender, friends who let them drive knowing they were drunk, etc. all share responsibility in my view.

Especially since one's judgement is severely impaired when drunk - it doesn't make sense to me to say "So and so should have exhibited better judgement while drunk". It's simply not possible.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

"I'm not sure of the distinction between moral obligations and responsibilities. What is that?"

Loosely, I'd say a 'moral obligation' is subjective to each person's moral standards. 'Responsibility' in this discussion carries the weight of liability.

"And, you didn't really answer some of the questions - ie. if a drunk wanders into the street and gets killed by a car, who's responsible?"

Without detail, I'd say the drunk.

" Especially since one's judgement is severely impaired when drunk - it doesn't make sense to me to say “So and so should have exhibited better judgement while drunk”. It's simply not possible."

So, by your estimation, once someone starts drinking they instantly become everyone else's 'responsibility'? No doubt judgement is lost as one drinks, but that in no way absolves them of their actions until they sober up again. And it certainly doesn't give anyone else in contact with the drinker 'power of attorney'. Perhaps friends, family, and bartenders are somewhat responsible in a moral sense. But this whole discussion was based on legal responsibility and who should be involved in a lawsuit. None of those people can or should be the target of a suit.

matahari 5 years, 6 months ago

Somehow it saddens me that these kids think that money will 'make it all ok"

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

jay,

So the driver of the car that hits and kills someone who is drunk bears no responsbility?

Who's in a greater position to exercise good judgement - the sober driver or the drunk walker?

Legally, I believe, as I mentioned, that the law allows for shared responsibilities.

Again, if someone is drunk and their judgement is impaired, how can we expect them to exercise good judgement? It's like saying someone who is mentally ill should think like a sane person.

kateku 5 years, 6 months ago

"...If Tom had been completely sober Tom would be just as dead and Jake would still be a cowardly POS punk."

Sigmund, you can NOT answer with 100% certainty that if Tom had been sober, he would be dead. You do not, and can not understand the nuances of the accident, because you were not a witness, and you are not Tom or Jake.

As I said before, I pray for all family members involved. I think I'm more sorry for Tom's boys who must feel terrible knowing that their dad was in part responsible for his own death.

Drinking and Driving is NEVER o-kay, after one beer or one hundred, and this accident just serves as a horrible reminder of the potential consequences.

jaywalker 5 years, 6 months ago

"So the driver of the car that hits and kills someone who is drunk bears no responsbility?"

How do I know? Based on the very simple hypothetical you pose, with no details, my initial reaction is it'd be the drunk's fault. The roadway is not a pedestrian's domain. If someone steps right into the path of an oncoming vehicle, drunk or sober, and the driver is completely focused on the road and has no opportunity to stop or swerve, then there can be no 'responsibility' placed on that driver, can there? This whole premise is veering from the original argument.

"if someone is drunk and their judgement is impaired, how can we expect them to exercise good judgement?"

You keep going back to this well and it's lost its impact. Yes, a drinker's judgement is impaired but that does not transfer responsibility in any fashion. The onus is on the drinker to control and conduct himself. Your mother gets in a wreck with a drunk driver or hits a drunk who stumbles out in front of her car; you'd say, "OH! Well, he was drunk and didn't have the 'judgement' necessary to function properly, so it's my mom's fault." ???? You drink = you will become impaired = you know this before you start = YOU are responsible for your actions and the consequences that follow. That's it. You don't get to say afterwards, 'well, I was drinking so some other people have to share in the blame."

monkeyhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Tom was one of a kind. He was incredibly respectful, honest and caring. He was the definition of "one of the good ones".

Some of you seem to want to defend the drunk cruiser for some reason. Maybe it's the new "spread the blame, no responsibility" attitude our country is consumed with. I don't know and I don't get it. It is easy to hold to your unaffected objectivity when you are completely detached from the situation, but if it had been your parent, child or sibling, maybe you would want some accountability and not conjure up pretend scenarios to support your points of view.

I will state again to Jake:

I hope that every night before you go to sleep, you remember the night you chose to drink and then drive. That the sound of the crushing steel and breaking glass remains fresh in your brain, and that you see Tom's face in your dreams. That you continue to experience that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you snapped out of it and realized that you had taken a life through your actions. I hope you will be haunted every waking minute and that maybe one day you can be even a fraction of the man Tom was.

kateku 5 years, 6 months ago

"Some of you seem to want to defend the drunk cruiser for some reason".

Moneyhawk, could you please tell me who you are referring to as I remember reading that both parties BAC's were above the legal limit and both were driving vehicles that night. Who is the drunk cruiser and who was just driving drunk?

I think it's reasonable to be upset about the fact that Mr. Deckert fled the scene of the accident. That doesn't make him a very decent human being, but we must remember, that there were TWO drunk drivers out on the road that night.

bearded_gnome 5 years, 6 months ago

and, there's no indication that Crum's driving was impaired. no report of his having troubled driving. he was apparently driving as he ought to have been when jakie deckert hit him.


greed?

shame on you.

I'm sure that the sons have no such intention. when somebody dies this way there's a huge amount of expense. furthermore, Deckert wasn't punished properly. so, maybe like OJ, this way will get some justice for the victims.

and his sons are victims. they certainly don't deserve to be impuned publicly with descriptions like "greedy."

I remember Deckert's spacebook page like Sigmund does. shameful.

Sigmund 5 years, 6 months ago

There was absolutely no evidence that Tom's driving was in any way impaire, despite his BAC. He was not speeding, weaving from lane to lane, running stop signs, driving with his lights off, etc. All the evidence was that it was ONLY Jake who ran a stop sign and slammed into Tom's car killing him. Had they both ran stop signs and slammed into each other then those blaming Tom would have a point, but that did not happen here.

Jake then fled the scene to go change his booze cuzin myface pages and remove pictures of himself passed out behind the wheel. There has NEVER been a legal finding that Tom was at fault in the least or that his BAC in anyway contributed to the accident. If Tom had been completely sober Tom would be just as dead and Jake would still be a cowardly POS punk.

bearded_gnome 5 years, 6 months ago

well Sigmund, at least this time we didn't have the "you didn't know Jake" "Jake is a good guy, he just made a mistake" fools on here.

kateku 5 years, 6 months ago

"Does a drunk woman bare some responsibility if she gets raped? Does a drunk person bare responsibility if they are robbed? Does a drunk person bare responsibility if someone takes a shot at them?"

None2 -- There is NO way you can think that those three CRIMES are anything like the accident that happened that night. I understand that what Jake did by leaving the scene was a crime, but take that out of the equation and it's two drunk drivers that were involved in an accident.

Also, the three crimes you described were premeditated... this one was not... and don't even say that knowingly driving while intoxicated makes it premeditated, because then both drivers should have equal blame.

I realize that Jake should have gotten a lenghtier sentence, but that was the Judge's fault, not his.

Maybe if the boys would have taken their father home that night, we wouldn't be here posting on this board today. God bless them.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.