I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Like I said to FS, you're a lawyer.
This is a thread about the morality of drink driving and the sentencing, not a court of law.
Yeah, but I can still question & comment anyway.
Robert has not thrown me out, yet!

And we can make assuptions about what we know without having to provide evidence. Bill's ridiculous supposition is based on the spurious idea that he couldn't possibly have a mobile phone on him. So far the evidence is being kept under wraps, but when it does come out I bet he had a mobile phone on him.

I wonder what odds I'd get. I might email Ladbrokes to see what they say.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Whether or not he had a mobile phone--which he probably did have--is irrelevant as to why he never even stopped his car, even though a man's body was thrown up against his windshield. He never even stopped to look at the victim.

Swift was apparently very drunk. Too drunk to exercise any responsible judgment, like stopping his car, even after hitting someone, or even to fully realize that he had hit someone and the person needed help. He told the police he thought he hit a pedestrian. It's hard to miss a body thrown against your windshield.

Not stopping the car, to even look at the victim, or to try to protect him from being hit by other cars, is inexcusable. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a cell phone handy. When you hit someone, who doesn't know you must immediately stop your car? Calling for help is secondary, first you stop your car to see if there is anything you can do for the victim.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Not stopping the car, to even look at the victim, or to try to protect him from being hit by other cars, is inexcusable. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a cell phone handy. When you hit someone, who doesn't know you must immediately stop your car? Calling for help is secondary, first you stop your car to see if there is anything you can do for the victim.

Well yes, that's why he's being charged with failing to stop after an accident, and not being given a medal for racing home as soon as possible to call the emergency services, which is what Bill would have.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

yet we only pick a BAC of .08 and claimed that any accident must be the fault a driver
with that level of blood alcohol no matter what.

firefly wrote:

You just don't get it. At .08, driving abilities are impaired, and that has been well established. Therefore, [????] a BAC level above +.08 is a factor in any accident because the driver was in an already impaired state.

I must dissent from your reasoning on this point, Firefly.
Suppose that someone with a BAC of .11 has slown down or stopped in traffic,
when he or she is smacked in the rear.
I remain at a loss to understand how the tortfeasee (with the .11, in my example)
can be "a factor" in such a collision.

This actually happened to us last December, tho there was NO alcohol involvement.
If my driver had paused for a traffic jam, while she had been DWI,
her BAC coud not possibly have contributed to occurrence of the collision.

My point is that even if my driver had been chugging a fifth of vodka,
stopped for the traffic jam, with her foot on the brake,
that woud have no effect upon Ms. Inattentive, approaching from our rear.

Will u re-consider your assertion ??
I believe that closer scrutiny will reveal a non-sequitur.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Like I said to FS, you're a lawyer.
This is a thread about the morality of drink driving and the sentencing, not a court of law.
Yeah, but I can still question & comment anyway.
Robert has not thrown me out, yet!

izzythepush wrote:

And we can make assuptions about what we know without having to provide evidence.

Yeah, but what value have assumptions without evidence?????
I can ASSUME that next week u will figure out
how to change water into gold and after that,
I 'll get elected President, tho I have no evidence.

izzythepush wrote:

Bill's ridiculous supposition is based on the spurious idea
that he couldn't possibly have a mobile phone on him.

I remember that DIFFERENTLY.
I thawt I read Bill to allow for the possibility
that Tom did not have a cell fone within reach.

izzythepush wrote:

So far the evidence is being kept under wraps, but when it does come out I bet he had a mobile phone on him.

I wonder what odds I'd get. I might email Ladbrokes to see what they say.

Let us know how that works out.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Will u re-consider your assertion ??
I believe that closer scrutiny will reveal a non-sequitur.

David, stop being ridiculous. We are talking about a man who hit a cyclist who was in front of his car, and traveling in the same direction as the car. And, in addition to the criminal charges, he was ticketed for Careless Driving.

A car that's standing still is generally not responsible for a rear end collision. However, an impaired driver could do things while the vehicle is moving, even slowly, like suddenly hit his brakes without warning, or reason, or suddenly swerve into another lane, which could cause someone to rear end him.

In the accident we are discussing, given the information we have, the driver's impaired state cannot be removed as a contributory factor in the accident. And, in a DUI manslaughter, all that has to be proved is that the driver's actions contributed to the victim's death--when the BAC level is +.08, it is considered "a given" that the driver is in an impaired state, and the specific effects of alcohol do not need to be proved in each case--that is the way Florida law, and most state laws, on DUI read.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Will u re-consider your assertion ??
I believe that closer scrutiny will reveal a non-sequitur.

