SWI
Russell Stewart
a late post-party dinner (breakfast, really) at a local Village
Inn. After our meal, on the way out to our car, we noticed a
vehicle parked just a few spaces away with the engine running
and the lights off. I also noticed that there was someone in
the car, lying down with the seat reclined all the way back.
Our first reaction was that he must be asleep, but after a few
seconds of thought, we realized that we couldn't be sure: he
could be injured and unconscious, he could be dead; we just
didn't know. Finally, out of concern for this person (and
because we were too chicken to just go up and knock on the
window) we decided to call the police to send someone over
and check it out.
This might seem like an overreaction, but keep in mind that this
was about 2:00 in the morning, in a parking lot right in front
of a strip club. Who knows what had gone on before we were there,
and if this guy was suffering life-threatening injuries, we
wouldn't want to be the people who let him die because "it's
not our problem".
Anyway, we decided to wait for the cops to show up, in case they
had questions for us. After a little while, a fire truck (?)
showed up, followed by a police cruiser. The guys from the
fire truck went and knocked on the window, and the man inside
promptly woke up. They asked him to get out; he did, and it
was very obvious that he was heavily intoxicated.
At this point, the police officer thanked us for calling,
informed us that we could go home, and made a comment that
the guy would be facing DWI charges.
On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
more conflicted I felt.
On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
to any drivers in his vicinity.
But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
what you *might* do?"
Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
the line?
I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
a public space?
Discuss.
--
Russell Stewart | E-Mail: dia...@swcp.com
UNM CS Department | WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
"Stop saying the cause of Rick James' death is a 'mystery'"
-Bill Maher
tooloud
<snip>
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
>
> Discuss.
I believe in Iowa you can be arrested for this as well.
A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road into a
ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow truck. The
driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to the car. A cop
was waiting there and gave him a breath test and arrested him for DWI,
though there was absolutely no proof that my buddy was drunk at the time of
the incident, there was six inches of snow on the ground, and the tow truck
driver verified that my buddy was drinking a beer at home when he picked him
up. The charge stuck.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
<snip>
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
>
> Discuss.
Oh, yeah--I think it sucks that this can happen as well.
SoCalMike
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
if the keys are in the ignition, theres an intent. especially if the
engine is running.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
>
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
>
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
>
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
>
He was behind the wheel of a running car - close enough to driving in
my book.
Jordan Abel
> if the keys are in the ignition, theres an intent. especially if the
> engine is running.
yes, there's _an_ intent: it could be any of
intent to listen to the radio
intent to run the air conditioning / heater
or any number of other things that aren't illegal to do drunk.
Erich
Russell Stewart <us...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
There was a case like that near here. A guy got plastered at the local
bowling alley, went out to his car to sleep it off. During the night he
woke up, started the car and turned on the heat. Then went back to
sleep.
He was arrested and charge with DUI. In court, the judge found him
innocent and proceeded to chew out the arresting officer. Pointing out
that the guy was not driving. In fact, he was behaving exactly the way
we want people too drunk to drive to behave.
... Erich
Russell Stewart
> He was behind the wheel of a running car - close enough to driving in
> my book.
But what if he just wanted to keep warm while he slept it off?
Admittedly, in the time it would take him to do this, he could
easily run out of gas. But that just makes him stupid; not
criminal.
Still, I understand your point. As I said, I'm conflicted
on this.
Peter Boulding
<us...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
>On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
>sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
>I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
>more conflicted I felt.
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
>
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
>
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
The guy's unconscious, with the engine running: you had to do
*something.*
Alternative A: you make a lot more noise and his still doesn't wake
up. You have to call the authorities anyway.
Alternative B: you make a lot more noise and wake him up. He
switches the engine off, climbs onto the back seat, and sleeps it
off.
Alternative C: you make a lot more noise and wake him up. He drives
away, drunk as a lord.
So yes, it sucks, but it wasn't your fault.
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
huey.c...@gmail.com
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
At some point, I was led to believe that, if you're bent, just sitting
in the front seat of a parked car and having the keys was a no-no.
That may be IL, WI, or MN law, or it may just be something a drunk guy
told me and I never had any real reason to doubt.
--
Huey
Les Albert
wrote:
>A few months ago, I, my wife, and a friend of ours were having
I am not a lawyer, and I am not connected withe the legal profession
in any way, but even I could defend that guy and get him acquitted of
the DWI charge. In California intoxication is not enough: the
prosecution must also prove that the defendant was driving.
I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
*driving* in all state DWI laws.
Les
Les Albert
Your book is a scary one (and self-published).
Les
groo
news:2qpdrbF...@uni-berlin.de:
I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
his car and put it in the ditch?
--
"Smile they said, it can't get any worse. And it did. B*****ds" - Chris
Greville
Tedthecat85
>
> <snip>
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
Obviously the reason for the law.
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
He was arrested for what he had done. He had violated a state law against
being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Drunk
people controlling running motor vehicles is not a good thing. The state can
quite properly criminalize such behavior, and I agree it should be a crime.
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to get
drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a running
motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this drunken man was just
one step away from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger to any
drivers in his vicinity.
That is an unnecessary danger to the public.
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
In Oklahoma this is the law:
No person may be convicted of being in actual physical control of a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol/(an intoxicating substance) unless
the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These
elements are:
First, being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle;
Second, on a highway/turnpike/(public parking lot);
Third, (while having a blood/breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more)/(while under the influence of alcohol)/(while under the [influence of any
intoxicating substance other than alcohol]/[combined influence of alcohol and
any other intoxicating substance] which may render a person incapable of safely
driving a motor vehicle);
[Fourth, the blood/breath alcohol test was administered within 2 hours after
arrest).]
Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction CR 6-20
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=81351&hits=14
27+1426+1221+1220+1151+1150+1030+1029+1010+1009+754+753+712+711+672+671+58
5+584+419+418+367+366+264+263+244+243+71+70+35+34+9+8+
Gus
>From: tedth...@aol.com (Tedthecat85)
>Date: 9/14/04 8:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040914210251...@mb-m26.aol.com>
Yepper, Been there -- done that..
It is called an APC = Actual Physical control. If you have access tot the keys
and you are anywhere in the car, they got you.
If you can hide the keys or throw them away so that the police can't find them,
then you can sleep iot off in a car thatis not in some violation because of
the fact of where it is at. ( middle of the street etc. )
In OK,
You can get
APC - actual physical control
DUI - driving under the influence
DWI - driving while intoxicated - impared.
And many many more LOL
Charles Bishop
<lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
tenor of the courts are.
I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
because of impairment.
charles
[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
philosophicaly I'm there
tooloud
<snip>
>> A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
>> into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
>> truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
>> the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
>> arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
>> buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
>> snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
>> was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
>>
>
> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> his car and put it in the ditch?
No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the tow
truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at the time of the
accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
Blinky the Shark
> You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
> get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
> running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
> drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
> posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Go Blue
Bob Ward
wrote:
The story seems to be changing. In the first sentence you admitted
that he had been drinking.
Greg Goss
>I am not a lawyer, and I am not connected withe the legal profession
>in any way, but even I could defend that guy and get him acquitted of
>the DWI charge. In California intoxication is not enough: the
>prosecution must also prove that the defendant was driving.
>
>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
In my local jurisdiction (I don't know if it was provincial (BC) or
federal (Canada) jurisdicton), the vehicle needs to be under your
control. I think that being in the car with the keys in your hand is
enough. In the case I (vaguely) remember, the guy had the seat
reclined with the key in (for the radio), and the charges stuck.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Bob Ward
I remember an episode of COPS where they pulled up behind a guy who
was drunk and asleep, sitting at a stop sign with the engine running.
Not too much leeway there.
Bob Ward
So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Bob Ward
>
>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to get
>drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a running
>motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this drunken man was just
>one step away from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger to any
>drivers in his vicinity.
Actually, as they say, "Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege".
Greg Goss
>Third, (while having a blood/breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
>more)/(while under the influence of alcohol)/(while under the [influence of any
>intoxicating substance other than alcohol]/[combined influence of alcohol and
>any other intoxicating substance] which may render a person incapable of safely
>driving a motor vehicle);
I was talking to someone once. He said that he had been charged with
"driving while impaired" when he crashed into three cars on day three
of an extended driving session.
Tedthecat85
If he makes it home by cab then certainly that would have been a better choice.
The Origional Poster did not strike me as nosy; perhaps a touch innocent, but
not officious:
Les Albert
It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
Les
Tedthecat85
We did this one before. The government issues a "license" to drive. A license
is permission. In this sense driving is a privilege. You are correct.
However, you have a right to apply for a driver's license. If you satisfy all
of the requirements for a license, and fall within no provision disqualifying
you from a license, then you have a right to make the government issue a
driver's license to you. You then have the right to use that license until it
expires by its terms or until the government takes action under a specific
statute or regulation to try to revoke your license. If that happens you have
a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in a court or an administrtive
tribunal before a final decision can be made to revoke the license.
I said "you have a right to operate a motor vehicle" for the sake of
simplicity.
Blinky the Shark
>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>> You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
>>> get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
>>> running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
>>> drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
>>> posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
>>He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
>>sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
> If he makes it home by cab then certainly that would have been a better choice.
Or by driving. What's to lose? He got busted for not driving, anyway.
Bob Ward
wrote:
driving home unsuccessfully would be a lot more expensive than a cab
ride.
Charles Bishop
<bob...@email.com> wrote:
This came up last time and it bothered me then and bothers me now. My
inclination is to say yes, but am leaning toward some form of punishment.
Remember when drunks were funny? People laughed at them and actors and
comics got laughs playing them-Foster Brooks and Dean Martin come to mind.
People were killed by drunk drivers and the drunk drivers got a small
amount of punishment, under, I think the belief that they were "impaired"
and couldn't make good judgments and so weren't in full control. Or
perhaps because a lot of the judges and lawyers drank and thought, "there
but for the grace of god".
Then, people realized how much damage (chronic) drinking could cause, or
even being drunk. But rather than severely punishing those who commited
felonies while drunk (because this is difficult) there was punishment for
everyone, because, "they could hurt someone while drunk."
I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
Still, I don't know what to do about your gun example.
charles
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very much, you know,
like an old man that kept to himself except to yell at people, that would be
okay, too.
incandescent blue
>
> It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
A principle which is actually contradicted by law in 30 states:
<http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm#One-Bite%20states>
"A dog does not get "one free bite" in a statutory strict
liability state, and it is unnecessary to prove that the
owner or handler was negligent. In some states, the strict
liability statute applies to non-bite injuries as well as bites,
and to non-owners who have custody, control or a financial
interest in the dog (i.e., a "keeper" or "harborer"). In two
states (Pennsylvania and Colorado), the strict liability statute
applies to a bite that causes severe injury but not one that
causes little injury. In one state (Maine), the strict liability
statute applies only to dogs that have been declared to be dangerous.
Even where the strict liability statute does not apply, any person
can be held liable if he or she was negligent or maintained
custody or control of the dog with knowledge that the dog was
dangerous. In cities with a "leash law," violation of the leash
law constitutes a form of negligence. Therefore, if the accident
happened in a "one bite state," you need to understand the principles
of negligence and must always research the law of your city and
county... Furthermore, a victim in any state can recover for dog
bite injuries resulting from intentional conduct or from outrageous
or reckless behavior. For example, if a person who is walking a
dog commands it to attack the victim, that person (who might or
might not be the owner of the dog) would be liable for his
intentional conduct.
The usual exceptions to liability in statutory strict liability
states are these:
* The victim was a trespasser
* The victim was a veterinarian who was treating the dog at the time
of the incident
* The victim was committing a felony
* The victim provoked the dog
* The victim assumed the risk (i.e., implicitly consented) to being bitten
* The dog was assisting the police or the military at the time of the
incident"
A. "my dogs think "one free bite" should be the rule for people food"
--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
Russell Stewart
Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
chrisgreville
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
>
> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>
If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
even if you are asleep in the back.
From http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm
Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (DR40)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 4 (£2,500) and/or up to 3 months imprisonment
10 penalty points on your licence
Disqualification is at the discretion of the Court
I am by no means certain of this, but I don't think you are right about it
being OK on your driveway.
Chris Greville
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Dunno about that. ISTR a vehicle (brain says it's a Suburban) got
> stuck in a snowdrift, and the occupants ran it at idle (to run the
> heater) for something like a dozen days before they ran out of gas.
They weren't running the engine the whole time, unless they had a 55
gallon drum of gas in the back, or dual truck tanks, or something.
Suppose your car idles at 500rpm and gets 20mpg cruising on the freeway
at 5000rpm going 70mph. That means it only takes you four hours to run
out of gas. With the engine at 1/10th the speed, assume it takes you 40
hours to run out of gas. That Subaru would either have to be getting
144mpg, or if you assume it got 40mpg, have a 51 gallon gas tank.
> Idling uses very little fuel. Presumably they had food and water in
> the car.
