Clever wording I know, cheers.
So! An unlawful killing has reported by the jury! Crumbs!
So! An unlawful killing has reported by the jury! Crumbs!
Anything that sticks the sharp and hurting finger of justice into the cow-like eye of Mr. Papparapzi is fine by me.
Unrelatedly, on that other thread we've just got done establishing that juries consist mostly of ne'er do-wells and right-wing tabloid addicts.
Much like forums then.
BBC Linky.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
Grim... wrote:
BBC Linky.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
I would have said 'getting into a car with a pissed up drive and not wearing seatbelts' but I'm no jury.
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
Grim... wrote:
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
That was JFK.
I think the bullet definitely entered his bloodstream.
So, two people who didn't wear seatbelts died in a car crash being driven by a man who was drunk.
Shame that "Death by Stupidity" is not an option in the coroners court.
I am so glad we've all spent that money on this nonsense. Cheers Fayed, I hope your grocery store goes bust.
Shame that "Death by Stupidity" is not an option in the coroners court.
I am so glad we've all spent that money on this nonsense. Cheers Fayed, I hope your grocery store goes bust.
Grim... wrote:
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
It takes 15 seconds for a shot to start entering your bloodstream/brain.
Unless the BBC documentary on booze lied to me.
Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
It takes 15 seconds for a shot to start entering your bloodstream/brain.
Unless the BBC documentary on booze lied to me.
Does it? I thought it was more like 15 minutes.
Grim... wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
It takes 15 seconds for a shot to start entering your bloodstream/brain.
Unless the BBC documentary on booze lied to me.
Does it? I thought it was more like 15 minutes.
I don't know. Neck an entire litre bottle of tequila in one go and tell me when you fall over.
Curiosity wrote:
I don't know. Neck an entire litre bottle of tequila in one go and tell me when you fall over.
Tequila is different because it goes in through your tongue or something.
I'll fall over fairly quickly, but I won't hit peak drunkenness for about 15 minutes. That's how I understood it worked.
Grim... wrote:
I'll fall over fairly quickly, but I won't hit peak drunkenness for about 15 minutes. That's how I understood it worked.
That sounds eminently plausible.
The driver in question tested for having had between five and eight DOUBLE shots of Ricard (whatever that is) on the night in question, or so the BBC tells me. Even if it was less, he was still meant to be well over the drink drive limit, and unless he nailed them all in one go and then sprinted to the car, it would definitely have caused some degree of impairment.
Curiosity wrote:
unless he nailed them all in one go and then sprinted to the car
I really, really hope that's what happened
Grim... wrote:
BBC Linky.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
I'd say that 'not wearing seatbelts' was more of a factor, but I'm no jury.
Heh. I remember when WCW wrestler Brian Pillman was in a severe crash, they said that he would have been killed if he had been wearing a seatbelt. They kill as many people as they save, amirite? (No! You're thinking of airbags! - Simpsons Ref Ed).
No - they can kill people, but they save a lot more. A lot of people get the wrong idea because the most likely injury you will get in a car crash is from your seatbelt. However, I'd rather have a line of bruises across my chest than take a trip through the windscreen.
Hopefully, you realised I was being facetious.
Note to self! Register facetiousbook.com
Now that's a networking site I could abide by.
Isn't it supposed to be the lap belts in the rear of a car that are dangerous as they can snap your spine in two with enough force?
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Isn't it supposed to be the lap belts in the rear of a car that are dangerous as they can snap your spine in two with enough force?
Yes, but again, you'd be through the windscreen (or bouncing off the dashboard) if you weren't wearing one.
Grim... wrote:
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Isn't it supposed to be the lap belts in the rear of a car that are dangerous as they can snap your spine in two with enough force?
Yes, but again, you'd be through the windscreen (or bouncing off the dashboard) if you weren't wearing one.
But isn't that supposed to be less risk?
I honestly don't know here, I'm sure a friend told me about it many years ago. Urban legend....oooooooohh.
Grim... wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He wasn't that drunk. Three shots, or something, wasn't it, and no time for them to enter his bloodstream anyway?
It takes 15 seconds for a shot to start entering your bloodstream/brain.
Unless the BBC documentary on booze lied to me.
Does it? I thought it was more like 15 minutes.
It does. Alcohol pretty much dissolves your stomach lining, allowing it access to blood through the stomach rather thanhaving to wait to travel through to the intestines.
See also : Sniffing alcohol makes you drunk quickly as it goes through the nasal membranes in much the same way, but they're that much closer to the brain.
Legal drugs FTW?
Ricard is an aniseed aperetif, and quite yum if you like aniseed.
Page 1 of 1 [ 28 posts ]