NORFOLK, Va.–An animal rights group on Thursday pulled its “Got Beer?” ad campaign, which anti-drunken driving activists had criticized as a misguided promotion of underage drinking. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals unveiled the campaign on college campuses this week. The Norfolk-based group contends that milk cows and their calves suffer on factory farms and that the fat and cholesterol in milk make drinking beer look good by comparison.

PETA said it stopped the ads out of respect for concerns raised by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “MADD got their message out; we got our message out,” said Bruce Friedrich of PETA. “As spring break and St. Patrick’s Day is upon us, we hope we helped save lives and prevented injuries due to underage drinking and impaired driving by speaking out against the campaign,” MADD spokeswoman Teresa Hardt said.

The animal rights group now plans an ad showing a calf modeled after the pictures of missing children on milk cartons. The “Got Beer?” campaign was a parody of the dairy industry’s “Got Milk?” spots.

Nutritionists said PETA’s health comparison between beer and milk was oversimplified, because milk contains many nutrients and nonfat milk eliminates the drawbacks of whole milk.

North Carolina Supreme Court Considers Landmark Case

According to court documents, on Sept. 4, 1996, Jones had been driving after drinking beer and taking prescription painkillers when he rammed into another vehicle. Jones then allegedly fled the scene at high speed, drove on the wrong side of the road and hit the car carrying the students.

Two young women died in the crash – Maia Witzl and Julie Hansen, both 19 – and four others were injured, three seriously in the auto accident. Prosecutors charged Jones with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and two counts of first-degree murder.

The “deadly weapon” was Jones’ car.

The case was prosecuted under the state’s felony murder rule, which mandates that if you commit a felony using a deadly weapon and somebody dies, you can be convicted of first-degree murder and eligible for the death penalty.

Because the killings occurred during the felonies – the assaults with a deadly weapon – the felony murder rule should apply, the state argues.

But Jones’ lawyer, David Freedman, argues that since Jones had no intention of killing his victims, the felony murder rule should not apply to him. The state argues that intent was established by Jones’ purposefully reckless and criminally negligent actions.

“If the defendant wishes to create a special exemption for drunks who commit felony murder,” the state’s court brief reads, “he should seek redress at the Legislature, not this Court.”

Punishment for homicides resulting from drunken driving has grown more severe over the last two decades. North Carolina prosecutors say the shift represents a growing public disgust with drunken driving.

Despite the grim details of the crash and Jones’ prior DUI conviction and pending DUI charge, Freedman says the penalty is too severe. But worse, Freedman says, if the conviction is upheld, the felony murder rule could be applied to any motorist who intentionally violates a safety standard and unintentionally kills in the process.

“The danger is when you create a law like this, it opens Pandora’s box,” Freedman said. “The possibilities for abuse are huge, because you could apply it to almost any accident case.”

Regardless of the state Supreme Court’s decision, the legislature could rework the law. Freedman says that if he loses this round, he could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but thinks the high court won’t likely agree to hear such a case until an impaired motorist is sentenced to death. If Jones does lose this appeal, Freedman says, it is only a matter of time before a drunken driver lands on death row.

GIBBON, Nebraska – As in many small Nebraska communities, underage drinking is a problem in the town of Gibbon.

This is why parents and teachers there are taking action to make sure the upcoming senior prom isn’t marred by alcohol.

Students will have to take breath tests before they are allowed attend the prom. The plan was finalized at a school board meeting last night. It’s one that has majority approval from teachers, parents and the students.

“Everyone entering the prom and the post-prom will be given the breathalyzer test before they will be allowed to come in,” Dr. Dale Kruse, superintendent, said.

“I think it’s a good idea because it will prevent the kids from drinking and driving and getting into a possible accident. But, I also think it might have an affect on the atmosphere at the prom. We get all dressed up to go to prom and then were made to take the breathalyzer test when we come in,” Niki Nichols, student council president, sail

More than 75 percent agreed to adopt the zero tolerance alcohol policy at the meeting. Parents will be called to come pick up their kids if they test positive for booze.

“We’re not just trying to put another rule on them. We’re doing this because we care and we want to prevent tragedies plus the roomers that go around. This way everyone knows for sure. This way, we as parents can’t deal with things we don’t know,” Jeanie Engel, mother of a junior, said.

Breathalyzers will also be used at a parent sponsored post-prom event as well.

Nichols says that most students feel the policy is a good idea, although she wishes they had more input into the decision. But, she knows the adults just want to prevent a repeat of recent problems. “At the dance there was some suspicion of some kids being drunk there. Also, we’ve already had an accident that involved kids drinking and driving. We were lucky that no one was killed or seriously injured. We just want to prevent that from happening,” she said.

“It’ll prevent a lot of stupidity at the prom. I mean people come to prom drunk and then they don’t remember what happens at prom, where others remember the stupid things that they did,” Dawna Nichols, senior, said.

If a student’s date tests positive for alcohol and the student does not, neither students will be allowed into the prom.

The respective parents of Claudia Wadlington, 5, and the Riley Lawrence, 4, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit for the girls’ hit-and-run deaths. The two girls were killed on July 25, 2008 as they were walking to swim class. They were holding hands with Claudia’s mom, Angela, as they crossed Floyd Street when a Pontiac Grand Am hit them. The driver of the car, Kenielle Finch, also hit Metro Police who attempted to apprehend him following the deadly hit and run accident.

