Charge her with the DUI, give her a shit load of community service in the form of she has to go around to highschools/colleges and tell students about her experiences

She ever gets caught with a DUI again, kill her.

5/18/2007 2:06:04 PM

This is probably somewhere in this thread already but the car was a 1999 Mustang. Assuming a convertible that explains a lot. Tragic event. It just goes to show that you aren't guaranteed tomorrow so be sure you have things right with the people you love.

5/18/2007 2:10:03 PM

For the person who mentioned that all this Danielle person was hoping for was her friend to make it. Yeah, I'm sure she was. It made the difference between a vehicular manslaughter charge and a DWI.

Quote :

"She ever gets caught with a DUI again, kill her."

And what happens if she kills someone else with a DUI? Are you going to explain to THAT family that "oh, we thought she'd never do it again so we didn't punish her very much..."


This girl should have her license revoked and at least serve some jail time for a year.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2007 2:12:09 PM

North Carolina has DWI's

Quote :

"No, manslaughter is a felony and is charged by the state on behalf of the people (It will be The People of the State of North Carolina vs. Polumbo) "

actually, vehiclular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony

5/18/2007 2:13:11 PM

^^you are very old testament

5/18/2007 2:21:12 PM

hahaha, I suppose punishment is old school.



I think punishment should equal the crime... and if she goes to jail for a year, she still got out easy.

5/18/2007 2:22:13 PM

There may definitely be something to the idea that the red-light camera on a pole is itself dangerous in a collision.

Some roadside obstacles (most notable highway signs and highway light poles) have a strong base and a bolted connection to the pole. The bolts are designed to break in a collision, and the base should be low enough to pass under the car.

Quote :

". Light poles placed within a clear zone represent a hazard to the traveling public, and their supports must be made to quickly break away or yield when hit by a vehicle. These breakaway supports are designed to reduce the severity of a vehicle impact with the light pole. If there are pedestrians in the area of the light pole (and speeds are 45 miles per hour or less), however, the use of a breakaway light pole support is not recommended. The breakaway pole may become more of a hazard to the pedestrian than the traveling public."

I wonder if the heavy-box-on-a-short pole, with a breakaway base can be more likely to fall on a car hitting it than a comparatively tall light pole. Sort of like hitting a deer vs. hitting a pedestrian.

Couldn't find any pages or research on collisions with red-light cameras, as everything that comes up is studies on their effectiveness at what they're supposed to do.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:22 PM. Reason : bad link]

5/18/2007 2:22:23 PM

it's not the freakin camera's fault. Maybe we should give 250yds on each side of a highway to ensure nothing, absolutely nothing can be collided with... then we should only allow one car at a time on the road.

5/18/2007 2:24:06 PM

Quote :

"Not to sound insensitive or anything, but nobody deserves something good to happen to them no matter how great a decision they make either. It seems like a lot of people just have this mentality that everyone is supposed to be given a "do over" for making a decision that has tragic consequences but that's the thing with life... you don't always get that chance. You can, believe it or not, die if you choose to get in the car with a drunk driver. This girl found that out, unfortunately. Just because no one deserves to have it happen to them doesn't mean it won't, no matter how hard you wish it... Now again, at the risk of sounding insensitive, I'll wager that she goes to bars and clubs on a regular basis, am I right folks? And having known quite a few people like that in my life I think it's pretty likely she's been driven by a drunk driver before or even possibly drove while drunk herself. I could be totally off base here, but I've found that people involved in the party scene have been in that situation at least once. She tempted fate then and tempted fate the other night. This time she lost. Think before you act folks..."

5/18/2007 2:29:45 PM

^^ BUT THE CAMERAS COULD STAND TO BE MADE SAFER. JESUS SHIT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE DRUNK GIRL ISN'T TO BLAME, IT'S JUST THAT THE CAMERRA ITSELF COULD USE SOME IMPROVEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY IN COLLISIONS.

GOOD GOD.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : GAH]

5/18/2007 2:29:54 PM

^stop making sense!

5/18/2007 2:32:55 PM

Quote :

"JESUS SHIT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE DRUNK GIRL ISN'T TO BLAME, IT'S JUST THAT THE CAMERRA ITSELF COULD USE SOME IMPROVEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY IN COLLISIONS. "

5/18/2007 2:33:17 PM

"For the person who mentioned that all this Danielle person was hoping for was her friend to make it. Yeah, I'm sure she was. It made the difference between a vehicular manslaughter charge and a DWI."

I was the one that mentioned it. I am actually going down to see her tonight as soon as I get off work. I would say that some people would feel that way, maybe even myself. I can tell you though that Danielle is not one of those people. She was really hoping her friend made it b/c she loved Emily. That was her best friend. I am not taking up for what she did that night. It was a bad mistake, but she really did care for Emily and wants her back as much as anyone, but not for the reason of her not getting into trouble.

