planomateo
Member
Lets hold off on trying to convict the guy before the facts are out.
None of this makes sense.“I don’t know why this kid plowed into the back of the Brambletts and killed them. I don’t. But it’s not an accident okay we have a crash here. I don’t know that they’re criminally liable at this point,” Hughes told First News.
Odd but not unusual......any intoxicating substance....cell phones included....that impair or reduce driving skill ( ha....not a word used here)... are dangerous...Speeding and marijuana, odd combo
Headlines and tainting the jury pool. I don't see it any other way.Speeding and marijuana, odd combo
Honestly, have you ever smoked and drove?Odd but not unusual......any intoxicating substance.
There's no way to prove he was under the influence at the time of the accident.
You're right. The toxicology report would reflect he has it in his system. What the report will not reflect is whether he was under the influence at the time of the accident. It can't be proven because that technology simply doesn't exist. Hence the reference to a Kangaroo court is the only way i can see him being convicted.They will use the accident itself as proof that he was under the influence. I expect they already have proof it was in his system so it isn't a large jump to under the influence, especially if he fell asleep as reported.
I'd agree in some cases but not with alcohol related accidents. How a body breaks down alcohol does vary, but if you're registering a fraction below the legal limit at the time of the test it can be proven your BAC was higher at the time of the accident.Any DUI law is going to be arbitrary and are created just to be able to convict someone more easily.
When the data was analyzed by the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, it was determined that Taylor’s Jeep was accelerating from 89 mph to 91 mph, with no signs of any braking, when he hit the back of the Highlander.