https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed Feb 5 08:36:39 2025 AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

They could call that the "Liebermann defense". Jeff alleges that he is never wrong, just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to
others.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:39:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed Feb 5 08:36:39 2025 AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

They could call that the "Liebermann defense". Jeff alleges that he is never wrong,

That's not what I said. I said that YOU were always wrong (with a few
minor exceptions). When describing myself, I indicated that I have
made a few mistakes and usually apologized to the group for making
mistakes.

just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to others.

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others" when
operated by an intoxicated driver? I hope you don't mean a self
driving car, where blaming the car for accidents has not succeeded in
the courts.

"Drinking and Self-Driving Cars" <https://ggrmlawfirm.com/blog/personal-injury/auto-accidents/drinking-and-self-driving-cars/>
"There is no exception for drunk driving and driverless cars."


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:39:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed Feb 5 08:36:39 2025 AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

They could call that the "Liebermann defense". Jeff alleges that he is never wrong, just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to

others.

I don't think you understood.

Riding a bicycle while intoxicated in public places is illegal
in most of the US

<https://alcohol.org/dui/riding-bicycle/>

Both the victims (cyclists) were much drunker than the driver.
They shouldn't have been there.
I believe he should get a greatly reduced sentence(but not
pardoned, since he was also DUI). Fair is fair.
[]'s

Curiosity: Anyone killed on a highway in Brazil while
intoxicated is ruled a "suicide", does not matter if on a bicycle or
on foot. And the driver that killed the "victim" can file for damages.
Same law for farm animals or even pets on highways.... owners are
responsible. Which is logical ......
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 12:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:39:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed Feb 5 08:36:39 2025 AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

They could call that the "Liebermann defense". Jeff alleges that he is never wrong,

That's not what I said. I said that YOU were always wrong (with a few
minor exceptions). When describing myself, I indicated that I have
made a few mistakes and usually apologized to the group for making
mistakes.

just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to others.

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others" when
operated by an intoxicated driver? I hope you don't mean a self
driving car, where blaming the car for accidents has not succeeded in
the courts.

"Drinking and Self-Driving Cars" <https://ggrmlawfirm.com/blog/personal-injury/auto-accidents/drinking-and-self-driving-cars/>
"There is no exception for drunk driving and driverless cars."

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others"

The dead brothers were on bicycles which make less mayhem on
impact (F=MA and all that).



--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed Feb 5 10:22:33 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:

That's not what I said. I said that YOU were always wrong (with a few
minor exceptions). When describing myself, I indicated that I have
made a few mistakes and usually apologized to the group for making
mistakes.

just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to others.

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others" when
operated by an intoxicated driver? I hope you don't mean a self
driving car, where blaming the car for accidents has not succeeded in
the courts.

"Drinking and Self-Driving Cars" <https://ggrmlawfirm.com/blog/personal-injury/auto-accidents/drinking-and-self-driving-cars/>
"There is no exception for drunk driving and driverless cars."

Jeff, you have spent years here trying to convince people that you're an electronics engineer. You are not and never were despite your degree which were handed because they were tired of seeing you in their classrooms. You have spent your life making the
wrong decissions and telling everyone that they were right.

I really am sorry that you have been a loser. Instead of going to college to avoid the draft, you could have simply joined the national guard or the Army reserve and spent all of those lost years working as a technician which is what you did anyway. You
could have made actual and real wages and put enough away to live comfortably in retirement.

Because you had the idea that you wanted to be a big shot you time after time shot your mouth off about things you don't know anything about. Why didn't you juxt accept the fact that you never learned anything because you didn't want to learn anything
because you knew far more than your teachers? I worked for some of the best engineers in the business and learned everything from them.

So please stop trying to again and again to pretend that you know better than I do about things I was making $200,000 a year to accomplish. You couldn't even get a recommendation from your QC manager and all companies try to give recommendations for some
pretty poor workers.

You have to grow up sometime and are you intending to wait until you have a stroke and are sitting in a hospital bed in your last minutes to reflect on your life?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu Feb 6 07:25:08 2025 John B. wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:32:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 2/5/2025 12:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:39:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed Feb 5 08:36:39 2025 AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

They could call that the "Liebermann defense". Jeff alleges that he is never wrong,

That's not what I said. I said that YOU were always wrong (with a few
minor exceptions). When describing myself, I indicated that I have
made a few mistakes and usually apologized to the group for making
mistakes.

just as a drunk driver is claiming that his crimial act of driving drunk is not a crime if others are also doing it legally on vehicles that do not offer a danger to others.

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others" when
operated by an intoxicated driver? I hope you don't mean a self
driving car, where blaming the car for accidents has not succeeded in
the courts.

"Drinking and Self-Driving Cars"
<https://ggrmlawfirm.com/blog/personal-injury/auto-accidents/drinking-and-self-driving-cars/>
"There is no exception for drunk driving and driverless cars."

What manner of vehicles "do not offer a danger to others"

The dead brothers were on bicycles which make less mayhem on
impact (F=MA and all that).

I assume that the argument will be that as they were drunk they MIGHT
have dome something wrong that caused the collision... and the Judge
will allow it.

If the car driver is drunk, that alone is an offense. If the bicycle riders are drunk, that is NOT an offense. If the cyclists drunk or sober caused the wreck that must be established. You may not legally forgive a drunk driving violation because the
bicyclists are drunker still.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu Feb 6 07:20:53 2025 John B. wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 08:36:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/sports/driver-says-nhl-star-johnny-gaudreau-and-his-brother-had-been-drinking-before-fatal-accident/

So, if you are drunk and walking down the street, or sitting on your
porch or riding a bike and someone hits and kills you he is innocent,
if you have both been drinking

Perhaps a new criminal charge? " Facetious arrangement"?

While in some states like California it is illegal to ride drunk, this is an offense separate from DUI. And punishments are nonexistant unless you were a danger to others. DUI is treated as always a threat to others.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)