Law of Acadamnics: Drunk Woman Hands Over Car Keys to Boyfriend & Faces Prison for it

[onedef92]

Drunk Woman Hands Over Car Keys to Boyfriend & Faces 30 Years in Prison for It!

Posted on February 21, 2012 at 6:18 PM

She probably thought she was doing the right thing. When 21-year-old Erin Brown was too wasted to drive her Toyota Scion home after a night out on the town, she gave the keys to her boyfriend, Trevor Bradshaw.

Which would’ve been a responsible decision, except he was drunk too — and ended up hitting and killing two pedestrians as he swerved through the streets of Nashville. That’s tragic in and of itself.

But prosecutors are now dusting off a rarely used law to charge Brown with vehicular homicide right along with her man, citing that anyone who knowingly hands over their keys to an intoxicated person is just as liable for any damages as the individual behind the wheel. Now she’s facing 30 years in jail because she wasn’t astute enough in her drunkenness to realize that her boo was too tipsy to drive.

So what we’re basically saying here is that it was up to Brown to discern how far gone Bradshaw was rather than it being up to him to admit that he was too stewed to play chauffeur. Under that line of thinking, it must be a mugging victim’s fault for wearing a super snazzy handbag and tempting a renegade thief to steal it.

The sad fallout from their bad decision-making means two young men are now dead: Michael Brooksher, 22, and Tommy Allen, 23. The best friends both suffered injuries that killed them shortly after they were plowed down at 2:30 in the morning back in December. If the D.A.’s office has its way, this incident will also claim the lives of two more young people, with Brown and Bradshaw serving three decades behind bars, which puts them darn near in their golden years by the time they get out if they serve full sentences.

I’m not saying break out the violins and sad movie music for either of them, especially him. How many high school health classes and bad after school specials does someone have sit through before they get the message that driving drunk, bad; calling taxi, good? But I do think that, barring any idiotic new developments that confirm she was well aware of how inebriated her man actually was, prosecutors are trying — unnecessarily — to make an example out of her.

There are a lot of laws on the books that we all could be slapped with and long suffering because of. In New Jersey, cabbage can't be sold on Sunday, and in Missouri, a man must have a permit to shave. Yet we’re footloose and fancy-free when it comes to those rules.

My point is, there are oodles of stupid, silly, downright foolish regulations that we don’t honor or observe. Why crank up this one?

[kylebuck]

I was going to say something meaningful and what not but damn she is hot.

[Rob]

I remember this happening...Both of them are in DEEP trouble over this one

for all of the people involved

[MrPeabody]

She broke the law and caused the death of two people. The fact she was drunk at the time does not excuse her actions.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by joebuck

I was going to say something meaningful and what not but damn she is hot.

Bail her out and do her, Joey.

[kylebuck]

Originally Posted by MrPeabody

Bail her out and do her, Joey.

hmm for barn raising huh... that way one of yall can bang her in my bathroom.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by TxAg

... knowingly hands over their keys ...

If she was that drunk one could argue she didn't "know" her BF was drunk. Thus the law was not broken.

She "knowingly handed over her keys". From what I've read here (and neitherof us has read the actual entire text of the law) she didn't have to know whether he was drunk, just "knowingly hand over the keys". Being drunk does not excuse anyone from breaking the law. I doubt she will get 30 years, but I bet she gets convicted. At the very least, she's got a civil lewsuit problem.

[Cybercowboy]

Well, taken to the logical conclusion, the place that served her alcohol is liable of vehicular homicide because they served her enough alcohol that she handed her keys over to another person who they served enough alcohol to be pretty damn drunk.

Or we could just do what makes sense and hold the actual person behind the wheel liable since anything else results in a host of questionable ethical issues.

What if you give your keys to a person who you don't know is stoned to the bone (but they are), and it's proven that you know this person sometimes partakes? What if you are a bit tipsy and give your keys to a person who had just one drink but unknown to you they also were taking prescription meds and something like this happens?

It's pretty easy to be sanctimonious over such a thing, holding her to a standard that is one hell of a slippery slope.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by MrPeabody

She "knowingly handed over her keys". From what I've read here (and neitherof us has read the actual entire text of the law) she didn't have to know whether he was drunk, just "knowingly hand over the keys".

