-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
DUI charge dropped against Tru
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
tnt said:
Hard to answer in a short statement. There are a lot of factors that come into play. Whether you need to drive, what breathalyzer they are asking you to take, if you have had a previous DUI or refusal in the past, whether you have a CDL or not. Lawyer answer: it depends. Blood tests are much more reliable, but timing on when they are given is important too. Best answer, Don't Drink and Drive.
Paul Ryan said:tnt said:
Hard to answer in a short statement. There are a lot of factors that come into play. Whether you need to drive, what breathalyzer they are asking you to take, if you have had a previous DUI or refusal in the past, whether you have a CDL or not. Lawyer answer: it depends. Blood tests are much more reliable, but timing on when they are given is important too. Best answer, Don't Drink and Drive.
Of course thats the best answer, but curious none the less. Somehow the whole thing just sorta keeps my mind going in circles. Its self incrimination. Now a refusal to self incriminate can used as evidence against you which is disturbing. If you want to drive you have to waive your rights (implied consent) Yet at the same time we need to keep these drunks of the road. I'm almost to the Point where a BAIID should be in every vehicle and any attemmpt at a work around a felony.
Besides mistakes are made by the most well intentioned folk with the lowered blood limits and now proposals for even lower.
NorthwestFresh
Well-known member
I find it more convincing calling posters childish names like "Donkey Punch" when I'm trying to make a valid point. :shock:
NorthwestFresh said:
How the hell would you know? You've never made a valid point.
GrizPony said:
It really is. For Missoula, he's a fairly high profile name. He doesn't need to defend himself, his track record speaks for itself. By going on here and responding to his critics, it makes him look tacky. Personally, I think he should have just let it go, and laugh at BDizzle while he continues to make a large amount of money. Instead he responded, made a few mistakes, and looks worse off at the end of the day. Unfortunately lawyers tend to like to hear/see themselves talk a lot. That's just my opinion of course.
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
Paul Ryan is an excellent, professional, and knowledgeable attorney. I'd hire him in a minute if I were in the same situation as Trumaine was. I have no disagreement with his advice on the board and think it is an accurate summary of where the DUI laws are in Montana.
It would be difficult for Paul to disagree with the notion that if you aren't drunk, you can prove it by providing a breath sample to law enforcement. For some reason this idea scares most people out of ever proving a breath sample and it used to prevent law enforcement from collecting their best evidence for a conviction. So many defendants got so good at gaming the system that they would barely say any words to law enforcement and would always refuse. What does it matter to a man who won't ever get his license back in the first place to be subjected to a 6 month license suspension? What does it matter do a guy who can't afford insurance with a DUI on the record if he never has it again? For our repeat offenders, it meant nothing.
Now things have changed. The ability to get a person's blood is a new and effective tool for keeping drunk drivers off the road. Paul would probably agree that you get one free pass on a DUI by refusing. But I am sure he also advised his client that he would be subjected to a blood draw if he chooses to drive drunk in Montana ever again. Again, if Trumaine isn't drunk, he can prove it one of two ways. This time he won't be able to say no to the best chance at proving his innocence or guilt, as would any one else in his same situation.
It would be difficult for Paul to disagree with the notion that if you aren't drunk, you can prove it by providing a breath sample to law enforcement. For some reason this idea scares most people out of ever proving a breath sample and it used to prevent law enforcement from collecting their best evidence for a conviction. So many defendants got so good at gaming the system that they would barely say any words to law enforcement and would always refuse. What does it matter to a man who won't ever get his license back in the first place to be subjected to a 6 month license suspension? What does it matter do a guy who can't afford insurance with a DUI on the record if he never has it again? For our repeat offenders, it meant nothing.
Now things have changed. The ability to get a person's blood is a new and effective tool for keeping drunk drivers off the road. Paul would probably agree that you get one free pass on a DUI by refusing. But I am sure he also advised his client that he would be subjected to a blood draw if he chooses to drive drunk in Montana ever again. Again, if Trumaine isn't drunk, he can prove it one of two ways. This time he won't be able to say no to the best chance at proving his innocence or guilt, as would any one else in his same situation.
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
GrizPony said:EverettGriz said:NorthwestFresh said:
How the hell would you know? You've never made a valid point.
BOOM!
Well, you were unable to respond to any of the substance posted above on this issue. You simply rely on "knowing" people and name calling to jump on the PlayerRep bandwagon of raising complete defenses to any offenses committed by Griz athletes solely because of their status as such. I would say you're part of the problem in Missoula - that is if you can admit there was ever a problem to begin with.
