Is this person Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt or Not Guilty?

Is the defendant Guilty Beyond Resonable doubt of driving under the influence?

  • Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
zleppelin

zleppelin

Newbie
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
565
Reaction score
0
Facts:
  • The defendant:
  • drank alcohol.
  • drove at 30+ mph over the speed limit.
  • was pulled over by an officer.
  • failed a sobriety test
  • but neither breathalizer nor blood tests were mentioned in the courtroom.[/LISTBased on the facts, is the defendant, in your opinion, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of driving under the influence?
 
You can't really ask these questions if the answers require the assumption that the justice system is as broke-ass as it is in this example.
 
In the absence of evidence, there is necessarily a reasonable doubt.
 
If this is an actual court case and you're on the jury, you shouldn't talk about the case. You're breaking an ordinance, and you may get kicked off the jury without pay.

(Just kidding.)


Sorry, your defendent is guilty, if not for driving under the influence, but speeding, drinking behind the wheel regardless of "influence", and highway violations. Either way he will be fined and a report sent to his insurance. If previous record exists, it's jail time with bail or community service at most.
 
Javert said:
Sorry, your defendent is guilty, if not for driving under the influence, but speeding, drinking behind the wheel regardless of "influence", and highway violations. Either way he will be fined and a report sent to his insurance. If previous record exists, it's jail time with bail or community service at most.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you are saying.
 
Absolutely not guilty.

One thing that really strikes me as odd is that the defendant failed to walk on an IMAGINARY line. In the DARK. :|

As for failing to stand on one leg? The excuse of oversized sandals seems fairly valid. Even disregarding that, I don't feel (in light of the non-admission of evidence that could actually be considered concrete) that this balance test could in any sense be considered proof of driving under the influence.
 
Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt to what?

Speeding? Guilty.
Drinking? Guilty.
Drunk? Not Guilty.
Highway violations? Guilty.

Unless the guy's black and the cop's a known bigot or any variation of this theme thereof, there is no reasonable doubt that the guy violated at least two laws.
 
30 MPH over the speed limit? jesus christ. I don't care if he was drunk or not, that guy's a reckless asshole.
 
zleppelin said:
is the defendant, in your opinion, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of driving under the influence?
Click to expand...
Key conditional.

Speeding, drinking, highway violations, witchcraft, pedophilia, and being Donald Rumsfeld are all completely irrelevant to the question of whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol.

Is there evidence that he was? None conclusive enough to warrant a Guilty vote.

If he were on trial for speeding, drinking, highway violations, witchcraft, pedophilia, and being Donald Rumsfeld, though? Guilty on all counts.

I KNOW IT WAS YOU, DONALD! I KNOW WHERE YOU SLEEP!
 
Yeah, this is why the thread is confusing. You're asking us whether it's reasonable to ignore reason.
 
Raziaar said:
30 MPH over the speed limit? jesus christ. I don't care if he was drunk or not, that guy's a reckless asshole.
Click to expand...
That's for sure.

Even in the dark with headlights there should be enough light to judge a straight line. As for the missing evidence - seems strange.
 
Unless there is any evidence to suggest he broke the drinking limit, then not guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top