I guess it's a good thing the majority of drunk driving arrests occur in the late night early morning hours as Meghan M. Gesek, age 21, was taken off the road after crashing her vehicle into a fence on a school playground.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"Destroyed the fencing and field"?!?!?
Not "damaged" but "destroyed"?
What the hell was she driving to DESTROY an entire sports field?
Ed's Bud light powered bicycle.
"Officer, I see here you state that my client "destroyed" both the fence and sports field. And you swore to the accuracy of this statement. This is your signature, correct?"
"I have here a statement from her insurance adjuster as to "damage" not destruction -- and a copy of the check paid to the Town of Amherst to repair it."
"I have here a picture, printed in the local newspaper, of kiddies playing on said field that you swore was "destroyed" -- Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury -- does this field look "destroyed" to you?"
"Officer, you clearly exaggerated the damage that my client did, how do we not know that you also exaggerated the degree of her impairment?"
"Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury, the officer swears that my client both was drunk and destroyed a playing field. If the latter is a like, you must suspect that the former is too."
And what is this bullshit about trespassing with a motor vehicle and wanton (deliberate) destruction of property?
She was driving drunk and crashed into something -- that's, ummm, one of the reasons why we have laws against driving drunk -- people tend to crash into things.
Come on folks -- charge her with what she did -- not just every random thing you can think of....
well, since she "deliberately" drove and "wanton and destruction of property" is the law that she broke (you can tell by the destroyed fence. it's actually pretty clear) it appears she IS being charged with what she DID.
and cute story, Dr. Ed. but I can say with certainty that the parts she damaged were not recoverable, thereby needing to be redone with new parts, hence the "destroyed." (also laughable that you think this will go to a jury based on a $250 destruction charge)
and it even stated the estimated amount of damage, so it's quite clear the size/scope of her destruction.
good try though fellas
"I can say with certainty that the parts she damaged were not recoverable, thereby needing to be redone with new parts, hence the 'destroyed.'"
The parts were destroyed, while the fence (and field) were merely damaged -- it was only parts which were destroyed.
For example, you hit a really bad pothole while driving. Damage to the car consists of (a) blown tire, (b) bent rim and (c) bent tie rod. Those *parts* are "destroyed" but the car itself is merely "damaged." Maybe "badly damaged", but if it can be repaired, it is only "damaged", not "destroyed."
Think the difference between "injured" and "dead" -- one can be very badly injured and still alive -- i.e. NOT DEAD.
And think how good competent and aggressive defense attorneys are at making cops into clowns in court. Remember Jason Vassell's "dream team" -- and that perp was GUILTY AS HELL and there was/is video to prove it.
Don't use "destroyed" for anything not "destroyed..." -- use "nearly destroyed" if you must, but I suggest "extensively damaged" or "caused extensive damage to" instead.
"also laughable that you think this will go to a jury based on a $250 destruction charge"
I wouldn't be surprised if the OUI does -- would you?
Google "kettle pleading" and "mens rea" while you are at it...
"The parts were destroyed, while the fence (and field) were merely damaged -- it was only parts which were destroyed."
oh, you mean parts of the "FENCING" as stated in the report....well i'm glad we can agree that it wasn't every piece attached and only the parts she destroyed, AS STATED
Post a Comment