Just going by the article...

knowingly hands over their keys to an intoxicated person

Knowing that the person is intoxicated sounds to me like the main part of it.


Like the article said, I'm not breaking out a violin for the girl... but this does seem a little over the top.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by TxAg

I guess we read the text of the law in the article differently.

I agree the actual text of the law would be useful.

Being drunk "might" excuse her, depends on the law and her lawyer.

I agree the civil suit is gonna suck for her (and her family).

Yeah. One way or another, she's in deep chit.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Well, taken to the logical conclusion, the place that served her alcohol is liable of vehicular homicide because they served her enough alcohol that she handed her keys over to another person who they served enough alcohol to be pretty damn drunk.

Or we could just do what makes sense and hold the actual person behind the wheel liable since anything else results in a host of questionable ethical issues.

What if you give your keys to a person who you don't know is stoned to the bone (but they are), and it's proven that you know this person sometimes partakes? What if you are a bit tipsy and give your keys to a person who had just one drink but unknown to you they also were taking prescription meds and something like this happens?

It's pretty easy to be sanctimonious over such a thing, holding her to a standard that is one hell of a slippery slope.

One of the reasons I quit bartending over ten years ago. Too much liability problems.

[NeedSpeed]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Well, taken to the logical conclusion, the place that served her alcohol is liable of vehicular homicide because they served her enough alcohol that she handed her keys over to another person who they served enough alcohol to be pretty damn drunk.

Or we could just do what makes sense and hold the actual person behind the wheel liable since anything else results in a host of questionable ethical issues.

What if you give your keys to a person who you don't know is stoned to the bone (but they are), and it's proven that you know this person sometimes partakes? What if you are a bit tipsy and give your keys to a person who had just one drink but unknown to you they also were taking prescription meds and something like this happens?

It's pretty easy to be sanctimonious over such a thing, holding her to a standard that is one hell of a slippery slope.

No, they should sue Jack, or maybe Jose. Yeah if Jack Daniels didn't make the stuff in the first place, the bar couldn't sell it and she wouldn't have gotten so drunk as to do what she probably thought was the responsible thing to do at the time.

[ft laud mike]

Originally Posted by TxAg

... knowingly hands over their keys ...

If she was that drunk one could argue she didn't "know" her BF was drunk. Thus the law was not broken.

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Well, taken to the logical conclusion, the place that served her alcohol is liable of vehicular homicide because they served her enough alcohol that she handed her keys over to another person who they served enough alcohol to be pretty damn drunk.

Or we could just do what makes sense and hold the actual person behind the wheel liable since anything else results in a host of questionable ethical issues.

What if you give your keys to a person who you don't know is stoned to the bone (but they are), and it's proven that you know this person sometimes partakes? What if you are a bit tipsy and give your keys to a person who had just one drink but unknown to you they also were taking prescription meds and something like this happens?

It's pretty easy to be sanctimonious over such a thing, holding her to a standard that is one hell of a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by NeedSpeed

No, they should sue Jack, or maybe Jose. Yeah if Jack Daniels didn't make the stuff in the first place, the bar couldn't sell it and she wouldn't have gotten so drunk as to do what she probably thought was the responsible thing to do at the time.

Exactly, where does one's personal responsibility start. If GF was too drunk to drive, I don't think she had the faculties to decide on someone else's "soberness". Liability should stop with the BF, unless we are going to sue all the above, might as well add the state liqour licensing board, they got the ball started by giving the bar the ability to sell alcohol.

[island14]

Originally Posted by TxAg

I guess we read the text of the law in the article differently.

I agree the actual text of the law would be useful.

Being drunk "might" excuse her, depends on the law and her lawyer.

I agree the civil suit is gonna suck for her (and her family).

Originally Posted by ft laud mike

Exactly, where does one's personal responsibility start. If GF was too drunk to drive, I don't think she had the faculties to decide on someone else's "soberness". Liability should stop with the BF, unless we are going to sue all the above, might as well add the state liqour licensing board, they got the ball started by giving the bar the ability to sell alcohol.

"anyone who knowingly hands over their keys to an intoxicated person"


I'm going to agree with "knowingly" is very arguable if she was drunk herself, and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

[Petew1971]

The DA pressing charges needs his fcking head yanked out of his asshole. What a peice of shit the DA is. Fcking Child Molester most likely.