Rob's House Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I always hate discussing these drunk driving fatalities because logic is usually chucked out the window and emotion reigns supreme. Something terrible happens and simple minds need revenge. Anyone who's EVER driven drunk should probably STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Those cases don't sounds that similar to me. --She was a .07. He was a .10 five hours after the crash. That means he had roughly double the BAC, and was well over the limit (she's wasn't). --He fled the scene. I'm presuming she didn't if that wasn't mentioned. --A guy lying face down in the road at 3:30am is probably going to get run over 80% of the time even if the driver had nothing to drink. his point was that the drinking doesnt always equate to the cause. in this case its obvious, in the other one its much hazier.... but when people argue that its 100% always the fault of a driver once the drink is consumed, it hedges back over to examples like this. essentially, drunk driving can be a gray area, as much as we dont like to admit it. not every driver is swerving and hitting people on the sidewalk... sometimes its just a really bad situation that wouldve gotten anyone, regardless of the booze. was that corasanti - i really dont know, but i agree its a valid defense/discussion to have. im not trying to interject my opinion on that night as much as the broad subject of DUI accidents (or generally causation). Edited August 27, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I would kind of like to run in to this guy in a dark alley...with my F350. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 his point was that the drinking doesnt always equate to the cause. in this case its obvious, in the other one its much hazier.... but when people argue that its 100% always the fault of a driver once the drink is consumed, it hedges back over to examples like this. essentially, drunk driving can be a gray area, as much as we dont like to admit it. not every driver is swerving and hitting people on the sidewalk... sometimes its just a really bad situation that wouldve gotten anyone, regardless of the booze. was that corasanti - i really dont know, but i agree its a valid defense/discussion to have. im not trying to interject my opinion on that night as much as the broad subject of DUI accidents (or generally causation). I have long agreed that having a bit of alcohol in your system does not put you automatically at fault. Let's use comman sense and go case by case. What Galled me about Corasanti was the "sound proof" car [his pass side headlight was destroyed, for Gods sake] yet he got home and immediately thought to wipe blood off the car. We all know he knew he hit someone/something. But he chose to drive on and hide the evidence. Yet he will never have to answer for that, I hate civil suits but I hope her parents do a goldman on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I would kind of like to run in to this guy in a dark alley...with my F350. All you would have to say is your vehicle is so big you didn't feel his skull crushing in on your brush guard and kept driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 All you would have to say is your vehicle is so big you didn't feel his skull crushing in on your brush guard and kept driving What about the few times I backed up? I mean my truck is 25' long, call it a 4 point turn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 his point was that the drinking doesnt always equate to the cause. in this case its obvious, in the other one its much hazier.... but when people argue that its 100% always the fault of a driver once the drink is consumed, it hedges back over to examples like this. essentially, drunk driving can be a gray area, as much as we dont like to admit it. not every driver is swerving and hitting people on the sidewalk... sometimes its just a really bad situation that wouldve gotten anyone, regardless of the booze. was that corasanti - i really dont know, but i agree its a valid defense/discussion to have. im not trying to interject my opinion on that night as much as the broad subject of DUI accidents (or generally causation). Yes, this is my point. My friend talked to a Corasanti juror he knows - and he said The News printed so little of what they actually saw in court. I really think that Alix Rice was going to get killed by somebody if she kept swerving in front of cars, whether the driver was drinking or not.................I also think if you're passed out in the middle of the street at 3:30AM, the odds aren't too for you living, either, whether the driver is "impaired" or not. I do think that Jim and others bring up a good point of the difference here being that Corasanti left and this girl probably didn't. I don't blame Corasanti really for hitting her. I do blame him for leaving and don't believe all the BS about the "soundproof" BMW. I think that where the drinking came in was more in his decision to leave because he knew he'd blow a DUI, as opposed to hitting her, which I think anybody could have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 his point was that the drinking doesnt always equate to the cause. in this case its obvious, in the other one its much hazier.... but when people argue that its 100% always the fault of a driver once the drink is consumed, it hedges back over to examples like this. essentially, drunk driving can be a gray area, as much as we dont like to admit it. not every driver is swerving and hitting people on the sidewalk... sometimes its just a really bad situation that wouldve gotten anyone, regardless of the booze. was that corasanti - i really dont know, but i agree its a valid defense/discussion to have. im not trying to interject my opinion on that night as much as the broad subject of DUI accidents (or generally causation). I understood his point and agree there is a sliding scale of causation with respect to alcohol consumption by the driver. IMO, the validity of that defense is proportionately reduced by a) how drunk you are and b) how irresponsible you are. The two examples here are very far apart on that spectrum. Given Corasanti's BAC, I do blame him for hitting her and for leaving the scene he should be in prison for ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 How about c) What the other party is doing at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I've read as much about this other case as there was in the News, which was 1/1000th of the Corasanti case. This kid is a big time loser who couldn't score with girls his own age, so he he hung out with young teens who were lured by his car. He drove more reckless than Corasanti, also killed someone, but there's no outrage. As pointed out here, he has way less money than Corasanti: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/legally_speaking/2012/08/soft-sentence-in-death-of-teen-girl.html?ana=twt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts