Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: afuturegovernor
Necessity.

A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition)


"George C. Stodghill was convicted in 2002 of first offense driving while intoxicated..." "Stodghill refused to take a sobriety test after explaining the emergency."

I missed the part where the article says anyone was in point of fact "drunk." It looks like Stodghill was convicted because he refused to take the sobriety test and was therefore presumed to be DUI, not because he was proven to be drunk in fact. Of course it could have been on the arresting officer's testimony, but if so I missed that part too.

"All drank alcoholic beverages" does not mean that all or anyone drank enough to get "drunk" or that if they did, they were, would have still been, or intended to be drunk when they left. In fact, for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

11 posted on 02/05/2004 6:06:42 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
I agree with your statement. I just took out my Black's Law Dictionary and checked it out too.
12 posted on 02/05/2004 7:18:12 PM PST by RKB-AFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: KrisKrinkle
A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.
The question could be is driving a 2000 - 4000lb automobile at highway speeds while not able to control that automobile reasonable.
You did bring out a point that I did miss. I would whole heartedly disagree that one should be charged with DUI for failing to prove his innocence by submitting to a breathalyser test. The burden of proving guilt is on the arresting officer.
13 posted on 02/05/2004 7:51:12 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: KrisKrinkle
... for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

Well, seems like he must a pretty stupid sort of fellow for not taking the test when he would have passed it, now doesn't it? What's he out so far, $10,000 maybe? or more? And just for refusing to take a test he had already agreed to take when he accepted his license (it's called inmplied consent, and it's legal)?

15 posted on 02/05/2004 8:16:42 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson