Help
FORUMS › General Discussions › Open Forum › WTF
TOPIC: WTF
« Prev  1 ...  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  ... 562  Next »
661 to 670 of 5619
User Details are only visible to members.
I think the difference here is that the woman wasn't charged with drinking and sexing.

While I understand your point, I would think that while being able to throw out the breathalyzer result, one finds it inescapable to conclude that the defendant was not intoxicated.

"You can't prove he's intoxicated because he's too intoxicated to consent to your analysis."

It's like saying someone is too stupid to be a moron, too tall to be a giant, too fat to be obese, etc.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24581 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, if women are unable to consent to sex because they are intoxicated, and can bring rape charges against their "assailant" even if they consented while drunk, why shouldn't the court come down with this decision?

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(19411 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
@Sinbach: Too many fakes and picture collectors. Some people are all talk and no action so you do have better luck in a lot of cases on other sites. I had a guy hit me up this morning say he "saw me looking all good in the gym." He said we spoke to each other but I don't remember. He's cute too and in shape I might add.

Vero Beach FL
Username hidden
(7419 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
same conclusion: juries can be remarkably dumb.

;)

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9933 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, it bears remembering sometimes that courts are supposed to make their judgments based upon the law and the evidence presented, not their gut. Sometimes the result is not what we like.

Juries are notoriously dumb, mostly because they make it too easy to exclude jurors. Often, people with jobs are left out because their service would be a "hardship". People with advanced degrees are excluded because they have "preconceived notions".

So after excluding smart people and employed people, you're left with dumb, retired or unemployed people. Mrs. VA was excluded from a jury over a lead poisoning case because she was a nurse married to a chemist and thus would make her own conclusions based on education rather than the court proceedings.

Of course this isn't always the way, but....

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24581 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
i was flabbergasted to find out that they acquitted based on that argument.

my question: would you want that dude on the road with *you* in the condition he was in when this arrest was made?

changed the minds of the 2 holdouts in our case.

people can be remarkably dumb -- a jury of peers can be bad as much as good.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9933 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"they bought the defense's argument that he failed the breathalyzer because of his tobacco chaw"

I consulted (when I was a chemist - as a favor to a friend who was a lawyer) on a legal case where a defendant's lawyer claimed that his positive (via LC-MS) opiate test was a result of taking pseudoephedrine for a cold.

This is laughably preposterous. I won't go into the details here - but I assure you, it is. Jury, however, bought it.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24581 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
reminds me of the time i served on a jury for DWI and we convicted based on the video of the driver interview with police (dude was realllly messed up) and the other case acquitted because they bought the defense's argument that he failed the breathalyzer because of his tobacco chaw.

yuh huh.

that's a bizarre story and indicative of how messed up our legal system is.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9933 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That sounds like admitting to the crime....and should be punishable no matter. That's assuming there's common sense left in the legal system, which is unlikely.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(18530 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
A Georgia Supreme Court ruling earlier this year has created a legal trick by which drunk drivers are getting key evidence against them thrown out, by arguing they were too drunk.

Drivers are convincing judges that they were not thinking clearly when they agreed to take the voluntary breath, blood, or urine tests, due to intoxication.

Attorney Lance Tyler was the first to win this argument for his client John Williams, who was pulled over for a supected DUI in 2012. The case went all the way to Georgia’s Supreme Court, which ruled in March that Williams may not have “actually” consented to giving his blood, and that Gwinnett State Court Judge Joseph Iannazzone should reconsider his earlier decision not to suppress the results of his blood test.

“The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” Tyler argued to Iannazzone in September. A week later, Iannazzone kicked out Williams’ blood test, along with the blood alcohol concentration results (BAC) for five other drivers whose cases he’d heard.

“If a DUI defense lawyer is not raising the ‘Williams issue’ I frankly think it’s malpractice,” said Hawkins.

If it sounds ridiculous for a defense attorney to argue that their client was so intoxicated they were unable to make a sound legal decision about consenting to a DUI test, it’s equally strange to hear a prosecutor argue that the driver wasn’t that drunk.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24581 posts)
« Prev  1 ...  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  ... 562  Next »
661 to 670 of 5619
TOPIC: WTF
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
 
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.