Escape a murder attempt, lose your license

[wolfie]

This is a tough one, since it involves a conflict between 2 social woes - domestic violence and drunk driving.

After drinking at a resort, Jennifer Axelberg and her husband returned to there cabin, where an argument ensued that quickly became physical. Her options: Barricade herself in the cabin? No, he was blocking the door. Run back to the resort? No, he can run faster than she can. Call the police? No, he had taken her cellphone. Barricade herself in the car? That option was available.

Oops! He jumps on the hood and starts breaking the windshield to get to her. Options now - stay and get killed, or drive to somewhere she can get help. She takes off for the resort, he follows on foot. Bystander calls the cops, and keeps the two separate until the cops arrive. he's arrested for domestic violence, she's arrested for DWI, and automatically loses her license for a year.

Because DWI in Minnesota is a civil matter, the state argued that the necessity defense didn't apply, and the court of appeals agreed. Ironically, if there had been a pistol in the glove compartment, and she'd used it to shoot him, she wouldn't have faced any penalty, since self-defense is an affirmative defense in homicide cases. Does this mean that so far as Minnesota is concerned, a simple (i.e. no collision, no injuries) DWI is a more serious matter than killing someone?

[Panacea]

Because DWI in Minnesota is a civil matter, the state argued that the necessity defense didn't apply, and the court of appeals agreed. Ironically, if there had been a pistol in the glove compartment, and she'd used it to shoot him, she wouldn't have faced any penalty, since self-defense is an affirmative defense in homicide cases. Does this mean that so far as Minnesota is concerned, a simple (i.e. no collision, no injuries) DWI is a more serious matter than killing someone?

Actually it is. If she had hit and killed someone, their family would not be appeased by the story that she was driving drunk to escape her husband. One person should not have to die to save another.

I'm fine with this penalty. If it were me, I'd deal with the charge cheerfully; well worth the price of staying alive.

[HYHYBT]

Actually it is. If she had hit and killed someone, their family would not be appeased by the story that she was driving drunk to escape her husband. One person should not have to die to save another.

And if she'd shot him with that hypothetical gun, missed, and hit someone else instead, what would she be convicted of?

[gremcint]

I'm sorry but actually considering recently a woman got 20 years for a warning shot that hurt noone yeah she'd probably still get in trouble.

[s_stabeler]

And if she'd shot him with that hypothetical gun, missed, and hit someone else instead, what would she be convicted of?

depends on if the person ht survived. Probably assault with a deadly weapon if the person survived, if not, then murder. ( Assault with a deadly weapon because I doubt a prosecutor would want to try for attempted murder)

[Panacea]

And if she'd shot him with that hypothetical gun, missed, and hit someone else instead, what would she be convicted of?

People are still responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if they act in self defense. If you kill someone else defending yourself, then there is a reasonable conclusion you did not act in a prudent manner defending yourself.

The most likely charge would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, because the death was not intentional and committed while performing an otherwise legal act.

[Jester]

I love driving. I love my truck.

I love living more than either of the above.

[Dakhur]

I'm fine with this penalty. If it were me, I'd deal with the charge cheerfully; well worth the price of staying alive.

Then I'm very happy for you, but you are so far out of your tree, you're in another forest.

Escaping for your life trumps anything else! And no respectable cop or court should have charged her. If her job is dependent on her driving, she just become unemployed. On benefits. Possibly her house, her career, her car, all this may be on the line, because she resisted assault by removing herself from the scene in the most efficient manner possible.

Driving after drinking.

If she hadn't, the bleating would be "why didn't she just drive away?" Now she's punished because she did just that.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[BlaqueKatt]

Escaping for your life trumps anything else! And no respectable cop or court should have charged her.

Including any other life she might have endangered or taken? Also not charging her opens up a whole can of worms for people to wrongfully accuse others of assault to get out of a DUI. The law is not a "pick and choose", that would be the logical fallacy of special pleading

If her job is dependent on her driving, she just become unemployed. On benefits. Possibly her house, her career, her car, all this may be on the line

Nope Minnesota has "limited licenses" that allow someone with a revoked or suspended license to drive:

to and from a job, or for a job;
to chemical dependency treatment;
to provide for the educational, medical, or nutritional needs of the family; and/or
for attendance at a post-secondary educational institution.