If you're stuck in a snowdrift, water is easy to come by. And you can
easily survive on a crash diet (har har) for two weeks. But the 100mpg
carburetor is one of those Great Usenet Kook-Magnets of our times for a
reason...
--
Huey
Patrick M Geahan
> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the tow
> truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
> showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
> drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at the time of the
> accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
Except for your admission in your original post that he had been drinking
before he got into the car.
And if your friend thinks it's a good idea to knock back 'several beers'
while in the midst of handling a car accident, I'd say he's got a pretty
significant alcohol problem there.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Charles Wm. Dimmick
My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
Charles
--
"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the
chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony
road-makers run daft -- they say it is to see how
the warld was made!"
Rick B.
news:ktW1d.16979$ZC7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
> Incredible Rhyme Animal wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>
>>>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages
>>>to miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very
>> much, you know, like an old man that kept to himself except to
>> yell at people, that would be okay, too.
>
> My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in
> western Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in
> broad daylight in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing
> a thing.
Happened as recently as 1981--search key is "Ken Rex McElroy". A&E did
a "City Confidential" episode on the case a few years ago.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
Well first off, you really ought to be willing to getinvolved personally.
Sicing the cops on someone to avoid personal interaction isn't IMHO a nice
thing to do. But small kudos to you for doing something: At least you
didn't just ignore the situation.
<snip>
> On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
> sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
> I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
> more conflicted I felt.
Gotta agree with the wife.
> On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
> driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
> from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
> to any drivers in his vicinity.
As we are all just one step away from posing mortal danger to anyone at
just about anytime: when we carry a baseball bat to our sons game, when
ever we drive, who knows we could snap and just start harming people...
> But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
> HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
> what you *might* do?"
Now you're making sense.
> Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
> will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
> another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
> the line?
We should draw the line where wew can find a victim. Do you have a victim
here? I don't think so.
Now, I've run into this problem before. Came into work and found a guy in
the parking lot passed out in the front seat of his car. I woke him to
find out if he was OK, discovered him stinking drunk and told him that he
had to clear out of the area, offering to call him a cab. He had a cell
phone and refused, but then passed out again, at which point I called the
cops to get him and his car off the property. I had no qualms: I offered
to let him extract himself form the situation gracefully, he didn't avail
himself of it. He had gotten hmself into such a state where he couldn't
reasably stop trespassing, so as the victim, I had no problems with the
law coming in and dealing with him.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote in
> news:2qpdrbF...@uni-berlin.de:
> > Russell Stewart wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> >> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> >> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> >> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> >> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> >> a public space?
> >>
> >> Discuss.
> >
> > I believe in Iowa you can be arrested for this as well.
> >
> > A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
> > into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
> > truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
> > the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
> > arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
> > buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
> > snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
> > was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
> >
> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> his car and put it in the ditch?
No, he's claiming he had an ordinary accident, returned home on foot, had
a beer at home and then got penalized for having a beer shortly after an
accident, which nominally isn't a crime.
Jordan Abel
>>>A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
>
> No, he's claiming he had an ordinary accident, returned home on foot, had
> a beer at home and then got penalized for having a beer shortly after an
> accident, which nominally isn't a crime.
but you already admitted that what _really_ happened was that he'd had a
few drinks first and went off the road on his way home
Richard R. Hershberger
Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
Richard R. Hershberger
r
keys in the ignition, but not running. That was in New York state.
Admittedly, his case had some extra features--he was engaged in an intimate
act at the time with some guy he picked up at a highway rest stop in
addition to being intoxicated. But he did get charged with DWI, amoung
other things. It think the presence of the igition keys or having the motor
running shows intent under the law.
David J. Martin
I don't know squat about breathalyzers, but I'd guess the problem is
that having a beer while waiting for the tow truck isn't likely to
result in a high reading. You said he "was drinking one snowy night and
slipped off the road ..." So he drank, had an accident, then had a
beer. Apparently the judgment was that the first drinking was more
important than that last beer.
I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that he
had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been right,
but it's not much of a defense.
David
Les Albert
Because he was having sex in the car, your friend's arrest was
classified as a moving violation.
Les
Les Albert
<die-bla...@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>On 2004-09-15, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
>A principle which is actually contradicted by law in 30 states:
><http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm#One-Bite%20states>
The other 20 states are more enlightened.
Les
Jordan Abel
> I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
> was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that he
> had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
> driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been right,
> but it's not much of a defense.
The people who are trying to claim that even if you test negative [or
even .00] you can still be considered drunk are going to have a hard
time refuting it - either it's about the literal numeric blood alcohol
level or it's not. if a .09 _must_ be illegal under all circumstances
regardless of how the person is driving, a .07 [or .00] _must_ therefore
be legal, similarly regardless.
nUt
"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
news:nsbfk01u22omsua2l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:58:22 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >groo wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
> >>> into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
> >>> truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
> >>> the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
> >>> arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
> >>> buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
> >>> snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
> >>> was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> >> his car and put it in the ditch?
> >
> >truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
> >showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
> >accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
>
>
> that he had been drinking.
There was no proof that he had been drinking prior to the accident... except
perhaps the spillage over the seat as he lost control of the car.
nUt
"Jordan Abel" <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:2qqvl9F...@uni-berlin.de...
But, without the admission, where's the proof?
Paul Ciszek
In article <ci8p6c$tkg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
chrisgreville <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
>>
>> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
>> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
>> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>>
>
>If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
>even if you are asleep in the back.
What if you are passed out in an alley with the keys in your pocket?
--
Please reply to: | "When you are dealing with secretive regimes
pciszek at panix dot org | that want to deceive, you're never going to
Autoreply is disabled | be able to be positive." -Condoleezza Rice
nUt
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
> Bishop) wrote:
>
> >In article <884fk05eekn3fndng...@4ax.com>, Les Albert
> ><lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
> >>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
> >
> >I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
> >cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
> >have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
> >couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
> >you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
> >tenor of the courts are.
> >
> >I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
> >driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
> >enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or
kills
> >someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
> >because of impairment.
> >
> >charles
> >
> >[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
> >philosophicaly I'm there
>
>
> So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
> miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Somebody didn't shoot the gun.
Your analogy is analogous to someone driving home while inebriated and not
having an accident.
Charles Bishop
rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
[driving while drunk]
>> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
>> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
>> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
>> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
>
>Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
>endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
>misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
>bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
>would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
>life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
>compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
>action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
>to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
>right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
>flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
>people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
>bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
>drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
>viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
>right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
It sounds to me like the "you can't bring someone back to life" should
have no bearing on the discussion. It's a fact in all cases, but the legal
system is set up to address this. Civil suits put a dollar value on such
lives, and the criminal system is set up to punish such crimes. This is
supposed to be a deterrent to others and punishment for the person
comitting the crime.
The shooting a gun in a crowd argument sounds a little like the flag
buring ammendment argument-a prohibition against something that isn't
likely to happen. That is, absent punishment, is it likely that someone
will choose to shoot a gun in a crowd on the off chance that sie won't hit
someone? Probably not, so what the current law address is a way of
punishing someone who fires a gun for another reason, probably trying to
kill someone, but failing to do so. This currently rates a punishment.
For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
have the same intent.
>
>Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
>same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
>only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
>but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
>there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
>result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
>safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
>to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
>prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
>catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
But changing people's behavior is part of the legal system-you might get
punished if you commit a crime so you don't. If drunk drivers are
sufficiently punished-life in prison perhaps-for a death commited while
drunk, then I think the number of deaths would go down. Would it do down
as much as if all drunk drivers were arrested, put in jail and punished? I
don't know.
>
>This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
>considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
I think the libertarian solution is "don't punish someone where no harm is
done", but I could be wrong.
charles
nUt
"Russell Stewart" <us...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ci8m6o$q8b$1...@iruka.swcp.com...
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > Tedthecat85 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
> >>get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
> >>running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
> >>drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
> >>posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
> >
> >
> > He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
> > sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
>
> Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
> or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
> wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
A new strain of STD which causes paralysis within minutes?
Jordan Abel
>>The story seems to be changing. In the first sentence you admitted
>>that he had been drinking.
>
> There was no proof that he had been drinking prior to the accident... except
> perhaps the spillage over the seat as he lost control of the car.
but. he. WAS. you said so yourself - don't act like it's some sort of
injustice just because he "should have gotten away with it"
Jordan Abel
> Somebody didn't shoot the gun.
>
> Your analogy is analogous to someone driving home while inebriated and not
> having an accident.
The thread had drifted - they were _talking_ about when someone drives
home while inebriated and does not have an accident - unlike your
brother or whoever it was, who did so and _did_ have an accident [though
one in which no-one was hurt]
nUt
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ci9sku$171$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <ci8p6c$tkg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> chrisgreville <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >>
> >
> >If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
> >even if you are asleep in the back.
>
> What if you are passed out in an alley with the keys in your pocket?
Depends if the hood's warm or not!
Personally i believe that, if the cars running, it's at the discretion of
the police[wo]man to decide whether a crime is about to be committed or not.
If the car isn't running then it's laughable that they could even try to
prosecute... unless in circumstances which prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the motorist was guilty of a crime:
A friend of a friend was nicked while the car was parked on his drive and he
was indoors.
The police had been tipped off that he had driven home while under the
influence... the car was hot, he was drunk and had been seen, along with his
car, at a bar a few miles down the road only 30 minutes prior to the
police's visit. Fair cop, bang to rights, he received a 2 year ban.
That's a little different from someone drying out while trying to avoid
hypothermia due to weather conditions by leaving thier car running... it's
really down to the police to be fair when applying laws... and i'd like to
believe most are.
[ahem]
ctc...@hotmail.com
> >
> >Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction CR 6-20
> >http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=813
>
> Yepper, Been there -- done that..
>
> It is called an APC = Actual Physical control. If you have access tot
> the keys and you are anywhere in the car, they got you.
So if you are not actually in physical control of the car, then it is
called actual physical control. That sounds about right.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
tooloud
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:58:22 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> groo wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> call a tow truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and
>>>> they returned to the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a
>>>> breath test and arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely
>>>> no proof that my buddy was drunk at the time of the incident,
>>>> there was six inches of snow on the ground, and the tow truck
>>>> driver verified that my buddy was drinking a beer at home when he
>>>> picked him up. The charge stuck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone
>>> stole his car and put it in the ditch?
>>
>> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the
>> tow truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene.
>> When he showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was
>> arrested for drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at
>> the time of the accident, which most likely happened because of the
>> slippery conditions.
>
>
> that he had been drinking.
I wouldn't say that I "admitted" anything, so much as I just told you.
Here's a timeline for those having trouble following along:
1) Buddy drinks with some friends
2) Leaves for home in snowy conditions; isn't acting like a drunk person
might (slurrring, stumbling, etc.)
3) Puts car in ditch
4) Goes home; drinks some more
5) Tow truck driver picks him up
6) Gets arrested for OWI
The point isn't so much that he *was* drinking earlier--it's that the
previous drinking seems rather irrelevant if no one proved he was drunk at
the time of the incident. However, someone *was* able to verify that he was
drinking after the incident, which may imply that the drunkenness occurred
after the incident.
Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about it for
an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're drunk *now*, even
though there's no evidence you were drinking when the vehicle was ditched?
Just food for thought...
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially when no
one's around to prove otherwise.
tooloud
> tooloud <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the
>> tow truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene.
>> When he showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was
>> arrested for drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at
>> the time of the accident, which most likely happened because of the
>> slippery conditions.
>
> Except for your admission in your original post that he had been
> drinking before he got into the car.
Admission? I'm not denying that he was drinking, but then again, you're
aware that drinking isn't the same as drunk, right?
Anyway, if he hadn't been drinking before the accident, it wouldn't really
change anything; the cops still wouldn't be able to prove he was over the
legal limit when the car was ditched.
> And if your friend thinks it's a good idea to knock back 'several
> beers' while in the midst of handling a car accident, I'd say he's
> got a pretty significant alcohol problem there.
I don't know where you're from, Pat, but anyone living in a rural area that
gets a lot of snow will probably agree with me that sliding the right two
wheels off a rock road in six inches of snow isn't considered an accident.
It's more like a way of life--usually you just wave down the first guy that
comes along that happens to have a 4WD and a log chain. People around here
are so nice about things like that that they usually thank you for allowing
them to help you.
In this case, there apparently was no one around and my buddy happened to
have a AAA card in his pocket, so he took that route instead. He wasn't
"handling a car accident" so much as he was sitting around taking a ribbing
from his family for sliding the car into the ditch. It wasn't that big a
deal, really.
Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen people
step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple of drinks
with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person and deserves to
die. There's really too many of those people already.
Jeff Lanam
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
>Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
>in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
>
>Charles
"Judge, he needed killin'."
tooloud
<snip>
> I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
> was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that
> he had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
> driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been
> right, but it's not much of a defense.
