43
   

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

 
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:34 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Your pictures mean very little by themselves, where are the driver's headlights?

They are also pictures of a bike coming toward you, and that's not what the driver of a car with headlights on would see traveling ahead of him.

BillRM must also think there was no crash scene investigation done, and that the defense attorney is completely incompetent.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:35 am
@Sloan,
Quote:
Looks like Thom's attorney is doing his best to postpone the trail

How do you know that?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:30 pm
@firefly,
Sorry dear but the reason that almost half of all accidental deaths of cyclists happen at night where only around 7 percents of the total cycling is done at night is due to the simple reason that drivers have one hell of a problem seeing unlit bikes at night.

But what the hell you never before let the real universe interfere with some nonsense you are trying to sell.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:32 pm
@BillRM,
Don't refer to FF as dear, it's creepy and nauseating. Now you're repeating yourself again. Why are there no headlights in your pictures?

This is all academic, because you have absolutely no proof the bike wasn't lit.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:05 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Charges: DUI Manslaughter & Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death.

At about 2:15 A.m., Swift was driving his Acura eastbound in the curb lane of 5th Avenue North in the 2200 block when he struck a bicyclist, Barry Lancaster, who was also traveling eastbound in the curb lane of 5th Avenue. Lancaster was ejected onto the windshield of Swift’s vehicle and then thrown to the roadway.
Swift failed to stop after the crash and continued to drive to his residence located at 2017 Dartmouth Avenue North. Police made contact with Swift at that location. He admitted to officers that he knew he was involved in a crash with what he believed to be a pedestrian and he fled the scene.http://www.stpete.org/police/releases/dec11/12-23-11-fatality-crash.pdf

He never saw the cyclist. The cyclist would have been visible in the car's headlights prior to the moment of impact, and prior to the victim landing on the windshield, and he, at least, should have known that he hit someone on a bike and not a pedestrian. Swift wasn't looking where he was going.
Quote:
But what the hell you never before let the real universe interfere with some nonsense you are trying to sell.

Right now, I am watching the Goodman DUI manslaughter trial, taking place in Florida. Goodman is on the stand being cross-examined by the state. I have been watching this trial from the start. Goodman didn't know what he hit either.
Trust me, you don't know a thing about how a DUI manslaughter case is investigated, or what the state has to prove, or how they go about proving it.

.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:33 pm
@firefly,
Trust you??!!

Now THAT'S funny......
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Trust you??!!

Now THAT'S funny......


Hawkeye off hand I can not think of one person on this website that is more dishonest in debates then Firefly.

Throwing in "cute" cartoons every now and then also.
0 Replies
 
Tate12
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 09:09 pm
Perhaps Swift's attorney is delaying the trial, Sloan is a reliable source. However, Swift's fate is coming to a dimmed end. I guess, no further reports or feed back was given regarding the "alleged" passenger that was with Swift that night.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 09:46 pm
@Tate12,
Tate12 wrote:

Perhaps Swift's attorney is delaying the trial, Sloan is a reliable source. However, Swift's fate is coming to a dimmed end. I guess, no further reports or feed back was given regarding the "alleged" passenger that was with Swift that night.


It would be great to find out such things, as the route he drove that night is very important. I think that he had just turned the corner from the south, that he had almost no time to see Barry before he hit him. I am far from convinced that drinking had anything to do with what happened, or that Swift did much of anything wrong. I also dont think that the state needs to prove that Thom's actions cased the death of Barry, all they need to prove is that Barry is dead and that Thom was drunk behind the wheel of a lethal weapon as it made contact with Barry....the fault is assumed, regardless of Firefly's assertions to the contrary.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Do not assume that you will not be deemed at fault for the accident. The government will often go to great lengths to try to pin the fault on the DUI driver, claiming that the accident could have been avoided if your reaction time had not been impaired, etc. Even aside from that, however, you were still DUI. Things are not looking good, as you have already had your license suspended. Stop the bleeding and get to an experienced DUI lawyer

