State V.

[Meatball]

Fascinating new show tonight on ABC that takes you through a real case , tried recently in the US. Tonights case was of a kid , drunk off his ass driving with his cousin as the passenger. He crashes and kills the cousin. The state tries him for manslaughter. The street where he had the accident was lacking a sign to warn of a fault in the road where construction was taking place. The defense claimed that the contruction site was guilty for not warning people. The state claimed that 5 other people drove that street without incident and that that he was drunk therefore "reckless" which is what constitutes guilt. The majority of the Jury thought the boy was innocent ( everyone has drank and driven in their life ), and after 2 Hung juries the little bastard went free. I was on the edge of my seat!

Why are people so goddamm stupid? Justice is an ideal, not a reality.
In both trials the vast majority voted Not Guilty.

[ADF]

The state claimed that 5 other people drove that street without incident and that that he was drunk therefore "reckless" which is what constitutes guilt


Was he driving on a Jersey road? If so, a 20% survival rate sounds reasonable.

<img src= http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/third.jpg width = 300 height = 100>

[Hawiian shirt craig]

forget WHERE he was driving, if he was from jersey,
he just cant drive!!! i swear u people come into NY
and funk it all up. no wonder your insurance is so
expensive, ur all retarted when it comes to
driving!


-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

[HordeKing1]

MORTICIAN - I'm not familiar with the particularities of this case.

A homicide charge or criminally negligent homicide sounds eminently reasonable. However, you say this guy was a "kid." Was he a minor under 18 years old? Was he over 21? Remember the age of majority for drinking is 21.

Many cases involve contributory factors, in this case the liability of the people who served him drinks and the apparant lousy condition of the road. But they are not germane to the charge of homicide. They would be germane to a civil action brought against the construction company.

A person DWI is presumed to be criminally negligent and reckless and is legally responsible for his actions which were the proximate cause of his DWI.

I'd have liked to see the bastard fry. Law is not just and juries are mostly incredibly stupid - people who are jobless and have nothing better to do, people who work for the government and have no motivation to try to get out of service (b/c they collect their civil service pay while on a jury) and people too stupid to be able to get out of jury duty. (Of course there are a very very small minority of people there b/c they believe it's the right thing to do. They are the exceptions.)

Dumb ass juries are one reason why in most cases, no matter how absolutely compelling the evidence against you, it pays to plea not guilty and take a crap shoot with the jury. A sad commentary on the general intelligence level of the American public and the legal system in general.


<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">