No, that's not much of a defense, but it's not the same situation either.
> David
groo
news:2qrrk0F...@uni-berlin.de:
At the very least, the guy deserved at least a fine for stupidity. At the
most, he deserved a DUI conviction.
And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the plan
just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home? Or did he decide
to get too drunk to drive since he'd have a tow truck there to take him
home anyway?
--
"I was trapped in the body of a woman. Best New Year's Eve I ever
spent." - John Dean, afca
groo
news:2qrsfgF...@uni-berlin.de:
> Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen
> people step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple
> of drinks with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person
> and deserves to die. There's really too many of those people already.
Yeah, those people all suck. They deserve to die, there are really too many
of them already.
groo
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
>>>get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of
>>>a running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
>>>drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street
>>>and posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
>>
>>
>> He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
>> sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy
>> bystander.
>
> Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
> or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
> wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
even consider that he might be sleeping it off? You didn't even give
that enough consideration to knock on the window?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you did anything wrong. It just seemed
odd.
kay w
>I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
>eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
>even consider that he might be sleeping it off?
Or having a tryst?
--
"If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner."
Tallulah Bankhead
Asterbark
>
>ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
>news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
>> In article <tecfk0t7t9h4j5riu...@4ax.com>, Bob Ward
>> <bob...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>> >Bishop) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <884fk05eekn3fndng...@4ax.com>, Les Albert
>> >><lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>> >>>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
>> >>
>> >>I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
>> >>cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
>> >>have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
>> >>couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
>> >>you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
>> >>tenor of the courts are.
>> >>
>> >>I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
>> >>driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
>> >>enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or
>kills
>> >>someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
>> >>because of impairment.
>> >>
>> >>charles
>> >>
>> >>[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
>> >>philosophicaly I'm there
>> >
>> >
>> >So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>> >miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> This came up last time and it bothered me then and bothers me now. My
>> inclination is to say yes, but am leaning toward some form of punishment.
>>
>> Remember when drunks were funny? People laughed at them and actors and
>> comics got laughs playing them-Foster Brooks and Dean Martin come to mind.
>> People were killed by drunk drivers and the drunk drivers got a small
>> amount of punishment, under, I think the belief that they were "impaired"
>> and couldn't make good judgments and so weren't in full control. Or
>> perhaps because a lot of the judges and lawyers drank and thought, "there
>> but for the grace of god".
>>
>> Then, people realized how much damage (chronic) drinking could cause, or
>> even being drunk. But rather than severely punishing those who commited
>> felonies while drunk (because this is difficult) there was punishment for
>> everyone, because, "they could hurt someone while drunk."
>>
>> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
>> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
>> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
>> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
>
>Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
>endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
>misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
>bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
>would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
>life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
>compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
>action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
>to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
>right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
>flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
>people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
>bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
>drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
>viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
>right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
>
>Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
>same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
>only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
>but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
>there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
>result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
>safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
>to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
>prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
>catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
>
>This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
>considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
This all reminds me of common situations where there ought to be a sign or a
light at any given intersection and yet there isn't, until someone dies in an
accident at that intersection, and even then, there has to be a petition.
--
Aster
Jordan Abel
> And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the plan
> just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home?
He didn't say that. Where do you see that?
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
>obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about it for
>an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're drunk *now*, even
>though there's no evidence you were drinking when the vehicle was ditched?
>
>Just food for thought...
If they showed up when I was drunk and trying to get the Suzuki out of
the ditch, I think it would be a much closer approximation of a
comparison.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen people
>step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple of drinks
>with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person and deserves to
>die. There's really too many of those people already.
Question is, did the family they wiped out on the way home deserve to
die as well?
Bob Ward
Bishop) wrote:
>
>For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
>uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
>why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
>missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
>have the same intent.
But probably the same lack of regard or respect for the safety of
others.
Bob Ward
No, the fact that he missed is equivalent to the fact that the drunk
got home. The fact that the gun was fired would be analogous to the
drunk driving in the first place.
Ron Albright
> We can infer from this that the
> right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
> flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
> people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
> bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point.
This is a stupid analogy for the simple reason that driving a car
somewhere has productive purpose. Shooting a gun randomly down the
street doesn't.
> The
> drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
> viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
> right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
This is stupid since ridicules levels of enforcement of overbearing drunk
driving laws contributes very little to making it reasonable safe to
drive. Every day I drive down the DNT in Dallas and every morning I'm
amazed and terrified by the intentional dangerous driving practices of
some of the morons driving down the road. All of this stuff is illegal and
people driving like that kill hundreds every day. Yet they rarely get
ticketed for these practices and when they do there are loop holes that
allow them to get the tickets annulled with just a small fine. Even when
they cause an accident that kills someone they're rarely punished for it.
But anyone driving perfectly safely or even sitting in their parked car
with a .08 blood alcohol level deserves to be thrown in jail. Yeah, this
makes perfect sense.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
SoCalMike
> Hactar <ebe...@tampabay.are-are.com.unmunge> wrote:
>
>>Dunno about that. ISTR a vehicle (brain says it's a Suburban) got
>>stuck in a snowdrift, and the occupants ran it at idle (to run the
>>heater) for something like a dozen days before they ran out of gas.
>
>
> They weren't running the engine the whole time, unless they had a 55
> gallon drum of gas in the back, or dual truck tanks, or something.
>
> Suppose your car idles at 500rpm and gets 20mpg cruising on the freeway
> at 5000rpm going 70mph. That means it only takes you four hours to run
> out of gas. With the engine at 1/10th the speed, assume it takes you 40
> hours to run out of gas. That Subaru would either have to be getting
suburban. pretty big tank and probably just ran it every so often. if i
was in a snowbank, id be worried about carbon monoxide poisoning.
SoCalMike
> As we are all just one step away from posing mortal danger to anyone at
> just about anytime: when we carry a baseball bat to our sons game, when
> ever we drive, who knows we could snap and just start harming people...
especially if youre an angry drunk.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Incredible Rhyme Animal wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>
>>>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>>>miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very much, you
>know,
>> like an old man that kept to himself except to yell at people, that would
>be
>> okay, too.
>
>My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
>Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
>in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
So, what, it was some kind of gedankenexperiment or koan, or what?
Patrick M Geahan
> There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially when no
> one's around to prove otherwise.
The cop proved otherwise. Your buddy was legally drunk.
He admits to drinking before the accident. He blew drunk after the
accident. And his 'excuse' is that after the accident, but before the tow
truck, he went home and drank a whole bunch more.
If he expects people to buy this story, he's an idiot. If this is what
actually happened, he's an even bigger idiot.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Patrick M Geahan
> Admission? I'm not denying that he was drinking, but then again, you're
> aware that drinking isn't the same as drunk, right?
> Anyway, if he hadn't been drinking before the accident, it wouldn't really
> change anything; the cops still wouldn't be able to prove he was over the
> legal limit when the car was ditched.
Your buddy was drinking before the accident and drunk afterwards. Doesn't
take a rocket scientist to put that together.
> I don't know where you're from, Pat, but anyone living in a rural area that
> gets a lot of snow will probably agree with me that sliding the right two
> wheels off a rock road in six inches of snow isn't considered an accident.
I lived in one of the snowiest places in the United States: northern
Michigan. You're right, car accidents happen all the time.
And when they do, if the cops show up, they're gonna make you blow the
breathalyzer. ESPECIALLY if the accident is, say, late at night on a
Friday or Saturday.
Everyone knows this. You'd have to be a complete flaming idiot to think
it's a good idea to buzz home, drink several beers(enough to get drunk),
and then tackle handling the accident.
I, personally, think your friend's story is bullshit. If it isn't, he's
an idiot, and quite probably an alcoholic.
Kajikit
17:15:48 -0600:
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
>
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space
That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
back seat, not the front one!
btw, some time ago in Australia there was a story on one of the
current affairs shows about a young man who was charged with being in
charge of a vehicle while intoxicated - the only problem was that he
didn't even have the keys in the front seat with him - he went out to
celebrate something, got blotto and decided to sleep in the car, so he
tossed his keys into the back seat, got into the passenger side and
put the seat back. A cop came along in the morning and arrested him,
and because he was still a young driver they wanted to take his
license away entirely. Now THAT was clearly unfair...
--
~Karen AKA Kajikit
Lover of shiny things...
Made as of 10th Sept 2004 - 107 cards, 66 SB pages, 10 digital SB pages, 72 decos
Visit my webpage: http://www.kajikitscorner.com
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Peter Boulding
<can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
>>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
>>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
>>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>
>For now.
>
>Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
>
>Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
now, the joke's not very funny.
I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
laws apply only to the public highways. For example, you're not
allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Jordan Abel
> That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
> running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
> on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
> If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
> back seat, not the front one!
Why was the seat reclined all the way back, then? was there a back seat
at all?
chrisgreville
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q00jk0dregv4mqe7f...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:54:18 -0400, "can...@thelast.mile"
> <can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
>
> >>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >
> >For now.
> >
> >Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
> >
> >Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
>
> Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
> now, the joke's not very funny.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
> laws apply only to the public highways.
I probably am, but something in the grey cells say there have been cases
brought when the car is in the drive and the owner is sleeping off a
drinking session.
For example, you're not
> allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
> but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
> birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
But were they drunk when doing it? :-)
And I learnt to drive on the M1 just after it opened, BTW.
Chris Greville
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:54:18 -0400, "can...@thelast.mile"
> <can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
> >>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >
> >For now.
> >
> >Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
> >
> >Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
> Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
> now, the joke's not very funny.
> I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
> laws apply only to the public highways. For example, you're not
> allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
> but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
> birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
Here in the people's republic of New Jersey, it was ruled that privately
owned driveways are public spaces for certain vehicle operation purposes.
googles.. ah here it is: vehicle emmisions standards. If your vehilce
fails inspection and you try to park it in your driveway untill you have
the money needed for repairs, they can confiscate it.
http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=10845
This led to a rash of people parking their cars on thier lawn followed by
a rash of towns prohibiting parking cars on grass...
In any case, Drunk Drivers were the pedophiles of the '90s, so I could
certanly see laws that made it illegal to sit in a car while drunk. Hell,
I heard a FOAF story of a guy here in NJ who got taged for operating a
motor vehicle while under suspension when his ride-on lawnmower circled
out into the street (got thrown out on appeal tho).
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Peter Boulding
<chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I probably am, but something in the grey cells say there have been cases
>brought when the car is in the drive and the owner is sleeping off a
>drinking session.
You're right, but such cases hinge on the question of whether the
car had been driven on to the drive before or after the driver got
drunk. The point at issue, IIRC, was whether the police had the
right to breathalyse someone who is no longer on the public highway.
chrisgreville
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:13:29 +0100, "chrisgreville"
> <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You're right, but such cases hinge on the question of whether the
> car had been driven on to the drive before or after the driver got
> drunk. The point at issue, IIRC, was whether the police had the
> right to breathalyse someone who is no longer on the public highway.
>
Not disputed that that was the original point made, but I still think that
there have been cases where police breathalized a driver in their homes. One
(I think) was Geoffrey Archer when he was an MP. If not him, it was someone
equally notor... erm, famous.
Chris Greville
groo
news:2qse59F...@uni-berlin.de:
I don't "see" it anywhere. It was a presumption on my part, which is why
it was phrased as a question, not an assertion. It wasn't clear one way
or the other from the original post.
Quite often, when your car slides off a road into a snow filled ditch,
the only real problem is getting the car back on the road. In such a
situation, most people wouldn't then have the tow truck driver hook the
car up and tow it home, if it was perfectly drivable and the roads
weren't totally iced up.
--
"People you agree with are allowed to be sarcastic. People you don't
agree with are just jerks." - Opus T. Penguin on afca
Blinky the Shark
> On 16 Sep 2004 01:12:16 GMT, scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
>>Previously, groo wrote, in part:
>>>I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
>>>eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
>>>even consider that he might be sleeping it off?
>>Or having a tryst?
> KAy!
Come on baby let's do the tryst
Come on baby let's do the tryst
Take me by my little hand and go like thyst
Ee-oh tryst, tryst baby, tryst
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the tryst
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Go Blue
Greg Goss
>That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
>running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
>on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
>If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
>back seat, not the front one!
The back seat is cramped and uncomfortable, and a long ways from the
radio. Why would I want to crawl into the back seat unless I had a
big American-style car and had a friend with me?
Even with a friend, I prefer the front passenger seat (or home).
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <82401463.0409...@posting.google.com>,
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>
> >ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
> news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> [driving while drunk]
>
> >> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
> >> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
> >> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
> >> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
> >
> >Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
> >endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
> >misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
> >bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
> >would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
> >life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
> >compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
> >action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
> >to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
> >right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
> >flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
> >people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
> >drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
> >viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
> >right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
>
> have no bearing on the discussion. It's a fact in all cases, but the legal
> system is set up to address this. Civil suits put a dollar value on such
> lives, and the criminal system is set up to punish such crimes. This is
> supposed to be a deterrent to others and punishment for the person
> comitting the crime.
