- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:50 pm to tom
quote:
If that's the best his lawyer can do, this guy is gonna fry.
The dude got wasted and flat ran over some dudes on the street. What do you want the defense to do?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:50 pm to bradwieser
quote:Which doesn't mean that they were stoned. It is detectable in your system for weeks after use.
the evidence is that tests show it was in their system
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:51 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
Which doesn't mean that they were stoned. It is detectable in your system for weeks after use.
It also doesn't mean they weren't. But just keep making your assumptions.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:51 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:Because I know both of the guys who got hit.
How the frick do you know?
quote:frick you.
Shut the frick up.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:53 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
Because I know both of the guys who got hit.
And that makes you an eyewitness now?
quote:
frick you.
Good one.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:54 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:Sure, but its still evidence. Note, thats why the lawyer says "thats why we need to go back...see if there was a blunt on the road." The fact that a breathalyzer says you blew a .3 doesn't mean you are "drunk" or incapable of safely operating a vehicle.
Which doesn't mean that they were stoned. It is detectable in your system for weeks after use.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:55 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:I know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you think you do. This was not their first venture down Perkins to the Velodrome. Again, the guy that mauled them was loaded...I'm not sure why it's so hard to think that he might be at fault.
And that makes you an eyewitness now?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:57 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
LNCHBOX
Defenses' best hope is obviously to pick a jury from the OT bike-hating brigade, who apparently think that a drunk driver who kills a cyclist should get a medal, not jail time.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:57 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
I know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you think you do.
I don't claim to know anything. You should probably make peace with the fact that you don't either.
quote:
This was not their first venture down Perkins to the Velodrome.
Up until that point, the driver had never killed anyone before. Is this supposed to somehow strengthen your argument?
quote:
Again, the guy that mauled them was loaded...I'm not sure why it's so hard to think that he might be at fault.
Usually things are not 100% one person's fault. Are you incapable of acknowledging that as fact?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:58 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
Defenses' best hope is obviously to pick a jury from the OT bike-hating brigade, who apparently think that a drunk driver who kills a cyclist should get a medal, not jail time.
Sure hope you're not insinuating that I, or anyone else in this thread, think that way.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:59 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
Does the park on Perkins Rd close, or is the velodrome open at all hours?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:03 pm to CaptainsWafer
Those pot smoking hippies probably broke into the velodrome all the time
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:03 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
the evidence is that tests show it was in their system Which doesn't mean that they were stoned. It is detectable in your system for weeks after use.
Seems like it puts doubt to the idea that they were just riding along and not swerving...honestly, how do you know they werent stoned out their minds?
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:03 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:I know that these were not amateur bikers with no regard for their own safety.
You should probably make peace with the fact that you don't either.
quote:And? Does that mean he's not capable of doing it a first time? Connect the dots for me.
Up until that point, the driver had never killed anyone before.
quote:You assume way too much, and are not nearly as good at this as you seem to think.
Usually things are not 100% one person's fault. Are you incapable of acknowledging that as fact?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:09 pm to lurker124
quote:Not to any reasonable person, it doesn't. So what if they smoked weed within the past month? There isn't any empirical evidence that such a thing would significantly impair their ability to ride a bike safely.
Seems like it puts doubt to the idea that they were just riding along and not swerving
quote:It's the defense's job to prove that they were, not just say that there were traces in their system. That is what I'm taking issue with.
honestly, how do you know they werent stoned out their minds?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:14 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
You're too biased to be open to anything other than your friends being completely not at fault.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:15 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
It's the idea that he's attempting to blame the victims when it's so abundantly clear that his client is at fault that makes him a POS
I thought this what the trial decided. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of presumption of innocence is that you presume the defendant innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:15 pm to LNCHBOX
Yeah, yunno, the guy who was falling down drunk hitting them was just a coincidence, I'm sure. With all the hundreds of cars whizzing past them on Perkins road, I'm sure it was just Branch's dumb luck that introduced his car to their bodies. That's perfectly reasonable.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:17 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:So you've never had an opinion on a trial until the verdict was issued? Or you've never disagreed with a verdict?
I thought this what the trial decided. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of presumption of innocence is that you presume the defendant innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News