Torsell too drunk to consent to sobriety test

[mugs]

(Anthony Torsell is the guy who hit and killed acemcmac (Richard Smith) and severely injured Aaron Stidd. I thought people might be interesting in what has happened in the case in the last few months)

His lawyer says he was too drunk to consent to the BAC test

Attorney Joseph Amendola argues in court documents filed Monday that his client, Anthony "Tony" Torsell, 20, was not advised of his right not to talk with police and was too intoxicated to understand what was happening to him.

Interesting tactic... The prosecutor doesn't seem too concerned.

Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said that although he has not yet read Amendola's filing, he is not surprised by its contents. Madeira said these motions are routine in criminal cases. "The filing of that kind of motion comes as no surprise to us, and we'll deal with each one specifically," Madeira said.

Stidd says first word since accident: Mom

"It was a nightmare, but they saved his life," Connie said.

I never realized how badly the other guy was injured. I hope he makes a full recovery.


Six headed to county court on charges of furnishing alcohol to driver accused in fatal crash

Five Penn State students and a nonstudent are headed to Centre County Court on charges they provided alcohol consumed by a 20-year-old State College man accused of driving drunk when he struck and killed one pedestrian and critically injured a second.

Furnishing alcohol to a 20 year old is one thing... but it takes a heck of a lot of it to get to .242.

 

[OutHouse]

if there is one thing i hate most of all are drunk drivers.

i have no sympathy at all for them and i my world this clown would have been swinging by a tree that night.

 

[Linflas]

I guess implied consent trumps his inebriation which is why the prosecutor is not too concerned.

 

[Patt]

Thanks for the update ... interesting tactic, but not going to work.

 

[Spacehead]

I feel for the Stidd family. I know what a long recovery awaits them

 

[iRONic]

Scumbags...

 

[Looney]

Man dad was never really able to forbid me from doing anything, whether it was hanging around with the wrong crowd or doing drugs, but there was one thing he made me promise, and that was to never drink and drive. And i never have. I've left my cars at clubs and bars so many times and simply took a cab home.

 

[oCxTiTaN]

Originally posted by: Citrix
if there is one thing i hate most of all are drunk drivers.

i have no sympathy at all for them and i my world this clown would have been swinging by a tree that night.

.

 

[jman19]

Drunk drivers are scum. Anyone remember the thread a while back where some posters were saying that the currently legal limit is BS beacuse they "can drive fine with a few beers in them?" :roll:

 

[allisolm]

That's some circular reasoning there. We'd like you to take a sobriety test to determine if you're drunk but, if you're drunk, the test doesn't count because you're drunk and so can't consent to the test.

 

[FoBoT]

thanks for the info

 

[jme5343]

Originally posted by: Citrix
if there is one thing i hate most of all are drunk drivers.

i have no sympathy at all for them and i my world this clown would have been swinging by a tree that night.

X3

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jman19
Drunk drivers are scum. Anyone remember the thread a while back where some posters were saying that the currently legal limit is BS beacuse they "can drive fine with a few beers in them?" :roll:

What does that possibly have to do with a .242 alchohol level???

Oh, that's right, NOTHING! :disgust:

 

[nweaver]

That lawyer should be dragged behind a car driven by said driver after getting his BAC to that level....

car=monster truck jumping cars....

what an arsehat,

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jman19
Drunk drivers are scum. Anyone remember the thread a while back where some posters were saying that the currently legal limit is BS beacuse they "can drive fine with a few beers in them?" :roll:

What does that possibly have to do with a .242 alchohol level???

Oh, that's right, NOTHING! :disgust:

Umm, I wasn't talking about the guy with a .242 alcohol level

I'm talking about how people shouldn't be allowed to decide when they are or are not too drunk to drive.

 

[GoPackGo]

I feel bad for the driver, because he didn't mean to kill anyone.

But he has ruined many lives and must pay for what he did.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: allisolm
That's some circular reasoning there. We'd like you to take a sobriety test to determine if you're drunk but, if you're drunk, the test doesn't count because you're drunk and so can't consent to the test.

