Jump to content

Rod and Paula Bramblett Killed in Car Accident


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 .  Anytime you hit somebody from behind, it is your fault.  

That is not true.   

I am not saying the teen is innocent, kind of playing devils advocate above,  BUT....

If you swerve in front of another vehicle and get hit from behind,  it is your fault.  If you brake check someone and it causes an accident it is your fault.  If you are backing up and get hit from behind it can be your fault. A case not long ago here in Arkansas   a lady got hit from behind.   Dash cam video showed she did not have control of her car,  and slammed in the brakes in rush hour traffic at the last second. She "bumped" the car in front of here.  Another car hit her going about 20 MPH.   The other driver was not found to be at fault.   If you hit someone from behind that has no break lights,  it is not your fault.   If the person getting hit from behind is drunk and the other sober,  it is assumed it is their fault.   When you hit somebody from behind, it is not ALWAYS  your fault. 

 

Speeding and the THC  are pretty solid evidence,  but without witnesses can you say that the Brambletts were not backing up?

 

I am not trying to paint the Brambletts as the guilty party,  I just do not see it as the slam dunk case everyone is hoping for.

 

Any decent defense lawyer  will make it a mess in court. 

Edited by Quietmaninthecorner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





10 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

According to the diagram linked/posted earlier in this thread, there were in basically what amounts to the center lane (at the intersection since there's a 3rd outside lane that turns right), not in the turn lane.  They were going straight and thus were waiting for the light to change based on the diagram posted.

https://www.wrbl.com/news/teen-driver-charged-as-adult-in-bramblett-crash-police-allege-marijuana-use-and-excessive-speed/

Thanks for the diagram.  Clears some things up for me.  I still think without witnesses the truth will be hard to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

Edited by Quietmaninthecorner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

That is not true.   

I am not saying the teen is innocent, kind of playing devils advocate above,  BUT....

If you swerve in front of another vehicle and get hit from behind,  it is your fault.  If you brake check someone and it causes an accident it is your fault.  If you are backing up and get hit from behind it can be your fault. A case not long ago here in Arkansas   a lady got hit from behind.   Dash cam video showed she did not have control of her car,  and slammed in the brakes in rush hour traffic at the last second. She "bumped" the car in front of here.  Another car hit her going about 20 MPH.   The other driver was not found to be at fault.   If you hit someone from behind that has no break lights,  it is not your fault.   If the person getting hit from behind is drunk and the other sober,  it is assumed it is their fault.   When you hit somebody from behind, it is not ALWAYS  your fault. 

 

Speeding and the THC  are pretty solid evidence,  but without witnesses can you say that the Brambletts were not backing up the right turn lane?

 

I am not trying to paint the Brambletts as the guilty party,  I just do not see it as the slam dunk case everyone is hoping for.

 

Any decent defense lawyer  will make it a mess in court. 

Again your hypothetical seems a stretch. If the Bramletts were backing up, the investigators would have seen that their SUV was in reverse and reported it in their report. The only thing they were NOT sure of was whether the Bramletts SUV was at a complete stop or appeared to be stopping. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

Thanks for the diagram.  Clears some things up for me.  I still think without witnesses the truth will be hard to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

People are being found guilty without witnesses and forensic sciences support increasingly this day and age. I would not bet on that 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

Any decent defense lawyer  will make it a mess in court

My original statement was (maybe) a little too absolute.  There are incidents where hitting someone from behind is not your fault, but the traffic officer has to determine that and I would believe he/she would lean toward fault as the one who hit the other car from behind.

And as I said, anything else is the defense lawyer doing his job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steeleagle said:

Again your hypothetical seems a stretch. If the Bramletts were backing up, the investigators would have seen that their SUV was in reverse and reported it in their report. The only thing they were NOT sure of was whether the Bramletts SUV was at a complete stop or appeared to be stopping. 

 

You are missing the point .  It is not abut whether they were backing up, but about reasonable doubt.  No one will ever know exactly what happened.  The examples I used were all EXTREME.  I wanted to make it perfectly obvious to all that read it that there are situations that can change the whole dynamics of the accident. The only one with burden of proof is the prosecuting attorney.   There are infinite less extreme ways that accident COULD  have occurred.  Without witnesses there is no way to prove any of them,  and they all can cast reasonable doubt.   

 

again, I am not advocating one way or the other on this issue.  Just trying to point out that courts do not work on every day logic or emotion.  The court will only hear what is legally brought into court.       Good defense lawyers have gotten people off more serious crimes with much less "reasonable doubt".   Defense just needs to provide reasonable doubt.

