What is there for a jury to decide?????
He was guilty when he made the decision to drive his car away from the bar.
What a dumb @ss.
jury could decide a not guilty if the prosecution screws it up or if the trooper is a dumb ass on the stand.
That should be a no brainer.
What kind of idiot would even try to have a jury trial with that resume?
I'm sure he was just rushing to Frilly's for some of the Fagitas.
There are MANY "no brainer" cases that get dismissed for one reason or another. One never knows until a verdict is read.
Should have been just guilty of speeding.Regardless what the bullshit law says, a person can safely operate a vehicle with a BAL of .108. I know, I have done it many, many, many, many, many times before.
Keep driving drunk it is so worth it. Hopefully, you would just kill yourself and not wipeout that whole van load of kids coming back from church camp. If you are really driving drunk you are a selfish SOB and deserve what ever you get!!!
I agree with 1:58. The arbitrary .08 is not a magic number. It's different for different people, but most are not seriously impaired at the .108 this guy recorded. However, it would seem he used very poor judgment speeding where he did.
1:58 PM is the reason why you can never tell what a jury will do, no matter how "obvious" the guilt is. The problem is, it makes no difference what 1:58 PM THINKS, 1:58 PM was intoxicated at a .108 level. "Safely operated a vehicle" only means that fortunately, nothing happened that would have caused 1:58 PM to have to use quick judgment and reactions. I once read a national motorcycle magazine, and they took a test with the whole staff up to the old .10 level. They had a complete range of old to young, big to little, male and female, and teetotalers and drinkers (not to mention several serious skeptics about the .10 level). THEY ALL ENDED UP ADMITTING THAT THEY HAD LOST THEIR NORMAL MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABILITIES LOOOONG BEFORE THEY REACHED THE .10 LIMIT (the reason for the present .08 law). ALL of them, including the "know it all" skeptics. An experienced drinker can "compensate" for the effects of alcohol, but that does not mean they are not intoxicated (or affected) by the alcohol.
He could have just confessed that he was a secular progressive and he would have gotten off with forgiveness and rehab...
Post a Comment