?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Another reason of what is wrong with NM...

I was skimming an Albuquerque Journal article about a family that was hit by a drunk driver who was twice the legal limit when the family was out horse back riding. As I was reading, I really just wanted to shake my head a cry.

   Tomlinson's attorney, Dan Marlowe, is not contesting that his client was drunk. His defense relies in large part on the argument that the family was walking in the middle of the road, against traffic.
...
    Marlowe also said during his opening arguments on Monday that Tomlinson is "an experienced drinker" who "drinks beer like we drink water" and that alcohol had nothing to do with the accident.

Alcohol had nothing to do with the accident my ass. The only thing his client is, is a raging alcoholic who needs to be locked away for life. I don’t care if he "drinks beer like we drink water", he was drunk (they don’t contest that he was drunk) and that is all that matters. And if he really is "an experienced drinker" like his attorney is trying to say that he is, then he should have been experienced enough to not fucking get behind the wheel and drive.

God there are days when this state really pisses me off! Being an "an experienced drinker" and "drinks beer like we drink water" is not a defense for driving drunk. I just hope the jury can see past the shit his attorney is trying to pull and they lock his ass up like they should!

Comments

( 4 People Thought — Tell Me What You Think )
tko_ak
Mar. 19th, 2008 10:14 pm (UTC)
His attorney is constitutionally obligated to come up with the best defense possible. If he doesn't, he could be sanctioned...by the bar or the state.

So I highly doubt he actually believes the defense or thinks the guy should go unpunished, but he must try to the best of his ability.
claystorm
Mar. 22nd, 2008 01:34 am (UTC)
I know, I just wish the dumbass would have manned-up and had just plead guilty. But thats ok, the jurry found him guilt and he can get 9 years in jail. I really do not think 9 years is enough, but its better then him getting off.
haguelovesyou
Mar. 20th, 2008 12:34 am (UTC)
It's probably the guys only possible defense, pathetic thought it may be.

I have no tolerance for DWI/DUI. It's inexcusable, IMO.
claystorm
Mar. 22nd, 2008 01:38 am (UTC)
I am sure it was his only defense, which makes me laugh (sorta). But its all good, the dumbass was found guilty and can get 9 years in jail. I really dont think its enough, but its better then nothing.

Also, I too have no tolerance for DWI/DUI. And I agree that its totaly inexcusable.
( 4 People Thought — Tell Me What You Think )

Profile

keyword-288
claystorm
Kevin Murray

Latest Month

February 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Other

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow