Tense moment at Houston Trayvon protest

[Tic Tac]

If criminals are blocking the road, there is no way I could morally vote to convict a driver who refused to stop for the criminals, no matter their age or ethnicity.

[EEllis]

The mental picture I have is a car being surrounded by a an angry mob, screaming, pounding on the hood, roof, doors, etc. as someone pulls slowly through. I am not trying to paint a picture of someone going 30 mph and plowing through a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion that such actions would not create a public firestorm that could make the TM-GZ saga look like an obscure event. Trying to argue necessity would be a difficult and expensive process. But if the life our your child is saved . . . .?

Comment?

But the scenario now is different from what you originally posed, basicly you seem to be asking is if there isn't some scenario where it is legal. I'm not sure there is. It would seem to me to be a jury nullification issue. I don't think you could really argue that the law allows it just try and work the jury so they don't care and let you off anyway.

No, I haven't changed the scenario, in that I have never advocated plowing through a crowd at 30 mph. However, I have further elaborated on the mental picture that I have held all along. A car surrounded by a mob slowly pushing through without stopping.

I see you didn't comment one way or the other on the necessity defense. So you are basically saying jury nullification is the only avenue?

What necessity? In this case it wasn't a true emergency or they could of stopped at any number of any hospitals. If it was life or death I think you could try an argue nullification because I don't believe having an ill passenger would allow you to just plow ahead. Now if the mob was really attacking you putting your lives in direct and real jeopardy then yes I believe you could drive thru the crowd but even that is different from your going forward regardless. If a someone falls will you just keep going? That to me was what you were saying so I think it's a very high bar to be legally justifiable. Mind you all this is just so far from what happened and the odds of the circumstances occurring as such are......... well even calling this speculative is being generous.

[EEllis]

A car slowly pushing through a mob with a sick child is going to be looked upon much more favorably by authorities then:
1. Someone flying through
2. Someone opening up (on camnera mind you) on a crowd.

What exactly would the charge be for the slow push approach? I know what it would be for #1 and #2 and would use those as a last resort.

I think it would depend on what happens to the crowd. First how sick and why didn't you stop somewhere else rather than take the kid downtown. Sure that's were the kids doctor was and all of that but in a true emergency you would haul butt to the nearest best ER not go to the kids doc so unless someone is bleeding out I would wonder about the whole sick kid thing. First how much of an effort do you make to try and min the damage and how bad do you hurt people when you drive thru. If you don't injure anyone then you will get off scott free most times. Kill someone I would think Manslaughter would be the most serious possibility but there are a whole range of offenses.

[Cedar Park Dad]

A car slowly pushing through a mob with a sick child is going to be looked upon much more favorably by authorities then:
1. Someone flying through
2. Someone opening up (on camnera mind you) on a crowd.

What exactly would the charge be for the slow push approach? I know what it would be for #1 and #2 and would use those as a last resort.

I think it would depend on what happens to the crowd. First how sick and why didn't you stop somewhere else rather than take the kid downtown. Sure that's were the kids doctor was and all of that but in a true emergency you would haul butt to the nearest best ER not go to the kids doc so unless someone is bleeding out I would wonder about the whole sick kid thing. First how much of an effort do you make to try and min the damage and how bad do you hurt people when you drive thru. If you don't injure anyone then you will get off scott free most times. Kill someone I would think Manslaughter would be the most serious possibility but there are a whole range of offenses.

I don't think the "alternative hopsital" scenario works as IIRC but the truck was on 288 or the offramp. I like clarity in what was "shut down" and what wasn't. But if the protesters actually clambered onto 288 then that would immediately back up traffic and the only way to go is forward most likely (wow, they must be braver then I am to try to shut down 288 if it was moving at speed).

I'm assuming "allergic reaction" is something like a wasp bite allergic reaction that can, in fact, kill you. Something inconveniencing is not going to cut it, nor should it.

The advantage of doing the 3 mph thing is that its highly unlikely anyone gets hurt.

[mamabearCali]

Why would someone not go to the nearest hospital? Perhaps they had been told by an MD go to X hospital and no others. Our son had a reaction to a bug bite and we went to Z hospital (great for having babies at). We were told by our MD next time to go to Y hospital as they had the best children's hospital in the area and wold be better able handle it.

[EEllis]

I don't think the "alternative hopsital" scenario works as IIRC but the truck was on 288 or the offramp. I like clarity in what was "shut down" and what wasn't. But if the protesters actually clambered onto 288 then that would immediately back up traffic and the only way to go is forward most likely (wow, they must be braver then I am to try to shut down 288 if it was moving at speed).

I'm assuming "allergic reaction" is something like a wasp bite allergic reaction that can, in fact, kill you. Something inconveniencing is not going to cut it, nor should it.

The advantage of doing the 3 mph thing is that its highly unlikely anyone gets hurt.

I don't think it was a get there or die thing because the family wouldn't of gone to that hospital but would of gone to a closer one instead. While they couldn't change after they were stopped that they didn't think it was serious enough to go to the closest ER means it's not life and death.

