|
Post by frankcor on Oct 14, 2008 12:25:30 GMT -5
That poor kid probably wishes they had tazed him instead of lynched him.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Oct 14, 2008 13:01:27 GMT -5
That would damn sure wake one up enough to pass a field sobriety test even if you had drank a case of beer, much less a couple huh?
It was shameful that circumstances left this kid in the situation he was in. I wonder where the other car's occupants were coming from, and if they were given any sobriety tests, seeing as the accident was obviously the fault of the one failing to yield.
He will be a long time living down the harm done to his reputation. If he is seen out having a beer and a fish fry in Barneveld, people will be buzzing about his "drinking". It is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Oct 15, 2008 6:22:22 GMT -5
I read somewhere, and don't quote me on it, that the other driver was not subjected to the same tests. There's no way to tell, now, whether the other driver was actually to blame for rolling through the stop sign.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Oct 15, 2008 7:52:52 GMT -5
I read somewhere, and don't quote me on it, that the other driver was not subjected to the same tests. There's no way to tell, now, whether the other driver was actually to blame for rolling through the stop sign. Swimmy, this statement was in the 10/4/08 OD article you referred us to in the other thread: "Neither Pfendler nor McNamara would confirm whether Barcomb was given the same sobriety tests and blood tests as Razzano because the role of Barcomb’s vehicle in the crash still is under investigation, they said. On Friday, Aney (Barcomb's attorney) said Barcomb has told him that he did perform sobriety tests and did provide a blood sample to be tested for the presence of alcohol or drugs. Aney, however, has not yet been made aware of the test results." The above from: www.uticaod.com/news/x455213488/Fatal-Steuben-crash-Driver-did-pass-some-sobriety-testsEarlier article at: www.uticaod.com/news/x506586568/Tests-Man-charged-in-fatal-Steuben-crash-was-not-drunkBut these on-line stories appear to be "updated" or edited on the fly, so we can’t say for sure what the articles stated at any given time."Barcomb was charged with failure to yield several weeks after the crash. I still have a question as to whether the .04 result on Razzano was the actual BAC of the his blood taken 3 hours after the crash, or if it was calculated from a lower number back to the crash, which to me would seem unlikely, especially since that number at the time of the crash would have to be mathematically minus. I'll bet that the courts won't allow a calculated number, so the only evidence admissible is a 3 hour old BAC, which got Razzzano off the hook. And I'm thinking he had a smart lawyer who didn't actually refuse for 3 hours, but that the young man was somehow unavailable for a test for that period of time. So here's a scenario that appears to agree with what we know (from the OD, of course, so don't hold me to it.) JUST THINKING: After the accident there are more lawyers in the emergency room than medical personnel. Razanno's lawyer somehow keeps Razzano from submitting blood, without actually refusing. Barcomb's blood shows he's legally drunk, but he's suffered grievous family losses. The district attorney, playing traffic expert and moral theologian, decides that neither guy was at fault because of their driving (they couldn't see each other, the building, etc.), while at the same time both guys were technically at fault due to drinking. Razanno would have blown .1, but burning .02 per hour, three hours later he blows a .04 ... two beers... the number made public in the OD. To have a DWI stick in court on Razanno, the DA would have to argue his backward calculation as true beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury wouldn't buy it. A good defense lawyer would come up with a million reasons why there could be much doubt over the accuracy of such a calculation. HERE'S WHAT THE OD REPORTER SHOULD (HAVE) ASK(ED) the DA: Does Razanno have any prior DUI's or DWI's? That would tell us if he was facing a felony or misdemeanor. That could matter to the prosecution, as well of course to the defendant. If Razzano blew .04 three hours later, why couldn't a .10 be calculated backward and DA charge DWI? Or, was the .04 the calculated result, back form what actual BAC? Was Barcomb's blood tested or not? What was the result? AGAIN, I WAS JUST THINKING. AND even if my scenario were correct, the DA indeed may have made the correct moral decision.
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Oct 15, 2008 9:28:54 GMT -5
Dave, it is just as likely that the .04 WAS a calculated value of what his BAC was at the time of the accident based on a much lower number measured three hours after the crash.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Oct 15, 2008 16:43:42 GMT -5
Like Dave said: burning .02 per hour, calculating to get a BAC of .04 at the time of the crash would mean a measurement of -.02 on the 3 hour sample. Not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Oct 15, 2008 19:04:25 GMT -5
I know it takes the body an hour to process one 12 oz can of beer. Are you saying that 12 ounces of beer would give you a .02 BAC?
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Oct 15, 2008 19:25:50 GMT -5
Now it gets tricky. How long did it take you to drink the beer, plus there is a lag until it gets to your bloodstream. I'll defer to someone who knows.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Oct 15, 2008 21:33:31 GMT -5
I'm not a physician, nor a hematologist, but my understanding is that it generally takes the body an hour to burn .02, which would be equivalent to one beer. Although it's been a long time since I read the literature, and there is quite a lot of science describing how much alcohol is absorbed in the mouth and esophagus, in the stomach (where it is somewhat modified by acids) and in the small intestine where the majority of absorption occurs. The liver burns the alcohol off in the blood (if it's working well.) The usual way to do the calculation is to multiply the number of drinks times .02 and subtract .02 per hour times the number of hours from the time of the first drink to the time of the test. (In this case, I theorized that Razzano MIGHT have had a level of .10 at the time of the accident. After three hours (with no further drinks) he would have burned off .06 and at that point in time blew a .04). The reasons why I doubt (but don't know) that a value of .04 was calculated backward are twofold. First, as CB points out ... as I did in my prior post ... the starting value would have had to be minus. But secondly, I just find it hard to believe that such a calculation would be offered as evidence. I suppose it IS possible, that Razzano blew ZERO at 3 hours and for some reason the DA said "call it .04" (I would have called it .06). But it certainly is a question the reporter should have asked and it certainly should be considered public information.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Oct 15, 2008 21:37:13 GMT -5
I know it takes the body an hour to process one 12 oz can of beer. Are you saying that 12 ounces of beer would give you a .02 BAC? Yes, but don't forget that you immediately start to burn it off as you drink it. So if you chugged a beer and waited a half hour ( to ensure the alcohol is being absorbed in the small intestine) I'd guess you might blow .015. Such a low level is unreliable, and non drinkers have been known to blow close to that. Timing is critical, of course. For example, if you're arrested and taken to the station and sit there waiting for them to get around to testing you, you might feel they gave you a break. Chances are, they didn't. The reason is that you probably had one for the road and then jumped in the car. The cops would usually be waiting at the first 40mph zone down the road from the bar, so that they will have probable cause for pulling you over when you come through at 55. Your last drink at that point may not have pushed your BAC to it's maxium yet, so waiting a half hour will not help you, but will probably raise your test result.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Oct 15, 2008 22:21:27 GMT -5
Hmm. I guess if it takes one hour to burn off one beer or shot, I must have stayed drunk for several years without ever sobering up, LOL. I used to drink 10 or 12 beers a night, and shots of brandy with them most times. On weekends I would drink a couple of cases and a quart or a fifth of Christian Brothers.
No wonder I got sick and tired of being sick and tired. Gee, I sure do miss it! NOT!!!!!
|
|