Morale Dilema

[GambleGamble]

Friend gets tagged for DWI....yes we all know its wrong and he is an idiot etc....its 3rd offense I believe and a felony...yes I still know he is a complete piece of [censored] and sucks at life...but the first 2 happened 20 years ago etc....

...situation is that he was not driving when it happened he was on side of road with flat when cops pulled up and arrested him, they never seen him physically drive the vehicle....if found guilty loses driving privledges for year which means he cant drive his kids or see him really for that matter (divorced) and pays ton of cash he doesnt have in fines etc....

All you have to do is testify that you drove car but left him there for whatever reasonable reason you could think of....

..What do you do? testify and get him off? or say sorry buddy you gotta pay the price?

[Golden_Rhino]

Help a brotha out.

[Eurotrash]

i was skeptical before i opened the thread, but you do have a genuine morale dilema here

[demon102]

If u think u can get away with it do it up yo.

[Mike E. Vegas]

[ QUOTE ]
Help a brotha out.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JJSCOTT2]

first of all, i don't think morale is the word you're looking for here. Second, unless he admitted it, if the cops never saw him driving, he doesn't have anything to worry about and you don't need to bother testifying.

[WhoIam]

I'm pretty sure people have been convicted of DUIs after being found sleeping in their car by the side of the road so I don't think the "cop never actually saw him driving" defense would work.

[evank15]

There is no morale dilemma here.

This is nothing but bad for morale for all involved.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
if the cops never saw him driving, he doesn't have anything to worry about and you don't need to bother testifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if cops came to the scene of a crash and found the owner of one of the vehicles stumbling around drunk they wouldn't be able to charge him with DUI? lol. Depending on the state he very well could be considered to have had constructive control over the vehicle, in which case it doesn't matter whether the cops saw him driving it.


STOP GIVING LEGAL ADVICE IF YOU AREN'T A [censored] LAWYER.

HYACHAHCAHCAHCAHAHCAHC

[JJSCOTT2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the cops never saw him driving, he doesn't have anything to worry about and you don't need to bother testifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if cops came to the scene of a crash and found the owner of one of the vehicles stumbling around drunk they wouldn't be able to charge him with DUI? lol. Depending on the state he very well could be considered to have had constructive control over the vehicle, in which case it doesn't matter whether the cops saw him driving it.


STOP GIVING LEGAL ADVICE IF YOU AREN'T A [censored] LAWYER.

HYACHAHCAHCAHCAHAHCAHC

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I'm not a lawyer, but my best friend is a state trooper and he says all the times he comes upon single car accidents where the owner of the car is obviously drunk and he can't charge them with DUI because he has no evidence that they were driving. Don't know if this is a state by state thing but that's just what I know. If I'm wrong, I apologize.