NEWS Segeyaro wants to seal the deal

[Jason Simmons]

Because it was the weekend, and his team had just won three games in a row?

And they have been given the week off...

 

[Broncapz]

No ones life was endangered which is the MASSIVE distinction between this offense and actual drink driving. Most P drivers at one stage or another will break this zero tolerence for alcohol limit. The limit is so low because the law is aimed at younger minds and bodies.

 

[Jason Simmons]

No ones life was endangered which is the MASSIVE distinction between this offense and actual drink driving. Most P drivers at one stage or another will break this zero tolerence for alcohol limit. The limit is so low because the law is aimed at younger minds and bodies.

This is actual drink driving. Same offence regardless of the reading, just different wording in the charge.

And by definition everybody’s life was endangered, hence why drink driving is illegal.

Now as an example of the difference, Payne Haas for instance didn’t endanger anybody with his Unlicenced Driving charge. He just risked his liability and insurance position...

 

[broncos4life]

he could have saved an orphan from a burning building and the opposition fans (and certain sections of the media) would have accused him of setting the fire in the first place ... that's the issue he now faces by playing for us.

it is not any worse than what Haas did when he committed his offenses while already suspended.

a fine, a 1 week suspension and he gets back to business

The funny thing is I could actually see this playing out on NRL 360.

Ikin: “Now we have all been amazed by the heroics of James Segeyaro who we now all know risked his life to enter a burning building to bring everyone inside to safety, however Paul you have some news that might cast this in a more sinister light?”

Kent: “That’s right Ben and it’s very disturbing, There has been some suggestion that James was able to be on the scene so quickly because he in fact set the fire, now this is all unconfirmed at this stage but the suggestion itself is horrifying”.

Rothfield: *shakes uncontrollably*

 

[Broncapz]

This is actual drink driving. Same offence regardless of the reading, just different wording in the charge.

And by definition everybody’s life was endangered, hence why drink driving is illegal.

Now as an example of the difference, Payne Haas for instance didn’t endanger anybody with his Unlicenced Driving charge. He just risked his liability and insurance position...

The fact is, an extremely high % of P platers have violated this law unknowingly. It is such an easy law to break by even the most honest of people.

 

[Jason Simmons]

The fact is, an extremely high % of P platers have violated this law unknowingly. It is such an easy law to break by even the most honest of people.

It’s also an extremely easy law not to break. Don’t go anywhere near a car during or soon after you’ve been drinking.

You’d be amazed at how difficult it is to attract a drink driving charge, when you don’t drive any time near to when you’ve been drinking.

Almost as amazing as how nigh on impossible it is, to not attract a speeding fine if you never exceed the speed limit...

 

[007]

What isnt disclosed with Segs is the actual reading. If the station reading was stupidly low, he could actually argue his way out of, with a good lawyer. My problem is that a fit, high metabolic rate male liver will process 1.5 drinks every hour at best. For him to still be touching the meter the following AM, assuming they stopped drinking at 12pm and get got pinged at 7am means he would have had at least 4-5 drinks parked in his system during the last hour until 12pm. Not the most responsible thing to be doing.
[automerge]1558957964[/automerge]

This is actual drink driving. Same offence regardless of the reading, just different wording in the charge.

And by definition everybody’s life was endangered, hence why drink driving is illegal.

Now as an example of the difference, Payne Haas for instance didn’t endanger anybody with his Unlicenced Driving charge. He just risked his liability and insurance position...

Mr Policeman,

You are forgetting and assuming Mr Haas is actually skilled, tested and verified to hold a license....Lack of license could also indicate irresponsible behavior or discipline on the road - both which can endanger others. I see no difference.

 

[Jason Simmons]

What isnt disclosed with Segs is the actual reading. If the station reading was stupidly low, he could actually argue his way out of, with a good lawyer. My problem is that a fit, high metabolic rate male liver will process 1.5 drinks every hour at best. For him to still be touching the meter the following AM, assuming they stopped drinking at 12pm and get got pinged at 7am means he would have had at least 4-5 drinks parked in his system during the last hour until 12pm. Not the most responsible thing to be doing.

Mistake of fact is explicitly not a defence to drink driving at law, so unless he is going to argue an extraordinary emergency caused him to drive, that lawyer of yours is going to have to be some lawyer...

I’m a caffeine addict myself, but I struggle to see how that will fit the definition...

 

[Huge]

I tell you what: when was the last time any media organisation, the people who write these stories, sacked anyone for gettting bladdered at lunch or being coked up on the weekend? I can't even imagine what would happen if they started drug testing in the media. TV and radio would go into a state of emergency.

I'm guessing there's at least one furry faced, dark eyebrowed media lady who likes a line or two judging by recent interviews I've seen her do.

 

[M.B.88]

Why was he drinking [emoji33]

Cause he's a fucking adult

 

[Broncapz]

Completely different to blasting over actual legal limit determined for safety. But hey, if they're the same offense to you then he should be sacked immedietaly.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I tell you what: when was the last time any media organisation, the people who write these stories, sacked anyone for gettting bladdered at lunch or being coked up on the weekend? I can't even imagine what would happen if they started drug testing in the media. TV and radio would go into a state of emergency.

James Hooper is a perfect example. Only last year, got FOP, decided it would be an excellent idea to go and jump up and down on a bunch of people’s cars, causing varying degrees of damage.

Went to court, pleaded guilty to 6 (I think) Wilful Damage charges and not a peep of this was heard in any media outlet... Obviously no-one wants to ‘break the code’ lest all their nefarious behaviours becomes fair game...