[EEllis]

Why would someone not go to the nearest hospital? Perhaps they had been told by an MD go to X hospital and no others. Our son had a reaction to a bug bite and we went to Z hospital (great for having babies at). We were told by our MD next time to go to Y hospital as they had the best children's hospital in the area and wold be better able handle it.

You have to know houston. It has more hospitals than any city I've ever seen and most are very good. Sure there are places that specialize but in a true life and death not "hurry" you may go a extra min or two to a particular hospital but not more than that. You certainly wouldn't be going downtown past the Med Center to any hospital that is downtown if it were an emergency.

[gigag04]

I don't think it was a get there or die thing because the family wouldn't of gone to that hospital but would of gone to a closer one instead. While they couldn't change after they were stopped that they didn't think it was serious enough to go to the closest ER means it's not life and death.

I disagree - you assume they knew everything relevant to her condition at the time.

[EEllis]

I don't think it was a get there or die thing because the family wouldn't of gone to that hospital but would of gone to a closer one instead. While they couldn't change after they were stopped that they didn't think it was serious enough to go to the closest ER means it's not life and death.

I disagree - you assume they knew everything relevant to her condition at the time.

You disagree with what? That I believe that if they thought it was they would of most likely gone to a different hospital or heck called 911? Cus I'm pretty sure that is what I think.

[gigag04]

I don't think it was a get there or die thing because the family wouldn't of gone to that hospital but would of gone to a closer one instead. While they couldn't change after they were stopped that they didn't think it was serious enough to go to the closest ER means it's not life and death.

I disagree - you assume they knew everything relevant to her condition at the time.

You disagree with what? That I believe that if they thought it was they would of most likely gone to a different hospital or heck called 911? Cus I'm pretty sure that is what I think.

Just throwing some bait out. It worked.

[GrillKing]

Sometimes a more distant hospital is the better alternative, due to specialization. It is a judgement call but in Austin for example, severe trauma almost always goes to the major trauma center, Brackenridge, rather than nearer hospitals.The back of an ambulance is better for those extra minutes than the ER of a lower level trauma center.

[EEllis]

Sometimes a more distant hospital is the better alternative, due to specialization. It is a judgement call but in Austin for example, severe trauma almost always goes to the major trauma center, Brackenridge, rather than nearer hospitals.The back of an ambulance is better for those extra minutes than the ER of a lower level trauma center.

Sure and there are heart hospitals and brain hospitals and ones they always send burn victims to. None of that would be true in this case since they passed up the med center to go to a hospital downtown.

[GrillKing]

Sometimes a more distant hospital is the better alternative, due to specialization. It is a judgement call but in Austin for example, severe trauma almost always goes to the major trauma center, Brackenridge, rather than nearer hospitals.The back of an ambulance is better for those extra minutes than the ER of a lower level trauma center.

Sure and there are heart hospitals and brain hospitals and ones they always send burn victims to. None of that would be true in this case since they passed up the med center to go to a hospital downtown.

That's why i said "sometimes" and "is a judgement call". We don't really know, maybe they have history there with the staff, or maybe they could have made a better decision. Doesn't really matter though. The bottom line it was their decision, the croud was threatening, they were what looked to be in at least an urgent if not emergency situation.

However, if they needed to go to the nearest hospital due to a true emergency situation, you could also make an argument that EMS should have been dispatched. Usually this increases your odds.....

[Keith B]

Sure and there are heart hospitals and brain hospitals and ones they always send burn victims to. None of that would be true in this case since they passed up the med center to go to a hospital downtown.

Disagree. Suburban hospitals may not have as high a grade trauma center or ER. A good example Parkland in Dallas has the best trauma ER for gunshot wounds. That is because they see and treat a lot of them. They will be much more adept at treating this type of injury so if I have an option and the time to get there then I would prefer their experience and expertise in treatment.

[EEllis]

Sometimes a more distant hospital is the better alternative, due to specialization. It is a judgement call but in Austin for example, severe trauma almost always goes to the major trauma center, Brackenridge, rather than nearer hospitals.The back of an ambulance is better for those extra minutes than the ER of a lower level trauma center.

Sure and there are heart hospitals and brain hospitals and ones they always send burn victims to. None of that would be true in this case since they passed up the med center to go to a hospital downtown.

That's why i said "sometimes" and "is a judgement call". We don't really know, maybe they have history there with the staff, or maybe they could have made a better decision. Doesn't really matter though. The bottom line it was their decision, the croud was threatening, they were what looked to be in at least an urgent if not emergency situation.

However, if they needed to go to the nearest hospital due to a true emergency situation, you could also make an argument that EMS should have been dispatched. Usually this increases your odds.....

Yep you can make that argument. I don't have any doubt they thought timing was urgent and really wanted to get by but remember the discussion has somehow gotten to if it would be acceptable to shoot or run over protesters "because". Now I'm sure you can pile on things and finally get to the point where you might have a chance at getting away with having done so. My point is just that so far no one has gotten even close to that level and the possibilities of doing so are vanishingly slim. Basicly if you can think of any, and I do mean any other way, then you should do so and even with that it better be for something so important that you except going to jail as a possible consequence.