R.I.P Monte

[1 RARE T]

So you were double the legal limit, got in your car, it broke down and was parked on the road. Some other retard with the same lack of good sense hit it and now it's totaled.

Me and every other person who drive our families around are thankful both of you are going to be off the road for awhile.

 

[pontiacgp]

So you were double the legal limit, got in your car, it broke down and was parked on the road. Some other retard with the same lack of good sense hit it and now it's totaled.

Me and every other person who drive our families around are thankful both of you are going to be off the road for awhile.

you have no idea if he was impaired or not when he got in the car and out of it a few minutes later......

 

[1 RARE T]

The .15 means he was. The accident (idiot's colliding), happened just before. Good luck convincing a judge too much time had gone by or all that other gibberish you referred to.

 

[pontiacgp]

The .15 means he was. The accident (idiot's colliding), happened just before. Good luck convincing a judge too much time had gone by or all that other gibberish you referred to.

gibberish??? read this..

https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/d...bWUgb2YgdGhlIGFjY2lkZW50AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3
"[11] Dr. Cherlet, a forensic toxicology services expert, who specializes in alcohol interpretation and analysis, testified on behalf of theCrown and provided extrapolations based on a time of collision of 1:14 a.m. She based her estimates on the lowest breath result of 180 mg% and assumed alcohol consumption at a normal rate, no alcohol consumption after 1:14 a.m., and an elimination rate of 10 - 20 mg% per hour. She estimated that Mr. Knelsen’s blood alcohol concentration would be between 204 mg% and 227 mg% if drinking concluded ½ hour before 1:14 a.m., and between 184 mg% to 207 mg% if drinking had continued to 1:14 a.m.

"[12] Dr. Cherlet’s opinion was that at a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg% all individuals are impaired in their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle regardless of their tolerance to and experience with alcohol.


and then you can read this..
https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skaia/...bWUgb2YgdGhlIGFjY2lkZW50AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

 

[oldsofb]

The striking vehicle should be the only liable party (since anyone drunk or sober can break down in the roadway), but if he failed SFST's in the field and then the later breath test at the station, that's going to be a tough nut to crack.

They made plenty of cars, but only one of you. I glad you're ok, and hope this all serves as a wake up call for the future.

Good luck brother.

Hutch

 

[Bonnewagon]

That really sucks. But how do you get a DWI without driving? What I mean is, in NY, you need to be observed operating a vehicle and then determined to be intoxicated, by a policeman. Your car was incapable of being operated, and no one knows how long it was stalled there, and you could have had a beer while waiting for help to arrive. Not smart but not illegal.

 

[81_El_Homewrecker]

Me and every other person who drive our families around are thankful both of you are going to be off the road for awhile.

You have to be able to see where RARE T is coming from. To be twice the legal limit regardless of time, a person downed a good amount of beers... Just sayin... I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the other guy blames hi, for the accident. As it was worded to me after I hit someone "if you hadn't hit them we wouldn't be here right?" So if he hadn't broke down and had his car in the street there may have been no accident. I understand it was out of his control but when an attorney is trying to defend someone they will use anything!

 

[pontiacgp]

.. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the other guy blames hi, for the accident. As it was worded to me after I hit someone "if you hadn't hit them we wouldn't be here right?" So if he hadn't broke down and had his car in the street there may have been no accident. I understand it was out of his control but when an attorney is trying to defend someone they will use anything!

that is the res ipsa loquitur doctrine but it does not apply in this situation

 

[81_El_Homewrecker]

that is the res ipsa loquitur doctrine but it does not apply in this situation

But can we agree that to be .16 AFTER the accident a person must have drank a decent amount of alcohol BEFORE getting in th car? Doesn't really matter if you aren't drunk when you get in the car if you just chugged a 6 pack... Right?

 

[pontiacgp]

But can we agree that to be .16 AFTER the accident a person must have drank a decent amount of alcohol BEFORE getting in th car? Doesn't really matter if you aren't drunk when you get in the car if you just chugged a 6 pack... Right?

You can chug 6 beer and not be impaired. If you chug beer you body actually inhibits the absorption of the alcohol.Just because he allegedly blew .16 that does not mean he was impaired at the time the car broke down and he exited the car. The test that was done may be flawed and there has to be another test 15 minutes after that, You need two tests to extrapolate what his impairment was, if any, when he was driving. I look at these situations objectively and not personally.

I have a client now who is charged for stunt driving cause he pulled 3 wheelies on his motorcycle. I will get him off that charge because they made an error when drafting the regulations for the law. They included that the driver intended to lift the wheel off the ground. With the word "intended" included that means the prosecution has to prove the element of mens rea was present in my client's mind. There is nothing in the disclosure that supports that element was present.

It's not always what actually happened, it's what the prosecution can prove without any reasonable doubt