Raymond Cook: Doctor Kills Ballerina Elena Shapiro In DUI Crash: Police (VIDEO)

Elena Bright Shapiro was a 20-year-old ballerina with a promising career ahead of her. She died Friday, Sept. 11, 2009, when the car she was driving was struck by Dr. Raymond Cook, according to police. Dr. Cook is a cosmetic surgeon and assistant professor at the UNC School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, and is accused of driving drunk.

Dr. Cook has since been charged with second degree murder in Shapiro's death.

Dr. Cook posted a $250,000 bond and was released from custody. He also surrendered his medical license and apologized to Shapiro's family.

Police say Dr. Cook was driving 85 mph when his vehicle slammed into Shapiro's.

The young ballerina's friends and fellow dancers at the Carolina Ballet spoke to The Today Show on Wednesday.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[Friend of Elena]

AndyWright68, Is this You? If so, it is not surprising that you don't consider the death of this promising girl a "crime." You should be banned from posting on this young girl's OBITUARY.

It seems the loss of Dr. Cook's license just hits too close to home for you...

"Mr. Andrew Wright admits that while employed as a pharmacy technician at Winston Salem Health Center Phannacy... he has committed acts that give the North Carolina Board Pharmacy sufficient cause to revoke his technician registration. Mr. Wright understands and accepts that he is not to be present in a pharmacy setting unless he has a valid prescription from a treating physician. Mr. Wright also understands and accepts that he is not to work as a pharmacy technician in the state of North Carolina unless the registration is reinstated by the Board following a formal hearing."

http://www.ncbop.org/Disciplinary%20Actions%20-%20TECHNICIANS/WrightAndrew14903.pdf

[AndyWright68]

This is a terrible accident and nothing more. He should not be charged with a crime. However, he is responsible for her death civilly and needs to pay for it. He did nothing criminal.

DUI and speeding are not a crimes. For it to be a crime there must be intent and a victim. For there to be a victim someone else must be injured physically, financially or experience property loss or damage.

There was no intent so Elena was the victim of an accident not a crime.

Dr. Cook should not be charged with anything or have his license taken away. He needs to work and pay the family for what he has taken away from them.

[I have a comment]

Merriam-Webster defines “accident” as “an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance” distinguished by “lack of intention or necessity; chance”.

If you were to fire a rifle into a house as you drive by, would it be an “accident” if you shot and killed someone inside the house? I think not. Anyone of normal intelligence knows that, if you fire a rifle into a house you are likely to hit and kill someone.

This man had prior DWIs. Did he quit drinking and driving, knowing the danger to other people? No, he deliberately continued to do it. Prior reckless driving charges: Did he quit driving recklessly? No, he deliberately continued to do it. After getting drunk at the Raleigh Country Club, did he ask for a ride home? No he deliberately drove drunk - to another bar, to get even drunker. When that bar cut him off, was he at least embarrassed enough to call a cab or ask for a ride? No, after his companion’s request for “to go” cups was rejected, he got behind the wheel and drove drunk. Deliberately, not accidentally. Did he try to drive slowly or at least within the speed limit, knowing that he was drunk enough to be cut off by a bartender? No, he sped through a residential area at 85 miles per hour.

Accident? Not by a long shot. This tragedy is EXACTLY what happens when someone deliberately does what Mr. Cook did. Which is, incidentally, why this is a crime.

[AndyWright68]

Your analogy is ridiculous. If you shoot a gun into a house there is intent. A better analogy would be someone who shot a gun in the air. If that bullet lands a mile away in someones house and kills someone. That would be an accident if the shooter did not know that was possible. If he did know then there would be intent and therefore would be a crime.

DWI/DUI are not crimes. There is no victim nor intent so his priors are meaningless. Now you tread on a very fine line of intent when you claim he drank and drive knowing he was endangering others. If it can be proved that he got in that car drunk and thought that he was endangering others, even though the statistics show the odds are very low, than yes, there would be intent. However, if he did not think he would hurt anyone then there would be no intent. It is an easy defense in that situation to simply say that if he did not have the capacity to drive then he did not have the capacity to think he was endangering anyone either. It is ridiculous to say someone who is fall down drunk knew what they were doing.

Yes, this is an accident. It cannot be a crime without intent. Cook is responsible but he is not a criminal.

[AndyWright68]

Your analogy is ridiculous. If you shoot a gun into a house there is intent. A better analogy would be someone who shot a gun in the air. If that bullet lands a mile away in someones house and k.i.l.l.s someone. That would be an accident if the s.h.o.o.t.e.r did not know that was possible. If he did know then there would be intent and therefore would be a crime.