David, stop being ridiculous.
We are talking about a man who hit a cyclist who was in front of his car,
and traveling in the same direction as the car.

No, Firefly. Your representations r incorrect.
I was addressing your declaration, not Barry's misadventure.
BEHOLD [quoted {emfasis added} from your Post: # 4,910,105]:

firefly wrote:

You just don't get it. At .08, driving abilities are impaired, and that has been well established.
Therefore, [????] a BAC level above +.08 is a factor in any accident because the driver was in an already impaired state.

I invite your specific attention
to your words: "in any accident" as distinct from Tom's alleged collision.

Accordingly, let 's try it again, Counsellor:
Will u re-consider your assertion ??
I believe that closer scrutiny will reveal a non-sequitur.

David

firefly wrote:

And, in addition to the criminal charges, he was ticketed for Careless Driving.

A car that's standing still is generally not responsible for a rear end collision. However, an impaired driver could do things while the vehicle is moving, even slowly, like suddenly hit his brakes without warning, or reason, or suddenly swerve into another lane, which could cause someone to rear end him.

In the accident we are discussing, given the information we have, the driver's impaired state cannot be removed as a contributory factor in the accident. And, in a DUI manslaughter, all that has to be proved is that the driver's actions contributed to the victim's death--when the BAC level is +.08, it is considered "a given" that the driver is in an impaired state, and the specific effects of alcohol do not need to be proved in each case--that is the way Florida law, and most state laws, on DUI read.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The meaning and intention of what I was saying is clear--I'm referring to the driver of a moving vehicle.

I'm not belaboring the point with you because you feel like splitting hairs.

I am discussing this specific case.

People should not drink and drive. What happened to Swift, and his victim, illustrates why.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The meaning and intention of what I was saying is clear--I'm referring to a moving vehicle.

I'm not belaboring the point with you because you feel like splitting hairs.

I am discussing this specific case.

NOT when u explicitly say: "in any accident", u are not discussing "this specific case" Firefly.
[ See Post: # 4,910,105 ]

Your assertion was really pretty distinct, lucid & definitive.
Its hard to get out of that one, but u can be a good sport about it.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I am not quite clear in regard to whether u have accused Tom
of killing 2 guys, or not. Will u clarify that, please ?

http://able2know.org/topic/182157-66

Seems I have a good memory, but Firefly was referring to a different article at the time I replied over the DUI manslaughter case, in 2010.. Not Thom.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Thanks Izzy, I went back through friggen all the pages to clarify Smile

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

I always find a good approach to take with Dave is 'I'm sorry I can't be arsed.' He usually chalks it up to tacit acceptance of his hedonistic lifestyle, and goes down the shooting range to go blasting. He seems happy, although on reflection, that last sentence does seem full of homosexual innuendo.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

LOL's...yessum just a tad.

I guess I am a rebel, "you want truth, you can't handle the truth" oh that's not the one, it was about "facts" Smile

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

A lot of facts are locked away, that's why Dave can strut up and down playing Atticus Finch. Once the facts come out he'll turn into Judge Judy.

1 Reply

Thom had his first DUI just a year ago, this is his second now.

3 Replies

@BeachBoy,

BeachBoy wrote:

Thom had his first DUI just a year ago, this is his second now.

Florida is going to hang him by his balls........

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

A lot of facts are locked away, that's why Dave can strut up and down playing Atticus Finch.
Once the facts come out he'll turn into Judge Judy.

I never acted like that.
I was always polite.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I always find a good approach to take with Dave is 'I'm sorry I can't be arsed.'

WHAT ?????

izzythepush wrote:

He usually chalks it up to tacit acceptance of his hedonistic lifestyle,
and goes down the shooting range to go blasting.

That 's always fun; sometimes I encounter a local Boyscout Troop there
and give their Scoutmaster a few $1OOs for ammo and ice cream.
That 's fun; show them my guns.

izzythepush wrote:

He seems happy, although on reflection,
that last sentence does seem full of homosexual innuendo.

WHAT ????

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Florida is going to hang him by his balls........

The sad part is one life is ended and the other ruin and it more then likely it could had been prevented at a cost of a five dollars LED flasher you could had picked up at any Walmart.

Oh yes if Thom had not been drinking at least he would not had been hung for the cyclist death but to me the odds are very good that the cyclist would had still been kill that night.

1 Reply

@BeachBoy,

Quote:

Thom had his first DUI just a year ago, this is his second now.

Thanks BeachBoy, I was sure that I had read it somewhere, that it was Thom, appreciate you clearing that up.

2 Replies

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know