It was put that way for a reason; not fail.
There’s a mountain of evidence proving he’s guilty… what is the proof/reason for none of that mountain of evidence to matter?
Funny you say this. When Treyvon’s shooting free public outrage, he went from being released to arrested. Sounds like mob rule to me.
reasonable doubt
I want to know what the defense had to prove just that. From what’s been said, it seemed pretty cut and dry.
I think they key word to me is “reasonable.”
He knew he hit her. Even if the BMW is SOUND PROOF…he is missing a headlight at night…cmon WTF
For example, in Texas, to prove intoxication manslaughter, it is not necessary to prove the person was negligent in causing the death of another, nor that they unlawfully used the substance that intoxicated them, but only that they were intoxicated, and operated a motor vehicle, and someone died as a result. The same rule of law applies in New York for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
§ 125.12 Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when
he or she causes the death of another person, and either:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in violation of subdivision two, three,
four or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and
traffic law or operates a vessel or public vessel in violation of
paragraph (b), ©, (d) or (e) of subdivision two of section
forty-nine-a of the navigation law, and as a result of such intoxication
or impairment by the use of a drug, or by the combined influence of
drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, operates such motor vehicle,
vessel or public vessel in a manner that causes the death of such other
person, or
(2) operates a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of
more than eighteen thousand pounds which contains flammable gas,
radioactive materials or explosives in violation of subdivision one of
section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law, and
such flammable gas, radioactive materials or explosives is the cause of
such death, and as a result of such impairment by the use of alcohol,
operates such motor vehicle in a manner that causes the death of such
other person, or
(3) operates a snowmobile in violation of paragraph (b), © or (d) of
subdivision one of section 25.24 of the parks, recreation and historic
preservation law or operates an all terrain vehicle as defined in
paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section twenty-two hundred
eighty-one of the vehicle and traffic law in violation of subdivision
two, three, four, or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the
vehicle and traffic law, and as a result of such intoxication or
impairment by the use of a drug, or by the combined influence of drugs
or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, operates such snowmobile or all
terrain vehicle in a manner that causes the death of such other person.
If it is established that the person operating such motor vehicle,
vessel, public vessel, snowmobile or all terrain vehicle caused such
death while unlawfully intoxicated or impaired by the use of alcohol or
a drug, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that, as a result
of such intoxication or impairment by the use of alcohol or a drug, or
by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs,
such person operated the motor vehicle, vessel, public vessel,
snowmobile or all terrain vehicle in a manner that caused such death, as
required by this section.
Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is a class D felony.
The father should change his name, become a new patient, go for a check up, then say “hi” in a locked room.
But he must do it drunk, while on the phone with the exam room lights off. You know, this way he’d be good-to-go
So the prosecution didn’t prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that him being drunk caused the girl’s death. She MIGHT have darted out in front of him in a way that would have had the same result if he had been sober.
Don’t get me wrong, between leaving the scene and having a party last night my view of the guy is that he’s a shit bag, but it’s not hard for me to understand how the jury couldn’t convict him of manslaughter.
it is not necessary to prove the person was negligent in causing the death of another … only that they were intoxicated, and operated a motor vehicle, and someone died as a result.
how do you know he was having a party?
See Beck’s post from last night.
---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------
You forget the other 3 charges though; IE: leaving the scene of an accident.
I’m not worried, now the good Dr. has a target on his back and I’m sure it won’t be long before the men and women of our local law enforcement community have him pulled over for dwi again.
Wow WTH.
Was this a party like “get the family over and we can all relax” or “brake out the kegs im a huge DB party”
Beck, any pictures of this?
Yeah, that seems pretty fucked up, but I don’t know that much about the case. I wasn’t in the courtroom and haven’t been following the case very much.
Basically I’m just here to argue. :tup:
I think the title needs to be changed to “Here is a reason to drink and drive, Pay off the jury!”
haha exactly!
How do you pay off the jury?
Party at his house last night after the acquittal?
I pay them in girly giggles.