|
Post by joeiscool on Sept 7, 2011 6:10:29 GMT -5
hmmm why would they give a person a second test at 12:19am?
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 7, 2011 6:28:35 GMT -5
Isn't it standard procedure to test at the scene then later again at the station? At least, I'm not American, but I assumed that's how things went out there. I remember Nash mentioning in an interview a year or two ago while he was in TNA that he and Angle and a few others would always sit down and have a beer or two in the locker room after their matches. He said something like (paraphrasing), "Nothing is better than an cold beer right after you get done working." How would Nash know? He hasn't worked for years. *rimshot*
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Sept 7, 2011 7:25:10 GMT -5
I didnt even know/realise that Kurt Angle is TNA WORLD CHAMPION until last night, because I dont keep updated on the company anymore. This company has a funny way of picking their champions when they have home grown talent that have never done this stuff before.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 7, 2011 7:35:11 GMT -5
Someone suggested this is why Sting has had so many title reigns recently Perhaps the Stinger should get ready for another one! Although...oh no, that would make Sting-Hogan BFG for the title and...oh no no...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 7:43:17 GMT -5
Someone suggested this is why Sting has had so many title reigns recently Perhaps the Stinger should get ready for another one! Although...oh no, that would make Sting-Hogan BFG for the title and...oh no no... Change plans to a triple threat - TNA Champion Sting vs. Hulk Hogan vs. Gunner.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,801
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 7, 2011 7:52:11 GMT -5
hmmm why would they give a person a second test at 12:19am? I *think* it's protocol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 8:25:53 GMT -5
hmmm why would they give a person a second test at 12:19am? I *think* it's protocol. This is correct and I am almost 100% sure that the test administered at the station is the official one that counts...The one at the scene is used for suspicion...Though it appears he actually was driving over the influence he will probably beat this
|
|
Ace Baretta
Unicron
WE ARE NASHVILLE (May 1, 2010)
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Ace Baretta on Sept 7, 2011 9:22:43 GMT -5
Anyone else think it's a bit weird that in the mugshot his eyes are not bloodshot, not glassy, and (aside form looking tired and pissed) he looks completely normal?
Not to mention that in the relatively short ride from traffic stop to police station his BAC dropped .03 points?
I'm no expert, but I'd think that's highly improbable.
Do I buy that he was lost and swerving looking for an exit? No. But maybe he was on a GPS system fiddling around, or something. I'm not saying Kurt's 100% innocent, I'm just saying something doesn't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Sept 7, 2011 10:56:09 GMT -5
Swerving on the road can be a number of things, fiddling with GPS as said above, fiddling with knobs for air conditioning, ipod, cd player. In Nova Scotia, you can get a ticket for talking or texting on your cell phone, I'm not sure about the law in the state he was arrested, but that maybe something else.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Sept 7, 2011 11:34:45 GMT -5
Anyone else think it's a bit weird that in the mugshot his eyes are not bloodshot, not glassy, and (aside form looking tired and pissed) he looks completely normal? Not to mention that in the relatively short ride from traffic stop to police station his BAC dropped .03 points? I'm no expert, but I'd think that's highly improbable. Do I buy that he was lost and swerving looking for an exit? No. But maybe he was on a GPS system fiddling around, or something. I'm not saying Kurt's 100% innocent, I'm just saying something doesn't add up. That difference is why most courts don't allow breath tests. The roadside ones aren't that reliable and most time police ask for blood. The erratic driving and .06 bac is enough for a charge but conviction would be iffy at best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 11:47:01 GMT -5
Swerving on the road can be a number of things, fiddling with GPS as said above, fiddling with knobs for air conditioning, ipod, cd player. In Nova Scotia, you can get a ticket for talking or texting on your cell phone, I'm not sure about the law in the state he was arrested, but that maybe something else. Living in VA I can say that you can only get a ticket for texting while driving if you're involved in an accident or have another driving violation while texting. It's a secondary charge here at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Twincest on Sept 7, 2011 12:00:35 GMT -5
From Albo and Oblon, LLP:
"DUI, set forth in Section 18.2-266 of the Virginia code, states that it is unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, “[w]hile such person has a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more . . . . or while such person is under the influence of alcohol, or such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self administered intoxicant.” In English, this means that a person can be found guilty of driving while intoxicated if (a) their blood alcohol level when they were driving was .08 or more, as determined by a chemical test (this is called a “per se” statute), or (b) if the person is proven to be under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of drugs (this is called a presumption statute).
Generally, prosecutors prove a DUI case under three methods. The first — and easiest — method for the Prosecutor to convict a person is by showing that the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was a .08 or more. (This is usually done by a breath test). Under this “per se” method, if the breath test reveals a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or more, then the prosecutor need not prove anything else. The person is, by law, considered guilty of DUI. Simply stated, at that point, instead of being innocent until proven guilty, the Defendant is presumed guilty and must then prove his innocence.