DWI/DUI are not crimes. There is no victim nor intent so his priors are meaningless. Now you tread on a very fine line of intent when you claim he drank and drove knowing he was endangering others. If it can be proven that he got in that car drunk and thought that he was endangering others, even though the statistics show the odds are very low, than yes, there would be intent. However, if he did not think he would hurt anyone then there would be no intent. It is an easy defense in that situation to simply say that if he did not have the capacity to drive then he did not have the capacity to think he was endangering anyone either. It is ridiculous to say someone who is fall down drunk knew what they were doing.

Yes, this is an accident. It cannot be a crime without intent. Cook is responsible but he is not a criminal.

[AndyWright68]

Your analogy is ridiculous. If you s.h.o.o.t a gun into a house there is intent. A better analogy would be someone who s.h.o.t a gun in the air. If that bullet lands a mile away in someones house and k.i.l.l.s someone. That would be an accident if the s.h.o.o.t.e.r did not know that was possible. If he did know then there would be intent and therefore would be a crime.

DWI/DUI are not crimes. There is no victim nor intent so his priors are meaningless. Now you tread on a very fine line of intent when you claim he drank and drove knowing he was endangering others. If it can be proven that he got in that car drunk and thought that he was endangering others, even though the statistics show the odds are very low, than yes, there would be intent. However, if he did not think he would hurt anyone then there would be no intent. It is an easy defense in that situation to simply say that if he did not have the capacity to drive then he did not have the capacity to think he was endangering anyone either. It is ridiculous to say someone who is fall down drunk knew what they were doing.

Yes, this is an accident. It cannot be a crime without intent. Cook is responsible but he is not a criminal.

[AndyWright68]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over-inflates drunk driving statistics to support prosecution of anyone who has had a drink. Consider this: of drivers involved in all accidents in 1995, only 19 thousands of one percent (.00019)% were legally defined drunk drivers in fatal multi-vehicle accidents, and only half of those accidents were the fault of the drunk driver. National figures on "drinking-related" accidents are seriously over-inflated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a federal agency that says that 7 percent of all accidents in 1995 were "alcohol related." What they don't publicize is how they reach that figure. They don't tell you that the figure counts any accident in which any driver was drinking, regardless of fault. Approximately half of those accidents were caused by the non-drinking driver. They also don't tell you that the figure counts drinking pedestrians who are hit by non-drinking drivers! However, they use these questionable techniques which unrealistically over-inflates the statistics of drinking and driving.

[AndyWright68]

(pt1)
DUI IS NOT A CRIME. CRIMINALIZING RISK IS!

Accepting the fact that DUI is not a crime is hard for most people, even libertarians to believe, but it is true. It is not a crime to drink and drive and all laws making it illegal should be abolished.

It cannot be a crime if there is no intent and if there are no victims. For there to be a victim someone else must be hurt physically, financially or experience property damage. There are no victims just for having a BAC of .08 or higher. There are no victims for swerving. No victim no crime. Now there are those who believe risk should be a crime. They believe that if someone is posing a risk to others that something needs to be done about it. First let us look at the lie of DUI.

M.A.D.D. has used over-inflated numbers to lower the acceptable BAC from .15 to .08. This has led to millions of Americans lives being damaged or destroyed because they had one drink and either swerved or had some other minor traffic infraction. Those who have done this too many times are serving lengthy sentences in our over crowded prison system. No one was hurt yet their lives are destroyed and they are in jail. This makes no sense.

[AndyWright68]

(pt2)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over-inflates drunk driving statistics to support prosecution of anyone with alcohol on their breath. Consider this: of drivers involved in all accidents in 1995, only 19 thousands of one percent (.00019)% were legally defined drunk drivers in fatal multi-vehicle accidents, and only half of those accidents were the fault of the drunk driver. National figures on "drinking-related" accidents are seriously over-inflated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a federal agency that says that 7 percent of all accidents in 1995 were "alcohol related." What they don't publicize is how they reach that figure. They don't tell you that the figure counts any accident in which any driver was drinking, regardless of fault. Approximately half of those accidents were caused by the non-drinking driver. They also don't tell you that the figure counts drinking pedestrians who are hit by non-drinking drivers! However, they use these questionable techniques which unrealistically over-inflates the statistics of drinking and driving. - http://www.mrdui.com/therealstatistics.html

[AndyWright68]

(pt3)

"Let people drink and drive? We can't just let people drive drunk." Everyone will be driving drunk and killing people, right? Wrong. This is the same false fear that keeps drugs illegal. "Well, if we legalize drugs than everyone will be on drugs." Also the restrictions on our 2nd amendment. "If we let people have guns they will be shooting each other over fender benders and other minor arguments". These statements are simply not true. The fear of smashing up their car, killing someone and/or themselves is enough to deter anyone from driving drunk.

DUI laws have done nothing to reduce the amount of drunk drivers. The laws have only effectively locked up and destroyed the lives of millions of middle class Americans. If DUI laws worked and truly detered people from drinking and diving then why have DUI arrests increased over the past decade – male juveniles up by 11%, adult women up by 23%, and female juveniles up by 69%? M.A.D.D. attributes the decrease of deaths in "alcohol related" accidents to their efforts to incarcerate all those who drink and drive but it is more likely the fact that we have much safer cars, roads and better EMS and emergency room advancements.

[AndyWright68]

(pt4)

Very rarely does anyone drive drunk. The problem is we are being arrested in record numbers for having a drink and driving. And, we all know that having one drink and driving is no more riskier than driving perfectly sober. It is more risky driving tired, talking on a hands free cellphone, eating, or simply changing the station on the radio. All soon to be illegal if we allow them to continue to criminalize risk.

We have to stop criminalizing risk. Just because someone poses a risk does not mean they are guilty of a crime. If that made sense then we should not allow 16 to 25 year olds to drive at all. In fact automobiles, trains and airplanes should all be banned. Let's not stop there, kitchen knives, baseball bats, lamps and stairs all pose a risk of death. We put others around us at risk just driving to the store. At anytime we can suffer a stroke or a heart a.t.t.a.c.k and end up hitting someone head on and k.i.l.l.i.n.g them. Life is full of risk and we accept certain risks in order to progress. We can impose safeguards and we do with most risks. Dangerous roads get signs and guardrails, cars get airbags and stairs have handrails. These are the types of things that should be done to reduce risk. The best part is they actually work.

[AndyWright68]

(pt4)

Very rarely does anyone drive drunk. The problem is we are being arrested in record numbers for having a drink and driving. And, we all know that having one drink and driving is no more riskier than driving perfectly sober. It is more risky driving tired, talking on a hands free cellphone, eating, or simply changing the station on the radio. All soon to be illegal if we allow them to continue to criminalize risk.

We have to stop criminalizing risk. Just because someone poses a risk does not mean they are guilty of a crime. If that made sense then we should not allow 16 to 25 year olds to drive at all. In fact automobiles, trains and airplanes should all be banned. Let's not stop there, kitchen knives, baseball bats, lamps and stairs all pose a risk of death. We put others around us at risk just driving to the store. At anytime we can suffer a stroke or a heart attack and end up hitting someone head on and k.i.l.l.i.n.g them. Life is full of risk and we accept certain risks in order to progress. We can impose safeguards and we do with most risks. Dangerous roads get signs and guardrails, cars get airbags and stairs have handrails. These are the types of things that should be done to reduce risk. The best part is they actually work.

[AndyWright68]

(pt5)

So what should we do with someone who is drunk and driving? I would like to see a system that safeguards the public without destroying people's lives.

Let's say someone drank one too many (.15 BAC or above) and got behind the wheel or is driving erratically and seems intoxicated. The police should pull them over and be the "public servants" they are supposed to be and give that person a ride home. It would be cheaper for everyone and take less time than having 2 to 4 officers spending the next 2 to 4 hours arresting someone (many violently), doing all that paperwork and towing the vehicle, not to mention all the tax money used to prosecute a DUI and house those incarcerated. The officer could also leave education materials and maybe a bill for services rendered. They could also play videos of horrible and shocking car accidents caused by drunk drivers all the way home? Another option would be to simply call a cab. As long as the person is not violent then they are not a criminal and they should be assisted and not arrested.

[AndyWright68]

(pt6)

70% (more likely99%) of people are k.i.l.l.e.d in accidents from drivers who have not drank at all. Throw all of them in jail if you truly believe criminalizing risk is worth the damage it does to our society.

[majordasty]

In regards to AndyWright68's comment on belittling the .08 BAC Law and that it's a joke. How do you know .08 BAC Law doesn't work? How do you know how many first time DUI offenders learn their lesson the 1st Time and never drive drunk again? Do you know exactly how many drinks it takes for you to get to a BAC Level of .08? You don't know and are full of BLAH!!! BLAH!!! BLAH!!!

At least 1 out of 10 drivers on a Friday/Satuday night are intoxicated, putting all the sober people of soceity at risk by driving drunk. I want my local police working hard at those times to keep the streets safe and that means locking up the drunk drivers. Also, how do you know how long it takes a Police Officer , Sheriff Deputy , or State Trooper to process an arrested drunk driver?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/raymond-cook-doctor-kills_n_288337.html

[AndyWright68]

To reach .08 BAC depends on how often you drink, body weight, genetics etc. it is different for everyone. .08 is nothing. Your chances of getting hit by someone with a .00 are greater than getting hit by someone with a .08.

you are so wrong. Look up the facts. Arresting people on DUI only hurts people and keeps no one any safer. Have a DU law is the crime

[majordasty]

AndyWright68 is dead WRONG!! I don't know why HuffPost allows you to post lies and false hearsay information. And those 90 fans who support you sound like DUI Graduates too. It's also apparent you never had someone in your family killed by a drunk driver? You need to look up the definition of "vehicular homicide" or "vehicular manslaughter."

