Started By
Message
re: Press Release from The Teabagger's Attorneys
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:30 pm to NBamaAlum
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:30 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
If someone could, please provide something that allows underage overconsumption under the law in La..
Everything I've seen to date is 21 for consumption of alcohol in La. Don't know where this, you're allowed to at 18 if you're with your parents, cam from. In any case, you're right. Everyone has gotten off track from the legalities of what may/may not transpire.
As of this moment, the young man's father is the one who filed the report and nothing has been brought forward that he has done anything on his own. IF, a plea agreement isn't made, the 18 year old, will have to be the complaintent(sp?) and he will have to testify at trial. Being an adult, his name will be out for public consumption. As he has not come forward publicly yet, I'd doubt he would in the future.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:32 pm to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
But, even if it was illegal, its not against the law for an 11 year old to have alcohol in their system anywhere in the United States
Right. Nobody would be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor in a situation like that.
La. law that I read, states that you may be 18 to work in an establishment that serves alcohol. I haven't found any law that says it may be consumed by anyone under the age of 21. Could you direct me to that statute?
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:34 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Everyone has gotten off track from the legalities of what may/may not transpire.
True, but the a-hole that brought up the fact that the victim may have been in the wrong is a douche...
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:35 pm to T Rey WI
quote:
The lawyer established the "victim" was drunk and under age. That opens a couple of issues for the 18 year old if he testifies to the fact he was drinking.
quote:
T Rey WI
this asshat
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:36 pm to MintBerry Crunch
The victim was in the wrong. Publicly drunk to the point of passing out in public isn't right.
That in no way justifies what was done to him though, and shouldn't be argued to that point. The main contention has been that the Downing guy should do the max time for sexual battery. Seeing as the alleged victim hasn't even come forward yet, it's doubtful he wants it to go to trial, therefore, logic would lead one to believe there will be a plea agreement.
That in no way justifies what was done to him though, and shouldn't be argued to that point. The main contention has been that the Downing guy should do the max time for sexual battery. Seeing as the alleged victim hasn't even come forward yet, it's doubtful he wants it to go to trial, therefore, logic would lead one to believe there will be a plea agreement.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:39 pm to Alahunter
quote:
§93.12. Purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages; exceptions; penalties
A. It is unlawful for any person under twenty-one years of age to purchase or have public possession of any alcoholic beverage
quote:
§93.10. Definitions
For purposes of R.S. 14:93.10 through 93.14, the following definitions shall apply:
quote:
(2) "Public possession" means the possession of any alcoholic beverage for any reason, including consumption, on any street or highway
or in any public place or any place open to the public, including a club which is de facto open to the public. "Public possession" does
not include the following:
quote:
(ii) When a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian twenty-one years of age or
older.
LINK
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:40 pm to chilld28
This thread has gone completely nuts and the admins should just sack it. I'm being cereal here.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:42 pm to chilld28
child28:
There you have it. It was more or less intentionally worded vaguely to allow for loose interpretation. Sort of a nudge nudge, wink wink thing.
There you have it. It was more or less intentionally worded vaguely to allow for loose interpretation. Sort of a nudge nudge, wink wink thing.
This post was edited on 1/27/12 at 12:07 am
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:43 pm to chilld28
That doesn't clear things up. It says simply under that age of 21 if a legal guardian over 21 is present. Does that mean an 8 year old can legally consume alcohol in Louisiana, so long as their parents are with them?
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:44 pm to MintBerry Crunch
I never said the victim was doing anything wrong. I pointed out that the lawyer was doing his job for his client. The victim cannot be a witness to what did or did not happen and the lawyer made a point of his age so the victim will have to think about what he says if he comes forward and what kind of questions he would face if it ever went to court.
Call me whatever names you wish but the validity of what I pointed out still stands. defense lawyers do not fight fair, they fight for their client within the law.
Call me whatever names you wish but the validity of what I pointed out still stands. defense lawyers do not fight fair, they fight for their client within the law.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:44 pm to Alahunter
quote:
That doesn't clear things up. It says simply under that age of 21 if a legal guardian over 21 is present. Does that mean an 8 year old can legally consume alcohol in Louisiana, so long as their parents are with them?
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:46 pm to chilld28
Or, there's gonna be alot of 12 olds with cirrhosis of the liver. 
This post was edited on 1/26/12 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:53 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Or, there's gonna be alot of 12 olds with cirrhosis of the liver
You've obviously never heard the old joke...in New Orleans, cirrhosis of the liver is listed under DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 11:56 pm to T Rey WI
quote:
The victim cannot be a witness to what did or did not happen
doesn't matter, it's on tape which is even better to prosecute him
quote:
the lawyer made a point of his age so the victim will have to think about what he says if he comes forward
or else what exactly? will the DA charge him with public intox now? it's obvious he was out of it. he doesn't have to lie about it if he chooses to come forward
quote:
the victim will have to think about what he says if he comes forward and what kind of questions he would face if it ever went to court.
what questions does he have to worry about exactly?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 12:06 am to WaveHog
if they were to slap public intoxication on the victim, then they sure as hell better slap it on the bagger too....
Posted on 1/27/12 at 12:07 am to chilld28
I hope this guy gets the death penalty
Posted on 1/27/12 at 12:15 am to WaveHog
quote:
The victim cannot be a witness to what did or did not happen
doesn't matter, it's on tape which is even better to prosecute him
Again, the point is not a trail but reduction of charges/plea - the tape cannot testify if genital contact was made. The only two who could are the victim or the client. The victim was passed out and the client would not admit to contact.
If no contact can be proven then the charges would have to be reduced or lost - That is the point of the lawyer's case/effort for lesser charges and plea.
quote:
or else what exactly? will the DA charge him with public intox now? it's obvious he was out of it. he doesn't have to lie about it if he chooses to come forward
It really does not matter to the lawyer. His job is to create conflict for the victim about getting on the stand and push the DA toward a plea to lesser charges
quote:
what questions does he have to worry about exactly?
Again, not the point of the lawyer's effort.
All I am attempting to point out is what the lawyer appears to be trying to do (IMO). With the tape out there this is his best play. I have no clue if it will work but the DA will have to make a choice and the lawyer is trying to give him reason to pause.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 12:19 am to Alahunter
Posted on 1/27/12 at 12:20 am to Bellabama
quote:
Bellabama
HEY BELLA!
Popular
Back to top


2





