I just don’t understand drinking and driving

It look like your comments is becoming worthless to the point where the ignore function is about to be call for.

In the 'same conditions,' a sober driver would be more alert, and less likely to have an accident, and there's very little chance they would flee the scene.

That's why it's very important to make the decision NOT to drink and drive.

Drinking by itself with no showing that the drinking was the primary cause of an accident should not result in a manslaughter conviction any more then driving tired or driving when emotionally upset or in a hundreds of other sub par conditions.

The fact that the driver was under the influence meant that his driving abilities were, by definition, already impaired.
Where did you get the idea that intoxication has to be the primary cause of the accident?

The Florida statute does not say that.

Is is illegal to drive while emotionally upset?
Is it illegal to drive when tired? No, but It is possible that you could
drive extremely recklessly or negligently while upset or tired,
and, if you killed someone as a result, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

In the case of a DUI, the driver has ingested chemical substances which impair the functioning of the brain and central nervous system in ways which adversely affect the ability to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner. When a driver has a BAC level > .08 alcohol can be assumed

to be a factor in almost any accident they are involved in that results in the death of another human being. mainly because it is difficult to exclude these existing influences. The driver is under the influence. Since alcohol affects visual acuity, depth perception, night vision, and reaction time, an intoxicated driver is more likely to hit a cyclist who is traveling with or without lights on his bike, or to hit many other things as well, than a sober driver. In addition, intoxicated drivers would be more likely to ignore traffic signs, speed limits, weather conditions, road conditions, and other external factors that require attention for safe driving.

The state can assume

the irony police will be here shortly...

Ok, Ok he killed a man and it should be on his concious that he left the scene
and could have activley given this man some type of first aide

that he could have still been alive. If he was found rather quickly after hitting the man he probably called them, especially if they knew exactly where to find hm at. Not enough information in tis story!!!! What about the lady in north Tampa that went home after hitting 3 children, in which one of the children were killed and the other two were seriously hurt. She went home, had her car washed and we did not know for almost a week who acually hit those children. This incident is no different! Whose to say she was not drunk at the time and had to g home to sobber up.

This is the same scenario she got away with basically a slap on the wrist.

Our justice system!!! Its a shame if you have money to get a high paid lawyer
you would get away with murder!!!!

that Ted Kennedy thing really steams you, huh dave...

that's kinda funny dave, as my policy is I don't hang around with anyone carrying a firearm.

I'm much less likely to be shot that way.

I'll take my chances on drowning. I can swim...

Ya, those lefties will drown you every chance they get...

that's kinda funny dave, as my policy is I don't hang around with anyone carrying a firearm.

Because all drinking driver cases involve an at least alleged use of alcohol, it is not unusual for the courts to require abstinence from alcohol while the case is pending. It is also common to make continued abstinence a term of probation. The dilemma for the courts then becomes how to best monitor the offender so that there is some reasonable assurance that the court’s order is being obeyed. Traditionally the courts have employed various methods for this purpose, including random or daily breath testing, attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or even a breath alcohol tether installed at the offender’s home. While each method presents its own host of problems, one common shortfall is that none of them is continuous.

To address this perceived need for alcohol monitoring generally, as well the shortfalls of all the available methods, a company that calls itself Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc.® (AMS) patented a device known by the acronym SCRAM® (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor). Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor. The SCRAM device is worn as an ankle bracelet, and while in place the device monitors the subject’s blood alcohol transdermally, meaning it measures the migration of alcohol through the offender’s skin. The measurements obtained are then converted from a perspiration alcohol level to a blood alcohol content. While the common acronym for blood alcohol is BAC, and for breath BrAC, AMS saw fit to trademark a new acronym TAC for this purpose, which now means transdermal alcohol content.

The idea of using perspiration for BAC dates back to the 1930s. Several studies in the last three decades have shown that there is a fairly good correlation between the amount of alcohol in one’s perspiration and the amount in one’s blood. Because of recent advances in technology,1 the devices used to measure perspired alcohol have gotten small enough to be fashioned into something that can be worn continuously, take continuous transdermal measurements, and transmit these measurements to a central monitoring facility.
http://www.baronedefensefirm.com/scram.html