Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfever
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law still takes a dim view of aiding and abetting. It's my guess that if it could be proven that the drunk was in a state, capable of causing a serious accident, and it that there was enough evidence in the tweet to tie the tweeter and drunk together, that prosecution may be possible. However, it would probably be a landmark case, and not meant for all cases of tweeting the position of a checkstop in general.
|
Sending a blanket notice to the general public would not qualify as aiding and abetting if anyone decides to use it to avoid a checkstop while driving drunk. You have to prove intent.
You would quite literally have to send a direct message to someone and say "Hey [name], I know you're driving tonight, there's a checkstop on Macleod Trail near the Stampede grounds. Take another route home if you drink."
And even then, you run into this dilemma: If the guy gets home safely and is never caught, what evidence do we have he was actually driving drunk (ie: over 0.08 BAC)? All we know is that the guy consumed 'some' alcohol. We don't know if it was a little or a lot.
Can you hold someone responsible for aiding and abetting a crime we don't know even took place and hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?