I disagree with this interpretation. There is a legal fiction that
loss of life can be adequately compensated with weregild (to use the
older term) but this is nothing more than a legal fiction. Most
people would rather be not dead than have their survivors be
compensated, and most of those survivors would agree. The
compensation merely serves as a poor substitute for being made
genuinely whole because there is nothing better the law can do. But
preventing the death in the first place is much much better all
around.
>
> The shooting a gun in a crowd argument sounds a little like the flag
> buring ammendment argument-a prohibition against something that isn't
> likely to happen. That is, absent punishment, is it likely that someone
> will choose to shoot a gun in a crowd on the off chance that sie won't hit
> someone? Probably not, so what the current law address is a way of
> punishing someone who fires a gun for another reason, probably trying to
> kill someone, but failing to do so. This currently rates a punishment.
Well, it wasn't my example. But on the other hand people do do this
sort of thing from time to time. And yes, it is illegal to shoot into
a crowd even if you aren't trying to kill someone.
>
> For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
> uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
> why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
> missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
> have the same intent.
> >
> >Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
> >same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
> >only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
> >but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
> >there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
> >result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
> >safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
> >to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
> >prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
> >catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
>
> But changing people's behavior is part of the legal system-you might get
> punished if you commit a crime so you don't. If drunk drivers are
> sufficiently punished-life in prison perhaps-for a death commited while
> drunk, then I think the number of deaths would go down. Would it do down
> as much as if all drunk drivers were arrested, put in jail and punished? I
> don't know.
See, this is why I am not a libertarian, much less a Libertarian, even
though I am intermittantly sympathetic to libertarian ideals. This is
all quite logical: a person sitting in a bar finishing up his eighth
drink of the night will perform a cost-benefit analysis, comparing the
risk of punishment should he get into an accident against the benefit
of driving home. Should the benefit outweigh the risk he will get in
the car and start driving. Should the risk prevail, he will do
something else. It is very logical, and pretty much entirely unlike
the real world.
> >
> >This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
> >considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
>
> I think the libertarian solution is "don't punish someone where no harm is
> done", but I could be wrong.
By your logic, you could take a revolver with one bullet in it, spin
the cylinder, but the revolver to my head against my will, and pull
the trigger. If the gun fires, then the legal system can get
involved. But if it doesn't fire, no harm has been done and I have no
grounds for complaint. I have no right to not have you play Russian
roulette with my life, so there is no reason to infringe upon your
right to pull that trigger. Yes, this in an absurd scenario. But it
is the logical conclusion.
I submit that it in not un-libertartian to recognize the right to be
free from other people's imposing unreasonable risk. Yes, that
"unreasonable" is a messy, subjective word. But I would rather that
than having to dodge drunk drivers whenever I step outside the house.
Richard R. Hershberger
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Kajikit <ka...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
> The back seat is cramped and uncomfortable, and a long ways from the
> radio. Why would I want to crawl into the back seat unless I had a
> big American-style car and had a friend with me?
> Even with a friend, I prefer the front passenger seat (or home).
Clearly, you need a bigger car.
--
Huey
Dr H
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Charles Bishop vociferated:
}
}I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
}driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
}enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
}someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
}because of impairment.
}
}charles
}
}[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
}philosophicaly I'm there
I agree, to a certain extent anyway. If the guy is in reasonable /control/
of the vehicle and makes it home OK, fine. His judgement was impaierd, sure,
else he wouldn't have been driving, but some people have better physical
control than others.
OTOH, if he's driving and clearly /not/ in control -- weaving all over the
road, blowing stop signs and lights, etc., and is observed doing that,
then he is /clearly/ a danger to others, and should be dinged for DUI.
The problem with contemporary DUI laws is the same problem that occurs
with many laws -- a 'one-size-fits-all' with no room for consideration
of mitigating factors. There really /is/ a difference between downing
6 shots and beers in two hours and then driving through a heavily
trafficked urban area at 8pm, and having three beers in an hour and
driving and driving home dowm a rarely-traveled rural road between two
corn fields at 3am. Unfortunately, the law in most states has no
provision for recognizing the difference.
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Bob Ward vociferated:
}On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
}Bishop) wrote:
}
}>
}>I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
}>driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
}>enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
}>someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
}>because of impairment.
}>
}>charles
}>
}>[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
}>philosophicaly I'm there
}
}
}So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
}miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Happens every New Year's Eve in LA.
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Richard R. Hershberger vociferated:
}ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
}> >>
}> >>I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
}> >>cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
}> >>have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
}> >>couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
}> >>you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
}> >>tenor of the courts are.
}> >>
}> >>I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
}> >>driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
}> >>enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
}> >>someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
}> >>because of impairment.
}> >>
}> >>charles
}> >>
}> >>[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
}> >>philosophicaly I'm there
}> >
}> >
}> >So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
}> >miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
}>
}> This came up last time and it bothered me then and bothers me now. My
}> inclination is to say yes, but am leaning toward some form of punishment.
}>
}> Remember when drunks were funny? People laughed at them and actors and
}> comics got laughs playing them-Foster Brooks and Dean Martin come to mind.
}> People were killed by drunk drivers and the drunk drivers got a small
}> amount of punishment, under, I think the belief that they were "impaired"
}> and couldn't make good judgments and so weren't in full control. Or
}> perhaps because a lot of the judges and lawyers drank and thought, "there
}> but for the grace of god".
}>
}> Then, people realized how much damage (chronic) drinking could cause, or
}> even being drunk. But rather than severely punishing those who commited
}> felonies while drunk (because this is difficult) there was punishment for
}> everyone, because, "they could hurt someone while drunk."
}>
}> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
}> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
}> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
}> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
}
}Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
}endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
}misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
}bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
}would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
}life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
}compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
}action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
}to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
}right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
}flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
}people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
}bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point.
We might also decide that it's not a good idea to let anyone who wants
to have a gun, and act accordingly, thus greatly reducing the frequency
with which the situation of someone firing a gun in a crowd occurs.
}The drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
}viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the right
}of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
}
}Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
}same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
}only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
}but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
}there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
}result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
}safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
}to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
}prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
}catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
Or outlawing all drinking. Or all driving.
Once you take a step down that road, why not go all the way?
Dr H
Bob Ward
Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>tooloud <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially when no
>> one's around to prove otherwise.
>
>The cop proved otherwise. Your buddy was legally drunk.
>
>He admits to drinking before the accident. He blew drunk after the
>accident. And his 'excuse' is that after the accident, but before the tow
>truck, he went home and drank a whole bunch more.
>
>If he expects people to buy this story, he's an idiot. If this is what
>actually happened, he's an even bigger idiot.
This all reminds me of the story of the priest who rearended the rabbi
(in a car, of course). "Here - drink this, it'll steady your nerves."
"Thanks", said the rabbi, wiping his mouth. "Aren't you going to have
a sip?" "Sure", said the priest "As soon as the cops get here!"
Bob Ward
<can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:16:43 GMT, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:13:03 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>>Bishop) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
>>>uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
>>>why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
>>>missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
>>>have the same intent.
>>
>>
>>But probably the same lack of regard or respect for the safety of
>>others.
>>
>That's not true at all. Do you prosecute the clumsy guy at work
>because he accidentally overturns a pallet, causing injury to a
>coworker?
>
>What if clumsy guy has a condition or disease that may have caused his
>actions? I'm not pro drunkard at all, I'm just say'n...
I don't see the relationship here, sorry. If the "clumsy guy" has a
physical condition that makes him incapable of performing his job in
the workplace, and he knowingly attempts to do work in spite of this,
the yes, I think he - and possibly his employer - would be liable.
After all, people who injure other people are often sued for damages -
knwing that the defendant had a pre-existing condition would probably
make the case a lot easier to decide.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:59:31 -0700, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
>> We can infer from this that the
>> right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
>> flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
>> people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
>> bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point.
>
>This is a stupid analogy for the simple reason that driving a car
>somewhere has productive purpose. Shooting a gun randomly down the
>street doesn't.
>
>> The
>> drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
>> viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
>> right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
>
>This is stupid since ridicules levels of enforcement of overbearing drunk
>driving laws contributes very little to making it reasonable safe to
>drive. Every day I drive down the DNT in Dallas and every morning I'm
>amazed and terrified by the intentional dangerous driving practices of
>some of the morons driving down the road. All of this stuff is illegal and
>people driving like that kill hundreds every day. Yet they rarely get
>ticketed for these practices and when they do there are loop holes that
>allow them to get the tickets annulled with just a small fine. Even when
>they cause an accident that kills someone they're rarely punished for it.
>But anyone driving perfectly safely or even sitting in their parked car
>with a .08 blood alcohol level deserves to be thrown in jail. Yeah, this
>makes perfect sense.
Have you been missing your meetings lately or something?
Bob Ward
>
> The problem with contemporary DUI laws is the same problem that occurs
> with many laws -- a 'one-size-fits-all' with no room for consideration
> of mitigating factors. There really /is/ a difference between downing
> 6 shots and beers in two hours and then driving through a heavily
> trafficked urban area at 8pm, and having three beers in an hour and
> driving and driving home dowm a rarely-traveled rural road between two
> corn fields at 3am. Unfortunately, the law in most states has no
> provision for recognizing the difference.
Equally unfortunately, neither do the drunks.
tooloud
> "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote in
> news:2qrrk0F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Jordan Abel wrote:
>>> nUt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The story seems to be changing. In the first sentence you
>>>>> admitted that he had been drinking.
>>>>
>>>> There was no proof that he had been drinking prior to the
>>>> accident... except perhaps the spillage over the seat as he lost
>>>> control of the car.
>>>
>>> but. he. WAS. you said so yourself - don't act like it's some sort
>>> of injustice just because he "should have gotten away with it"
>>
>> There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially
>> when no one's around to prove otherwise.
>>
>
> the most, he deserved a DUI conviction.
I guess my stance is that there should be absolutely no way to get a DUI
conviction if there's no one to corroborate the idea that one was actually
driving drunk.
> And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the
> plan just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home? Or did
> he decide to get too drunk to drive since he'd have a tow truck there
> to take him home anyway?
I dunno. Never asked him that.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:47:00 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
>> obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about
>> it for an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're
>> drunk *now*, even though there's no evidence you were drinking when
>> the vehicle was ditched?
>>
>> Just food for thought...
>
>
> If they showed up when I was drunk and trying to get the Suzuki out of
> the ditch, I think it would be a much closer approximation of a
> comparison.
Not really--the cops showed up between the time my buddy left the scene and
the time they got back.
tooloud
> tooloud <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Admission? I'm not denying that he was drinking, but then again,
>> you're aware that drinking isn't the same as drunk, right?
>
>> Anyway, if he hadn't been drinking before the accident, it wouldn't
>> really change anything; the cops still wouldn't be able to prove he
>> was over the legal limit when the car was ditched.
>
> Your buddy was drinking before the accident and drunk afterwards.
> Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put that together.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that an awful lot of things could
have happened in between those two points.
>> I don't know where you're from, Pat, but anyone living in a rural
>> area that gets a lot of snow will probably agree with me that
>> sliding the right two wheels off a rock road in six inches of snow
>> isn't considered an accident.
>
> I lived in one of the snowiest places in the United States: northern
> Michigan. You're right, car accidents happen all the time.
>
> And when they do, if the cops show up, they're gonna make you blow the
> breathalyzer. ESPECIALLY if the accident is, say, late at night on a
> Friday or Saturday.
I was in a major car accident about four years ago on a Friday evening. No
one asked me to take a breath test. Both vehicles were totalled out, and if
they don't always make you blow for something like that, I don't think you
can get a guarantee on that.
> Everyone knows this. You'd have to be a complete flaming idiot to
> think it's a good idea to buzz home, drink several beers(enough to
> get drunk), and then tackle handling the accident.
>
> I, personally, think your friend's story is bullshit.
I doubt it. I picked him up from the can the next day.
> If it isn't,
> he's
> an idiot, and quite probably an alcoholic.
Both of those might very well be true, but the fact remains that it seems to
be a serious flaw in our legal system to be able to punish someone for a
something no one's really sure they did. There's definitely reasonable doubt
in this situation.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:47:00 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
>>> obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about
>>> it for an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're
>>> drunk *now*, even though there's no evidence you were drinking when
>>> the vehicle was ditched?
>>>
>>> Just food for thought...
>>
>>
>> If they showed up when I was drunk and trying to get the Suzuki out of
>> the ditch, I think it would be a much closer approximation of a
>> comparison.
>
>Not really--the cops showed up between the time my buddy left the scene and
>the time they got back.
I see - so the cops DIDN'T come to his house the next day and accuse
him of drunk driving - they were investigating an apparently abandoned
car when a drunk showed up with a tow truck driver. Yes, I can see
the similarities in the two scenarios.
