Bachelor 19 - Chris Soules - Discussion - #3

Whatever prison sentence Chris may or may not get, the biggest sentence will be the lifetime he will spend with his own thoughts and guilt. If he is any kind of human being, this incident will follow him and haunt him. I hope he will get some kind of counseling and help so he can at least attempt to live with himself. This is hardly the "15 minutes extended" he had hoped for.

If, indeed, he is an alcoholic, it is a disease, and it needs to be treated. If he was under the influence, I do not condone his actions in any way, but few alcoholics get over this without a lot of help.

JMHO

The thing is, IMO, all these questions are out there, because Chris decided to leave the accident scene before the police arrived, and he's the only one with any answers. Him leaving the scene, and delaying tests if he was dui, are the reason there's a dead end for answers. So the police are left to investigate, and are getting heresay from neighbors etc. The only person who knows what happened is Chris. Jmo

Thank you for asking @GuardianAngel I am doing ok... day by day always, even after 4 years have gone by
According to my dear significant other, who has done many arrests on people who were probably drinking, there are tests that are performed even if the person had a few hours to drink water, eat meat, and do other things to get the alcohol or drugs out of their system. Here is a link that explains some of it. A blood test or hair test are also able to detect alcohol consumption, even if it happened many hours before a person gets tested. It is how the samples are analyzed and how they are treated in many other scientific ways that can identify the presence of alcohol or drugs.

http://www.forensicdrugtesting.net/alcohol-tests.html

chi-girl wrote:New ET Story:

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/exclusive-chris-soules-wasn-apos-200100969.html

Ugh, I just hope it wasn't his poor dad who picked him up and incriminated himself. I seem to remember from sleuthing his parents' farm being in Aurora, since that's where the FRC was. I hope not!

The questions are out there because there is an on going investigation, IMO.  Even if CS had stayed, been 100% cooperative and the police administered the tests immediately, I doubt we'd still know every detail, simply because they are investigating, gathering info and deciding whether they have enough to make a case for trial, plea or whatever.  IMO, in most on going investigations not all details are given to the public, some is held back.  If everything was always released, no one would ever get a fair, unbiased trail, IMO.

JMO

@TrishB

It looks like in Iowa and Georgia an officer can enter a dwelling and make and arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is the belief that a felony has been committed. Why they didn't just go in and get him remains to be seen. If I were to take a guess I would say there are a couple of reasons they didn't. One reason could be because of who he is.

I'm not sure how accurate that is because there wasn't a link provided. IMo if they were able to enter without a warrant, they wouldn't have spent all that time trying to get one.

IMO the Crown Counsel or whatever the terminology is for the US isn't going to care who the person is, or how famous they are. They have a job to do and that's gather enough evidence to convict.

I'm hoping a gag order is obtained soon.

TrishB wrote:Thank you for asking @GuardianAngel I am doing ok... day by day always, even after 4 years have gone by
According to my dear significant other, who has done many arrests on people who were probably drinking, there are tests that are performed even if the person had a few hours to drink water, eat meat, and do other things to get the alcohol or drugs out of their system. Here is a link that explains some of it. A blood test or hair test are also able to detect alcohol consumption, even if it happened many hours before a person gets tested. It is how the samples are analyzed and how they are treated in many other scientific ways that can identify the presence of alcohol or drugs.

http://www.forensicdrugtesting.net/alcohol-tests.html

Thank you for this link. Facts are important imo.
This will help add some clarity to the discussion.

I am sorry you had to go through all you did.

GuardianAngel wrote:@TrishB

It looks like in Iowa and Georgia an officer can enter a dwelling and make and arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is the belief that a felony has been committed. Why they didn't just go in and get him remains to be seen. If I were to take a guess I would say there are a couple of reasons they didn't. One reason could be because of who he is.

I'm not sure how accurate that is because there wasn't a link provided. IMo if they were able to enter without a warrant, they wouldn't have spent all that time trying to get one.

IMO the Crown Counsel or whatever the terminology is for the US isn't going to care who the person is, or how famous they are. They have a job to do and that's gather enough evidence to convict.

I'm hoping a gag order is obtained soon.

The search warrants are already sealed which is essentially a gag order as no one can currently access them(usually public information).  I hope/agree there  should be a gag order during the trial.

http://whotv.com/2017/04/29/judge-seals-chris-soules-search-warrants/

If Chris was in his house behind locked doors, I don't think the police could break down the doors to arrest him.  We're not talking about someone on the Most Wanted List.  Therefore, they would need a warrant in order to enter his home.  That's what took so long to reach him and that gave him time for his alcohol level to decrease.  **IMO**

BigFanXXX wrote:If Chris was in his house behind locked doors, I don't think the police could break down the doors to arrest him.  We're not talking about someone on the Most Wanted List.  Therefore, they would need a warrant in order to enter his home.  That's what took so long to reach him and that gave him time for his alcohol level to decrease. ***IMO*** 

Is that a fact or your opinion because as far as I know we have no idea if he was drunk or not. JMO

GuardianAngel wrote:@TrishB

It looks like in Iowa and Georgia an officer can enter a dwelling and make and arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is the belief that a felony has been committed. Why they didn't just go in and get him remains to be seen. If I were to take a guess I would say there are a couple of reasons they didn't. One reason could be because of who he is.

I'm not sure how accurate that is because there wasn't a link provided. IMo if they were able to enter without a warrant, they wouldn't have spent all that time trying to get one.

IMO the Crown Counsel or whatever the terminology is for the US isn't going to care who the person is, or how famous they are. They have a job to do and that's gather enough evidence to convict.

I'm hoping a gag order is obtained soon.

I didn't provide a link because the info didn't come from a link. There are links that have similar info to what I provided.

Contrary to popular belief and TV shows the police don't like to bust into someone's home and arrest them. It can be dangerous for the police and for anyone in the home. It can also lead to claims of abuse of force and police misconduct etc. My speculation is that the police knew who Chris was, didn't feel he was a danger to himself, didn't feel he was a flight risk and JMO he was probably going to refuse the breathalyzer anyway. Better for the case to just wait until you have the legal piece of paper all nice and tidy. Which plays into the point I was trying to make about the bold. IA they have a job to do. My point was that this isn't Joe Schmoe. This is Chris Soules who does have at least a D grade celebrity status. Lots of people are watching not only Chris but the investigation also. The investigators don't want to look incompetent at any time but certainly not on a case that's being watched by millions of people and is going to be reported about in many papers, internet sites and magazines. Better for the investigator's to cross all the t's and not leave any room for doubt. JMOAA

Ladybug82 wrote:Well, I'm fairly certain that after reading all the posts in here the last few days, probably the only thing we all agree on in this thread is that driving under the influence is not ok.  

The thing is we don't know if he was or not.  One can connect dots and assume, but it does not make it fact.  Plus, because of the delay between the accident and the tests being done we may never know for sure.  But again, at this point it's facts verses opinions.

JMOAA

No it's not OK and IMO the states aren't hard enough on these criminals. Driving impaired, and I'm including Not only chemicals, alcohol, prescription medicine but also those who text and drive etc. Is one of the most selfish choices a person can make. The minute they decide to DUI their vehicle becomes a 2 ton weapon. There's absolutely no excuse or defense that would make me think it's OK. JMOAA