this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
290 points (97.7% liked)

News

23014 readers
8 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.

Can't prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There is zero chance that would work.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a low chance of that working...but it's not zero with the right legal team.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

With the right legal team you can kick the police in the balls and piss on their car and get away with it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Fleeing the scene is completely different than chugging alcohol at the scene.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

With a half competent lawyer it could.

It's up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.

I'm sure someone has tried this before somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I wasn't drinking and driving, officer. And I'll prove it by drinking out of this open container!".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Holy shit that was close. I gotta relax, having ptd issues. Must self medicate...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I've never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It might work depending on how much your lawyer costs

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

At that point anything works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving. Normally that's not hard since they can show that between them getting to you, field so riery testing, and taking you in there's no way for you to have had a drink before they take a blood test for instance. But if you break that chain, there isn't a good way to prove that it wasn't from after the incident.

Ah but you didn't just have alcohol in your car. That's totally legal, otherwise you would never be able to drive home from a store with alcohol. You even have witnesses stating you got it from your trunk, so even if it was already open, it could not have been within reach while driving. Which is a component of most open container laws.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving.

Actually, its up to the prosecution to prove you were drunk while driving. And that standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which I'm pretty sure 'pounding liquor after an accident to have plausible deniability on your insobriety' would make an easy argument to meet that threshold.

The cops will take you either way and let a judge decide what to do with you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn't seem like it would hold up to the 'reasonable doubt' standard...