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/dui-car-crash--other-party-at-fault-but--i-was-dru-222424.html
Michael Mott Brewer
DUI / DWI Attorney in Newport Beach, CA

Short of loading the defendant up with a BAC of what is claimed he had at contact time and showing that his delayed reaction because of the alcohol is in this test in excess of the time that the accident analysis shows that he had I would never buy the governments argument. It is bloody unlikely that the state can prove that Thoms BAC caused this accident, and whats more they dont need to do it, as the fault is assumed.
0 Replies
 
Adam4Adam
 
  3  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 11:29 am
@Tate12,
He may have given someone a ride home but he didn't have anyone in the car with him at the time of the accident.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 01:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
Tate12 wrote:
Perhaps Swift's attorney is delaying the trial, Sloan is a reliable source. However, Swift's fate is coming to a dimmed end. I guess, no further reports or feed back was given regarding the "alleged" passenger that was with Swift that night.
hawkeye10 wrote:
It would be great to find out such things, as the route he drove that night is very important. I think that he had just turned the corner from the south, that he had almost no time to see Barry before he hit him.
Do u know who hit whom ?????


hawkeye10 wrote:
I am far from convinced that drinking had anything to do with what happened, or that Swift did much of anything wrong. I also dont think that the state needs to prove that Thom's actions cased the death of Barry, all they need to prove is that Barry is dead and that Thom was drunk behind the wheel of a lethal weapon as it made contact with Barry....the fault is assumed, regardless of Firefly's assertions to the contrary.
To me, that sounds like a violation of elementary Constitutionally required due process of law, but admittedly,
I have not researched it n I have no idea what thay r doing in Florida.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 01:15 pm
@firefly,
Did u ever get into a better MOOD, Firefly ?
How long has it been now ?





David
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 02:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I'm usually in a good mood.Smile

Right now, I'm watching closing arguments in the Goodman trial.

I think the only thing the defense came close to raising reasonable doubt about was whether he got drunk after the accident. And, even on that issue, I didn't find their arguments terribly convincing. I don't think they raised reasonable doubt on the other charges.

It will be interesting to see the verdict and how long it takes the jury to reach their verdict.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 02:04 pm
@firefly,
The jury nailed Goodman on all of the charges against him. They didn't buy the "he got drunk after the accident" claim, or "the Bentley malfunctioned and suddenly accelerated" claim for why he was speeding and went through a stop sign, or the "he had a concussion" claim for why he failed to get more immediate aid for his victim by delaying a call to 911.
Quote:
Florida millionaire found guilty of DUI in man's death
By the CNN Wire Staff
March 23, 2012

(CNN) -- Florida millionaire John Goodman was found guilty Friday after being accused of driving drunk, hitting another vehicle and running it off the road into a canal, where its driver was later found dead in his submerged car.

Goodman, 48, was found guilty on the two counts he was charged with. The first was DUI manslaughter and failure to render aid. The second was vehicular homicide and failure to give information to authorities or aid.

The Palm Beach County jury reached its verdict after about 5½ hours of deliberation, following closing arguments Thursday afternoon.

A sentencing hearing is set for April 30, with Goodman potentially facing 11½ to 30 years in prison.

Until then, Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath revoked Goodman's bond and ordered that he be detained by authorities.

The victim's mother, Lili Wilson, thanked the jury after the verdict and took solace in her belief that "justice has been served."

"I'm always going to miss my son. He was the most wonderful," she said, choking up at the thought of her son. "I will always cherish his memories. And now, coming from me and the rest of the family and his friends, it's time for the healing process to begin."

The incident occurred early the morning of February 12, 2010, when Goodman was driving his black Bentley convertible in Wellington, Florida, "at a high rate of speed while intoxicated," according to a probable cause affidavit.

Goodman failed to halt at a stop sign, where the other driver -- Scott Wilson -- didn't have a stop sign and had the right of way, the affidavit said. The two men's vehicles collided, causing Wilson's car to go over a bank and roll over into a canal.

"After the collision occurred, Goodman made no attempt to look for Wilson's vehicle and fled the scene of the collision on foot," according to the affidavit from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. "Goodman left the Bentley GTC at the scene ... and left Scott Wilson to drown in the canal, belted in the driver seat of his vehicle."

A pair of tests taken three hours later showed Goodman's blood-alcohol content level was .177% and .178% -- and, based on those findings, a state toxicologist extrapolated that he was closer to a .20% or .23% at the time of the crash, more than three times Florida's legal limit.

Prosecutor Sherri Collins further argued that Goodman could have saved Wilson's life had he gone after him after the crash rather than walk away.

"He called his friend, and she had to talk him into calling 911," Collins said during closing arguments Thursday. "That is absolutely failure to render aid, that is absolutely failure to give information, that is absolutely not informing the authorities.

"... If the defendant had rendered aid, Scott Wilson would have lived."

Goodman himself testified earlier in the trial, claiming he was "absolutely not" intoxicated when he left the second of two establishments he'd gone to that night. He blamed a malfunction with his vehicle for his failure to stop and the fact he hit Wilson's car.

"I began to apply my brakes, and the car did not seem to be stopping as easily as I was used to," he said on the stand. "I continued to apply the brakes, I slowed before the stop sign and ... took my foot off the brake. And that's the last thing I remember."

His lawyer, Roy Black, argued that the blood-alcohol readings don't jibe with eyewitness testimony, saying that people saw him have three drinks and not the 20 he would have needed for such a high reading.

And Black said the observations that Goodman's reactions appeared slow after the crash, that he had trouble gauging where he was and that he seemed confused were "consistent with the symptoms of suffering a concussion."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justice/florida-millionaire-dui-trial/index.html

The prosecutors had urged the jury to use "common sense" and to regard the defense explanations as being highly improbable, and the jurors appear to have done just that. I watched this trial, and I think the jury got it right.

In terms of Swift's case, the leaving the scene/failure to aid charge may be even more difficult to try to refute than it was in Goodman's case, because Goodman may not have seen the other car in the canal after the accident, and they did establish that his own cell phone was not working--he just needlessly delayed finding a working phone and calling 911 when he finally did have the use of a phone. Swift clearly knew he had hit a human being with his car, he kept on driving, never stopped to even look at the victim, let alone aid him, and it is not known to us when he finally called 911, if he ever made such a call. So, Swift's actions are even less defensible than Goodman's.
Also, it is clear that jurors are not ready to buy, "he got drunk after the accident," unless there is clear evidence that that took place. If the state can establish an illegal BAC level in Swift's system at the time of the accident, he is sunk. Alleging that he might have consumed more alcohol at home, to calm his nerves, after the accident, probably would not raise reasonable doubt about the DUI charge.

In addition, while the Goodman accident took place at an intersection, Swift and the cyclist were both traveling in the same direction, in the same lane, with the bike ahead of the car. If the cause of the cyclist's death was the direct impact with the car from behind, the most likely cause of the collision was a drunk driver traveling too close behind the cyclist and being inattentive to the road ahead of him--regardless of whether or not the bike had back lights, particularly if the crash scene revealed no skid marks, or other indications of attempts by the driver to avoid impact, even seconds before that impact took place.

When the state levels charges like these, they are clearly prepared to back them up.

If Swift was clearly DUI that night, and he can get a decent plea deal, he probably should take it.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 02:17 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
They didn't buy the "he got drunk after the accident" claim


The getting drunk after the accident work as a defense for local Miami news and later fox new commentator Rick Sanchez after he hit an old man on his way home from a football game if memory serve me correctly.

