GeorgeWBush wrote:
Eh. I'm a huge fan of seeing people step up...love the story about the big guy with the cane, that's great stuff. But I can see how someone may have an issue with this story.

First, the title of the post is a bit over the top. That indicates to me that a heroic light is the only one that's going to shine, from an individual who is both the protagonist & the sole witness (except for the driver).

Does it's glare properly portray the incident? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, actually. But nobody is out of line for questioning.

The apparent co-intoxication is another issue- And please, PLEASE, I don't think there's anything wrong with crushing a few beers on a nice afternoon and strolling on home. In fact, I admire and encourage such behavior. However, alcohol does....distort things, a bit. Everything becomes a bit bigger, a bit brighter, a bit more meaningful...such as a guy tripping on his shoe laces being perceived as "stumbling and tumbling"....which to me means he was what, rolling in the street?

I'm also disturbed by the apparent lack of charges by the JCPD. If they could have hooked him up, they would have. But they didn't. They took him to the medical center to sober up, which leads me to believe they couldn't find a reason to lock him up, even for public intoxication. Neat and clean for the cops- now the guy probably won't drive, and it's the hospital's problem if he does.

Point being you "detained" a guy for 10 minutes. I'm foggy on this, but if I recall my old criminal justice courses correctly, citizen's arrests only work for felonies witnessed by the arrestor- Believe it or not, DWI isn't a felony. It's not even a misdemeanor, unless it's changed over the last 15-20 years- It's in title 39, which is motor vehicle violations, not 2C, which is the NJ criminal code.

So basically, if that's the case, you.... well, you legally probably shouldn't have done what you did.

Whether what you did was right or not we can leave to philosophers, but I'm glad the guy didn't end up hurting anyone.

On balance, if it matters, I'm glad you did what you did- but it's a pretty fine line you have to walk if you're going to deprive someone of their liberty- not something to be taken lightly, even for a short period of time. Probably best not to do it when not of a perfectly clear mind. Guy could have a speech impediment, or some sort of infirmity that makes walking/talking hard but driving no problem. I know that's pretty thin, but it's certainly a possible reason for his behavior, and having had a few yourself you'd be hard pressed to smell the booze on his breath.


GWB

tommyc_37 wrote:

Hence why I re-posted the JCPD number...everybody should have that saved in their cell phones.

jennymayla wrote:
The fact that people have to start questioning/bashing/b*tching/whatever within mere minutes of that speaks more to the spirit of those posters than the original poster. Happens time after time, yes, but that's not a good thing.

cybertramp wrote:
Tommy,

I am happy that you stopped this man from getting behind the wheel (truly) but it seems like you came here for validation...and no offense, this isn't the place. You have been on the board long enough to know that some will agree and other's will not. I have to agree with Alan in the fact that there might have been a different first course of action, but I wasn't there and won't judge. My only point is that you do not need others to pat you on the back. If you know what you did is right you should revel in that glory

newtothearea wrote:
Quote:

We've never met, and likely never will. Based upon my words above, after the fact, you think I'd show less valor, bravery, initiative, or stupidity under your circumstances and with your level of insobriety. And somehow you think we disagree in some very important way, so you think I don't live in this very dangerous real world where only split-second decision-making can preserve order and safety for the entire city. I don't feel that way. There's really no evidence for that, but please, jump to all the conclusions you like. Do I feel bad for the guy? Not in the least. Do I disagree with what you did? Barely. I live in the same neighborhood. I was simply using hyperbole and exaggeration to put a point on my questioning. I used the same approach here as elsewhere. For example, last month, when I questioned the narrative about the meanies from A1 Deli raising hell for Mrs. Lee at the grocer. First person experience is flexible and subjective. Retellings show self-serving bias and reflect a self-congratulatory tone. So, it's a Rashomon effect, sort of. By bringing your story to the forum, you opened the door to both celebration and inquisition. I'm unspecial and unimportant, but here I chose the road less traveled by. You had several roads to choose, as well, and you chose to seize the reins. You chose to take, for yourself, the powers which are reserved to the police rather than the other choices you apparently did not and do not wish to consider. You've rejected doing so several times, so I will not continue asking.

wow. what a weirdo.

cybertramp wrote:
Tommy,

I am happy that you stopped this man from getting behind the wheel (truly) but it seems like you came here for validation...and no offense, this isn't the place. You have been on the board long enough to know that some will agree and other's will not. I have to agree with Alan in the fact that there might have been a different first course of action, but I wasn't there and won't judge. My only point is that you do not need others to pat you on the back. If you know what you did is right you should revel in that glory

regulator wrote:
Quote:

slauben wrote:
The 2 posts above are absolutely ridiculous. Good job Tommy, you did the right thing.

why is my post ridiculous? because of the existence of people using the legal system to get money out of others? or because i pointed it out?

We've never met, and likely never will. Based upon my words above, after the fact, you think I'd show less valor, bravery, initiative, or stupidity under your circumstances and with your level of insobriety. And somehow you think we disagree in some very important way, so you think I don't live in this very dangerous real world where only split-second decision-making can preserve order and safety for the entire city. I don't feel that way. There's really no evidence for that, but please, jump to all the conclusions you like. Do I feel bad for the guy? Not in the least. Do I disagree with what you did? Barely. I live in the same neighborhood. I was simply using hyperbole and exaggeration to put a point on my questioning. I used the same approach here as elsewhere. For example, last month, when I questioned the narrative about the meanies from A1 Deli raising hell for Mrs. Lee at the grocer. First person experience is flexible and subjective. Retellings show self-serving bias and reflect a self-congratulatory tone. So, it's a Rashomon effect, sort of. By bringing your story to the forum, you opened the door to both celebration and inquisition. I'm unspecial and unimportant, but here I chose the road less traveled by. You had several roads to choose, as well, and you chose to seize the reins. You chose to take, for yourself, the powers which are reserved to the police rather than the other choices you apparently did not and do not wish to consider. You've rejected doing so several times, so I will not continue asking.

alanwright wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I'm still curious as to which approach you would have taken?