5/18/2007 2:33:26 PM

5/18/2007 2:36:24 PM

just curious lambo...what did she blow on the Breathalyzer

5/18/2007 2:38:46 PM

I know what it is, but I am not giving that out for legal reasons until all info has been released. Sorry.

5/18/2007 2:40:28 PM

She said she couldn't mention it for legal reasons.

Which I'm guessing means that she blew something huge.

Because if it was something minor like 0.001% then it wouldn't make a difference if she said it or not.

5/18/2007 2:40:55 PM

Quote :

"it's not the freakin camera's fault. Maybe we should give 250yds on each side of a highway to ensure nothing, absolutely nothing can be collided with... then we should only allow one car at a time on the road."

Yea, lets take the guardrails down protecting cars from crossing the center line, too. I mean, why should anything on the highway be as reasonably safe as possible.

^ What are you smoking dude? Typically, "for legal reasons" means just don't talk about anything related to the case.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:42 PM. Reason : a]

5/18/2007 2:41:55 PM

^He's saying there should be a reasonable limit of driver competency. You can't pad the entire highway with pillows.

5/18/2007 2:42:25 PM

I'd be fucking pissed if I was cruising along that road, and some morAn like some of these fools in this thread merged from the lane beside me, forcing me into this pole, and the light fell on my head and killed me. A simple guardrail around the pole would most likely have prevented this. No one said anything about pillows, do you know what "as reasonably safe as possible" means?

It doesn't mean a camera 500 yards away with 50x zoom such that no one hits it. But a guardrail, or other basic design choices is reasonable.

Damn. Some of you people lack common sense.

5/18/2007 2:45:16 PM

just checked, she was at least over the legal limit (.08). You can tell by what she was charged with.

5/18/2007 2:49:01 PM

^^You're also bypassing what I said. Assuming normal driver competency, meaning no one merging into you, most roadways are safe. How many deaths do you see per year from impacts with red light cameras? This is the first one I've ever heard of.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2007 2:49:50 PM

^^ i thought since she is underage, she can be charged with a DWI even if shes under .08

correct me if i'm wrong

5/18/2007 2:51:29 PM

^Yeah but knowing how intoxicated she was helps a lot. If she was completely drunk then it makes a huge difference.

Being totally wasted and getting in a car is a lot different than having 1 drink, waiting 3 hours, then driving.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2007 2:52:24 PM

^^ you're right.

http://www.dmv.org/nc-north-carolina/automotive-law/dui.php

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/18/2007 2:53:04 PM

i had a friend who killed his three best friends off durant road years ago.

my mom even testified on his behalf in his trial.

years later he is calling me fucked up talking about how he cant even see where he was going he was so drunk like it was cool.


he wasnt my friend anymore after that.

5/18/2007 2:55:42 PM

if you're under 21 and have a slight bit of alcohol on you, you're charged with Driving After Consuming ( 20-138.3)

if you're over the legal limit you're charged with Driving While Impaired ( 20-138.1)

5/18/2007 2:55:57 PM

Quote :

"just checked, she was at least over the legal limit (.08). You can tell by what she was charged with."

what did you check?

5/18/2007 2:56:12 PM

fuck it... don't want to rile any feathers

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2007 3:01:56 PM

^^^if you drink under 21 and drive its still a DWI. ITs not just drinkin after consuming. What she blew will really determine her fate in her sentencing because that shows contributing factors. Since she is under 21 if she blew over a .08(especially if its double, a .16)she is extremely fucked unless she has a good lawyer. Because if you have two contributing factors and no mitigating factors present (like if she was speeding when it happened or ran a red light) she is eligible for second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, or felony death by vehicle. There is no way this girl is getting a misdemeanor death by vehicle if she blew alot

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : edit]

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : does that make sense?]

5/18/2007 3:03:07 PM

makes sense to me and I am no lawyer

5/18/2007 3:06:24 PM

Quote :

"^^You're also bypassing what I said. Assuming normal driver competency, meaning no one merging into you, most roadways are safe. How many deaths do you see per year from impacts with red light cameras? This is the first one I've ever heard of."

Let's reduce the argument a little. This ist a death caused by negligent placement of a traffic flow control device. Think of it as a bridge with a defective guardrail system. Under "normal competency" (whatever that means), you don't care if the guardrail is there or not. But it is reasonable and prudent for it to be designed such that it doesn't fail under 99.9% of the circumstances.

To me, it seems like it was only a matter of time before someone ran into this pole since it is sitting in the middle of a busy intersection.

Wooden electric poles have been jumping out at cars for almost a century now, and certainly in the information age, we would have heard of a transformer falling from it during an accident and killing someone who would have otherwise walked away from the accident if this were a true problem.

5/18/2007 3:06:51 PM

My "For Legal Reasons" just mean that I am not going to talk about any details to do with the case until after everything has been released. This is common in any case. I mean it isn't just what she blew, it was where she was at, who she was with, what happened etc etc etc.