 

WDE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

My original statement was (maybe) a little too absolute.  There are incidents where hitting someone from behind is not your fault, but the traffic officer has to determine that and I would believe he/she would lean toward fault as the one who hit the other car from behind.

And as I said, anything else is the defense lawyer doing his job.

I knew what you meant. I  wasn't trying to come off as argumentative.  I always heard "if you hit someone from behind as your fault."    When I was 14 my best friends mother was hit from behind... HARD.    It caused her lifelong back issues.     I do not remember why,  but the lady that hit her was found innocent.    It peaked my interest,  and pay attention in cases involving rear end collisions.r 

 

Basically my point is how the courts do not see things like we do from the outside. Reasonable doubt is much easier to provide  than PROVING  facts beyond reasonable doubt.    

 

"      I think a  good defense lawyer will make a mess out of this.

 

SIDE NOTE:    One of my greatest AU spring break stories  involves getting rear ended in panama city,  2 times by 2  different cars. 30 minutes apart  and about 5 miles apart.   I was in the backseat.  One  of them never hit the brakes.  No one was hurt.    Neither went to court.

   

Edited by Quietmaninthecorner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DAG said:

People are being found guilty without witnesses and forensic sciences support increasingly this day and age. I would not bet on tha

True, but reasonable doubt will always be a strong strategy for defense of someone who is actually guilty or perceived as guilty,  even  in the face of the overwhelming evidence of modern sciences.  It just takes an inkling on part, or all of the evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kevon67 said:

I realize pot effects people differently.........I drove home from a party high when I was 17.............about 4 miles one way..........I drove about 5 miles under the limit for fear someone would think I was high if I drove too fast..........I was so nervous speeding was last thing on my mind.........like Alexeva mentioned made me tired , nervous and hungry......also give my beer a nasty taste...........at 16 I dont imagine he's been smoking long if not his first time........Ive heard it gives some people schitzophrenic type symptoms.

Most people drive slower when high because they feel like they’re going faster than they are actually going.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, toddc said:

Most people drive slower when high because they feel like they’re going faster than they are actually going.

"Hey man... am I driving OK?????"

 

 

Edited by Quietmaninthecorner
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

"Hey man... am I driving OK?????"

"Uh  ........  I think we are parked."

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it’s proven he was doing 90 mph and asleep at the wheel at 6:00 pm when he killed two people, he should serve time. Whether he recently smoked weed or not. However, nothing in our justice system surprises me anymore. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

If it’s proven he was doing 90 mph and asleep at the wheel at 6:00 pm when he killed two people, he should serve time. Whether he recently smoked weed or not. However, nothing in our justice system surprises me anymore. 

I hope we dont see another "teen suffers from affluenza"      Yes nothing surprises me anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect the THC to be explained as CBD oil for anxiety.  The 90 mph will be harder to justify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Freak said:

I expect the THC to be explained as CBD oil for anxiety.  The 90 mph will be harder to justify.

CBD typically doesn't have THC and if it does it's usually trace metabolites

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

If it’s proven he was doing 90 mph and asleep at the wheel at 6:00 pm when he killed two people, he should serve time. Whether he recently smoked weed or not. However, nothing in our justice system surprises me anymore. 

Even lawyers don't refer to it as a "justice" system.  It is a "legal" system.  The failure of our legal system to invoke justice is probably why we now have the "court of public opinion" where a mob and the media successfully ruin people's lives and livelihood with no evidence at all.

But yeah.... overall I agree with your point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Bottom line the person driving 89 to 91 mph in a 55 mph zone approaching an intersection is guilty of causing the accident period. Doesn’t matter if he was high or asleep or if the other car was changing lanes or backing up. Guilt will not be an issue. Premeditation and circumstance cold be used in the punishment phase. That said, in my honest opinion ( which has absolutely nothing to do with my desire either way) barring any unknown prior record which I doubt exist, the defendants lawyer will successfully push for youthful offender status. I suspect he will lose his license for quite a while and do some time in juvenile and have his record purged as an adult. His family could and most likely will face civil judgement as well. I would expect the civil judgement to be successful against the defendants ( family of the minor is also responsible in a civil judgement). Nothing is going to bring anyone back or make the suffering of the children and family any less. The sooner everybody can move on the better. Focus should be on #1 preserving the memory of Rod and Paula and creating memorials such as scholarships and such and #2 helping the children as they move forward. I’ll also add a #3 as Phillip L.’s Dad has done and use this as a learning lesson to go teach young people about as to why you need to avoid substance abuse, as well as following road rules and never driving when your ability to drive 100 percent is affected. Don’t just drive for yourself but for al those that might be on the road. Also we all need to say a prayer for the children and the defendant. Their life will forever be change let’s pray they can make I through this time of trouble successfully.  

