You've all heard by now about Mel Gibson running afoul of the axiom in vino veritas, but there's something about this whole incident that bothers me. My panel of experts concurs wholeheartedly - a BAC of 0.12% should not make you drunk enough to do and say what Gibson did.
I can think of two possible explanations for this discrepancy: first, that the BAC was fudged to make it appear lower than it really was. I don't see why the police would do this; first of all, it's evidence tampering. Second, if they wanted to give him a pass, they wouldn't have tested him in the first place. Take him home, say "Good night, Mr. Gibson, try to be more careful next time," end of story.
The other - and I haven't heard anybody say this, so let me be clear that I'm just pulling this out of my ass right now - is that Gibson had something else on board.
Leave a comment