Barkus at .16 BAC

I think that Smith might have a point. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe Barkus WASN'T drunk at the time of impact.  Maybe he had passed out!  Ever think about that?  You see, if Barkus passed out just before impact, he was no longer driving the boat!  The boat was driving ITSELF! Hence, the BOAT is at fault here. Hey, makes sense to me, as much sense as Smith's argument.  But then, I'm no lawyer.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 21:01:48 PM UTC

Reporters do the Math (0.00 / 0)

Let's do the math for reporters who have not been critical of Rehberg's judgment for stepping on this booze cruise that he considered "it was a working dinner for me. They were there to socialize; I was there to meet people".

Barkus was .16 two hours after the incident occurred, then at four hours he was .12 BAC.  That is a drop of .01 BAC per hour.

So we if we remember that Rehberg was .05 BAC over three hours after the incident, which means that he was at least at or over the legal limit at the time he boarded the boat with his staff after "a working dinner."

Whether or not he was completely drunk is not the entire question.  His judgment was again impaired.  He was drunk, impaired, used bad judgment while working and endangered the lives of others, yet Rehberg won't apologize or take responsiblity for recklessly putting his staff in harms way by getting on that booze cruise that night.

McDonald is right, at least apologize for your bad judgment that nearly cost the lives of your staff who were forced by you, Rehberg, to get on that boat.  

---

by: Junior @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 21:22:06 PM UTC

So Rehberg (0.00 / 0)

is saying he's "surprised" that Barkus was drunk cus' he "didn't appear drunk"!  

That's amazing...I've been around enough people that have been drinking, myself included...to know that someone with a BAC that high is looking, acting...and operating...drunk...and they should not be behind the wheel.

Is Rehberg so out of it, so unaware, that he could not tell that Barkus was hammered? Or was Denny drunk too?

---

by: bigsage @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 22:24:46 PM UTC

"Nothing more than an accident" (0.00 / 0)

Barkus' lawyer Todd Glazier is "nothing more" than a pandering puke, using the Frost family to generate sympathy for his client. Nothing like using the words of the victim and his family to alleviate any wrongdoing on the part of Barkus.

I think the lesson that Barkus and his lawyers are already trying to pull off here is that if you are a well connected and rich politician, that you can try and weasel your way out of 3 felonies by preying on the sympathies of the public, and the carefully chosen words of a powerful national politician and his fixers. But Barkus should (and it appears that he may) be subjected to the same system of justice that applies to us little people.

Anybody believe this will ever actually go to trial? And have a sitting House rep be called to the stand during a reelection campaign?

Any bets on how long it is until Barkus gets thrown (or throws himself) under the bus to protect Rehberg? Even if Denny isn't legally culpable for the accident?

Anybody bet on how many days, if any, he actually spends in jail?

And for all of those who want to use the "he didn't appear drunk" defense to cover their asses, to many long term maintenance alcoholics (and I'm not saying Barkus is), .16 BAC is just where you start to act and appear normal. I've seen alcoholics at twice that BAC and over appear to act normal. Wouldn't want to get in a car with them. But if you had a few drinks yourself, you may not be able to tell how drunk they really are.

But "acting normal" under the influence is one thing common to most alcoholics. Making bad critical and split second decisions while driving a car or a boat while under the influence is another. Outward appearance of normality in the common drunk does not relieve one of the responsibilities for accidents caused by impaired judgement and reaction times that come with all who have a BAC of .16+.

Barkus should pray for mercy (Not to mention taking a nice 30-60 day trip to a rehab unit before he starts plea bargaining). I'll be praying for justice.

---

by: JC @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 00:46:47 AM UTC

The Defense (0.00 / 0)

What I overheard a week after the crash - 18 - was not far off from what was reported in this indictment. Makes me wonder if there were other samples or methods used besides these two - and that might be what took so long and why the atty for Barkus was attempting to suppress medical records even before there were charges. What is quite incredible is that Barkus actually intends to refute the assertion that he was drunk ... that somehow these two samples were both mistakes or that BAC is not a valid measurement of impairment. Sounds like he might be counting on Rehberg to back up that logic.

I'm out with clients this week, at a conference. I drove the other night to the restaurant and so, I didn't drink - at all. I had 4 friends in my car and felt the responsibility to provide as safe an environment as I could. Barkus made a different choice last August.

This crash was no accident - it was the predictable and tragic result of criminal behavior.


ars longa - vita brevis

---

by: NorthernFlicker @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 02:53:17 AM UTC