Is this a valid defense to a DUI stop?

[Michael Wechsler]

Someone just sent this video clip to me asking whether this would present a valid defense to a DUI stop and failure to walk a straight line. Would this hold up in court?

 

[zddoodah]

I would find his ability to explain all that coherently more probative than anything else - considering that folks are able to ride unicycles on tightropes.

 

[Zigner]

Hahaha -
No.

 

[army judge]

Someone just sent this video clip to me asking whether this would present a valid defense to a DUI stop and failure to walk a straight line. Would this hold up in court?

I suspect that the prosecutor (or her deputies) would object to the person in the video testifying on a couple technical subjects unless he was an expert in physics and/or astronomy.

I'd constantly be objecting to the relevance of the material presented. I'd also be objecting to misreprenting as fact material not admitted as evidence.

Finally, res ipsa loquitor. Facts often speak for themselves, as in no explanation would be required as most adults are clever to recognize a person staggering because he's embibed a large amount of alcoholic beverages and/or consumed a large amount of intoxicating drugs; versus a person staggering, stumbling because she's afflicted with a number of medical maladies or injuries.

Heck, there's no way I'd even think about, much less allow such testimony if I were wearing the black robe, presiding over that trial.

 

[Zigner]

I suspect that the prosecutor (or her deputies) would object to the person in the video testifying on a couple technical subjects unless he was an expert in physics and/or astronomy.

I think that, notwithstanding flat-earther claims, those are well-known facts that would not need an expert to testify about them. What would need expert testimony is their effects on a human's ability to perform the tests. (That may be what you meant, so I don't really mean this to be disagreeing with you.)

 

[army judge]

I think that, notwithstanding flat-earther claims

Christopher Columbus may not have achieved his main goal, however by doing what he did more than once, the flat earthers were summarily shown to be uninformed ignoramuses.

What would need expert testimony is their effects on a human's ability to perform the tests. (That may be what you meant, so I don't really mean this to be disagreeing with you.)

Which is precisely what the subject in the video failed to do.

 

[adjusterjack]

Funny, but no. Besides, there is no penalty for refusing the FST when a suspect can opt for breathalyzer or blood test.

And one can still be convicted without the FST.

 

[welkin]

The guy in the video is moving at the same speed he says the earth/universe is. The difference between his speed and that of the universe is 0. If his argument had any validity, you wouldn't be able to drink your morning coffee on your ride to work.

 

[adjusterjack]

The Galaxy Song from Monty Python's Meaning of Life

 

[cbg]

The world can't be flat. If it were, all the cats would have knocked everything off the edge.

 

[adjusterjack]

Can't be round. People in Australia would fall off the bottom. (Kidding.)

Technically, the Earth isn't exactly round. It's an oblate spheroid.

Meaning that the axial distance from pole to pole (7900 miles) is less than the diameter (7926 miles) at the Equator.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

This comment thread itself is hilarious, lol. I would be impressed by the ability to create such an inventive defense. However, after spending too much time in NYC around people who believe they are never wrong, I would find such defense suspect. I'd insist he explain why he couldn't drive in a straight line like everyone else does on that road, in spite of the rotation of the universe. But I'd just be doing that to hear how he could top the original creativity.