Derrick Coleman Arrested - Vehicular Assault

[rideaducati]

DC is being released from jail w/o seeing the judge.. King County will investigate, said to take about a month. My question is why the hell did they put him (or anyone) in jail for two days if they didn't have enough to charge him? This reeks of incompetence to me. One month to figure out what happened seems excessive..

Do the Hawks keep him on the suspended list because of a potential knee jerk reaction by the BPD? Did DC ever get treated on the scene for potential injuries? Lots of questions here.

Exactly. What...the...hell...Bellevue?!

Don't get arrested after the judges go home for the weekend and you won't spend that much time in jail. Judges are on a two day work week.

 

[MysterMatt]

Not sure I'm reading your tone right, but seems a little lame. Hope I'm wrong about that. Anyhow, Bellevue doesn't have judges on Wednesday or Thursday?

 

[rideaducati]

Not sure I'm reading your tone right, but seems a little lame. Hope I'm wrong about that. Anyhow, Bellevue doesn't have judges on Wednesday or Thursday?

I forgot... :sarcasm_on:

 

[Exittium]

He was released from jail "Seahawks fullback Derrick Coleman to be released from jail pending crash investigation"

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/16/latest...leased-from-jail-pending-crash-investigation/

 

[MysterMatt]

Not sure I'm reading your tone right, but seems a little lame. Hope I'm wrong about that. Anyhow, Bellevue doesn't have judges on Wednesday or Thursday?

I forgot... :sarcasm_on:

No worries!

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

.........Judges are on a two day work week.

Busy week then huh?

 

[Basis4day]

One month to figure out what happened seems excessive...

My understanding is that is the length of time to get the full toxicology report back. It doesn't take minutes like on TV.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.
If the panel finds levels of PEDs/banned substances that do not prove DUI-D, is that info shared with the team?
Also, in Washington, what level of THC is presumed DUI-D?

 

[Inspector]

I just wish the team didn't have this distraction...

 

[Basis4day]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.

Why?

 

[Popeyejones]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.

To run itself, or to get back? You're assuming there's not a backlog. You're also talking getting witness statements, double checking everything and writing the report. A month doesn't strike me as comparatively atypical.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

In drug testing, typically samples first get tested by ELISA, which works like a pregnancy test kit or a home drug test kit.
Typically, only results that are positive or inconclusive get analyzed via GC/MS, which gives you a graph with "peaks" corresponding to certain substances. That allows them to see that meth was ingested rather than sudafed, for example.

If they are testing DC's blood for a typical 5/7 class drug screen it would take a couple days even with multiple GC/MS confirmatories. If they are testing as a fishing expedition, then it would take longer.

https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/!ut/ ... MREQzMEI3/



http://www2.shimadzu.com/apps/appnotes/app56.pdf

 

[Basis4day]

In drug testing, typically samples first get tested by ELISA, which works like a pregnancy test kit or a home drug test kit.
Typically, only results that are positive or inconclusive get analyzed via GC/MS, which gives you a graph with "peaks" corresponding to certain substances. That allows them to see that meth was ingested rather than sudafed, for example.

If they are testing DC's blood for a typical 5/7 class drug screen it would take a couple days even with multiple GC/MS confirmatories. If they are testing as a fishing expedition, then it would take longer.

https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/!ut/ ... MREQzMEI3/



http://www2.shimadzu.com/apps/appnotes/app56.pdf

Throwing in a backlog then a month seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.

To run itself, or to get back? You're assuming there's not a backlog. You're also talking getting witness statements, double checking everything and writing the report. A month doesn't strike me as comparatively atypical.

Coleman was given a field sobriety test. If he had declined to be tested by breath, blood or urine, he would have been presumed positive for DUI and arrested for it. The cops have to get a search warrant for his blood. If that presumes he refused testing, why wasn't he presumptive for dui?

 

[andyh64000]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.

To run itself, or to get back? You're assuming there's not a backlog. You're also talking getting witness statements, double checking everything and writing the report. A month doesn't strike me as comparatively atypical.

Coleman was given a field sobriety test. If he had declined to be tested by breath, blood or urine, he would have been presumed positive for DUI and arrested for it. The cops have to get a search warrant for his blood. If that presumes he refused testing, why wasn't he presumptive for dui?

They don't need a search warrant if he agreed to the blood test.

 

[bigskydoc]

Exactly. What...the...hell...Bellevue?!

Funny. I rad this as "What the hell Bevell"

-bsd

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

A standard 8/16 panel blood drug screen should not take a MONTH to run.