It's lawyer logic. Don't let it bother you. Due to the crime and circumstances, really nothing can prevent a conviction and severe sentence at this point, so the lawyer is just throwing in something for the appeals court later. Plus he needs to CYA against the possibility of claims of legal malpractice. Like the prosecutor said, it's routine.

RIP Acemcmac.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I feel bad for the driver, because he didn't mean to kill anyone.

But he has ruined many lives and must pay for what he did.

He ruined his own life that night as well. That's all there is to that.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jman19
Drunk drivers are scum. Anyone remember the thread a while back where some posters were saying that the currently legal limit is BS beacuse they "can drive fine with a few beers in them?" :roll:

It is BS. The only thing the current laws do are collect money for the state.

 

[j00fek]

thnx for the update

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Patt
Thanks for the update ... interesting tactic, but not going to work.

Are you a lawyer? Do you know how easy it is to get people off on a technicality? I hope it doesn't work, but it's moronic to say it won't work just because it sounds lame to you.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Patt
Thanks for the update ... interesting tactic, but not going to work.

Are you a lawyer? Do you know how easy it is to get people off on a technicality? I hope it doesn't work, but it's moronic to say it won't work just because it sounds lame to you.

The explanation of implied consent says that consent assessed when the surrounding circumstances lead a reasonable person to believe that consent has been granted even though word of agreement were not direct, express or explicit. Implied consent is used by law enforcement when it comes to determining whether you are intoxicated or not. In the case of drunk driving, most states have adopted the law that if you are driving a vehicle, you have then given consent to submit to the approved test to find out if you?re driving under the influence of alcohol. When you are stopped and you?re not sure of what your alcohol level is, you cannot refuse to take a breathalyzer test. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you refuse, you will find yourself in bigger trouble than you would have by submitting to the test. This implied consent is automatic in the case of anyone who drives a vehicle.

In Pennsylvania, the Implied Consent law requires you to take the test. If you refuse you can lose your license for up to 12 months due to this refusal. Given that, you still end up with a DUI conviction and the 12 months for refusing to take the Breathalyzer will be in addition to what will result from your conviction. Most lawyers advise their clients to take this test and rightly so.

Good luck with getting off using that as a defense.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I feel bad for the driver, because he didn't mean to kill anyone.

But he has ruined many lives and must pay for what he did.

well to be fair if he didnt want to kill anyone he shouldnt have driven drunk. he chose to drive drunk and kill someone. i have no sympathy for him at all.

i hope he sits in jail for a few years and loses everything he has.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I feel bad for the driver, because he didn't mean to kill anyone.

But he has ruined many lives and must pay for what he did.

well to be fair if he didnt want to kill anyone he shouldnt have driven drunk. he chose to drive drunk and kill someone. i have no sympathy for him at all.

i hope he sits in jail for a few years and loses everything he has.

Well, his fate is far worse than that actually. He's not going to lose everything he had. He's just a 20 year old kid, and he probably doesn't have anything anyway. His fate is that he is going to lose everything he otherwise could have had, much like Acemcmac did. He's lost his future.

Don't drink and drive, kids.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: mugs

Five Penn State students and a nonstudent are headed to Centre County Court on charges they provided alcohol consumed by a 20-year-old State College man accused of driving drunk when he struck and killed one pedestrian and critically injured a second.

Furnishing alcohol to a 20 year old is one thing... but it takes a heck of a lot of it to get to .242.

Welcome to every weekend at a public university. The people that gave him the booze arent to blame. There are hundreds of parties going on, and usually by the end of the night, the hosts dont even know half the people who are there. Its just how it works, so dont say something like "they should be carding everyone who shows up at the party and making sure that people dont drink too much"

He drank, he drove, its his responsibility, not anyone elses. He could have gotten that booze at any one of a hundred parties, and he probably wasnt even at one party the whole night.

The fact that he was underage had nothing to do with the accident. There are just as many of-age students who drink and drive around here than underage, probably more.

He should be punished to the max, but not the people who gave him booze.