Arrest warrant issued for potential 1st overall pick DT Jalen Carter

[ronjon1990]

46 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'd be interested in knowing why the police didn't get a blood sample. Extrapolating that back to the time of the crash would be super easy.

If I had to guess, he didn't drive back alone and tell them what happened at the scene. 

Can't really get a blood sample in that circumstance. 2 unaccounted hours is probably something I would balk at if writing a warrant without any other evidence. It seems nitpicky, but...

Edited March 1, 2023 by ronjon1990

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

If I had to guess, he didn't drive back alone and tell them what happened at the scene. 

Can't really get a blood sample in that circumstance. 2 unaccounted hours is probably something I would balk at if writing a warrant without any other evidence. It seems nitpicky, but...

Forgive what has to be the most naive question alive, but why would it not be SOP to take a blood sample from anyone who fled the scene of a suspected DUI, and then returned?

I get if it was 4 days later, but 2 hours is not a massive amount of time in terms of alcohol elimination. He's clearing .03-ish %BAC in that window.

[e16bball]

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Unsure, but from a scientific perspective this is the type of thing you could do on a flashcard without losing accuracy.

Or if he blew greater than the limit, then it would be a matter of proving when he drank them, which would open up bar footage, credit card receipts time stamps, etc.

Extremely difficult to do after the fact. Bordering on impossible, I’d say.

BAC backtracking is pretty straightforward from a scientific standpoint, but it can’t tell you when he ingested the alcohol you’re picking up in the test. If you didn’t have him observed from the time of the accident until the time of testing — how can you eliminate (beyond any reasonable doubt) the potential that he drank after the accident occurred? Especially with an 90+ minute window like this. Entirely reasonable scenario that he went home, pounded a few shots out of shock/grief/guilt/anger, and then his conscience got the better of him and he came back.

If you don’t have observations of alcohol impairment at the time he was driving and you can’t reliably pin down his BAC at the time he was driving — you just can’t convict on any kind of DUI in a reasonable courtroom.

[Darbsk]

21 minutes ago, y*so*blu said:

I will be shocked if the Cowboys or Raiders don't take him. Shocked I tell you.

How so? I don’t see how we can take him given the horrendous Ruggs crash. Maybe if he’s exonerated but taking him given the circumstances would be borderline insulting the Ruggs victims.

Unless of course you’re just trolling or trying to be funny or something?

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Extremely difficult to do after the fact. Bordering on impossible, I’d say.

BAC backtracking is pretty straightforward from a scientific standpoint, but it can’t tell you when he ingested the alcohol you’re picking up in the test. If you didn’t have him observed from the time of the accident until the time of testing — how can you eliminate (beyond any reasonable doubt) the potential that he drank after the accident occurred? Especially with an 90+ minute window like this. Entirely reasonable scenario that he went home, pounded a few shots out of shock/grief/guilt/anger, and then his conscience got the better of him and he came back.

If you don’t have observations of alcohol impairment at the time he was driving and you can’t reliably pin down his BAC at the time he was driving — you just can’t convict on any kind of DUI in a reasonable courtroom.

It would be tricky, the reasonable doubt part makes this tougher. Zero order alcohol elimination means it doesn't matter if he had shots at 10 PM or 11 PM, but ruling out him drinking something after the crash without him confessing that he didn't seems difficult.

So then taking the blood sample would have likely helped the civil case (presumably that's pending). Because I don't see how they could argue that type of defense with a less stringent burden of proof.

[e16bball]

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It would be tricky, the reasonable doubt part makes this tougher. Zero order alcohol elimination means it doesn't matter if he had shots at 10 PM or 11 PM, but ruling out him drinking something after the crash without him confessing that he didn't seems difficult.

So then taking the blood sample would have likely helped the civil case (presumably that's pending). Because I don't see how they could argue that type of defense with a less stringent burden of proof.

PI/tort stuff is far from my area of expertise, but is his alcohol intoxication even an issue in any civil case?

It seems to me that your cause of action against him, in terms of your theory of causation, would have to be that he caused the accident by racing with the driver.

Putting aside the issue of how strong/weak that claim would be, it seems like his level of intoxication is almost irrelevant to that claim. If they can show he was racing with her, it doesn’t matter whether he was drunk or sober. He’s just as negligent for the act of racing her if he’s doing it sober. And if they can’t show he was racing with her, the same is true. He could have been drunk as a lord behind the wheel of his own car, but that didn’t make the girl crash hers.

[FalconFan13]

Just enough a slap on the wrist for him to fall to 8 and the Falcons to take him and stay home in Georgia

[ramssuperbowl99]

23 minutes ago, e16bball said:

PI/tort stuff is far from my area of expertise, but is his alcohol intoxication even an issue in any civil case?