Named as defendants in the  pedestrian accident complaint are Kenielle Finch, who was charged with their murders (in addition to 12 other related charges) and Keynisha Butler, who lent Finch the car that hit the girls. Finch entered a not guilty plea to the criminal charges and will stand trial.

The families’ wrongful death lawsuit seeks to recover hospital expenses, burial costs, and other accident-related expenses with the help of a Louisiana personal injury law firm. This includes Angela’s hospital expenses for her injuries, as well as punitive damages from both men.

Michigan residents who’ve been hurt because of the negligence of some other person possess a to seek damages to pay them for his or her injuries. Should you or a family member continues to be hurt and also you accept is as true was the responsibility of someone else, plan a private, free consultation by contacting Michigan car accident attorneys. We are among the country’s leading personal injuries lawyers. If you’re thinking about taking law suit and also you have yet to be to some solicitor you might want to seek assistance with possible causes of assist with legal costs from your experienced advisor. Should you or a loved one continues to be hurt through the negligence or intentional act of some other party, please contact http://dallimarino.com/ today for any free look at your situation. Our highest priority is to recover money for you personally, and we’re dedicated to assisting you pursue justice as well as your rightful compensation.

Recently the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state laws were not followed when the parental and child custody rights of a Guatemalan mother were terminated by a lower court. The Guatemalan mother was arrested during an immigration raid and her young son was adopted by an American couple. The decision of the state Supreme Court did not automatically return the boy back to the mother. Instead the court ruled that a new trial should be heard regarding the mother’s parental rights.

The facts of the case began when the Guatemalan mother was obtained during an immigration raid at a poultry plant in Missouri. The mother was arrested for aggravated identity theft and served two years in prison for the charge. Before the arrest a local couple had helped the mother and her family care for the mother’s 1 year old child. After the mother was arrested the local couple contacted another couple about adopting the mother’s son. A lower court awarded custody of the child to the couple.

After the mother was released she began her fight to regain her custody and parental rights. The mother was not deported after serving her sentence so that she could challenge the adoption.

In court, the attorney representing the couple argued that the mother’s parental rights were properly terminated because she stopped providing for her son and did not try to maintain contact with him. The mother’s attorney argued that the mother did not have proper legal representation and that the mother did not abandon her child. A criminal defense attorney in Louisiana knows the ins and outs of these laws.

A blast of winter weather crippled parts of Louisiana this past weekend, leaving roads coated with sleet and freezing rain. These wintry conditions are making travel difficult, causing a number of car accidents, including some fender-benders, as well as serious collisions.

Just north of Shreveport, a pedestrian was injured in a three-vehicle accident caused by the icy roads. In a separate incident, a 30-year-old woman was traveling westbound on I-20 in Webster Parish when she lost control of her vehicle and slid down an embankment, ultimately colliding with a tree. While the injured pedestrian is expected to recover, the 30-year-old woman suffered fatal injuries in her crash.

The problem that arises with driving on roads covered with sleet and freezing rain is that the friction between the road surface and a vehicle’s tires is significantly reduced. Typically, a more experienced motorist will immediately feel the difference and make some necessary adjustments.

However, many drivers underestimate the dangers of driving on icy roads. From inexperience, habit or over-confidence, they may fail to adjust to the road conditions and continue to drive as they normally do. Further, distractions such as texting or talking on a cell phone increase the dangers. Together, these factors can lead to longer braking response time, skidding and an increased chance of being involved in an accident.

Sometimes even the most cautious drivers lose control of their vehicles on icy roads and cause accidents. However, many of these types of collisions are caused by drivers who failed to adjust for dangerous road conditions. Drivers who are traveling too fast for weather conditions or are not paying proper attention to the roadways should be held accountable for any serious or fatal car accidents they cause. Yuma auto accident attorneys are ready and willing to handle these cases.

 

 

Two lives were lost and even more were forever changed early this past Sunday morning in a hit-and-run. The incident started as a motorcycle accident which occurred at approximately 4:30 in the morning on Oct. 16, 2011.

A 2007 Ford Explorer was traveling on Interstate 4 between Interstate 95 and State Road 44. It came up behind the motorcycle and stuck it in the back end. The motorcycle rider and 32-year-old female passenger were ejected from the vehicle. After the case was looked at by a Boca Raton DUI attorney, more news surfaced.

The motorcycle and the passenger skidded across the highway and came to a rest on the shoulder. The motorcycle rider landed in the middle of the highway and was run over by two oncoming vehicles whose drivers were unable to stop in time to avoid the accident victim.

A fifth vehicle was able to take evasive measures, but the speed at which they were taken caused the driver to lose control of the vehicle. It struck a tree along the roadside and burst into flames. All passengers in the car were able to get out on time. The motorcycle rider died at the scene. The passenger later died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.

Highway Patrol reported that the two vehicles who ran over the victim stopped and remained on the scene to assist with the investigation. The driver of the Ford Explorer fled the scene. A woman was found with the Explorer approximately 5 miles away. Investigators have not confirmed whether she was the driver but reported that she remains a “person of interest.”

If you need an accident lawyer in Ohio, don’t hesitate to contact one.