Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you are making assumptions, which are not supported by evidence.
No...you are making an assumption that the driver was not when the article uses the word drunk and the word intoxicated. You are also assuming that his aunt who made a statement, chose not to refute the description of him being drunk.
FYI...In Texas, driving under the influence of drugs is charged in the criminal courts as a DWI. There is no distinction under the law when it comes to driving while drunk or impaired by drugs. The difference between the two, however, lies in detection.
So, no matter how you slice it, if your judgement and relfexes are impaired by any substance, you are endangering others. The deceased driver should not have been behind the wheel...period!
How do you know that he was even drinking beforehand?
How do you know that he didn't take a prescription medicine which caused him to be "intoxicated" which is all that any of us who read the story know at all - that he was intoxicated?
Prescription drugs also tell you not to operate machinery (autos) before you know the affects of the drug.
No...you are making an assumption that the driver was not when the article uses the word drunk and the word intoxicated. You are also assuming that his aunt who made a statement, chose not to refute the description of him being drunk.
Wrong.
You made a positive assertion that he was drunk - and that was based on a assumption, not "common sense and logic".
I was playing devil's advocate. I never said that he was under the influence of prescription drugs, only that he could have been based on the knowledge that both you and I have.
Unless you are Barajas's attorney and came by your "knowledge" by exercise of the discovery procedure, then you really don't have a clue what "intoxicated" means as stated by the reporter.
You made a positive assertion that he was drunk - and that was based on a assumption, not "common sense and logic".
I was playing devil's advocate. I never said that he was under the influence of prescription drugs, only that he could have been based on the knowledge that both you and I have.
Unless you are Barajas's attorney and came by your "knowledge" by exercise of the discovery procedure, then you really don't have a clue what "intoxicated" means as stated by the reporter.
Okay, this is tedious, as are you...let's end this now...
So, no matter how you slice it, if your judgement and relfexes are impaired by any substance, you are endangering others. The deceased driver should not have been behind the wheel...period!
Let's assume for the moment that he was drinking and driving.
How do you know that Barajas knew this, and if it had been a brake malfunction accident, would you still be defending him shooting Barajas?
Barajas had no clue about the condition of Bandas when he shot him, based on the information to which we are reacting.
You are responding based on total hindsight, which is always 20/20.
Let's assume for the moment that he was drinking and driving.
How do you know that Barajas knew this, and if it had been a brake malfunction accident, would you still be defending him shooting Barajas?
Barajas had no clue about the condition of Bandas when he shot him, based on the information to which we are reacting.
You are responding based on total hindsight, which is always 20/20.
Or a seizure, what if Bandas had had a seizure?
Or what if Bandas was suffering from hypoglycemia?
Is Barajas still a hero?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.