Good for her

[steve]

Seems like the mother of the Howard boy run down by the cops buddy a few years ago,has these cops facing a tribunal about not issuing the breath test.Probably nothing will happen but good job not giving up!!!!!!!! I SALUTE YOU!

[kitca]

it wasnt the cops buddy.

[lynys]

Yes, he was. And, when someone in an accident admits to having even one drink, they should be tested.

[MaO3]

I agree Steve, she deserves to be applauded. I think that right from the start something was"rotten in denmark" with respect to this whole situation. An average person on the roads gets into an accident if they admit to having had a beer a breathalizer would be administered. Why not this guy? When he had just struck and killed a young man, why did he not get run through every sobriety test known to man. If for no other reason but to cover thier asses!

[Soundbear]

Cops covering up?? Not necessarily.

But hiding dumb procedural errors?? Absolutely!!!

[KDawg]

Good for the mother to keep pushing. At the very least she deserves answers that SHE thinks are satisfactory.

Is this in the news?

[riggs]

Good for the mother to keep pushing. At the very least she deserves answers that SHE thinks are satisfactory.

Is this in the news?

I believe it was on the evening news

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Rest well, Matt.
The truth will be told...

[official soonet pu$$ycat]

"were in your corner"

I hope the mother takes this as far as it could possibly go. The injustice in this case is horrible and it goes beyond just the breathalyzer.

[official soonet pu$$ycat]

http://www.saultthisweek.com/Article...aspx?e=3550177

[velle]

Yup,relative is a cop....."we got your back".

[official soonet pu$$ycat]

What's weird is they didn't just say we got your back to him as a nice thing to say while interviewing him, the inspector made it a point to get other officers to call the driver just to tell him that according the the 60+ page report.

[Miles From Nowhere]

Cops covering up?? Not necessarily.

But hiding dumb procedural errors?? Absolutely!!!

I have no dog in this fight but what is the difference?

[Soundbear]

I have no dog in this fight but what is the difference?

I was thinking the first protects the culprit, the second protects themselves.

[Upper Decker]

I remember saying this was happening right from the get go, and another member came on here like a bat out of hell with scathing and insulting remarks since it was a friend of thiers and that there was zero foul play - in fact a few members here said it was the kids fault for walking on the road at 5am.

[ohgrfan]

I thought that its a mandatory thing, regardless whether someone tells the cop they had only one drink. Isn't it an automatic breath test, even if you admit to only having one drink? At least that's what I though the rules were:/

[kitca]

its not just a machine they have in their car or something to give a test. they have to call out a unit to perform the tests. they have to use their judgement as to if a person is intoxicated or not. that is what i read in the report anyway. i remember being in an accident and the officer getting really close and personal with us. then a couple of days later the other people changed their story and accused us of drinking and switching seats. we did not and were not and had all the seatbelt bruises to prove it. but the officer at that time said to us ' do you remember how close and personal we were getting, that wasnt just being friendly, we were checking your breath, your eyes, pupils, etc etc... ... "

in the case of this accident, the accused wasnt really impaired, he was texting. that was the problem.

[lynys]

They don't know if he was impaired, because they did not test him.

If one admits to having a drink, they should be tested. Right then and there.

[official soonet pu$$ycat]

He said he had "1 or 2 drinks". Sorry but you know if you had one or two.

[gouligann]

Good for that mother. The cops were protecting a buddy and that's all there is to it. No matter who it is, if there is an admission to someone having even a "drink or two", there should have been a breathalizer done. IF NOTHING ELSE, a breathalizer would have protected the cops who were at the accident scene and totally cleared the driver's name from alcohol being a part of the cause. IMO, an accident involving a death is serious sh*t, and that driver should have been checked at the site right then and there.