Charles Bishop
rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
news:<ctbishop-150...@user-2inja8p.dialup.mindspring.com>...
>> In article <82401463.0409...@posting.google.com>,
>> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
[when someone is dead, they are gone for good]
>>
>> It sounds to me like the "you can't bring someone back to life" should
>> have no bearing on the discussion. It's a fact in all cases, but the legal
>> system is set up to address this. Civil suits put a dollar value on such
>> lives, and the criminal system is set up to punish such crimes. This is
>> supposed to be a deterrent to others and punishment for the person
>> comitting the crime.
>
>I disagree with this interpretation. There is a legal fiction that
>loss of life can be adequately compensated with weregild (to use the
>older term) but this is nothing more than a legal fiction. Most
>people would rather be not dead than have their survivors be
>compensated, and most of those survivors would agree. The
>compensation merely serves as a poor substitute for being made
>genuinely whole because there is nothing better the law can do. But
>preventing the death in the first place is much much better all
>around.
I agree that it's better that no one dies. However, we both know that this
isn't going to happen. People die from accidents (accidental death-not on
purpose, though this means that in some (most/all) cases, it could have
been "prevented".) every day. It sounded to me (in the para I snipped for
space) that you were saying since with death as a result, and because it
is final, then shooting the gun should be illegal. I was trying to point
out that the same argument could be used to prohibit driving a car, drunk
or not, since mere inattention can cause death, which is final.
>>
[shooting a gun in a crowd]
>
>Well, it wasn't my example. But on the other hand people do do this
>sort of thing from time to time. And yes, it is illegal to shoot into
>a crowd even if you aren't trying to kill someone.
If it's not your argument, lets drop it.
[snip]
>>
>> But changing people's behavior is part of the legal system-you might get
>> punished if you commit a crime so you don't. If drunk drivers are
>> sufficiently punished-life in prison perhaps-for a death commited while
>> drunk, then I think the number of deaths would go down. Would it do down
>> as much as if all drunk drivers were arrested, put in jail and punished? I
>> don't know.
>
>See, this is why I am not a libertarian, much less a Libertarian, even
>though I am intermittantly sympathetic to libertarian ideals. This is
>all quite logical: a person sitting in a bar finishing up his eighth
>drink of the night will perform a cost-benefit analysis, comparing the
>risk of punishment should he get into an accident against the benefit
>of driving home. Should the benefit outweigh the risk he will get in
>the car and start driving. Should the risk prevail, he will do
>something else. It is very logical, and pretty much entirely unlike
>the real world.
People make decisions like this all the time, some of which end in death.
They are punished for it. If the punishment for the (fatal-I'm assuming
you just left this off) accident is severe enough there will be fewer
drunk driving deaths.
>> >
>> >This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
>> >considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
>>
>> I think the libertarian solution is "don't punish someone where no harm is
>> done", but I could be wrong.
>
>By your logic, you could take a revolver with one bullet in it, spin
>the cylinder, but the revolver to my head against my will, and pull
>the trigger. If the gun fires, then the legal system can get
>involved. But if it doesn't fire, no harm has been done and I have no
>grounds for complaint. I have no right to not have you play Russian
>roulette with my life, so there is no reason to infringe upon your
>right to pull that trigger. Yes, this in an absurd scenario. But it
>is the logical conclusion.
Isn't it assault? You were harmed by your person being interfered with,
and you were in fear of your life.
>
>I submit that it in not un-libertartian to recognize the right to be
>free from other people's imposing unreasonable risk. Yes, that
>"unreasonable" is a messy, subjective word. But I would rather that
>than having to dodge drunk drivers whenever I step outside the house.
There isn't any guarantee that you won't have to dodge drunk drivers
whenever you step outside your house under current conditions.
charles
Charles Bishop
<bob...@email.com> wrote:
Then how about the first part-he's clumsy. For a definition, he trips on
his feet, just misses his coffee cup once in a blue moon. He doesnt' work
with forklifts, but paperwork. He's in the break room and spills hot
coffee on the lap of the person next to him. Didn't mean to, but just
missed the cup. He doesn't have the lack of regard or respect. Can he be
prosecuted?
charles
Blinky the Shark
> groo wrote:
>> And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the
>> plan just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home? Or did
>> he decide to get too drunk to drive since he'd have a tow truck there
>> to take him home anyway?
> I dunno. Never asked him that.
Ah. So there's no proof that he drove drunk and there's no proof - not
even hearsay - that he even *intended* to drive drunk. There's no proof
that he even sat in his car drunk. Unless it's illegal to look at your
car if you're drunk, or to talk about it on the phone if you're drunk,
or to hire services to be rendered to it or on it when you're drunk,
this case is closed. No? Okay, then...next case!
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Go Blue
Cotton Eyed Joe
>
>
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
>
> Discuss.
The law in most states that you can be arrested for DUI or DWI if the
car is off, but the keys are in the ignition. I've seen it happen to
friends.
tooloud
OK, let's say you showed up a day after the incident happened and were
drunk. What then?
Tedthecat85
If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always be
reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop would have
provided different or additional information.
For example, even if everything your friend said were true he still could be
guilty. For example, he and the tow truck driver pull up to the car and find a
cop there investigating. Your friend gets into his car on the driver's side
behind the wheel for whatever reason, even for a moment, and he has the keys.
The cop then arrests your friend under a statute that makes it a crime "to
drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle" while
intoxicated (which is exactly the way my state's statute is worded). He is
guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, and many people so arrested willsay they got a DUI.
I find it implausible that a cop would make such a bull shit arrest when there
is a disinterested 3rd party there (the tow truck driver) who could corroberate
your friend's story. Any cop that stupid would quickly become discreditied
when his arrests go bad and he would not be a cop for very long.
Tedthecat85
>
>
> The problem with contemporary DUI laws is the same problem that occurs
> with many laws -- a 'one-size-fits-all' with no room for consideration
> of mitigating factors. There really /is/ a difference between downing
> 6 shots and beers in two hours and then driving through a heavily
> trafficked urban area at 8pm, and having three beers in an hour and
> driving and driving home dowm a rarely-traveled rural road between two
> corn fields at 3am. Unfortunately, the law in most states has no
> provision for recognizing the difference.
The problem with taking individual differences or mitigating circumstances into
account is the perception, and probably the reality, that the rich and
well-connected will get off lightly because there will always be individual
differences and mitigating circumstances in their favor.
Bob Ward
wrote:
Is that what happened, or are you really stretching that far to avoid
admitting that it's a bad comparison?
Patrick M Geahan
> Both of those might very well be true, but the fact remains that it seems to
> be a serious flaw in our legal system to be able to punish someone for a
> something no one's really sure they did. There's definitely reasonable doubt
> in this situation.
Your 'flaw' is that someone who looks guilty can't get out of an arrest by
providing a really dumb story.
Probable cause? Check. Corroborating evidence? Check. The system
worked just fine. Your buddy has the chance to defend himself at trial.
I doubt, however, that his story will garner much sympathy. I realize you
believe him; I don't think most folks will.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Jordan Abel
> Your 'flaw' is that someone who looks guilty can't get out of an arrest by
> providing a really dumb story.
>
> Probable cause? Check. Corroborating evidence? Check. The system
> worked just fine. Your buddy has the chance to defend himself at trial.
>
> I doubt, however, that his story will garner much sympathy. I realize you
> believe him; I don't think most folks will.
The system does not work if the accused is effectively required to prove
his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Patrick M Geahan
> The system does not work if the accused is effectively required to prove
> his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The system works fine.
The accused is allowed to defend himself. Both sides present their
evidence. If the prosecution eliminates reasonable doubt, the conviction
goes through.
In order to win, the defense must bring in *reasonable* doubt. Not *any*
doubt. Would you consider a story like the one being discussed reasonable
doubt? I wouldn't. You might. That's why we have juries.
Richard R. Hershberger
> >By your logic, you could take a revolver with one bullet in it, spin
> >the cylinder, but the revolver to my head against my will, and pull
> >the trigger. If the gun fires, then the legal system can get
> >involved. But if it doesn't fire, no harm has been done and I have no
> >grounds for complaint. I have no right to not have you play Russian
> >roulette with my life, so there is no reason to infringe upon your
> >right to pull that trigger. Yes, this in an absurd scenario. But it
> >is the logical conclusion.
>
> Isn't it assault? You were harmed by your person being interfered with,
> and you were in fear of your life.
>
My scenario doesn't require that my person be interfered with: I
could be walking blithely down the street the whole time. I might not
even know about it, removing the fear for my life. But did you really
mean to introduce scaring someone as a criminal offense? That would
open quite the can of worms.
> >
> >I submit that it in not un-libertartian to recognize the right to be
> >free from other people's imposing unreasonable risk. Yes, that
> >"unreasonable" is a messy, subjective word. But I would rather that
> >than having to dodge drunk drivers whenever I step outside the house.
>
> There isn't any guarantee that you won't have to dodge drunk drivers
> whenever you step outside your house under current conditions.
I see it is time to dredge up the standard quote: "Don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good."
Richard R. Hershberger
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> }Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
> }endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
> }misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
> }bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
> }would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
> }life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
> }compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
> }action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
> }to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
> }right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
> }flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
> }people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
> }bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point.
> We might also decide that it's not a good idea to let anyone who wants
> to have a gun, and act accordingly, thus greatly reducing the frequency
> with which the situation of someone firing a gun in a crowd occurs.
Indeed, we might also prevent people from expressing the sorts of opinons
that get other riled up: bans of fighting words. We might do any number
of things under that rubric and pointing out that it puts us on a slippery
slope, while technically true, I'm not sure it furthers the discussion,
since reasonable distinctions can still be made: The degree of risk, the
degree of freedoms abridged, these things can be weighed against each
other. While the alarming tendancy for people to think that they can
surrender freedoms in exchange for safety should certanly be kept in mind,
surely _some_ restrictions are feasable.
<snip>
> Or outlawing all drinking. Or all driving.
> Once you take a step down that road, why not go all the way?
Becuase we can make reasonable judgements about how far down the road we
wish to go? Admitedly, I feel we've gone too far down that road, but I
can see that wew don't really want to stand at the very beginning of it.
John - BTW, good to see you back.
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ctc...@hotmail.com
When Bill Gates pinches a loaf of bread to feed to his family, what is the
mitigating circumstance?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Peter Boulding
>When Bill Gates pinches a loaf of bread to feed to his family, what is the
>mitigating circumstance?
* The stress of running such a huge corporation
* The number of people whose livelihoods would be damaged if Bill
weren't there to keep MS profitable
* When someone *that* rich steals a loaf of bread it *must* have
been an honest mistake
* The damage a conviction would do to corporate America's reputation
* His huge charitable donations
* A long list of expensive (and therefore credible) expert medical
witnesses who will testify that Bill was suffering a condition that
temporarily affected his judgment...
... the list is endless.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Jordan Abel
> In order to win, the defense must bring in *reasonable* doubt. Not *any*
> doubt. Would you consider a story like the one being discussed reasonable
> doubt? I wouldn't. You might. That's why we have juries.
the test was not administered within N hours of having been driving
he'd gone home for a few drinks - how does this not create reasonable
doubt on that the alcohol on his breath originated before he got in the car?
Greg Goss
>On 17 Sep 2004 17:02:31 GMT, ctc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>When Bill Gates pinches a loaf of bread to feed to his family, what is the
>>mitigating circumstance?
>
>* The stress of running such a huge corporation
>
>* The number of people whose livelihoods would be damaged if Bill
>weren't there to keep MS profitable
>
>* When someone *that* rich steals a loaf of bread it *must* have
>been an honest mistake
>
>* The damage a conviction would do to corporate America's reputation
>
>* His huge charitable donations
>
>* A long list of expensive (and therefore credible) expert medical
>witnesses who will testify that Bill was suffering a condition that
>temporarily affected his judgment...
A prominent Candian federal politician got caught pocketing a $50K
ring at an auction. (He turned himself in, but he knew that cameras
had him.)
He retired from politics and pled guilty. He got a fairly mild
sentence, probably because the judge included the collapse of his
political career as part of the sentence.
He claims that it was stress related, but with the guilty plea none of
that was explored much.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
tooloud
<snip>
>>> I see - so the cops DIDN'T come to his house the next day and accuse
>>> him of drunk driving - they were investigating an apparently
>>> abandoned car when a drunk showed up with a tow truck driver. Yes,
>>> I can see the similarities in the two scenarios.
>>
>> OK, let's say you showed up a day after the incident happened and
>> were drunk. What then?
>
>
> Is that what happened, or are you really stretching that far to avoid
> admitting that it's a bad comparison?
No, that's not what happened. Are you implying that it's unnecessary for the
police to actually have some sort of proof that someone was driving drunk
before issuing a ticket for such?
tooloud
<snip>
> If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always
> be reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop
> would have provided different or additional information.
Eh, possibly, but you can't make much of an argument based on what you think
*may* have happened. Interestingly enough, that's what this cop did.
> For example, even if everything your friend said were true he still
> could be guilty. For example, he and the tow truck driver pull up to
> the car and find a cop there investigating. Your friend gets into
> his car on the driver's side behind the wheel for whatever reason,
> even for a moment, and he has the keys. The cop then arrests your
> friend under a statute that makes it a crime "to drive, operate, or
> be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle" while intoxicated
> (which is exactly the way my state's statute is worded). He is
> guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while
> intoxicated, and many people so arrested willsay they got a DUI.
My friend said that as soon as he got out of the tow truck the cop was all
over him asking questions.
> I find it implausible that a cop would make such a bull shit arrest
> when there is a disinterested 3rd party there (the tow truck driver)
> who could corroberate your friend's story. Any cop that stupid
> would quickly become discreditied when his arrests go bad and he
> would not be a cop for very long.
Haven't met many cops, huh? If you really go and watch some of these cases,
you'll probably see that no one really cares about whether it all makes
sense or not or whether someone's raised an issue--half the time it seems
like they just don't want to take the time to do it right and they'd rather
just go through the motions to make it look like they tried.
Honestly, it actually seems rather difficult to get a fair trial on things
like speeding tickets and OWIs and such.
Tedthecat85
>
>
>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always
>> be reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop
>> would have provided different or additional information.
>
>Eh, possibly, but you can't make much of an argument based on what you think
>*may* have happened.
And you think that you can make a decision when you have heard only one side of
the story? You are essentially giving us the defendant's closing argument and
telling us that the defendant's version of the story is complete and entirely
accurate and the government does not disagree with anything the defendant said.
I find it very unlikely that the cop would tell the story the same way your
friend did.
And this is without getting into the problem that all you know is what your
friend told you. You did not see nor hear anything of this first hand. Your
story is hearsay and inherently unreliable.
There is one more reason why I know that you are wrong. I am the cop who
arrested your friend. Your friend was stinking drunk at the time. He ran
past me drunkenly, fell in to the driver's seat, eventually managed to get the
key to turn on the ignition, and was gunning the motor trying drunkenly to get
away. The tow truck driver thanked me for arresting your friend, said that your
friend puked in the tow truck, and said that he would be glad to go to court to
corroberate my testimony any time.
You must now accept my story as the complete and accurate account of what
happened.
tooloud
>> "tooloud" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always
>>> be reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop
>>> would have provided different or additional information.
>>
>> Eh, possibly, but you can't make much of an argument based on what
>> you think *may* have happened.
>
>
> And you think that you can make a decision when you have heard only
> one side of the story? You are essentially giving us the
> defendant's closing argument and telling us that the defendant's
> version of the story is complete and entirely accurate and the
> government does not disagree with anything the defendant said.
>
>
> I find it very unlikely that the cop would tell the story the same
> way your friend did.
Of course he wouldn't. The charge wouldn't stick then.
Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways to get
DUIs, I post something about a friend that's along those lines...and you
dismiss it with the wave of a hand, essentially saying that it's ridiculous
and it couldn't have happened that way. The whole POINT is that this
occurrence seems ridiculous.
tooloud
Bingo. I'd say that's the *definition* of reasonable doubt.
tooloud
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:22:28 -0700, Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem with contemporary DUI laws is the same problem that
>> occurs with many laws -- a 'one-size-fits-all' with no room for
>> consideration of mitigating factors. There really /is/ a
>> difference between downing 6 shots and beers in two hours and then
>> driving through a heavily trafficked urban area at 8pm, and having
>> three beers in an hour and driving and driving home dowm a
>> rarely-traveled rural road between two corn fields at 3am.
>> Unfortunately, the law in most states has no provision for
>> recognizing the difference.
>
>
I wouldn't say that. Ever heard of a drunk taking the "back way" home from
the bar? Many of them *do* seem to know the difference.
groo
news:2r0u17F...@uni-berlin.de:
No, he went home to call a tow truck, according to the OP. His story is
that he also decided to use that time to get legally drunk. You may
consider that "reasonable", but many people see it as fucking idiotic.
--
"People you agree with are allowed to be sarcastic. People you don't
agree with are just jerks." - Opus T. Penguin on afca
Tedthecat85
>
>
>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>> "tooloud" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always
>>>> be reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop
>>>> would have provided different or additional information.
>>>
>>> Eh, possibly, but you can't make much of an argument based on what
>>> you think *may* have happened.
>>
>>
>> And you think that you can make a decision when you have heard only
>> one side of the story? You are essentially giving us the
>> defendant's closing argument and telling us that the defendant's
>> version of the story is complete and entirely accurate and the
>> government does not disagree with anything the defendant said.
>>
>>
>> I find it very unlikely that the cop would tell the story the same
>> way your friend did.
>
>Of course he wouldn't. The charge wouldn't stick then.
Bingo! So there are two sides to the story. And we don't know what the other
side of the story is. And isn't is possible that your drunken friend was
mistaken about something or failed to tell the entire story? How can you rule
out that possibility?
>Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways to get
>DUIs,
No, we were not all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs. Russell Stewart
asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply for sitting,
intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is running
or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or a public space?" You were the
first person to respond. Your response was slightly off topic because Russell
asked about APC (actual physical control) and you responded with a story
allegedly about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second person to
post and the first post was about a slightly different topic, APC.
I post something about a friend that's along those lines...and you
>dismiss it with the wave of a hand, essentially saying that it's ridiculous
I think I said implausible.
>and it couldn't have happened that way. The whole POINT is that this
>occurrence seems ridiculous.
Now you admit that the story your friend told you seems ridiculous even to you.
You told me a story that even you admit sounds ridiculous. There is another
side to the story but you don't know what it is. Your source for the story has
a bias - it is not in his self-interest to be guilty of DUI. And all you know
is hearsay, you weren't there, its just what he told you.
I find your ridiculous, one-sided , self-serving, hearsay story implausible.
What is wrong with that?
SoCalMike
> You must now accept my story as the complete and accurate account of what
> happened.
-- george w bush
tooloud
<snip>
> Bingo! So there are two sides to the story. And we don't know what
> the other side of the story is.
Neither do you.
> And isn't is possible that your
> drunken friend was mistaken about something or failed to tell the
> entire story?
Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?
> How can you rule out that possibility?
How can *you* rule out the possibility that it happened exactly as
described?
>> Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways
>> to get DUIs,
>
> No, we were not all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs. Russell
> Stewart asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply
> for sitting, intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter
> if the engine is running or not? If the car is parked in your
> driveway or a public space?" You were the first person to respond.
> Your response was slightly off topic because Russell asked about APC
> (actual physical control) and you responded with a story allegedly
> about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
> talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second
> person to post and the first post was about a slightly different
> topic, APC.
>
>
>
> I post something about a friend that's along those lines...and you
>> dismiss it with the wave of a hand, essentially saying that it's
>> ridiculous
>
> I think I said implausible.
Eh, six one way, half a dozen the other...
>> and it couldn't have happened that way. The whole POINT is that this
>> occurrence seems ridiculous.
>
> Now you admit that the story your friend told you seems ridiculous
> even to you.
Well, sure--I find the fact that it happened rather ridiculous.
> You told me a story that even you admit sounds ridiculous. There is
> another side to the story but you don't know what it is. Your source
> for the story has a bias - it is not in his self-interest to be
> guilty of DUI. And all you know is hearsay, you weren't there, its
> just what he told you.
As do you.
> I find your ridiculous, one-sided , self-serving, hearsay story
> implausible. What is wrong with that?
What's wrong is that you seem to have dismissed it as a possibility, but
stuff like this happens every day. You find it completely implausible that a
cop decided he could grab someone for an OWI and not follow all the rules,
and that no one would care? A lot of people get screwed this bad every day;
I'm surprised so many people find things like this "implausible".
tooloud
> Jordan Abel <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote in
> news:2r0u17F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Patrick M Geahan wrote:
>>
>>> In order to win, the defense must bring in *reasonable* doubt. Not
>>> *any* doubt. Would you consider a story like the one being
>>> discussed reasonable doubt? I wouldn't. You might. That's why we
>>> have juries.
>>
>> the test was not administered within N hours of having been driving
>>
>> he'd gone home for a few drinks - how does this not create reasonable
>> doubt on that the alcohol on his breath originated before he got in
>> the car?
>>
>
> No, he went home to call a tow truck, according to the OP. His story
> is that he also decided to use that time to get legally drunk. You may
> consider that "reasonable", but many people see it as fucking idiotic.
I wouldn't say he "used that time to get legally drunk". I'd say he
"realized he wasn't going to be operating his motor vehicle any more that
evening" and didn't imagine that there'd be a cop waiting at his car.
Plus, being fucking idiotic is perfectly legal. So's getting a buzz after
you ditch a car.
Tedthecat85
>
>
>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Bingo! So there are two sides to the story. And we don't know what
>> the other side of the story is.
>
>Neither do you.
You are the one ascerting the truth of your friend's story. You have the
burden of proving the truth of the story. There is another side to the story,
you don't know what that is, and that is one factor that makes me skeptical.
>> And isn't is possible that your
>> drunken friend was mistaken about something or failed to tell the
>> entire story?
>
>Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?
My position is that you have failed to pursuade me that your story is the whole
truth.
I am skeptical. When someone tells me a ridiculous, one-sided, self-serving
hearsay story I think skepticism is a proper response. I don't think that I
am mistaken to be skeptical about your friend's story.
And, once again, isn't it possible that your drunken friend was mistaken about
something or failed to tell the entire story? How can you rule out that
possibilty?
>> How can you rule out that possibility?
>
>How can *you* rule out the possibility that it happened exactly as
>described?
I can't. I don't. It is possible that your friend's story is completely true.
You are mischaractorizing my position. Straw man.
I find the story implausible. It does not sound credible. You have failed to
persuade me that the story is true. It may be true but it doesn't sound like
it. And I think that skepticism is an appropriate response to a story that does
not sound reasonable, is hearsay, is self-serving and one-sided, and is based
upon the observations of a person who was drunk at the time. It might be true
but on the face of it the story it just doesn't sound credible.
>>> Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways
>>> to get DUIs,
>>
>> No, we were not all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs. Russell
>> Stewart asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply
>> for sitting, intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter
>> if the engine is running or not? If the car is parked in your
>> driveway or a public space?" You were the first person to respond.
>> Your response was slightly off topic because Russell asked about APC
>> (actual physical control) and you responded with a story allegedly
>> about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
>> talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second
>> person to post and the first post was about a slightly different
>> topic, APC.
>>
>>
>>
>> I post something about a friend that's along those lines...and you
>>> dismiss it with the wave of a hand, essentially saying that it's
>>> ridiculous
>>
>> I think I said implausible.
>
>Eh, six one way, half a dozen the other...
I checked. What I said was that your story is implausible. You are the one
who applied the word ridiculous to it.
>>> and it couldn't have happened that way. The whole POINT is that this
>>> occurrence seems ridiculous.
>>
>> Now you admit that the story your friend told you seems ridiculous
>> even to you.
>
>Well, sure--I find the fact that it happened rather ridiculous.
You say that it is a fact that it happenned. You haven't proven to me that it
is a fact. Do you have any evidence to add to the self-serving, hearsay,
one-sided, ridiculous sounding story told to you by a person who was drunk when
it happenned, or are you uncritically taking his word for it?
>> You told me a story that even you admit sounds ridiculous. There is
>> another side to the story but you don't know what it is. Your source
>> for the story has a bias - it is not in his self-interest to be
>> guilty of DUI. And all you know is hearsay, you weren't there, its
>> just what he told you.
>
>As do you.
>
>> I find your ridiculous, one-sided , self-serving, hearsay story
>> implausible. What is wrong with that?
>
>What's wrong is that you seem to have dismissed it as a possibility, but
>stuff like this happens every day. You find it completely implausible that a
>cop decided he could grab someone for an OWI and not follow all the rules,
>and that no one would care? A lot of people get screwed this bad every day;
>I'm surprised so many people find things like this "implausible".
As I wrote in my first post, I find it implausible that a cop did this in the
presence of an impartial witness. Cowboy cops know to reign themselves in when
there are impartial witnesses present who could testify against them. And,
if the cop just wanted to hassle your friend he probably had a perfectly valid
bust for public drunk; there doesn't seem to be a good reason why he wouldn't
just bust him properly for that. It is unreasonable to think that a cop would
arrest for DUI if he had no evidence that the defendant was driving while under
the influence. Finally, if would take the addition of only a minor detail,
like your friend sitting in his car, to make it a valid bust. Sorry, no sale.
The story sounds fishy to me.
Bob Ward
wrote:
It doesn't really matter what I think or what you think - it's what
the judge decides that counts. How did it come out in the end?
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Honestly, it actually seems rather difficult to get a fair trial on things
>like speeding tickets and OWIs and such.
Especially if you were caught speeding or driving drunk. Life is hard
sometimes. Suck it up and figure you're still ahead of the game for
all the times you DIDN'T get caught doing what you did.
Bob Ward
wrote:
I thuink most of us have commented on the description where you
started out by saying your friend was drinking, went off the road, and
returned to the car after more drinking, and was surprised that the
cop could figure out that he had been drinking.
Bob Ward
wrote:
We never knew he had a drinking problem until the day he showed up
sober.
Bob Ward
Hershberger) wrote:
>My scenario doesn't require that my person be interfered with: I
>could be walking blithely down the street the whole time. I might not
>even know about it, removing the fear for my life. But did you really
>mean to introduce scaring someone as a criminal offense? That would
>open quite the can of worms.
Making threats is now legal? When did this happen?
Jordan Abel
> No, he went home to call a tow truck, according to the OP. His story is
> that he also decided to use that time to get legally drunk. You may
> consider that "reasonable", but many people see it as fucking idiotic.
I didn't say that it was a reasonable course of action - just that the
[undisputed] fact that he did go home and get drunk while waiting for
the tow truck allows a *reasonable* person to *doubt* that he was drunk
when the car slid off the road in the first place
Jordan Abel
"'scaring someone' is not illegal"
"making threats qualifies as 'scaring someone'"
"making threats is legal"
finding the logical fallacy is left as an exercise for the reader.
tooloud
That's the whole point, moron. Nobody involved with the case seemed
concerned that there wasn't really any evidence that the guy was drunk at
the time of the incident. The fact that he was convicted anyway is exactly
why I find the whole thing strange.
tooloud
<exactly>
> It doesn't matter whether or not the guy was piss drunk before he
> ditched the car, that is not relevant at all. The point is that the
> cop arrested him without ever witnessing him driving while under the
> influence, period.
Exactly. Ted's deal is that he says that he simply doesn't believe the
story, which, in a way, is kind of the reaction I was looking for. The whole
point of all of this is to show that it's ridiculous that it even happened.
No, I have no way to verify or authenticate every last detail in the case,
but none of us can do that for any legal case we've ever discussed. This all
comes firsthand from a good friend--a pretty laid-back guy that's helped me
out of some jams and whom I've never know to make up stories.
> I know, I know that driving drunk is a bad thing, but so is failure to
> follow due process. If this comes to court, any halfass decent lawyer
> could get the case dismissed, if not for the glaring obvious reason,
> then certainly for some other reason such as improperly administered
> tests, miscalibrated breathalyzers, the amount of time passed between
> the accident and the arrest and the subsequent testing (remember, the
> cop can only assume what time the accident occured) or any number of
> things.
>
> The point is, the cop had no reason to think that the person returning
> on the tow truck was the actual driver at the time of the accident,
> and even if the guy had admitted that it was his car, and that he had
> been drinking, it still wouldn't stand up in court because his lawyer
> would just say that since his client was drunk at the time, he wasn't
> able to clearly remember just how long ago he had ditched the car, and
> that any statements made to the cop during that time should be
> inadmissible. The cop had no way of knowing for sure if this guy was
> the driver or not.
>
> Nobody said the law was fair, it works both ways. If you start letting
> cops do things that violate due process, then in time, you'll find all
> of your freedoms gone. The cop probably did the right thing, but the
> court will remind him that he should have known that he had no case.
>
> (Unless the defendant has a public defender in a small town, then
> they'll just railroad him on through.) There's your justice!
You're just about hitting the nail on the head--this was in a small city,
the kind in which the guy that's prosecuting you eats lunch with the judge
that decides the case. My buddy could only afford the local "OWI lawyer", a
guy that many think has a problem with the sauce himself.
tooloud
<snip>
> I thuink most of us have commented on the description where you
> started out by saying your friend was drinking, went off the road, and
> returned to the car after more drinking, and was surprised that the
> cop could figure out that he had been drinking.
The surprise was actually that one can apparently be arrested for drunk
driving without anyone actually witnessing you doing so.
Greg Goss
>You are mischaractorizing my position. Straw man.
>
>I find the story implausible. It does not sound credible. You have failed to
>persuade me that the story is true. It may be true but it doesn't sound like
>it. And I think that skepticism is an appropriate response to a story that does
>not sound reasonable, is hearsay, is self-serving and one-sided, and is based
>upon the observations of a person who was drunk at the time. It might be true
>but on the face of it the story it just doesn't sound credible.
Sadly, I do find it plausible.
Richard R. Hershberger
Who said anything about making threats? Some people are frightened by
anyone with a swarthy complexion, regardless of the presence or
absence of any threatening behavior. There is no right to not be
scared. Or at least there wasn't back when we still had a fourth
amendment.
Patrick M Geahan
> he'd gone home for a few drinks - how does this not create reasonable
> doubt on that the alcohol on his breath originated before he got in the car?
He'd gone home. He claims to have had more drinks. That's his defense.
The cop knows that when he showed up at the scene of the accident, the
driver blew drunk. That's 'probable cause'.
As for reasonable doubt, that's up to the jury to decide. I wouldn't bet
on an acquittal there.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
kay w
> The point is that the
>cop arrested him without ever witnessing him driving while under the
>influence, period.
What on earth makes you think police have to personally witness a person commit
a crime in order to arrest him for it?
--
"If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner."
Tallulah Bankhead
huey.c...@gmail.com
You may want to check the laws in your local jurisdiction,
but the law that I've seen people arrested under is "Terroristic
threatening" - the act of making a threat that a reasonable person
would find credible. So "Bob Ward, I'm gonna kick your ass" is probably
not credible, but "Bob Ward, I've seen your house at 123 North Street,
Waukataukwa, MO. Like what I've done with your cat? You're next." might
be, if that was really Bob's address and he found his cat's dead body
flayed on his front porch yesterday morning. To oversimplify: it's not
the threat that's illegal, it's the scaring.
--
Huey
Jordan Abel
but being "scary" without making a threat isn't illegal
[btw, i noticed a problem with the logical exercise - the first point is
hard to parse since it's difficult to write a formal "does not imply" in
plain english - sorry]
Tedthecat85
>
>On 18 Sep 2004 04:35:53 GMT, tedth...@aol.com (Tedthecat85) wrote:
>>>"tooloud" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>>I find the story implausible. It does not sound credible. You have failed
>to
>>persuade me that the story is true. It may be true but it doesn't sound
>like
>>it. And I think that skepticism is an appropriate response to a story that
>does
>>not sound reasonable, is hearsay, is self-serving and one-sided, and is
>based
>>upon the observations of a person who was drunk at the time. It might be
>true
>>but on the face of it the story it just doesn't sound credible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> to get DUIs,
>>>>
>>>> Stewart asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply
>>>> for sitting, intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter
>>>> if the engine is running or not? If the car is parked in your
>>>> driveway or a public space?" You were the first person to respond.
>>>> Your response was slightly off topic because Russell asked about APC
>>>> (actual physical control) and you responded with a story allegedly
>>>> about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
>>>> talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second
>>>> person to post and the first post was about a slightly different
>>>> topic, APC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> dismiss it with the wave of a hand, essentially saying that it's
>>>>> ridiculous
>>>>
>>>
>>>Eh, six one way, half a dozen the other...
>>
>>
>>I checked. What I said was that your story is implausible. You are the one
>>who applied the word ridiculous to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> occurrence seems ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> even to you.
>>>
>>>Well, sure--I find the fact that it happened rather ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>You say that it is a fact that it happenned. You haven't proven to me that
>it
>>is a fact. Do you have any evidence to add to the self-serving, hearsay,
>all relevant to the argument you're making, and as a leadup to what
>I'm about to say here.
>
>It doesn't matter whether or not the guy was piss drunk before he
>ditched the car, that is not relevant at all.
Yeah, it is relevant. That combined with a confession and/or an eye witness
other than the cop could be probable cause. What if Jake's friend told the tow
truck driver he had had only one beer while waiting and he was shit-faced when
he spun out the car? What if there were a half empty fifth of Wild Turkey on
the front car seat? I think that actual guilt or actual innocense are
relevant, and if he were actually guilty and there were sufficient
circumstantial evidence to so indicate then he could be properly arrested even
if the cop did not see him driving when he spun out.
The point is that the
>cop arrested him without ever witnessing him driving while under the
>influence, period.
I don't know that.
Somebody told me that you are just a sock puppet for tooloud. He said you
don't exist. He said that everybody reading AFCA should disregard whatever you
say because you are misleading us about your identity. Somebody said it
and so I believe it. The point is that somebody said you don't exist and so
it must be true.
>I know, I know that driving drunk is a bad thing, but so is failure to
>follow due process. If this comes to court, any halfass decent lawyer
>could get the case dismissed, if not for the glaring obvious reason,
>then certainly for some other reason such as improperly administered
>tests, miscalibrated breathalyzers, the amount of time passed between
>the accident and the arrest and the subsequent testing (remember, the
>cop can only assume what time the accident occured) or any number of
>things.
Whick is part of the reason that I find it improbable.
>The point is, the cop had no reason to think that the person returning
>on the tow truck was the actual driver at the time of the accident,
>and even if the guy had admitted that it was his car, and that he had
>been drinking, it still wouldn't stand up in court because his lawyer
>would just say that since his client was drunk at the time, he wasn't
>able to clearly remember just how long ago he had ditched the car, and
>that any statements made to the cop during that time should be
>inadmissible.
No, I think that it would be admissible. It is hearsay, but falls within the
exclusion for a declaration against penal interest. And whether or not he was
too drunk to remember how long it had been since he ditched the car is a fact
question, and in reviewing the probable cause to arrest (or a motion to dismiss
at the end of the prosecution's case) a court would view the evidence in a
light most favorable to the prosecution. That is the rule. If the cop says
he thinks the defendant was not too drunk to remember then the Court can accept
that. You are wrong.
The cop had no way of knowing for sure if this guy was
>the driver or not.
>
>Nobody said the law was fair, it works both ways. If you start letting
>cops do things that violate due process, then in time, you'll find all
>of your freedoms gone. The cop probably did the right thing, but the
>court will remind him that he should have known that he had no case.
>
>(Unless the defendant has a public defender in a small town, then
>they'll just railroad him on through.) There's your justice!
My observation is that appointed counsel in small counties usually do a
competent job.
Of course, if you assume that the cop, the judge and the defense counsel are
all in cahoots railroading some random victim then you are a victim of your
assumptions.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>That's the whole point, moron. Nobody involved with the case seemed
>concerned that there wasn't really any evidence that the guy was drunk at
>the time of the incident. The fact that he was convicted anyway is exactly
>why I find the whole thing strange.
>
>--
Looks like you've conceded the argument and returned to name calling.
It looks to me like the jury of popular opinion here on AFCA agreed
with the decision, but you (as usual) still can't let it go.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jordan Abel <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>"'scaring someone' is not illegal"
> >>"making threats qualifies as 'scaring someone'"
> >>"making threats is legal"
> >>finding the logical fallacy is left as an exercise for the reader.
> > You may want to check the laws in your local jurisdiction,
> > but the law that I've seen people arrested under is "Terroristic
> > threatening" - the act of making a threat that a reasonable person
> but being "scary" without making a threat isn't illegal
Also not entirely true. You've seen repeated mentions in this newsgroup
of people who have been detained by the police for "driving while black"
or "driving while poor". It is also fairly common for police to take a
greater-than-normal interest in anyone who is excessively creepy-looking.
Especially if that individual has creeped out someone to such an
extent that they've called the police to complain about it. If there's a
charge for this, it's probably something like "Loitering with intent
to commit mopery" or something, but more often I imagine it's just an
ID check for outstanding warrants, and a subtle suggestion that they
motate their creepy ass somewhere the hell else.
--
Huey
Erich
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
A guy I knew was picked up by the police because some racist old lady
didn't like young black men hanging out reading in the park. The police
decided to charge him with armed robbery, because everyone knows that
all black people look alike and they are are criminals anyway. Never
mind that he didn't even come close to the description of the robber.
An all white jury then convicted him of armed robbery. He got 25 to
life for a crime he could not possibly have committed. Thus satisfying
the little old lady who didn't mind sending an innocent black man to
jail. At least she got him out of her park.
The Jim Crow era is over Huey. It's time you put your fear of people
who look different aside and joined our modern society.
... Erich
Les Albert
>A guy I knew was picked up by the police because some racist old lady
>didn't like young black men hanging out reading in the park. The police
>decided to charge him with armed robbery, because everyone knows that
>all black people look alike and they are are criminals anyway. Never
>mind that he didn't even come close to the description of the robber.
>An all white jury then convicted him of armed robbery. He got 25 to
>life for a crime he could not possibly have committed. Thus satisfying
>the little old lady who didn't mind sending an innocent black man to
>jail. At least she got him out of her park.
I tend to disbelieve your story. I think you made it up to prove a
rant.