PS - GOD - I am not a woman, just wanted to make you aware of that.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:11 PM. Reason : PS]

5/18/2007 3:11:07 PM

Quote :

" What tapes?? Did you not read my post? Those cameras DO NOT take photos of the person driving. They only take photos of the LICENSE PLATE on the back of the car, that's all. "

n00b, its a video tape that shows the entire intersection, the car, all other cars around you, the traffic light. they just mail you a close up of the license plate. You could have gone in and disputed the fine. (which is all that it is, a fine). They can't just fine you based on a picture of your plate. It has to have proof that the car was indeed passed the line while moving through the intersection on a red light. For someone that has gotten one of these before, you would think you would know better.

5/18/2007 3:11:16 PM

Cameras in Fayetteville, from a different intersection, but they all look the same. The camera slides up and down the pole, so its not solid on the inside.

5/18/2007 3:12:50 PM

Quote :

""so? its his car, his responsibility." But he didn't run that red light -- I did. I ran the red light, he got the ticket. Quote : "Don't loan your car out to someone that isn't going to admit to you to running the light and paying the ticket." That's like saying don't loan your gun to someone who's gonna use it to commit murder. If you loan me your gun and I commit murder with it, it may be wrong for you to loan me that gun, but you're still not the murder -- I am! Quote : "Its not like you were put on trial for murder" Who cares if I got charged with murder or running a red light? The fact still remains that my dad got charged with an offense that I committed, and that he was mailed a ticket without anyone ever attempting to prove that it was he who was driving."

LOL you are really dumb.

If you borrowed someones gun and murdered someone with it. The gun would trace back to the owner, and unless there was some other evidence besides "i didn't do it", that person would be on trial and would have to prove that they did loan out the gun.

As i said before, It is his car so its his responsibility. He got the fine, you should have admitted to it and paid it for him, no harm done to him. Since its not insurance points related.

5/18/2007 3:13:12 PM

ok so how did the camera fall into or onto the car? wouldn't the car have knocked the pole over?
i wonder if it was hanging from some wires and then it just feel, yikes.


[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 3:18:22 PM

no, its a scarf

Pole*
Fell*

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : fda]

5/18/2007 3:18:58 PM

damn, so was someone saying that she was in a mustang convertable and this damn thing feel on her head/body?

THAT IS FUCKING HORRIBLE.

5/18/2007 3:20:42 PM

Thats the speculation, how else would a camera break someone's neck if the car wasn't a convertible?

5/18/2007 3:23:10 PM

I didn't ask about the car, didn't really seem important to me at the time, but I know what kind of cars/suvs both women owned. I know Danielle owned a mustang but it was not a convertible, but that doesn't mean this was the car in the accident.

5/18/2007 3:32:50 PM

Car roofs arent very strong. You walk on it and it dents. if a big metal box fell on it from a few feet im sure it could have dented it enough to hit her, though unlikely.

5/18/2007 3:32:52 PM

weird. i guess we'll all know soon enough, but if it was a hard top it'd be hard to believe it could make it through the roof

5/18/2007 3:37:07 PM

agreed.

5/18/2007 3:43:36 PM

We need to send the TWW news van out to the scene

5/18/2007 3:45:07 PM

who else is already weary of pantho's overdramticism of everything everyone says

5/18/2007 3:47:07 PM

Emily is NOT dead, she broke her neck and is brain dead. Everyone pray for Emily and Danielle!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to let eveyone no who is concerned about Emily that she has not passed away but is still in critical condition. The Doctors are saying it is probably just a matter of time. So if you believe in a higher power it is time to take Emily in your prayers and ask for intervention.

newest comments under the wral news story http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1421846/

5/18/2007 3:52:22 PM

the other news story on WRAL.com was updated and said that Emily was still alive this morning

Quote :

"Fayetteville — A woman was charged with drunken driving early Thursday following an accident in which another woman was critically injured, police said. A car was northbound on Bragg Boulevard at about 1:40 a.m. Thursday when the driver veered onto the median island and struck the pole supporting a red light camera at the intersection with Sycamore Dairy Road, police said. The camera crashed onto the roof of the car and injured Emily Elizabeth May, a 24-year-old passenger, police said. May was taken to Cape Fear Valley Hospital, where she was listed in critical condition Friday morning. very strange mix of reports on her condition, some people say with certainty that she has passed away, while others say with certainty that she is still alive if she is, in fact, still alive, hopefully she'll pull through, keep the prayers up! Danielle Christina Polumbo, 20, was charged with driving while intoxicated in connection with the incident, police said. "

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/18/2007 3:55:16 PM

wtf she is gonna be pissed if she reads this.
^^ps your link is old
V pps learn to read, it wasn't a convertible


[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 3:56:12 PM

Moral of the story... parents, don't buy your spoiled twenty year-old daughter a convertible.

And of course, don't get in a car with a drunk driver.

5/18/2007 3:56:23 PM