Do you just want the laws to get so relaxed, so that people drive intoxicated and not have any worries? In a rebuttal to your comment.....the police should drive drunks home. So let me understand your position, the police in your local city should drive a bar full of intoxicated people home when it closes. Let me see, with all the cut backs in city governement which included 21 police officer layoffs in my hometown two weeks age, you want the depleted manpower of the police department to drive drunks home.

WOW!! That's great!! When someone else is getting robbed or having an emergency at 2am, you'd rather have the cops tied up driving drunks home. Drink all you want I don't care, just don't endanger the rest of us or yourself by driving drunk. Also, the police have a responsibiity for your well being and when you are too drunk and can't take care of your self, guess who's getting you to the hospital safe and sound so you can live another day? Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.....The Police.

[AndyWright68]

You are so confused. It would be cheaper and take less of an officers time if he just drove the drunk home.

DUI is not a crime. You have 90% better chance of being killed in a car accident by someone who is driving sober.

Abolish all DUI/DWI/BUI/BWI laws. All they do is criminalize and punish innocent people who have harmed no one.

[AndyWright68]

You are so confused. It would be cheaper and take less of an officers time if he just drove the drunk home.

DUI is not a crime. You have 90% better chance of being k.i.l.l.e.d in a car accident by someone who is driving sober.

Abolish all DUI/DWI/BUI/BWI laws. All they do is criminalize and punish innocent people who have harmed no one.

[AndyWright68]

And you have no fans because you have no idea what you are talking about and no one here agrees with anything you have ever said. Go bother someone else with your lack of facts and intelligence.

[AndyWright68]

(p1)
DUI IS NOT A CRIME. CRIMINALIZING RISK IS!

Accepting the fact that DUI is not a crime is hard for most people, even libertarians to believe, but it is true. It is not a crime to drink and drive and all laws making it illegal should be abolished.

It cannot be a crime if there is no intent and if there are no victims. For there to be a victim someone else must be hurt physically, financially or experience property damage. There are no victims just for having a BAC of .08 or higher. There are no victims for swerving. No victim no crime. Now there are those who believe risk should be a crime. They believe that if someone is posing a risk to others that something needs to be done about it. First let us look at the lie of DUI.

M.A.D.D. has used over-inflated numbers to lower the acceptable BAC from .15 to .08. This has led to millions of Americans lives being damaged or destroyed because they had one drink and either swerved or had some other minor traffic infraction. Those who have done this too many times are serving lengthy sentences in our over crowded prison system. No one was hurt yet their lives are destroyed and they are in jail. This makes no sense.

[AndyWright68]

(p2)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over-inflates drunk driving statistics to support prosecution of anyone with alcohol on their breath. Consider this: of drivers involved in all accidents in 1995, only 19 thousands of one percent (.00019)% were legally defined drunk drivers in fatal multi-vehicle accidents, and only half of those accidents were the fault of the drunk driver. National figures on "drinking-related" accidents are seriously over-inflated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a federal agency that says that 7 percent of all accidents in 1995 were "alcohol related." What they don't publicize is how they reach that figure. They don't tell you that the figure counts any accident in which any driver was drinking, regardless of fault. Approximately half of those accidents were caused by the non-drinking driver. They also don't tell you that the figure counts drinking pedestrians who are hit by non-drinking drivers! However, they use these questionable techniques which unrealistically over-inflates the statistics of drinking and driving. - http://www.mrdui.com/therealstatistics.html

[AndyWright68]

(p3)

"Let people drink and drive? We can't just let people drive drunk." Everyone will be driving drunk and killing people, right? Wrong. This is the same false fear that keeps drugs illegal. "Well, if we legalize drugs than everyone will be on drugs." Also the restrictions on our 2nd amendment. "If we let people have guns they will be shooting each other over fender benders and other minor arguments". These statements are simply not true. The fear of smashing up their car, killing someone and/or themselves is enough to deter anyone from driving drunk.

DUI laws have done nothing to reduce the amount of drunk drivers. The laws have only effectively locked up and destroyed the lives of millions of middle class Americans. If DUI laws worked and truly detered people from drinking and diving then why have DUI arrests increased over the past decade – male juveniles up by 11%, adult women up by 23%, and female juveniles up by 69%? M.A.D.D. attributes the decrease of deaths in "alcohol related" accidents to their efforts to incarcerate all those who drink and drive but it is more likely the fact that we have much safer cars, roads and better EMS and emergency room advancements.