Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Fatal accidents require tests

August 27, 2013

It is inspiring to see how quickly people can go from mourning the loss of a friend and loved one to helping others....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

MrBoB51

Aug-27-13 11:57 AM

"No tickets were issued, and alcohol was no factor in that accident, Fulton?County Sheriff Thomas Lorey said". Is the Sheriff lying?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Insane

Aug-27-13 12:08 PM

Eddie’s law is a bad idea and is redundant. Many people are on prescription drugs and each person responds differently to the effects of these drugs, even simple cold medicine can make one person drowsy while having no impact on another. Requiring a person to be forced to give blood or other fluids will only determine if a person has the drug in his or her system and will not tell you how the person reacts while taking the drug. Secondly who is going to pay for these tests and which drugs are we going to test for? What happens with a false positive? You can’t retest days or weeks later. Currently the Police have sufficient methods to determine how an accident was caused and have the ability to investigate accidents include lab tests. Let the Police do their job as they have been for many years. The cost in dollars, loss of privacy and wrongful prosecutions is not worth the risk, the current system is more than adequate to investigate and find the truth. If these tests were conclusiv

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ron1960

Aug-27-13 12:33 PM

While I knew Ed very little and I liked him from what I knew of him and had much respect for him. How ever we do not need yet another law named after an individual. Our state legislature needs to spend much more time getting our state back to where it should be and not wasting time passing laws that do not accomplish much, How many of these laws that were passed with some ones name attached to it have done what it was designed to do, Not very many. I am sorry for ED's family for their loss but this law will not stop accidents like that one from happening. how many times have accidents happened and the party that caused the accident was found to be under the influence or over the legal limit of alcohol and they were allowed to walk away and are still out there driving, the laws that are on the books now are not being prosecuted.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Aug-27-13 1:18 PM

Mandatory drug testing when there is no indication of drug use or probable cause, violates our 4th Amendment rights to unreasonable search. Sometimes accidents just happen. This is a knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate incident that cost a man's life but it will not stop accidents.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Aug-27-13 1:28 PM

In every fatal accident report either on radio reporting or in newspapers there is the statement from someone that the 'toxicology report will be issued in a couple of days'...or some such version. We do not need any more laws that trample our rights and give even more power to a Police State, they have too much as far as I'm concerned.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-27-13 1:59 PM

I understand that this new proposed law is sponsored by one of my favorite posters on this site. Like MrBob said there are already plenty of laws to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. Officers are trained to notice every detail and if they have any questions they always go that extra step. If the police did their job properly (and I believe that they did a great job) and the officers did not suspect that drugs or alcohol played a part in the accident, it likely didn't. I am sure that the idea of driving under the influence of any substances were forefront in the minds of all involved I find it hard to believe it could have slipped past them. But I do find it funny that the party that is behind legalizing drug use wants to add drug laws to the books. Ironic even!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-27-13 1:59 PM

Better question. Why should it matter if he had been drinking or on drugs. Dead is dead and the bicyclist has just as much right to that lane as any one else. Mr. Damphier showed extreme negligence and depraved indifference towards life. He should be charged with manslaughter.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-27-13 2:01 PM

I understand that this new proposed law is sponsored by one of my favorite posters on this site. Like MrBob said there are already plenty of laws to protect the innocent and convict the guilty.

Good point. Maybe we should petition the Sheriffs office to start enforcing the laws.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-27-13 2:01 PM

Continued.

Perhaps Ms. Sira can convene a grand jury.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Aug-27-13 3:09 PM

Well, let me shed more light on it. The driver has a history of DWAI. He hit Mr. Lakata in broad daylight on a clear day, killing him. Was he under the influence of drugs? We don't know. A mandatory chemical test, costing $44, would either convict him or exonerate him. Doesn't it make sense to require it? Driving is a privilege, not a right, and a test after a fatal accident is hardly an invasion of his rights.

The petition was the result of a conversation between many people on Bill Trojann's Facebook page, of which I was only a small part. Many, many people think mandatory testing is a good idea. We reached our goal of 1,000 signatures in less than four days.

There is an "Eddie's Law" already proposed. It passes the NYS Senate, but fails in the Assembly. Our goal is to push it through the Assembly.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lizzie

Aug-27-13 4:32 PM

The Gazette editorial was better....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Aug-27-13 7:17 PM

Dave, sorry but the mandatory drug test would not 'either convict him or exonerate him'. It's results could only be used at trial, not pre-trial and not for a plea. And the results themselves do not 'convict' or 'exonerate'. Juries do that.

To be quite honest, anything 'automatic' should be approached with hesitation. If the police don't have the p.c. to suspect drugs were a factor in a crash, then there should be no reason to test.

I don't see this law gaining much traction. The scores of suits will file on the grounds that everyone else here suspects in that submission to a blood test in which the police failed to provide any p.c. would be considered an illegal seizure of that blood.

Now, however, if the police responded to the scene of a fatal accident and the driver was acting erratically or had blood-shot eyes or looked like they were tweaking on some of the good ol' stuff, p.c. is established and voila, your charges are pressed.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-27-13 11:02 PM

the law is a bad idea. And swizzer, what if the accused gave blood for a test voluntarily and the blood came back clean??? Somehow I get the feeling that pending charges would go away. You really need to get your head from where the sun don't shine.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-28-13 7:29 AM

RS welcome to the right side on this one! Maybe you do listen?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Aug-28-13 8:39 AM

So dave, being guilty in the court of liberal opinion is supposed to mean something?? That did not work out so well in the Zimmerman Case did it??? It may work in backasswards places like Egypt but mob rule democracy does not fit in a Federal Republic like America. You can pervert the meaning of 'democracy' all you want, but a turd is a turd and it's still mob rule. So polish away.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Aug-28-13 10:02 AM

drugsrus, what the h-ell are you talking about? I'm on the same 'side' with you on this proposed law.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Aug-28-13 10:03 AM

TiredOfTax, not so fast. Just because we agree on one or two things doesn't mean we're bff's :).

I still have a brain and can think for myself using logic and critical thinking skills without the need for someone to tell me what to do, say, or think.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-28-13 12:08 PM

swizzer, again you don't read correctly. I never disagreed with your position, only the FACT that a clean blood test would certainly prove the accused innocent of being under the influence.

"I still have a brain" REALLY????? "and can think for myself using logic and critical thinking skills without the need for someone to tell me what to do, say, or think." - IF you have a brain Scarecrow, you don't use it too much

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Aug-28-13 12:26 PM

Really rs, speaking for myself you may believe the second paragraph you wrote but I don't. You have demonstrated time and again your lack of knowledge of current affairs and your propensity for regurgitating liberal ideology and issuing outright lies, assumptions and indictments to those of us who challenge liberalism. You did that to yourself, now live with it.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-28-13 12:41 PM

ToT - re-swizzer - even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-28-13 1:58 PM

Whoa there RS, I never and I do repeat NEVER said we were buds... even further to BFFS... you simply had ONE good post!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lizzie

Aug-28-13 1:59 PM

Whever someone references the Zimmerman trial, and the "court of public opinion" that "didn't work out so well...

....it reminds me of OJ Simpson.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Aug-28-13 2:20 PM

MrBoB51, I'm not a liberal.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-28-13 5:32 PM

swizzer, have you been watching old Nixon tapes ???

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BillLair

Aug-28-13 6:35 PM

Dave, you continually refer to the driver's "history" of DWAI on here and elsewhere. Please tell us what that history is regarding being charged with, or convicted of, DWAI prior to the fatal accident. I have not seen any such history publicized, but I may have missed it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web