1.22.2008

Remember This Involving A Chico Couple?



We have an update.

33 comments:

Jarhead said...

Oh well... he was high and not drunk. That makes everything okay then.

Anonymous said...

Get a rope! Ooops! I mean after the grand jury passes on his guilt.

Anonymous said...

Were drugs or alcohol involved?

Anonymous said...

Why do ya'll always jump to the conclusion that every crash is alcohol related? Now it seems he smoked something. How much? Who knows? Maybe he was talking on his cell phone or changing radio stations. Maybe, just maybe, it was actually an "accident." Tragic as this was, maybe this is one of those accidents - "acts of God" - that just happen.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah well maybe my a$$ has an Elephant living in it and there's a bowl of peanuts on the back of the toilet but that doesn't change the fact he admitted to drinking earlier.

Anonymous said...

Who said he was high?

Anonymous said...

Could have done worser on lawyer choice.

Anonymous said...

Was it even his fault?

Anonymous said...

Are you sin-free, 3PM?

Anonymous said...

3:00 - are you stupid or what? Are you actually suggesting if one has a drink that means everything subsequent is a result of that drink? BTW it is not illegal to drink and drive - it may be illegal to drive impaired. Was this guy impaired? No evidence seems to be present so far.

The Devil said...

To bad this kid was not aborted!

Anonymous said...

it is illegal to drink and drive if it is alcohol related..hence the "open container law." and even if he had one puff of that marijuana he is still "dazed and confused." that stuff is illegal for a reason!~

Anonymous said...

WORSER? YOU KIDDING ME?

mzchief said...

BE WARNED
If you have an elephant eating peanuts from a bowl on the back of your toilet whilst it is dwelling in your arse you will act like anonymous 3 p.m.

Noevadeaux said...

Are you involved in po-lice work, 3PM?

Anonymous said...

Where the hell you been, debil? Good to see ya! It's cold here today. Can you do somethin' about that? I gots to water them cows, and the hose is froze.

Anonymous said...

The real difference between partaking of the herb and drinking is pot is quite a bit more socially responsible and healthier if you have to do one or the other.

Anonymous said...

Okay, he tested positive for marijuana. marijuana stays in your system for approx. 30 days. Nobody knows if he smoked weed that night or 29 days prior.
Has anybody thought that it could just be an "accident"?

Anonymous said...

Seriously? How could it just be an accident? Do you really think NOTHING he did could have caused this horrible tragedy.

He admitted to drinking that night, he smokes pot?

Just an accident?????????

Anonymous said...

5:28 pm .. Good point and jarhead must you always be that stooooopid?

Anonymous said...

Apparently many of you just make comments without reading the link Barry gave.

You might want to take a minute and go over it with respect to the boys admissions to drinking,when the accident occured and what the police can do "after the fact".

He will be prosecuted for manslaughter in the end.

Anonymous said...

10:48 Maybe you should a little more critically. If he was to be tried on the basis of the article the 'evidence' shows he drank before the accident. This may mean 2 drinks over a period of hours.

Anonymous said...

It's all an accident and funny until it is one of your family members. Think about that before you come up with one of your bulls*#t comments.

anon 4:00pm you are right marijuana is illegal for a reason and so is drinking and driving. IT KILLS!!!!

Anonymous said...

He has admitted boozing and smoking pot before the accident. They have testimony from the server about how many drinks he had but his alocohol level may have dissipated in the time before the blood test. No one is talking about what the combination of booze and pot can do but it seems to me that he will get a chance in court to prove that mixing the two brain-addling substances left him perfectly able to drive. He also may have had a troubled family life which will surely make him innocent of vehicular homicide.

Anonymous said...

If he had a bleeding wound in the accident or was in shock, medics would have administered oxygen and a fluid IV. Both of these dilute and remove alcohol from the blood stream very quickly. People were convicted of DWI by way of physical and witness evidence long before blood tests.

Anonymous said...

Please consider having the decency to read the material provided before commenting.According to the article(which is all we have to go on) he admitted drinking that night and marijuana was found on a tox. screen. The server at the establishment had been identified and this is how we 'know' he drank. There was nothing in the article to allow inference to how much he drank.

How did you get "He has admitted boozing and smoking pot before the accident. They have testimony from the server about how many drinks he had but his alcohol level may have dissipated..."

Assuming all the statements are true, here is what can be inferred.1. He was served some amount of alcohol that night,(with no mention of number or whether he actually DRANK said alcohol). 2. Within the the previous 30 days approx. he smoked some amount of marijuana.

Very telling situation actually. The cops more than glad to hang on to the THC found on the screen but DOUBT the results of the alcohol test? The test didn't concur with your preconceived opinion? Even stating the alcohol may have "dissipated." Uh, dude do you know what dissipated means?

Anonymous said...

Jim Lane is going to destroy the prosecutor when this goes to trial if all they have is what is stated in this article.
PS Am I the only one who read this article before posting my comments?

Anonymous said...

10:19 - Sure...he will get a witness to say he poured all of his drinks on the floor. Haaaaa!!!
Any jury will surely fall for that defense.

Anonymous said...

10:19? You may have the wrong blog or at least comments section.

Anonymous said...

Hey 11:20, go waaaay back to 2:41 yesterday (and others). Not everyone jumps to conclusions - and apparently not everyone reads all of the posts.

Anonymous said...

11:20 You may have missed part of the point. If anything the prosecutor would need people willing to swear to how much he drank,(and this might be problematic), you wouldn't need to get witnesses to prove the defendant poured the drinks on the floor.

Anonymous said...

4:05 Your answer is YES.

Cindy said...

Funny that everyone that has "smart" remarks to make conveniently leave their names as anonymous. The only thing I have to say is have some respect for the family, you cannot imagine how they feel until you have walked in their shoes. This was my sister and I couldn't have ever imagined this happening to me and I surely would have NEVER said such rude and snide remarks about someone and their family. By the way imagine being 8 years old and remembering everything about who and what took your parents from you. Any person with atleast some decency would never want your child, sister, neice, or any other family member to have that as their last memory!!! oh yea and you can all mouth, but do you even know what his driving record was like prior to this accident-history seems to continually be repeated, and if we as civilians continue to let money buy him his way out, everyone may experience his "good choices and driving."