The other method is used if there is no breath test or other chemical evidence. The prosecutor must prove that the person is guilty by showing that the Defendant was “under the influence” of alcohol or drugs. As stated in the introduction, the prosecutor will use driving behavior and the field sobriety tests to establish that the Defendant was under the influence."
|
|
|
Post by Henry Mark on Sept 7, 2011 12:14:19 GMT -5
From Albo and Oblon, LLP: "DUI, set forth in Section 18.2-266 of the Virginia code, states that it is unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, “[w]hile such person has a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more . . . . or while such person is under the influence of alcohol, or such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self administered intoxicant.” In English, this means that a person can be found guilty of driving while intoxicated if (a) their blood alcohol level when they were driving was .08 or more, as determined by a chemical test (this is called a “per se” statute), or (b) if the person is proven to be under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of drugs (this is called a presumption statute). Generally, prosecutors prove a DUI case under three methods. The first — and easiest — method for the Prosecutor to convict a person is by showing that the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was a .08 or more. (This is usually done by a breath test). Under this “per se” method, if the breath test reveals a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or more, then the prosecutor need not prove anything else. The person is, by law, considered guilty of DUI. Simply stated, at that point, instead of being innocent until proven guilty, the Defendant is presumed guilty and must then prove his innocence. The other method is used if there is no breath test or other chemical evidence. The prosecutor must prove that the person is guilty by showing that the Defendant was “under the influence” of alcohol or drugs. As stated in the introduction, the prosecutor will use driving behavior and the field sobriety tests to establish that the Defendant was under the influence." "Exhibit A, the driver of the vehicle was Kurt Angle. I rest my case. Thank you and goodnight."
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Sept 7, 2011 12:15:40 GMT -5
Is it that hard for Kurt to maybe get one of the younger wrestlers to drive him around?
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Sept 7, 2011 12:32:44 GMT -5
Isn't it standard procedure to test at the scene then later again at the station? At least, I'm not American, but I assumed that's how things went out there. I remember Nash mentioning in an interview a year or two ago while he was in TNA that he and Angle and a few others would always sit down and have a beer or two in the locker room after their matches. He said something like (paraphrasing), "Nothing is better than an cold beer right after you get done working." How would Nash know? He hasn't worked for years. *rimshot* Yea. They give a breathalyzer on the scene, and then a blood test after the arrest. Around here they take you to the local hospital for the blood test, but I guess that may not be the same everywhere. The blood test isn't mandatory though, you CAN refuse to take it, but in Georgia (and in most states I believe) refusing a blood test automatically results in a 1 year suspension of your driver's license.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Sept 7, 2011 13:33:36 GMT -5
I just thought of something. Maybe he got driving lessons from Vince Russo. You know, with all his swerving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:35:55 GMT -5
I just thought of something. Maybe he got driving lessons from Vince Russo. You know, with all his swerving. Hopefully, he didn't have too many lessons. We don't need more Crash TV.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Sept 7, 2011 20:41:11 GMT -5
Ok, the PBT's used on scene are to augment the standard field sobriety tests and any other samples taken (breath blood or urine) back up the officers investigation on scene. The horizontal nose gaze nastigmus HGN test is just about as solid a test as you'd want. So if the officers said he failed his FSTs than a prosecuter should have a solid case. This type of evidence is what I was talking about two pages ago. Now we wait to see the results of a trial or a settlement/no contest plea. No contest is not an admission of guilt BTW
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Sept 7, 2011 21:42:44 GMT -5
Yea. They give a breathalyzer on the scene, and then a blood test after the arrest. Around here they take you to the local hospital for the blood test, but I guess that may not be the same everywhere. The blood test isn't mandatory though, you CAN refuse to take it, but in Georgia (and in most states I believe) refusing a blood test automatically results in a 1 year suspension of your driver's license. I believe that is correct for Georgia law. And regarding refusing the blood test (or even the breathalyzer test).....refusing is kind of self-incriminating. If you didn't think you were guilty you wouldn't refuse. If you know you're innocent, you shouldn't have a problem complying even if you feel your rights are being 'violated'.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Sept 7, 2011 22:03:26 GMT -5
Here's the gimick though; if you refuse you are not really self incriminating. If you just drank a beer and blow a sample on a PBT, the measured amount will be higher than if you used the intoxilyzer 5000 breath alcohol measurment instrument. The Intox instrument will require a 20 minute waiting period so that residual alcohol on the breath is below the tolorence level to give a true a accepted reading. If I just finished one and I dunno a thing about the DUI process, I could be scarred it will be the only sample I'd get to give and be guilty based on that. versus knowing that a suspended licence and efensive driving ect. await rather than a protracted trial or other proceedings.
|
|