Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/05/2004 12:58:30 PM PST by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: afuturegovernor
How were these people planning to leave the site of the barbecue, when they were all drunk? And this guy was too drunk to stay in his lane, which means he was endangering his own, his girlfriend's, and other people's lives. And lemme guess what kind of "sick" she was.

Alcohol sucks.
2 posted on 02/05/2004 1:05:28 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: afuturegovernor
This reversal stinks. If I'm the judge, "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency, Mr. Stodghill."

Make up your mind, folks. DUI either presents a danger to the public, or it doesn't. Furthermore, if the first judge is going to suspend his sentence due to "mitigating circumstances," he should suspend the sentence every time the convicted DUI hasn't harmed anyone.

3 posted on 02/05/2004 1:22:45 PM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: afuturegovernor
Stodghill was stopped by a state trooper for speeding and crossing the center line.
Lets see... Drunk crosses center line while speeding and head-on's my wife and four children - killing them all. It's ok because his girlfriend drank to much and got sick? - GIVE ME A BREAK!
6 posted on 02/05/2004 1:57:54 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: afuturegovernor
Necessity.

A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition)


"George C. Stodghill was convicted in 2002 of first offense driving while intoxicated..." "Stodghill refused to take a sobriety test after explaining the emergency."

I missed the part where the article says anyone was in point of fact "drunk." It looks like Stodghill was convicted because he refused to take the sobriety test and was therefore presumed to be DUI, not because he was proven to be drunk in fact. Of course it could have been on the arresting officer's testimony, but if so I missed that part too.

"All drank alcoholic beverages" does not mean that all or anyone drank enough to get "drunk" or that if they did, they were, would have still been, or intended to be drunk when they left. In fact, for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

11 posted on 02/05/2004 6:06:42 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: afuturegovernor; dixiechick2000; jmax; Hottie Tottie; Hurricane; MagnoliaMS; MississippiMan; ...
MS PING
16 posted on 02/05/2004 8:31:09 PM PST by WKB (3!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: afuturegovernor
A highway patrol stopped a man about twenty miles from here who was on his way to the hospital where his baby lay dying. The trooper, known for being an utterly inflexible hard-tail, refused to consider what the man was saying. ARRESTED him and took him to jail. I honestly can't remember if the baby died or not, but I remember being infuriated at the very notion. That's a situation in which necessity should definitely be a factor.

MM
18 posted on 02/05/2004 9:55:19 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson