Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1 teen dead, one arrested on homicide charges in Barron County (WI)
WQOW Eau Claire ^ | Jun 17, 2013 2:01 PM CDT

Posted on 06/17/2013 12:24:15 PM PDT by Sopater

Barron County (Press Release) - On Saturday, June 15, 2013 at 4:33 a.m., the Barron County Sheriff's Department received a report of a semi vs. pedestrian accident on Highway 8 west of Cameron in the Town of Stanley.

Upon arrival, it was discovered that a semi driven by Duane E. Nelson, 51, of Almena was traveling east on Highway 8 when he saw a male running east in the west bound lane of Highway 8. Nelson attempted to stop and move over but the running man turned towards the semi and into the path of it.

The man, identified as Alex Hill, 18, of Cameron was struck by the semi. Hill was transported to Mayo Hospital in Barron and flown to the Mayo hospital in Eau Claire where he later died.

The investigation into his death, lead to the arrest of Dorien Hash, 17, of Barron for 1st degree reckless homicide. The investigation uncovered that Hash had provided Hill with a hallucinogen drug during the night.

The case remains under investigation by the Barron County Sheriff's Department and the Wisconsin State Patrol.

Deputies from the Barron County Sheriff's Department, Mayo Ambulance, Barron Fire Department, Barron Police Department, Cameron First Responders, Cameron Fire department and May helicopter were dispatched to the scene.

Click here to read Dorien Hash criminal complaint


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: acccountability; drugs; law; responsibility
The investigation into his death, lead to the arrest of Dorien Hash, 17, of Barron for 1st degree reckless homicide. The investigation uncovered that Hash had provided Hill with a hallucinogen drug during the night.

Interesting case. So should a person who provides drugs to someone else who either bought or requested them be held accountable (1st degree wreckless homicide) for what that person does while under the influence? I think that young Mr. Hash should be charged with any crime that he committed in providing drugs to Mr. Hash, but homicide? I'm not seeing it.
1 posted on 06/17/2013 12:24:16 PM PDT by Sopater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Not understanding it either. The law has wrapped itself up in a collection of words which result in an illogical self-referencing knot of sludge designed by ignorant congresscritters supported by the vast majority of lawyers who should really be serving burgers.

The legal system used to pretend its goal was justice.

Today, the legal system’s goal is the legal system.

(And all engineers are familiar with what can happen when the gain on a positive feedback system exceeds unity.)


2 posted on 06/17/2013 12:30:27 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
940.02 First-degree reckless homicide

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes.

3 posted on 06/17/2013 12:31:00 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
This happens a lot. A couple of people near Milwaukee have been charged with homicide for selling a bad batch of heroin to people.

I also think if we are going to charge drug dealers, we should also charge the drug company CEOS for homicide for all the deaths their FDA approved medicines cause.

4 posted on 06/17/2013 12:31:39 PM PDT by LukeL (Barack Obama: Jimmy Carter 2 Electric Boogaloo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

It may depend on the meaning of the word “provided”. If he supplied the drug because the victim requested it then I would agree with you. If the drug was “provided” by slipping it into a drink or brownies without the dead person’s knowledge, then I could see murder charges.

The article didn’t go into too much detail.


5 posted on 06/17/2013 12:31:54 PM PDT by liege (You don't drive out the darkness; you turn on the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

No different than the guy leading the police on a high-speed chase being charged with murder because one of the cops chasing him blew through an intersection and t-boned an innocent driver.


6 posted on 06/17/2013 12:33:22 PM PDT by Fish Speaker (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
It's a slippery slope and has the potential for dangerous precedent.

If a seller can be held liable for the use (or misuse) of any product (legal or otherwise) to another who is of age, then (for instance), the argument could be made that sellers of legal products would be criminally liable for the misuse of the product by or, in this case, actions of the purchaser.

That bodes particular ill in this political climate for firearms dealers and the 2nd Amendment, but could extend to everything from kitchen knives to automobiles as well.

The seller is guilty (if so found) of illegally distributing hallucinogenic substances.

The responsibility for the results of using the product should lie with the purchaser.

7 posted on 06/17/2013 12:33:27 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Very surprised you’re not aware of the Len Bias Law; it’s been around since 1986. The cops are (whatever) still looking for the dealer that gave my nephew heroin, resulting in his overdose death.

Don’t even get me started on what I think of drug dealers.

http://www.livinglakecountry.com/lakecountryreporter/policeandcourts/man-charged-under-len-bias-law-ah99sme-200253401.html


8 posted on 06/17/2013 12:33:53 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

And whatever school district officials responsible for botching the victim’s education.... Where should it end?


9 posted on 06/17/2013 12:34:02 PM PDT by wrencher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
940.02 First-degree reckless homicide

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes.


The law seems to imply that the drug has to be the cause of death, where in this case it was a truck.
10 posted on 06/17/2013 12:34:41 PM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
The cops are (whatever) still looking for the dealer that gave my nephew heroin, resulting in his overdose death.

I belive that this might be appropriate in an overdose death where the drug was the cause of death, but in this case in Barron county, the cause of death was being hit by a truck. The drugs may have been, and probably were, a contributing factor, but they were not the "cause".
11 posted on 06/17/2013 12:36:37 PM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

12 posted on 06/17/2013 12:41:01 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Dorien Hash shoulda stuck to dealin’ hash!


13 posted on 06/17/2013 12:48:29 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

FDA approved medications come with ample consumer warnings, lists of possible side effects, counter indications to use and possible negative interactions with other drugs.

Illegal drugs don’t.


14 posted on 06/17/2013 12:58:03 PM PDT by Valpal1 (If the police can t solve a problem with brute force, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Well, either charge everyone related in any way to illegal drug deaths, or legalize and tax ‘em.

One or the other.


15 posted on 06/17/2013 1:11:38 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Oops! Is my Libertarian Streak showing? LOL!


16 posted on 06/17/2013 1:12:36 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

The gov’t did it to the tobacco industry, didn’t they? The firearms industry has been lucky, so far.

I have a lot of stock in Olin (Winchester ammo) and Alliant Technologies (Federal, CCI, and Speer ammo), but have stayed away from S&W and Ruger, so far. The ammo co’s are under-valued, while the gun co’s over over-valued, anyway, so ammo’s a good buy.


17 posted on 06/17/2013 2:35:08 PM PDT by carriage_hill (Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk & spoons make you fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Not unless Hash held him down and pumped the drugs into him. “Highly” unlikely.


18 posted on 06/17/2013 2:49:57 PM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Slippery slope indeed.

Dealers have been convicted of murder here but I don’t agree with the law. I really liked a young man here who died from such a purchase but it was his decision to buy the drugs and his decision to shoot up. It was a sorry waste of a young life full of potential but it was his decision. Sure, the dealer should be dragged to the courthouse square and hanged at noon from the nearest tree but for the crime of dealing drugs, not for murder.


19 posted on 06/17/2013 3:01:17 PM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Actually I think we should charge the FDA officials, too.


20 posted on 06/17/2013 3:02:52 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
If a seller can be held liable for the use (or misuse) of any product (legal or otherwise) to another who is of age, then (for instance), the argument could be made that sellers of legal products would be criminally liable for the misuse of the product by or, in this case, actions of the purchaser.

That pretty much defines "Dram shop laws" everywhere.

21 posted on 06/17/2013 3:25:03 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
I was trying to make a point. But even though the FDA approves a drug the long term side effects can never be known until they have been used for 5-10 years or more, and that is not addressed in clinical trials.

You also have to wonder why drug companies are pushing to make new beta blockers or other such drugs when there are already numerous options on the market all with excellent results and safety records.

22 posted on 06/17/2013 4:01:04 PM PDT by LukeL (Barack Obama: Jimmy Carter 2 Electric Boogaloo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
That pretty much defines "Dram shop laws" everywhere.

Yes, it does, although the presumption in dram shop laws is that the server/seller should be able to tell the purchaser is intoxicated, or close enough that a wee bit more will put them over the line.

In this instance, even the most "caring" drug dealer really has no way of knowing or predicting what effects an hallucinogenic will have in any specific dosage on an individual--results can vary wildly with the physiology, personality, and mental state of the purchaser/user.

My continuing objection to dram shop laws hinges on the thought that the seller/server is being required to conduct chemical analysis of the purchaser's BAC through visual means, when the state has elaborate equipment to determine that same parameter.

Even so, if the purchaser is buying drinks for a group, the seller/server might not be able to evaluate the entire group, and may not have direct contact with everyone in it.

The idea that someone can be held criminally/civilly liable for a single inaccurate evaluation of people they may have never seen is an insane liability exposure, especially when one considers the actions of the customer remain the liability of the seller/server even after the customer leaves the premises.

23 posted on 06/17/2013 6:25:54 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
The Government's assault on the tobacco industry was an instance of the Government giving its blessing to squadrons of tort lawyers to feed at the commercial trough, with the government getting its share, of course.

I do not know of one dime of the enormous settlement funds which actually went to pay any smoker's medical bills. The attorneys for the plaintiffs made a percentage commission which amounted to six figures an hour or more in some cases.

Now for the scary part:

Because only one person in five smoked at the time, the real issue was a test run. If a minority element is attacked in a campaign spun to make that attack popular for any of a number of reasons, will the people form a mob and go after the minority, or will they stand up for the rights of the minority.

We got our answer. The transition from smoking being commonplace and widely accepted to universally vilified only took two decades (one generation) of slowly ramped up attacks. The whole gambit being used against gun owners now was test flown against tobacco, the seminal difference that tobacco use was not specifically protected under the Constitution, and the percentage of gun owners in the population is significantly higher.

Another generation of schools which do not allow even the mention of a firearm without punishment swift and screwed up--but sure, and the balance may tip the other way.

If mob rule instead of the assurance of our rights continues to be the paradigm, even the 2nd Amendment may become functionally moot.

We do not have to like what others do, if that is within their rights, and we may object--but we had better stand up for their right to do it, or we squander our own rights in the process.

24 posted on 06/17/2013 6:42:23 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The paradigm will shift when 0traitor places 1 or 2 more liberal Justices on the SCOTUS, in the next 3½-yrs. Then, the 2nd Amendment is gone. The UN Small Arms Treaty and Agenda 21 will overwhelm us, with SCOTUS' blessing.

The Tree of Liberty will need a serious "watering".

25 posted on 06/17/2013 6:57:32 PM PDT by carriage_hill (Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk & spoons make you fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
The Tree of Liberty will need a serious "watering".

Shoot/paint the cameras first...otherwise, the surveillance net (every online available camera in the world) will tell just who is where doing what.

26 posted on 06/18/2013 12:14:21 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Good idea.


27 posted on 06/18/2013 3:20:04 AM PDT by carriage_hill (Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk & spoons make you fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson