A .10 after 5hrs is quite impressive which brings to me to why he didnt turn himself in until he was sober? I’m thinking he talked to his lawyer after he killed that girl and he advised him to drink afterwards and turn himself in if he knew there was some stupid loop hole that he could just get away with a dwi charge.
If I was that girls father, I would be stalking Corasanti until I have the oppurtunity to hit him with my car and turn myself in 5 hrs later.
I’m curious what will be the result of that Lancaster guy who killed that kid on his bike.
lancaster dude already pleaded guilty.
The news contacted me for questioning, regarding the party. Fuck that shit, I’m out… I’m not getting involved. If it was an illegal act, I’d be fine coming forward…but this shit isn’t my business to be giving interviews on.
Oh and then they fucking referenced my facebook post about it on the news regardless. :bloated:
So restrict your fb wall to friends only?
It is. That’s the weird part.
this
One huge flaw in our legal system is the courts basically force you to take emotion out of decisions. But when you remove emotion, it’s almost like you’re removing your ability to distinguish between right and wrong. You can be as book smart and intelligent as possible, but if you don’t know right from wrong you’re going to have huge problems. Legally, Corasanti put him in a position where he was a fucking legal genius. Unfortunately, the things he said and the actions he made that were legally genius were so morally fucked up that he could get away with something like this. I’m still heated about this.
I heard he is still praticing in orchard park, I don’t kno who would go to him…
This entire thread is pretty interesting…Everyone is here believes he is 100% guilty from the get go which isn’t the way the legal process works.
What is to say his side of things/statements? wasn’t 100% accurate?
I realize its probably unlikely but this is the entire reason we have a legal process it should be interesting to see the outcome of the civil case.
Imagine how much it would suck if he wasn’t drunk and he really didn’t see her or a body after. UGH
I am not making a judgement either way about what happened I didn’t see all the evidence in court however from the public’s point of view he has been guilty since day 1.
Any driver that FELT that impact would be retarded not to stop and at least check their car, assuming they really didn’t know what they hit. All else is questionable to me, maybe he didn’t know if he hit an animal, a huge pothole etc… but he knew he hit something! To suggest otherwise is insulting to those with even half a brain. The biggest slap in the face may be the one guilty charge despite the jury suggesting the blood evidence was questionable and more-so because that pivotal charge was likely to play into all other charges.
It is what it is, one thing is for sure…this highlights several flaws in our judicial & legal systems. To ask that juror’s eliminate all logic and apply only presented “facts” is insane and devalues the system IMO. I understand that may not be a popular stance or statement, that’s why it makes even more sense to me. I’m tired of dealing with a nation of sheep and wish people would break the molds we’re indoctrinated into. We have the capability to reason and think freely, to not utilize this ability is insane to me. The way they refuse to foster that ability and run with regurgitation and multiple choice in early schooling is sad to me.
So this has gone the other way however people who were put in prison for years because of a jurys emotions only to have DNA evidence clear their name 20 years later.
The sad thing is in the right amount of time this will all be forgotten…
Cant someone make “Killer Corasanti” stickers so everyone in wny can rock one on their front bumpers?
But logic isn’t always driven by emotion. Not unlike monetary or other greed, it’s tough to ensure balance and reason in any human…that’s human nature I suppose.
Now to compare a trial with an outcome determined by DNA evidence to this case isn’t quite realistic. He hit something, the car is evidence of that. Being subjective & logical on this case is far more realistic than a case where high end medical DNA testimony is used. You cannot expect a jury of simpletons to understand DNA evidence, you CAN expect them to see the front end of a “bus” or car and say…hrmmm how did he not hear that impact. One set of evidence is easily understood and logic can apply, the other is scientific and logic has no business being in the mix.
Those convicted during the time of evidence without DNA were tried with the best technology available at the time. I’m all for DNA evidence but bear in mind that SOME were found not guilty with new evidence. The public view was, and still is, that he is guilty. If it looks, smells, feels, and tastes like shit, it’s probably shit. If you compile enough facts about the facts themselves, you will eventually create a level of doubt. He was there, he was drinking (which doesn’t even change the fact HE NEVER STOPPED), and someone is dea The defense worked a less than perfect system, chose idiots for jurors (one of which himslef was picked up for DWI during the trial) and allowed a guilty man to go free.
I’m pretty sure the prosecution and the defense both get to select jury members…
If that’s the case, someone was either drinking that day, or on drugs clearly…
Of course they do. The scary part is the ones they chose must have been the best they could get.
Ugh. The people in the jury must’ve never ran over a rabbit or a small animal.
Because even that you feel… That’s the one part that bugs me the most.
HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW?
It would just convince me even more that he was drunk off his ass.
a deer ran in to the side of my car last month, I stopped to check. Especially since somehow I ripped one of it’s front legs off. Right on Sheridan a few miles before the transit exit (coming from tonawanda). Go that way every night… 4 deer ran out… slowed down, but the one dumbass ran in to me. I sure as fuck knew that.
Maybe they all just wanted to leave and didn’t want to argue with someone who didn’t want to convict the guy… so they all just agreed and went home.