I wasn't there.

tommyc_37 wrote:
I'm still curious as to which approach you would have taken?

alanwright wrote: Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote: Alanwright, it is obvious to me that you have never been in this type of situation. See, oftentimes, in the real world (not the idealistic world you seem to live in)...there are situations that require quick actions...acting on instinct. Did I consider taking any other actions? Yes, for about 5 seconds, fueled by adrenaline, my brain scanned throughthe other options, and none of them were viable. So I took action. Do you feel bad for the guy? Because that's the way it seems. For what it's worth, I should have offered more details. I didn't just yank the guy out of the car. I opened the door and told him that he looked way to drunk to drive and asked him if he would get out of the car, and when he didn't, I pulled him out, because he was trying to close the door and drive away. Alanwright, I would LOVE to see you in this scenario, and to see how you would've handled it.

We've never met, and likely never will. Based upon my words above, after the fact, you think I'd show less valor, bravery, initiative, or stupidity under your circumstances and with your level of insobriety. And somehow you think we disagree in some very important way, so you think I don't live in this very dangerous real world where only split-second decision-making can preserve order and safety for the entire city. I don't feel that way. There's really no evidence for that, but please, jump to all the conclusions you like. Do I feel bad for the guy? Not in the least. Do I disagree with what you did? Barely. I live in the same neighborhood. I was simply using hyperbole and exaggeration to put a point on my questioning. I used the same approach here as elsewhere. For example, last month, when I questioned the narrative about the meanies from A1 Deli raising hell for Mrs. Lee at the grocer. First person experience is flexible and subjective. Retellings show self-serving bias and reflect a self-congratulatory tone. So, it's a Rashomon effect, sort of. By bringing your story to the forum, you opened the door to both celebration and inquisition. I'm unspecial and unimportant, but here I chose the road less traveled by. You had several roads to choose, as well, and you chose to seize the reins. You chose to take, for yourself, the powers which are reserved to the police rather than the other choices you apparently did not and do not wish to consider. You've rejected doing so several times, so I will not continue asking.

jennymayla wrote:
No, it's not, actually. Nice cultural reference though.

tommyc_37 wrote: Alanwright, it is obvious to me that you have never been in this type of situation. See, oftentimes, in the real world (not the idealistic world you seem to live in)...there are situations that require quick actions...acting on instinct. Did I consider taking any other actions? Yes, for about 5 seconds, fueled by adrenaline, my brain scanned throughthe other options, and none of them were viable. So I took action. Do you feel bad for the guy? Because that's the way it seems. For what it's worth, I should have offered more details. I didn't just yank the guy out of the car. I opened the door and told him that he looked way to drunk to drive and asked him if he would get out of the car, and when he didn't, I pulled him out, because he was trying to close the door and drive away. Alanwright, I would LOVE to see you in this scenario, and to see how you would've handled it.

alanwright wrote: Quote:

jennymayla wrote: Quote:

alanwright wrote: Did you talk to this man before you attacked him? Because your unprovoked attack sounds like what this community needs less of. I'm sure Curtis Sliwa would disagree, because he brags about vigilantism as well. You're telling us it was justifiable, out of necessity, to prevent harm to you or others. Ok. But you had other options which did not include physically accosting this man, and which did not put yourself at risk.

Hello hyperbole. Happy Monday. Yikes.

Yes, it's a very Rashomon set of facts.

ianmac47 wrote:
Actually, he should have gotten a DUI, since intent to drive is the same thing as actually driving.

slauben wrote:
The 2 posts above are absolutely ridiculous. Good job Tommy, you did the right thing.

jennymayla wrote: Quote:

alanwright wrote: Did you talk to this man before you attacked him? Because your unprovoked attack sounds like what this community needs less of. I'm sure Curtis Sliwa would disagree, because he brags about vigilantism as well. You're telling us it was justifiable, out of necessity, to prevent harm to you or others. Ok. But you had other options which did not include physically accosting this man, and which did not put yourself at risk.

Hello hyperbole. Happy Monday. Yikes.

Hahahaha, carjacked. OK, what would you have done? Politely knocked on the drunk bastard's window, and asked him to step outside the vehicle while I called the cops? I'm sure the drunk would have happily obliged. You are hilarious.

alanwright wrote:
Did you talk to this man before you attacked him? Because your unprovoked attack sounds like what this community needs less of. I'm sure Curtis Sliwa would disagree, because he brags about vigilantism as well.

You're telling us it was justifiable, out of necessity, to prevent harm to you or others. Ok. But you had other options which did not include physically accosting this man, and which did not put yourself at risk.

alanwright wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

alanwright wrote:
Did you talk to this man before you attacked him? Because your unprovoked attack sounds like what this community needs less of. I'm sure Curtis Sliwa would disagree, because he brags about vigilantism as well.

You're telling us it was justifiable, out of necessity, to prevent harm to you or others. Ok. But you had other options which did not include physically accosting this man, and which did not put yourself at risk.

Wow. Just wow. Care to list my "other options" ?

I wasn't there. Did you consider any other options? Since you didn't answer my other questions, I guess we can assume you did not open your mouth before you carjacked the guy.