It seems to me that your cause of action against him, in terms of your theory of causation, would have to be that he caused the accident by racing with the driver.

Putting aside the issue of how strong/weak that claim would be, it seems like his level of intoxication is almost irrelevant to that claim. If they can show he was racing with her, it doesn’t matter whether he was drunk or sober. He’s just as negligent for the act of racing her if he’s doing it sober. And if they can’t show he was racing with her, the same is true. He could have been drunk as a lord behind the wheel of his own car, but that didn’t make the girl crash hers.

I would think he'd be more negligent if he was also drunk. Him driving drunk would lead to more reckless driving than sober, and him racing someone in a more reckless manner would then encourage her to drive more recklessly to win.

[brownie man]

4 hours ago, TankWilliams said:

I think more than anything else, the biggest red flag about him now is the fact that he knew the combine was coming up, and he is well regarded to the point where he pretty much needed to just show up and stay out of trouble to secure his future, and still let something like this happen.  Definitely puts his character in question to the point where I wouldnt want the Bears to draft him unless he falls a ways.

Chicago would be a fool

That would be just a shortsighted move keeping you in the same mediocrity you’ve been in 

[RuskieTitan]

20 minutes ago, brownie man said:

Chicago would be a fool

That would be just a shortsighted move keeping you in the same mediocrity you’ve been in 

I was going to respond to your post about how some people actually value character, but then I saw your avatar and realized you wouldn't understand.

[Scoundrel]

6 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I was going to respond to your post about how some people actually value character, but then I saw your avatar and realized you wouldn't understand.

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Forgive what has to be the most naive question alive, but why would it not be SOP to take a blood sample from anyone who fled the scene of a suspected DUI, and then returned?

I get if it was 4 days later, but 2 hours is not a massive amount of time in terms of alcohol elimination. He's clearing .03-ish %BAC in that window.

Not naive at all. 

I'm as unsure of all the facts as anyone else. 

What I'm thinking is that when he returned, he didn't tell the cops he was racing (or possibly that he was drunk). At that point, he's merely a random bystander and unless he's visibly intoxicated, he wouldn't have been doing anything wrong or even related to the accident. The fact that he wasn't arrested at that point seems to indicate that he definitely wasn't telling them on the spot that he fled. 

As far as the time, it's tricky. 2 hours is indeed not a lot of time. If they knew he was drinking and driving and somehow involved in the accident, it's plenty reasonable. However, I would argue that he's been away for two hours and could have been doing anything in that time. If you can't prove my client was drinking at the time of the accident, no, you're not taking a blood sample or breathalyzer. And again, at the time, everything seems to indicate he was viewed as a random member of the public at large. 

Loon at it this way: You're driving along and a cop flashes his lights at you for speeding in a school zone. You go home. You crack open a few cold ones. Two hours later, same cop is knocking at the door and wants to take your blood pressure breathalyze you because now he thinks you may have been drunk when you were speeding in the school zone 2 hours ago. Would you agree to it?

That's the problem with Carter leaving the scene. Good luck proving he was intoxicated at the time of the accident when you cannot account for his whereabouts or what he may have been doing for the last 2 hours. 

 

To tie back to NFL, the totality of the circumstances are a massive character red flag. Personally, I see him likely having quite the fall down the boards. 

[ronjon1990]

8 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I was going to respond to your post about how some people actually value character, but then I saw your avatar and realized you wouldn't understand.

[mse326]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Forgive what has to be the most naive question alive, but why would it not be SOP to take a blood sample from anyone who fled the scene of a suspected DUI, and then returned?

I get if it was 4 days later, but 2 hours is not a massive amount of time in terms of alcohol elimination. He's clearing .03-ish %BAC in that window.

You need a warrant for a blood sample. So there would have to be probable cause that he was drinking or was involved in the incident. They may have have suspected he was racing, or alcohol was involved with her as the officer he talked to said he appeared sober, but until footage came along there likely wasn't enough for probable cause. I don't know what they new and when but it can't simply be SOP, there needs to be probable cause that he was drinking

[brownie man]

47 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I was going to respond to your post about how some people actually value character, but then I saw your avatar and realized you wouldn't understand.

Sit home all you want 

the game is SuperBowls not character 

look at every Super Bowl team most of them got something  

**** Frank Clark has a dozen character issues

but that man got pressure during the playoffs that’s for sure. 
 

Joe Mixon as we know has had issues and he was in the afc championship game

list goes and on and on 

this ain’t the Girl Scouts. Part of the game is navigating through issues players have.