Sean Higgins' attorneys files a motion to dismiss charges- Claims the Gaudreau brothers were more intoxicated than Sean Higgins was.

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Doesn't really matter if they were drunk or not. The only person operating a vehicle was drunk and killed both of them.

Tell me more about how them being drunk on bicycles would absolve Higgins being drunk in a vehicle, speeding past multiple other cars, and running them over, though.

So now you’re going from proceedure was followed, to proceedure doest matter. Okay.🤣

And yes it does matter. The brothers were doing something illegal when killed. This would be considered relevant information in any and every court case.
Now whether that played a part in their death is for the GJ to decide. However failure to even present this info is a screw up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey
So now you’re going from proceedure was followed, to proceedure doest matter. Okay.🤣

And yes it does matter. The brothers were doing something illegal when killed. This would be considered relevant information in any and every court case.
Now whether that played a part in their death is for the GJ to decide. However failure to even present this info is a screw up.

Considering the Gaudreaus being drunk is irrelevant to the case, no, it has nothing to do with "Proceedure".

Feel free to cite the crime committed by riding a bike drunk. At best you can argue public intox. Which still has absolutely nothing to do with Higgins himself being drunk and running them over.

If they were drunk on bikes and Higgins shot them, is he absolved of that, too?
 
Considering the Gaudreaus being drunk is irrelevant to the case, no, it has nothing to do with "Proceedure".

Feel free to cite the crime committed by riding a bike drunk. At best you can argue public intox. Which still has absolutely nothing to do with Higgins himself being drunk and running them over.

If they were drunk on bikes and Higgins shot them, is he absolved of that, too?

Riding a bike drunk is illegal. Any and all illegal activity is 100% relevant to any case. Always.
Now whether or not it played a part in their death is for the GJ to decide.
Oversight by any competent prosecution.

While not subject to DWI punishment, riding a bicycle while impaired is still illegal in NJ.


Can You Get a DUI on a Bike? ⚖️ - Updated Jan 2025
 
Last edited:
Higgins defence can be that the brothesr were intoxicated and swerving in and out of the road on their bicycle.

I'm not saying thats what happened, im just saying they could use that as a defence.

It doesnt excuse Higgins being drunk while drviving but it can potentially lower his sentence.

It will come down to evidence and witnesses.

His lawyer is just doing their job. They know this is likely an un winnable case so they're angling for the best deal possible (I've heard that the original offer from the DA was 30 years).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Seems to me that they were drinking and did the right thing by not driving.....Mr Higgins should have done the same.
I think this nails it. If Higgins had done the same, the very worst thing that could have happened was they had a bike crash.

Hopefully the witnesses that said that Higgins ducked into the gap between the bikes and a lead car that was giving the bikes room (I believe that's how they determined this) will report that they didn't not swerve into the road.

I feel for that family. They've lost so much and no must be irate over this sort of defense.
 
I think this nails it. If Higgins had done the same, the very worst thing that could have happened was they had a bike crash.

Hopefully the witnesses that said that Higgins ducked into the gap between the bikes and a lead car that was giving the bikes room (I believe that's how they determined this) will report that they didn't not swerve into the road.

I feel for that family. They've lost so much and no must be irate over this sort of defense.


Speaking of bike crashes, two middle school kids were run over by a semi local to me last week when they collided with one another on the sidewalk, which lead to both going under the rear axle of a semi trailer in the right lane. One died right away, one in serious condition.

That type of road, a bike crash may of lead someone into the path of a car.


PS, my hope is Higgins gets at least near his plea deal. Drunk+road rage+ 2 deaths to me equals end of freedoms for most of his
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeeto and Number8
Putting emotions aside, I don't think it should absolve Higgins of any responsibility. Aggressively passing someone didn't have to happen, him drinking 6 beers before getting behind the wheel didn't have to happen, therefore this new information should not reduce his sentence. It would be a different story if the Gaudreau brothers were drunkenly swerving right into his lane, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

However, it does add an interesting "layer" to this case. And a completely valid point to bring up. Imo doesn't change a thing about how I look at their deaths as anything other than completely tragic, unnecessary and 100% avoidable if not for the reckless actions of Higgins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeeto

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad