I just don’t understand drinking and driving

People just want justice, nobody wants a pound of flesh. A pound of revels, well that's another matter.

"of course, they put out a press release"

you got busted

No, but a bit of accurate reporting wouldn't go amiss, instead of through a paranoid scanner fuckwittedly.

I understand putting out a press release however, wouldn't it be more logical, moral and rightous to not have full names, or addresses for that matter of the parties involved that are facing a trial...

Press releases are read by everyone if in the paper, including the future Jury.

And, what you first read in my opinion, is what remains cemented in our mind.

I agree. It's not done the same way in Canada.

In the U.S. they are free to publish a lot more information than they are here.

Me too. Over here it's subjudice, and there are restrictions on what can be reported before a trial.

It's not done at all either in Australia.

It's called Innocent until proved Guilty and therefore, the person is protected to the best of our ability until that point in time.

On a side note.. Youth... will always test the boundries and do wrong, the laws in those days weren't as rich and the police weren't really around and if they were it was like, look straight ahead keep driving... I am guilty of doing that alot as a teenager, early 20's.

This guy is my age.. We catch taxi's these days, it's called being responsible.

Not withstanding, he may not have thought he was going to have too many at all and it was after 2am, consequently, evident that he'd been drinking alot by that time and possibly thought it's only a block or two I can do it, no big deal no one is really out at that time of the night... Irresponsible but possible that was his thought pattern... And he should know better at his age... But, I would say it's sad on both accounts. His, with his non rational thinking due to alcohol and what he has to live with for the rest of his life and sad for the person who died, for being out riding somewhere, trying to get somewhere, after 2am in the morning and that in those last moments, he more than likely heard the car drive away, leaving him there.

The last part would haunt me for the rest of my life, knowing that.....

.

What was in the paper was no more than what would have been heard at the defendant's arraignment, in a courtroom open to the public, as soon as he appeared before a judge. The names and addresses of defendants are not kept secret. This is publicly available information. How much newspapers decide to reveal is up to the individual paper.

Jurors know that an arrest took place and what the charges are, so simply having read about it earlier really doesn't make much difference.

In high profile cases, however, a media circus can develop, with both sides leaking information, and that can influence the potential jury pool--I don't approve of that sort of thing. Apart from the hearings in open court, both sides should shut up until the trial and sometimes a judge must impose a gag order to keep them from speaking to the press.

I don't want the police making clandestine arrests--I want to know who they have arrested and why. It's simply a different legal tradition in this country. We have a very open system.

In court, our defendants also have the legal presumption of innocence.

You never drove on the New Jersey turnpike and hit patches of heavy frog for example.

Appreciated but in my books, I don't agree with it...Simply put.

What I read also says "Police report he admitted" radarada... First thing you read is the last thing you will remember...

I think people should have more rights than that, reminds me of all the gossip in Hollywood Magazines....

Just saying... It's how I feel about it.

Yup, those patches of heavy frog can feel, and look, just like a body hitting against your windshield.

No, I haven't hit any frogs on the New Jersey Turnpike.

I have however driven on the New Jersey Turnpike and other roads in situations of dense fog.

Fog does not have the same effect on a vehicle as a body hitting the windshield.

And yes, I can compare the effect as I've been in reconstruction engineering labs to get some experience of various driving scenarios.

Really, you do make the silliest assumptions aside from making the consistent fog/frog error.

true. The first time I read the crime section in a smalltown U.S paper I was quite startled by all the information put out there.

The American system is certainly open. I have a hard time thinking of that openness as leading to increased fairness.

I said that you might not know what had hit your car not that something had hit your car.

Second there are conditions where stopping a car is suicidal for you and a great risk to the lives of others

If BillRM can't tell the difference between driving in fog and having a human body hit your windshield, what makes you think he isn't really talking about frogs? I find it hard to understand why the froggies keep hopping around in his head, but I must admit they are funny.

I think I remember when BillRM first showed up here that he admitted to some language difficulty. We mostly have beaten up on him for it, but I think he was open about it, once anyway. Or maybe I mix him up with another person.
But still - - -

I highly disagree with him probably all the time, so defense comes a little hard, but the guy did not mean FROGS, he meant FOG.
I think it would be sensible if we argued based on his ideas rather than his wordage problem.

I don't do this since I have him on ignore, but I read the most of the rest of a2k, and people quote him.
The mocking for poor wording is getting to me, juvenilia from the smart.

When it's against your windshield staring you in the face?

Perhaps you shouldn't be driving.

no. that is not what you said.

In any case, it is quite different to hit a human v a squirrel or a deer or a moose or a cat.

Also, no matter how thick the fog - once the body has come close enough to hit your windshield, you know what you've hit. You may not be able to give full identifying details but you'll know it's a human.