To run itself, or to get back? You're assuming there's not a backlog. You're also talking getting witness statements, double checking everything and writing the report. A month doesn't strike me as comparatively atypical.

Coleman was given a field sobriety test. If he had declined to be tested by breath, blood or urine, he would have been presumed positive for DUI and arrested for it. The cops have to get a search warrant for his blood. If that presumes he refused testing, why wasn't he presumptive for dui?

They don't need a search warrant if he agreed to the blood test.

Is he presumptive DUI if he doesn't consent to a test? Here, they just charge people with DUI if they don't consent to a chemical search. That he took a field sobriety is mentioned numerous times, but not whether he took or refused a chemical test, typically a Breathlyzer. The whole thing is very sad. DC is one of my favorite Hawks.

 

[Vesuve]

He's been released. Out of the slammer.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Seah ... 78421.html

 

[RiverDog]

It boggles my mind that in this day and age people think deaf people can't drive or use cell phones. Especially those of us who do benefit from wearing hearing aids which Derrick Coleman does. Some of us who are classified as deaf can actually hear some things. I can't speak for totally deaf people who can't be helped with hearing aids but I'm sure they can do a lot more than people think they can.

I appreciate hearing from a deaf person on this subject. My instincts tell me that a completely deaf person should not be allowed to have an operator's license, but on the other hand, I see people all the time with car stereos blaring so loud that they wouldn't hear a car horn or a police siren if it was sitting right next to them. I see no difference between distracted driving and driving without some use of the sense of sound, but if technology exists to replace or enhance that sense to what should be a minimum amount of hearing, then of course, I'm all for it.

As far as Coleman's actions go, they were deplorable. He not only left the scene of an accident, he left a seriously injured human being behind as well. He has a moral as well as a legal obligation to render assistance. And I'm not buying the Teddy Kennedy excuse that he was in a daze or that he didn't realize the consequences of his accident. Even if he was in a daze, it is not an acceptable explanation and he must be held accountable.

The police felt that there was enough evidence to call in a drug/alcohol expert and take a blood test. We'll have to wait until the toxicology reports come in, but if they are positive and he was under the influence, Coleman can not only expect to be out of football, he'll be eating off a tin plate. Even if he wasn't under the influence, it's pretty obvious that he was responsible for the accident and would be subject to a liability claim should the victim decide to sue. IMO we have seen the last of Derrick Coleman as a Seahawk.

 

[Willyeye]

It boggles my mind that in this day and age people think deaf people can't drive or use cell phones. Especially those of us who do benefit from wearing hearing aids which Derrick Coleman does. Some of us who are classified as deaf can actually hear some things. I can't speak for totally deaf people who can't be helped with hearing aids but I'm sure they can do a lot more than people think they can.

I appreciate hearing from a deaf person on this subject. My instincts tell me that a completely deaf person should not be allowed to have an operator's license, but on the other hand, I see people all the time with car stereos blaring so loud that they wouldn't hear a car horn or a police siren if it was sitting right next to them. I see no difference between distracted driving and driving without some use of the sense of sound, but if technology exists to replace or enhance that sense to what should be a minimum amount of hearing, then of course, I'm all for it.

As far as Coleman's actions go, they were deplorable. He not only left the scene of an accident, he left a seriously injured human being behind as well. He has a moral as well as a legal obligation to render assistance. And I'm not buying the Teddy Kennedy excuse that he was in a daze or that he didn't realize the consequences of his accident. Even if he was in a daze, it is not an acceptable explanation and he must be held accountable.

The police felt that there was enough evidence to call in a drug/alcohol expert and take a blood test. We'll have to wait until the toxicology reports come in, but if they are positive and he was under the influence, Coleman can not only expect to be out of football, he'll be eating off a tin plate. Even if he wasn't under the influence, it's pretty obvious that he was responsible for the accident and would be subject to a liability claim should the victim decide to sue. IMO we have seen the last of Derrick Coleman as a Seahawk.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I kind of wish people in general would be more aware of how well deaf people are able to function in daily life. One of my close friends has been deaf since birth. He can't hear anything. As a young man he worked hard and became an architect. He's very successful. Not only is he able to drive just as good as me, but he is also a pilot. I remember when I first went up for a ride after he got his license, I was even a bit apprehensive thinking that a deaf person might have difficulty taking off and landing at airports. Flying without hearing has never been an issue for him.

He uses his cell phone for texting, obviously not while driving. He is able to speak pretty well. He reads lips and is able to function well in the world of hearing people. About the only thing I ever noticed is that occasionally he has a hard time reading the lips of certain people when he first meets them. Heck, I even have that problem with some people that mumble.