There is a lot of bullshit here… NAL, but you can make a case that they intended to drink, or if they had a non-0 BAC, you can make a case that they were too impaired to drive. While the 0.08% limit is a “standard”, it’s not a hard and fast line, from what I’m aware of, but NAL. I would assume it’d be hard as shit to make a case that someone was too impaired with a BAC of 0.01%… But that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?
I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it’s all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.
To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That’s insane to me.
I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the “right” to issue a DUI.
My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.
There is a lot of bullshit here… NAL, but you can make a case that they intended to drink, or if they had a non-0 BAC, you can make a case that they were too impaired to drive. While the 0.08% limit is a “standard”, it’s not a hard and fast line, from what I’m aware of, but NAL. I would assume it’d be hard as shit to make a case that someone was too impaired with a BAC of 0.01%… But that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?
I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it’s all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.
To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That’s insane to me.
I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the “right” to issue a DUI.
My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.
In this case, it shouldn’t even go to court.
Riley shouldn’t go to court but every one of those cops certainly should.