Good summation, but it begs the question of whether or not "minors" or "juveniles" should be allowed to drive at all, or at least alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Bottom line the person driving 89 to 91 mph in a 55 mph zone approaching an intersection is guilty of causing the accident period. Doesn’t matter if he was high or asleep or if the other car was changing lanes or backing up. Guilt will not be an issue. Premeditation and circumstance cold be used in the punishment phase. That said, in my honest opinion ( which has absolutely nothing to do with my desire either way) barring any unknown prior record which I doubt exist, the defendants lawyer will successfully push for youthful offender status. I suspect he will lose his license for quite a while and do some time in juvenile and have his record purged as an adult. His family could and most likely will face civil judgement as well. I would expect the civil judgement to be successful against the defendants ( family of the minor is also responsible in a civil judgement). Nothing is going to bring anyone back or make the suffering of the children and family any less. The sooner everybody can move on the better. Focus should be on #1 preserving the memory of Rod and Paula and creating memorials such as scholarships and such and #2 helping the children as they move forward. I’ll also add a #3 as Phillip L.’s Dad has done and use this as a learning lesson to go teach young people about as to why you need to avoid substance abuse, as well as following road rules and never driving when your ability to drive 100 percent is affected. Don’t just drive for yourself but for al those that might be on the road. Also we all need to say a prayer for the children and the defendant. Their life will forever be change let’s pray they can make I through this time of trouble successfully.  

A very minute side-note: defense attorney maintains that the driver was not impaired at time of accident - which would have direct bearing on what actual homicide charges can be brought/success on the charges already brought (i.e., vehicular homicide v. negligent homicide). I expect a plea deal, regardless. In other words, I do not anticipate a trial. As you alluded to, general guilt is not at issue. It’s only a matter of charges at this point.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good summation, but it begs the question of whether or not "minors" or "juveniles" should be allowed to drive at all, or at least alone.

To do so would penalize 98+% that do what their supposed to. But personally I agree with the youthful offender status for those without prior run ins. I think we all understand better as we age because of lessons learned. As has been said by other wise posters, I am sure this young man did not wake on this fateful day and decided he wanted to go out and destroy so many lives. I think it was a bad mistake and one that he will have to live with the rest of his life. I hope he rebounds by honoring Paula and Rob and their family by using the rest of his life in a positive way and sharing his story with young people to help them avoid the same problem. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways we don’t understand but what I do understand is for what ever His reason, it is right.

  • Like 3
  • Love 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2019 at 6:08 AM, bigbird said:

CBD typically doesn't have THC and if it does it's usually trace metabolites

CBD  does contain trace amounts of THC, and before you argue -  I am a pharmacist responsible for some of the drug testing for the state of Tennessee.  If you use CBD oil and are tested using the appropriate panels, you will test positive for THC.  This has been demonstrated in a number of controlled studies and I have had positive results come back where an investigation revealed the source to be CBD oil.  Please do not believe or spread the myth that CBD oil use will not show up on a drug screen, it may cost you employment. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, im4aual said:

I am a pharmacist responsible for some of the drug testing for the state of Tennessee.

@im4aual I recently bought some "hemp cream" while visiting in Tennessee. Reclaim 200 is the trade name. I got it for my daughter, who has some arthritis pain in her hands and she says the stuff does provide relief. Now, is it possible that this stuff could cause a positive test result for THC? The label does not list THC as an ingredient but it does list hemp extract. The daughter is a nurse and could be subject to testing is why I ask.

Edited by Mikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

@im4aual I recently bought some "hemp cream" while visiting in Tennessee. Reclaim 200 is the trade name. I got it for my daughter, who has some arthritis pain in her hands and she says the stuff does provide relief. Now, is it possible that this stuff could cause a positive test result for THC? The label does not list THC as an ingredient but it does list hemp extract. The daughter is a nurse and could be subject to testing is why I ask.

Depending on the panels used for drug testing, it probably would.  Her best bet is to ask her employer for written permission to use the cream.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, im4aual said:

Depending on the panels used for drug testing, it probably would.  Her best bet is to ask her employer for written permission to use the cream.  

Ok, Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...