I just don’t understand drinking and driving

You still don't understand the difference between charged and convicted, or are pretending you don't. For your family's sake, I hope it is the latter.

Interesting how silent you've become on why you think it's 'fair and rational,'
for the state to execute a man before examining DNA evidence that could exonerate him.

Quote:

About 50% of motorists speeding, drunk, or inattentive.

I read it and did you read that all of the adults kill was cycling at night without the proper lights.

the status of the cyclist has NOTHING to do with the charges against the driver -
it may have an impact on the outcome of a civil suit but that is an entirely different matter

Imma start calling BillRM "loopy."

Not because he's crazy, but because his arguments play on an endless loop.

In other word if you are driving DUI and your brake fail and no one no matter what his condition happen to be could had done anything to prevent the accident you would not be guilty of dui manslaughter.

This been posted before however take note of the word cause is connect with an neligence element

Florida has a "per se" DUI law. This means that once a BAC level of .08 or higher is established, the prosecution does not have to additionally prove impaired driving. The fact that a person was driving with a BAC of .08% or higher is enough. http://www.duiattorney.com/florida/fl-dui-charges

All you do is present ideas on how to weasel out of situations you shouldn't have gotten yourself into in the first place--like driving DUI. It's like a primer on how to avoid taking personal responsibility.

Quote:

In other word if you are driving DUI and your brake fail and no one no matter what his condition happen to be could had done anything to prevent the accident you would not be guilty of dui manslaughter.

Idiot, you are responsible for the car you are driving if you are the registered owner. If your brakes fail, you are responsible for driving a car with lousy brakes, for failing to properly maintain your car, so charges would still be justified. And you'd still be driving DUI.

Quote:

This been posted before however take note of the word cause is connect with an neligence element

In that particular case, a special jury instruction had been requested but not given. That's why the new trial was ordered.

You don't understand the laws, you don't understand the case law you're posting--you are way out of your depth on this topic.

And you fail to read, or understand, what has been posted regarding Florida law--you just go on repeating the same inaccurate crap over and over and over.

Quote:

Florida has a "per se" DUI law. This means that once a BAC level of .08 or higher is established, the prosecution does not have to additionally prove impaired driving. The fact that a person was driving with a BAC of .08% or higher is enough. http://www.duiattorney.com/florida/fl-dui-charges

All the state of Florida has to do is show that the driver was DUI when operating the motor vehicle that ran into and killed the cyclist to justify a DUI manslaughter charge. No other negligence or impaired driving has to be shown. Drunken driving is reckless driving--that's why it's illegal.
If you can't understand the laws, stop trying to discuss and criticize them, you are making yourself look foolish.

Now that you've told us you were involved in a collision with a cyclist, a motorcyclist, your contorted reasoning to try to exonorate Swift makes sense--you're trying to justify/rationalize your own past driving accidents.

All you do is present ideas on how to weasel out of situations you shouldn't have gotten yourself into in the first place--like driving DUI. It's like a primer on how to avoid taking personal responsibility.

David - the part you have hilited in red (which is why I will be thumbing down your post after responding)
talks about what is required to make a charge.

Your response talks about what is required in re conviction.

It is conceivable that while stopped in traffic, or while waiting motionless for a red light,
a drunken driver can be struck by a bicyclist (sober or not),
resulting in a fatality. I don 't imagine that u mean that
the drunken driver shud be convicted of homicide for that.

I imagine that the D.A. still must prove negligence in the management
of defendant 's vehicle

It is conceivable that while stopped in traffic, or while waiting motionless for a red light,
a drunken driver can be struck by a bicyclist (sober or not),
resulting in a fatality. I don 't imagine that u mean that
the drunken driver shud be convicted of homicide for that.

In that instance, the operation of the motor vehicle would likely not
be considered the cause of death--since the motor vehicle was standing still and the cyclist crashed into it.
But, if the drunken driver had sudden hit his brakes, for no apparent reason,
causing the cyclist to crash into him, he might well be charged.

In the case we are discussing, involving Swift, the DUI manslaughter charges do appear to be justified.

I imagine that the D.A. still must prove negligence in the management
of defendant 's vehicle

Not under Florida law. . . .

Thanks David. Have a lovely day and weekend.

I didn't want you to think that I'd thumb you down as a result
of any disagreement with your comments - I'd just tell you that.