Of course also if memory serve me correctly it never even went to him being charge.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 02:30 pm
@firefly,
There was never any doubt about the state having Goodman by the balls, and his lawyers must have known this from day one. They put on a show in return for a very hefty paycheck. Nice work if you can get it.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 02:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The getting drunk after the accident work as a defense for local Miami news and later fox new commentator Rick Sanchez after he hit an old man on his way home from a football game if memory serve me correctly.

No, as usual, you have your facts wrong.

A drunk man ran directly into the path of Sanchez' car. Sanchez was not found to be at fault for the man's injuries and he was simply charged with DUI and he pleaded No Contest to that charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Sanchez#Drunk_driving_incident

You should never rely on your memory which is notoriously bad.

Former New York Yankee catcher Jim Leyritz was found not guilty of DUI manslaughter for a 2007 crash. The driver of the other car, who died in that accident, was also DUI.
Quote:
However Leyritz did not get completely off …he was convicted of a lesser charge of misdemeanor DUI, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail. Leyritz had faced up to 15 years in prison if convicted on the manslaughter charge.

The issue that allowed Leyritz to avoid the manslaughter charge was inconclusive testimony as to whether or not Leyritz ran a red light on Dec. 28, 2007, when he collided with a vehicle driven by 30-year-old Fredia Ann Veitch, who later died.
http://www.realestateradiousa.com/2010/11/20/jim-leyritz-found-not-guilty-of-dui-manslaughter/




firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 03:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
There was never any doubt about the state having Goodman by the balls, and his lawyers must have known this from day one. They put on a show in return for a very hefty paycheck

What you call "putting on a show" is the work of defense attorneys to defend their clients from from the charges of the state--they force the state to fulfill their burden of proof. Since that's what keeps the state from "hammering citizens," I'd think you'd applaud their efforts.

Goodman was guilty, just as charged, and that's why they couldn't raise reasonable doubt--the state's evidence in support of the charges was simply too strong.

And the same may be true in Swift's case.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 03:22 pm
@firefly,
Damn good plead deal and he did claimed he was drinking after the accident so the BAC reading a few hours afterward was very questionable and that is likely why he got such a nice deal.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/07/22/cnns-rick-sanchez-hit-and-run-dui-leaves-victim-jeffrey-smuzinick-paralyzed/

Why did Sanchez leave the scene? To try to get the alcohol out of his system calm his nerves:

His attorney, Richard Essen, now says the anchorman returned home and had “a couple of drinks to calm his nerves” before returning to the scene. Essen doubts that Sanchez’s DUI charge will ever come to trial. “I think the results of the blood tests will be thrown out,” the lawyer says. “If the results of the blood tests are suppressed, then there is no evidence against him at all. The state cannot proceed.”


http://www.browardbeat.com/rick-sanchezs-history-of-trouble-in-miami/

But three years later, he was involved in another controversy. In 1991, the car Sanchez was driving struck a young man near the football stadium after a Dolphins game. The man never fully recovered from severe head injuries and died four years later in a nusring home. Sanchez was charged with DUI.

Under a plea bargain, Sanchez paid a $250 fine plus $100 in court costs, served six months probation, provided 50 hours of community service and took a 15-hour drunken driving course. His driver license was suspended for six months, say newspaper reports at the time.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rick-sanchez-hit-and-run-dui-cnn-reporters-past-surfaces-again


Take Rick Sanchez for instance. On December 10 1990, Rick Sanchez was part of a hit and run, when he was leaving a Miami Dolphins game with his dad and he got behind the wheel and had been drinking.


He hadn't even left the parking lot when he hit Jeffrey Smuzinick, who was running between two parked cars, who was apparently also drunk.

Rich Sanchez fled the scene and only came back two hours later. He was charged with a DUI, but it was reported that his reading was .15, which is still way over the legal alcohol limit.

Jeffrey Smuzinick died about five years later.





 

Related Topics

Can a thread be removed or locked? - Question by BeachBoy
dui - Question by sylvia chomas
Drinking and Driving Tip.... - Discussion by Slappy Doo Hoo
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:24:03