Pity the NRL doesn’t employ it’s own journos to follow the media crowd around and reveal their antics to the world...

 

[007]

Mistake of fact is explicitly not a defence to drink driving at law, so unless he is going to argue an extraordinary emergency caused him to drive, that lawyer of yours is going to have to be some lawyer...

I’m a caffeine addict myself, but I struggle to see how that will fit the definition...

I can name 4 bathroom items right this second, available from the local supermarket that will tip you over the scales. All contain ethanol and or similar structure alcohols which will throw a machine. Some whitening toothpastes are critically bad for chemical reactions. Without knowing what machine he was pinned by at the station - its in the air to what defense!

 

[Jason Simmons]

Completely different to blasting over actual legal limit determined for safety. But hey, if they're the same offense to you then he should be sacked immedietaly.

Why? GI wasn’t.

It isn’t at all different. It’s an offence exactly the same as if you blow 0.05% because your ‘counting strategy’ or whatever didn’t quite pan out for you. You didn’t ‘intentionally’ drink drive. You just did. Just like Segeyaro did.

But there is no element of ‘intent’ in drink driving, specifically because it’s just as dangerous whether you mean to do it or not. Alcohol and drugs impair driving ability and driving a car is dangerous even when not impaired.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I can name 4 bathroom items right this second, available from the local supermarket that will tip you over the scales. All contain ethanol and or similar structure alcohols which will throw a machine. Some whitening toothpastes are critically bad for chemical reactions. Without knowing what machine he was pinned by at the station - its in the air to what defense!

They won’t give you a reading the way drink driving is tested and as I already mentioned earlier, he has most likely gone well over 0.02% but not over 0.05%. There is an operational reason for that, which you obliquely referred to in your earlier comment about the body’s ability to process alcohol.

The difference is what is referred to as mouth alcohol, compared to what is actually measured which is breath alcohol concentration. To account for this, we test on the roadside and whether it’s an RBT line with a Booze bus on site or a trip back to the local BAS section, we are required to wait a minimum of 20 minutes between the time of the roadside test, to the time of the test on the instrument.

And they would have used the standard Lion Breathalysing Instrument, that is in virtually every police station in Queensland.

If you think all this has been done and your legal eagle can find a way out, I’ll turn up to court to watch myself. Will be hilarious, watching the confusion on your face when the guilty verdict is handed down.

For the record, there is no biological difference between ethyl or methyl based alcohols as far as drink driving legislation is concerned. You go and skoll a bottle of mouthwash, you’ll be in the same predicament as if you drink the same quantity of Vodka (or whichever spirit contains the same alcohol percentage).

 

[007]

They won’t give you a reading the way drink driving is tested and as I already mentioned earlier, he has most likely gone well over 0.02% but not over 0.05%. There is an operational reason for that, which you obliquely referred to in your earlier comment about the body’s ability to process alcohol.

The difference is what is referred to as mouth alcohol, compared to what is actually measured which is breath alcohol concentration. To account for this, we test on the roadside and whether it’s an RBT line with a Booze bus on site or a trip back to the local BAS section, we are required to wait a minimum of 20 minutes between the time of the roadside test, to the time of the test on the instrument.

And they would have used the standard Lion Breathalysing Instrument, that is in virtually every police station in Queensland.

If you think all this has been done and your legal eagle can find a way out, I’ll turn up to court to watch myself. Will be hilarious, watching the confusion on your face when the guilty verdict is handed down.

For the record, there is no biological difference between ethyl or methyl based alcohols as far as drink driving legislation is concerned. You go and skoll a bottle of mouthwash, you’ll be in the same predicament as if you drink the same quantity of Vodka (or whichever spirit contains the same alcohol percentage).

You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.

 

[WASSHHH]

You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.

I’m not smart enough to know if this is true, but damn you’ve convinced my dumb ass!

 

[Jason Simmons]

You are correct, all correct. And correct the law does not specify what is alcohol and not. I have zero clue what his reading is - nor do any of us.

However, there is a very biological difference between alcohols, they way they are metabolised and they way they evaporate, and at which temperature they evaporate. Should he have swallowed some of the specific mouthwash, has a leaky stomach valve and is nervous during the test....There the possibility that those vapours will affect the reading. Simply because the relative alcohol in the air mixed with volume expelled from lungs changes - send the reaction off and generates a higher reading as the reactive resultant conducts more current or IR spectrum.

Breath analyzers arent perfect - they are very accurate, but circumstances can lead to inefficient reading.

Been tried in court a million times and has never succeeded once to the best of my knowledge. The reason is because deeming provisions under TORUMs means a properly issued certificate from an approved breath analysing instrument, operated by an authorised breath analyser is ‘deemed’ to be conclusive proof of breath alcohol concentration. Mistake of fact is also specifically excluded as a defence to drink or drug driving.

Your legal options then come down to 1. Proving the certificate wasn’t lawfully issued (improper requirement). 2. Proving there was some inaccuracy inherent in the instrument. 3. Some extraordinary emergency that meant you had to drive because of some life threatening emergency, or 4. A direction to drive by some lawful authority, ie: a police officer.

Your points may have some relevance in mitigating a sentence, but they will have zero effect on guilt or otherwise.
[automerge]1558961655[/automerge]

I’m not smart enough to know if this is true, but damn you’ve convinced my dumb ass!

I would speak to a properly qualified legal advisor before you give it a run...