Originally Posted by Dante84:
He was drunk, so **** him.
Also, the first car was pulled over on the on-ramp, butt in the lane, with their lights off. Dumb. Not worthy of getting hit by drunk driver, but dumb.
Again, **** him.
Dumb but also possibly enough to get Reid off the hook for anything other than a dwi [Reply]
7 years is the max he won't get that but wonder what they will give him.
MY guess is he will get a deal, is what it is. People with status such as him always get off easy. Probably do 6 months and get the rest on probation or house arrest or something like that.
He does have to live with the fact that the little girl may have complications her whole life cuz of that. Idk Britt, but for me that would be a life sentence in my head. [Reply]
Originally Posted by arrwheader:
7 years is the max he won't get that but wonder what they will give him.
MY guess is he will get a deal, is what it is. People with status such as him always get off easy. Probably do 6 months and get the rest on probation or house arrest or something like that.
He does have to live with the fact that the little girl may have complications her whole life cuz of that. Idk Britt, but for me that would be a life sentence in my head.
He has a history. Dude should get all 7 years. [Reply]
The Jackson Co. (MO) prosecuting attorney has charged former #Chiefs assistant coach Britt Reid with Class D felony DWI and states medical records revealed a .113 serum blood alcohol concentration. pic.twitter.com/hDdZRTg1Gq
Originally Posted by philfree:
The guy screwed up bad and I'm not making excuses for him but how would the prosecution know what his BAC was 30 minutes before the accident? Why would they allege that unless he actually tested below the legal limit later?
I'm guessing they used his Blood sample that was drawn at the hospital, an hour or so after the crash and then calculated what his level was by the standards established for alcohol to metabolize. It is strange they would use 30 minutes before the crash as their guidelines, unless there is evidence he was driving 30 minutes before the crash. As I said before, if he was impaired more than a couple of beers and well under the limit, they guy should get what he deserves. However, if he was sober or at a really low level, he would most likely not be at fault based on the police report. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
I'm guessing they used his Blood sample that was drawn at the hospital, an hour or so after the crash and then calculated what his level was by the standards established for alcohol to metabolize. It is strange they would use 30 minutes before the crash as their guidelines, unless there is evidence he was driving 30 minutes before the crash. As I said before, if he was impaired more than a couple of beers and well under the limit, they guy should get what he deserves. However, if he was sober or at a really low level, he would most likely not be at fault based on the police report.
It's strange to me because a person can have some drinks but it won't show up in a BAC for 30 minutes or more. Being in a traumatic event could cause a spike maybe but I don't know that. Seems like they want to show he was drunk before he got behind the wheel. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SuperBowl4:
We kind of expected this didn't we? What took them so long? I mean didn't he admit to drinking alcohol in the police report? :-)
Seems to me like they waited to find out how the child was going to fare. [Reply]
