|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 2, 2010 17:07:49 GMT -5
RAA - #42
WED - #57 (with photo evidence)
RAA - #27
|
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Nov 2, 2010 23:50:06 GMT -5
I plan on bringing the greatest legal mind I can muster for my defense, as some dunderhead left a open beer on the ground and I kicked it over while walking around in the rain. I find it interesting that no one jumped up with "Hey! That was my beer!". So the legal question is, if a beer that nobody claims to own is left someplace stupid when it gets knocked over, was anyone really harmed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 11:34:05 GMT -5
Well OK Brad, but, according to the NFRA rule book (section 43, subsection 19, paragraph 2) "Reckless Alcohol Abuse shall be considered when any party, entity, non-entity, party of the first part, party with no parts, or someone within 300 yards of the pits willfully, accidentally, or carelessly causes a beer to be tipped, knocked, kicked, slid, rotated, to such a degree past the perpendicular plane of earth that any spillage occurs." Considering your post, I'd say that you have already admitted guilt. So now the only question is whether it is a major or minor. As to your question as to was anyone harmed, are you serious? A beer was KILLED! Surely you can show SOME compassion, can't you? My God..... You do, however, bring up a good point. Seems to me there is adequate cause to have someone charged with NAA or Negligent Alcohol Abuse, for leaving their beer in such a unprotected state. If you think those charges are justified please feel to do so. If you require the exact syntax of the statute please let me know and I'll write, errrrrrrr, look it up in the Official NFRA Handbook. Photographic PROOF of the WED perpetrated by the driver of the #57. i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff506/bawunder/WED57.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by ron90 on Nov 4, 2010 11:59:33 GMT -5
I just finished three days of law and motion work with about 9 total hours of sleep. I though I could now rest and not think of the law. But then I opened this page and could not let it go.
Through a thorough review of the posted rule it is ambiguous at best because it refers to both "reckless" and "intentional" behavior.
The evidence does not prove an “intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences.” Unless there is an admission that Brad intentionally did the act. His post does not prove that fact.
Now recklessness is similar to criminal negligence, as well as “accidentally”, or “carelessly”. That requires such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for the consequences, or in this case a beer. In another words would a reasonably prudent person act the way Brad did in the rain by walking. Would a reasonably prudent person be able to anticipate that a open beer would be left unattended in the rain so as to require you to look everywhere you step.
I hope I helped. What is the cost for a guilty verdict again? No matter, the legal fees are $750.00.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 12:14:37 GMT -5
Ron Ron Ron.....as the NFRA attorney, what took you so long to get involved? ;D First off, no where does the statue refer to "intentional". It does state "willfully", perhaps, but that is necessary to inflate the ambiguity quotient, which as an attorney I would expect you to know is necessary for any law (and IRS regulations). Second, intent is immaterial in all NFRA statues. Duh.  Lastly, NO reasonably prudent person kicks over a beer. I'm thinking this is a slam dunk, open and shut case. Are you planning on attending the race on Saturday to represent the accused?? |
|
|
|
Post by ron90 on Nov 4, 2010 14:11:49 GMT -5
Wilful requires proof of specific intent. "Kicking" is also an intentional act and is unrelated to the reasonable person standard. I was going to take the boys to Davis on Saturday for a three kart practice Kid Kart, HPV and SuperSportsman (yeh my butt in the kart after 18 month layoff). Then I was going to go to the race on Sunday for entertainment. But now I am going to see if I can readjust. If I am going to represent the accused I need my $750 first. Maybe he should just plea nolo contendere (no contest) and pay the fine.  That way it doesn't get used against him when I represent the owner of the beer for the substantial losses he has endured, as well as the emotional distress associated with the loss. The monetary damages associated with such losses can be sizeable. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 15:34:00 GMT -5
Wilful requires proof of specific intent. "Kicking" is also an intentional act and is unrelated to the reasonable person standard. Ron, I think you need to re-read the statue again...."willfully, accidentally, or carelessly" I think between those terms pretty much everything is covered. ;D I'm not sure I agree on your premise that kicking is an intentional act. I know I routinely kick at least one of the approximately 12,239 dog toys laying around our house daily. Intentional? Nope, I'm just not watching where I'm walking...  Very nice of you to offer to represent both sides of the dispute. However, what about the PROVIDER of the beer? I'll have you know that I HAND PACKED each and every one of those beers in its own little ice cocoon. They were like my little beer kids I tell ya. Then this big brute comes up and smashes the hell out of one of them and its little beer guts went all over the place. Ohhhhhhhh the inhumanity of it all.... |
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Nov 4, 2010 16:04:53 GMT -5
That was beer in there? I thought it was pee. Well, beer IS pee that just has not been processed yet. So all I knocked over is some unfinished pee, that nobody claims as having been theirs. Too late now, we would have to do a pee test to prove it.
Ha! you guys do not have a case!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 16:12:43 GMT -5
LOL we'll see Mr. Brad42. How many "not guilty" verdicts have been rendered so far?? HHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
|
|
|
|
Post by paullandry on Nov 4, 2010 18:17:18 GMT -5
that picture proves nothing! could have been anybodys oil slick in any parking lot in sacramento!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 18:35:13 GMT -5
That picture clearly shows an oil and gas (probably from when you had gas shooting out of the top of the carb when you were jonesing about firing up your new F200) trail coming from your mat. There are at least 3 witnesses, and 2 expert witnesses have been retained to present toxicology and environmental impact statements.
Furthermore, please refer to my response to Brad above. How many not guilty verdicts have you heard thus far?
Oh and one more thing....I KNOW who's beer that was that Brad42 got tagged for the RAA on. Hint: the beer was under the front of YOUR kart in YOUR Pit and YOU were the only one drinking in YOUR pit when the infraction occurred. So, I wonder who's beer that might have been? Hmmmmmmmmm....do I hear a NAA charge for the driver of the #57 anyone??
|
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Nov 4, 2010 18:47:13 GMT -5
Sounds circumstantial to me. Hey Paul, that was a can of pee right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Nov 4, 2010 18:49:38 GMT -5
Well, considering he drank the last few drops remaining in the can, I sincerely hope not.... d'OH!
|
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Nov 4, 2010 21:03:12 GMT -5
ewwwww !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Nov 4, 2010 21:14:40 GMT -5
OK, My (free) legal advisor found the "out". The answer lies within the rules. I can't say what it is, because Brad #9 will just edit the rules to his liking before the court convenes on Saturday. I'm ready!
|
|
That way it doesn't get used against him when I represent the owner of the beer for the substantial losses he has endured, as well as the emotional distress associated with the loss. The monetary damages associated with such losses can be sizeable. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D