[Rageaholic]

I think they should have taken her circumstance into account.

At least she didn't get any jail time. And at least her husband was arrested too.

[Andara Bledin]

I think they should have taken her circumstance into account.

At least she didn't get any jail time. And at least her husband was arrested too.

Seems to me that not giving her jail time was taking her circumstances into account.

[Kelmon]

That seems incredibly petty to me. Punish the victim for saving her life?

I think it's handled quite reasonably in our law, called "justifiable emergency" - Basically, you are allowed to break any law to avoid an emergency (for your life, for the life of others, your or their property or freedom), if the law broken is less "important" than the issue at hand.

A classic example for this law is that you're allowed to drive someone in critical condition to a hospital, if there's no other way - no matter if you're drunk or even don't have a driving license.

[TheHuckster]

That seems incredibly petty to me. Punish the victim for saving her life?

There is nothing "petty" about drunk driving. It's a serious crime which has caused many unnecessary deaths.

I think it's handled quite reasonably in our law, called "justifiable emergency" - Basically, you are allowed to break any law to avoid an emergency (for your life, for the life of others, your or their property or freedom), if the law broken is less "important" than the issue at hand.

A classic example for this law is that you're allowed to drive someone in critical condition to a hospital, if there's no other way - no matter if you're drunk or even don't have a driving license.

I searched the web for "Justifiable Emergency" and it came up with nothing. There is a concept of Justifiable Homicide but that is limited to stand your ground laws, issues of self-defense, and issues concerning "killing a conjoined twin to save the other."

It does not cover risking other innocent lives unrelated to the incident, no matter how much at-risk yours or anyone else's is.

Look, I can understand the victim's actions. If it were me in those shoes I very likely would have done the same thing, and in the end if nobody got killed I would have been thankful. However, I'd have to live up to the fact that I did risk the lives of anyone who was sharing the road with me. Had I actually killed those people, I would have had many regrets.

And in many ways, this is a case of the "trolley problem" where the ethics and morality of one action (switching the tracks to save 5 people tied to them but killing 1 on the other path) is generally considered less offensive than another action (throwing a bystander off a bridge into a train's path to stop it from killing 5 people tied to the tracks down the line). In both cases you save 5 lives but sacrifice 1, yet the circumstances of each case define how horrified people feel towards the action. The fact that the woman in question risked the lives of many bystanders to save her life is the factor which makes this a problem.

As many people have said, the judge demonstrated lenience by not giving her jail time, which many DUI offenders receive as part of their sentence. But to give her a free pass for reckless actions just because her life was at stake sets a precedent which can excuse other similarly reckless behavior.

[Panacea]

Nope Minnesota has "limited licenses" that allow someone with a revoked or suspended license to drive:

I think just about every, if not all, states in the US have these kinds of laws.

A friend of mine got this kind of limited license when his license was suspended due to his excessive number of speeding tickets (he was an unrepentant leadfoot). It wasn't easy; he had to deal with arranging rides to do anything other than go to work.

I think they should have taken her circumstance into account.

At least she didn't get any jail time. And at least her husband was arrested too.

Not getting jail time WAS taking her circumstances into account.

I'm glad her husband was arrested, he should have been. But if he hadn't, it would not change my opinion on this issue.

[Kelmon]

There is nothing "petty" about drunk driving. It's a serious crime which has caused many unnecessary deaths. [...]
The fact that the woman in question risked the lives of many bystanders to save her life is the factor which makes this a problem.
As many people have said, the judge demonstrated lenience by not giving her jail time, which many DUI offenders receive as part of their sentence.

First of all, "drunk driving" can be anything from "having had 2 beers" to "having had 2 bottles of tequila". To me, it's ridiculous to apply the same level of "seriousness" to both. (Yes, I know that US law seems very firmly adhering to all-or-nothing, zero-tolerance policies)

Secondly, All that doesn't change the fact that it is petty to punish someone for drunk driving when their life is in danger. (And there is no other way to avoid it). It's not like she got drunk with the intent of driving a car later on. Judging by the article, she basically had no other choice.

Under these circumstances, losing your license for one year already seems like a very harsh punishment to me.

I searched the web for "Justifiable Emergency" and it came up with nothing.

I thought by me saying "our laws" it would be obvious that i'm not living in the US. I'm only saying that this would be handled more reasonably in my country, imho.