Les
ctc...@hotmail.com
It looks to me like the dimwits of AFCA have come to a decision, while most
of the people of distinction have for the most part stayed out of it.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
huey.c...@gmail.com
> The Jim Crow era is over Huey. It's time you put your fear of people
> who look different aside and joined our modern society.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
I'd like to think that I'm capable of expressing myself in print well
enough that I convey not only the factual information I wish to get
across, but also enough of my emotions to provide some shading to how I
personally feel about that information. And I suppose that many of my
friends will agree that I can do this reasonably well. So, I have to
ask: do I really strike you as the sort of person who has "fear of
people who look different", or is that a failed attempt at humor?
--
Huey
Mr C
They can arrest you for no reason other than failing to identify
yourself, so sez the Soopreem Court. You're going about your lawful
business, the local constabulary goosesteps up and say, "Show me your
papers!" You left your driver's license at home, since you weren't
driving--can they really just haul you in?
Mr C
Erich
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
In a free society, we don't call the cops because we don't like how
people look. We call the cops when they are doing something illegal.
It's actions, not physical appearance that should raise the alarm.
... Erich
Bob Ward
>
>They can arrest you for no reason other than failing to identify
>yourself, so sez the Soopreem Court. You're going about your lawful
>business, the local constabulary goosesteps up and say, "Show me your
>papers!" You left your driver's license at home, since you weren't
>driving--can they really just haul you in?
>
You seem to be making the claim - where and when did the "Soopreem
Court" so say?
kay w
Erich:
>> > The Jim Crow era is over Huey. It's time you put your fear of people
>> > who look different aside and joined our modern society.
Huey:
>> Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
>> I'd like to think that I'm capable of expressing myself in print well
>> enough that I convey not only the factual information I wish to get
>> across, but also enough of my emotions to provide some shading to how I
>> personally feel about that information. And I suppose that many of my
>> friends will agree that I can do this reasonably well. So, I have to
>> ask: do I really strike you as the sort of person who has "fear of
>> people who look different", or is that a failed attempt at humor?
Erich:
>In a free society, we don't call the cops because we don't like how
>people look. We call the cops when they are doing something illegal.
>It's actions, not physical appearance that should raise the alarm.
I'm alarmed, all right, and I bet Huey is too.
Did you *read* his posts?
Erich
Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
Part of Lenell Geter's story can be found online.
<http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-11-15/feature.html>
The week before his arrest, Lenell was helping me debug a problem with
some equipment my company had sold to E-Systems.
... Erich
Bermuda999
>The Jim Crow era is over Huey. It's time you put your fear of people
>who look different aside and joined our modern society.
wtf?
Erich
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
Huey's post indicated that he believed that calling the cops because
someone was "creepy looking" and having the cops "motate their creepy
ass elsewhere" was just fine.
So how does he define as creepy looking? Being of the wrong ethnic
group? Wearing the wrong religious icon, or a t-shirt for the wrong
political party? Just being poor? Having a haircut that would look out
of place at Rotary club meetings?
... Erich
kay w
Erich:
>> >> > The Jim Crow era is over Huey. It's time you put your fear of people
>> >> > who look different aside and joined our modern society.
Huey:
>> >> Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
>> >> I'd like to think that I'm capable of expressing myself in print well
>> >> enough that I convey not only the factual information I wish to get
>> >> across, but also enough of my emotions to provide some shading to how I
>> >> personally feel about that information. And I suppose that many of my
>> >> friends will agree that I can do this reasonably well. So, I have to
>> >> ask: do I really strike you as the sort of person who has "fear of
>> >> people who look different", or is that a failed attempt at humor?
Erich:
>> >In a free society, we don't call the cops because we don't like how
>> >people look. We call the cops when they are doing something illegal.
>> >It's actions, not physical appearance that should raise the alarm.
Me(kay):
>> I'm alarmed, all right, and I bet Huey is too.
>> Did you *read* his posts?
Erich:
>Huey's post indicated that he believed that calling the cops because
>someone was "creepy looking" and having the cops "motate their creepy
>ass elsewhere" was just fine.
>So how does he define as creepy looking? Being of the wrong ethnic
>group? Wearing the wrong religious icon, or a t-shirt for the wrong
>political party? Just being poor? Having a haircut that would look out
>of place at Rotary club meetings?
Ah, um; ok. you read his posts, sort of, I guess. Is English your first
language?
Jordan Abel
> I'd like to think that I'm capable of expressing myself in print well
> enough that I convey not only the factual information I wish to get
> across, but also enough of my emotions to provide some shading to how I
> personally feel about that information. And I suppose that many of my
> friends will agree that I can do this reasonably well. So, I have to
> ask: do I really strike you as the sort of person who has "fear of
> people who look different", or is that a failed attempt at humor?
You did say, in the post he was immediately replying to that it is
legitimate [and evidence that it's actually lawfully illegal to "look
scary"] for someone to be hassled by the cops for being "one of them
Ay-rabs"
Jordan Abel
>>but being "scary" without making a threat isn't illegal
>
> Also not entirely true.
the fact that it happens that people do get harassed by the cops for
something does _NOT_ make that 'something' illegal [or even "not
entirely" not illegal]
Erich
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
Do you believe that rousting people just for being "creepy looking" is
proper police practice?
... Erich
Jordan Abel
>>Huey's post indicated that he believed that calling the cops because
>>someone was "creepy looking" and having the cops "motate their creepy
>>ass elsewhere" was just fine.
>
> Ah, um; ok. you read his posts, sort of, I guess. Is English your first
> language?
It's mine and i did read it... the part that got me was "it's not
illegal to look scary" and then huey "um not entirely true" - i.e. that
not only do cops routinely harass people for looking scary, the idea
that it follows from that fact that it is legitimately illegal to look
scary - that's a very authoritarian point of view: "the cops do this,
thus it is LAW"
kay w
Me(kay):
>> Ah, um; ok. you read his posts, sort of, I guess. Is English your first
>> language?
Erich:
>Do you believe that rousting people just for being "creepy looking" is
>proper police practice?
I have seen no evidence that any participant in this thread has said such...all
I see is you deliberately misunderstanding Huey in order to have a change to
ride your hobby horse around.
ctc...@hotmail.com
I notice that while "creepy looking" and "motate their creepty ass
elsewhere" are in quotes, but that "just fine" is not in quotes. Is the
omission of quote marks an error on your part, or did Huey not really say
that in the first place?
SoCalMike
> In a free society, we don't call the cops because we don't like how
> people look. We call the cops when they are doing something illegal.
we dont. other people might.
huey.c...@gmail.com
That's a good answer that I hadn't previously thought of. I'll put that
one down as #3.
The first answer I thought of was "Surely you're joking, and your sense
of humor is too subtle for me to grasp."
The second answer I thought of was "Holy shit, you're serious. Okay,
since I'm apparently not conveying my emotions well enough, let me be
the first to say FUCK YOU RIGHT IN THE EAR. ...WITH A PIANO. ...THAT'S
ON FIRE. ...AND FULL OF ANGRY BADGERS."
But yeah, 'wtf' is a good answer too.
--
Huey
(the wife is upset at my budget line-item for 'pianos and badgers')
huey.c...@gmail.com
If you can be arrested and convicted of some crime for performing some
act, that act would seem to be de facto illegal. As has been previously
discussed in this very newsgroup, I have been ticketed for 'driving
while poor'. Others have mentioned being guilty of 'driving while
black'. Is there no one creepy-looking in AFCA that will corroborate
that some people receive special police attention for the crime of
being excessively creepy-looking? Come now; on the internet, no one
knows you're a dog.
--
Huey
Crashj
<>
>Do you believe that rousting people just
> for being "creepy looking" is
>proper police practice?
Well it is more productive of keeping the peace than sitting in a
speed trap all day.
"Loking for mopes in all the wrong places"
--
Crashj
Richard R. Hershberger
What Huey actually wrote was this:
"...You've seen repeated mentions in this newsgroup of people who have
been detained by the police for "driving while black" or "driving
while poor". It is also fairly common for police to take a
greater-than-normal interest in anyone who is excessively
creepy-looking. Especially if that individual has creeped out someone
to such an extent that they've called the police to complain about it.
If there's a charge for this, it's probably something like "Loitering
with intent to commit mopery" or something, but more often I imagine
it's just an ID check for outstanding warrants, and a subtle
suggestion that they motate their creepy ass somewhere the hell else."
What I see here is a straightforward assertion of fact. I see no
moral or ethical judgment of this fact set. I suppose that this can
be taken as implied approval, but we have seen enough of Huey's posts
elsewhere to have a feel for his personality and I have no feeling
that he approves of this sort of thing. I also don't think that we
are required to wring our hands publically every time an unpleasant
fact is reported lest others assume that we support said
unpleasantness.
Richard R. Hershberger
Erich
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Shucks, some of my best friends are creepy looking and have in fact
received special attention from the law. Some of them were rather
funny, like the time my buddy Dan got arrested for roller skating while
not clean shaven. Or when Hillard was arrested for possession of
expensive audio gear while black. Others were deadly serious.
I used to get the special treatment myself back when having long hair
was taken as a sign of immorality. (Or even worse, opposition to the
great patriotic war in Vietnam.) I could count on a traffic stop every
couple of weeks for bogus reasons like needing to check my inspection
sticker.
You can indeed be arrested and convicted for DWP and other such
"crimes". That doesn't mean that DWP is illegal. It only shows that
police and judges sometimes act outside the law and follow local
prejudice instead.
BTW - I had misinterpreted your earlier post. Seeing it without the
context of earlier posts in this thread, I assumed you were making a
statement of how police should react. It's clear now you were just
stating how the police often do react and not giving your approval.
... Erich
Mr C
HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
Greg Goss
>Is there no one creepy-looking in AFCA that will corroborate
>that some people receive special police attention for the crime of
>being excessively creepy-looking? Come now; on the internet, no one
>knows you're a dog.
When I first started driving, I got four speeding tickets in sixteen
months while driving the family pickup. Then I bought a microsedan
"family" car. No tickets for two more years. My driving didn't
change.
I only presume that a pickup LOOKS to be going faster than an economy
family car.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Jerry Bauer
(in article <i9ydnTIvzfF...@speakeasy.net>):
> Huey
> (the wife is upset at my budget line-item for 'pianos and badgers')
Have you tried eBay?
Jordan Abel
>>tooloud wrote:
>>
>>
>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>
>>>>"tooloud" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>If you hear only the defendant's side of the story there will always
>>>>>be reasonable doubt. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the cop
>>>>>would have provided different or additional information.
>>>>
>>>>Eh, possibly, but you can't make much of an argument based on what
>>>>you think *may* have happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you think that you can make a decision when you have heard only
>>>one side of the story? You are essentially giving us the
>>>defendant's closing argument and telling us that the defendant's
>>>version of the story is complete and entirely accurate and the
>>>government does not disagree with anything the defendant said.
>>>
>>>
>>>I find it very unlikely that the cop would tell the story the same
>>>way your friend did.
>>
>>Of course he wouldn't. The charge wouldn't stick then.
>
>
> Bingo! So there are two sides to the story. And we don't know what the other
> side of the story is. And isn't is possible that your drunken friend was
> mistaken about something or failed to tell the entire story? How can you rule
> out that possibility?
>
>
>
>
>>Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways to get
>>DUIs,
>
>
> No, we were not all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs. Russell Stewart
> asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply for sitting,
> intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is running
> or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or a public space?" You were the
> first person to respond. Your response was slightly off topic because Russell
> asked about APC (actual physical control) and you responded with a story
> allegedly about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
> talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second person to
> post and the first post was about a slightly different topic, APC.
reading the first post at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ci7u35%24hor%241%40iruka.swcp.com
it seems the only TLA mentioned in the first post is DWI, not APC.
Tedthecat85
I don't know what you mean by TLA, but the fact situation described is
definately APC and not DUI.
Jordan Abel
> I don't know what you mean by TLA, but the fact situation described is
> definately APC and not DUI.
but the original post was lumping them together, therefore it's not
correct to in effect say "this was only a discussion on APC and you're
an evil person for bring DUI into it"
Tedthecat85
That is not what I said.
Jake mischaractorized the first post in a way that made his position look
better. So I corrected the mischaractorization.
Jake said:
>Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways to get
>DUIs,
Then I replied:
>No, we were not all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs. Russell Stewart
>asked about the law. He asked, " Can you be arrested simply for sitting,
>intoxicated, behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
running
>or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or a public space?" You were
the
>first person to respond. Your response was slightly off topic because Russell
>asked about APC (actual physical control) and you responded with a story
>allegedly about DUI. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we were all
>talking about shitty ways to get DUIs" when you were only the second person to
>post and the first post was about a slightly different topic, APC.
"We were not all" talking about something if only one person talked. One
person is not a "we"
and one person is definately not a "we all."
By saying "Let's back up here a second: we were all talking about shitty ways
to get DUIs" he changed the one post before him which was about APC into
multiple posts about DUI. That simply is not accurate.
Jordan Abel
>>Jordan Abel wrote:
>>
>>
>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know what you mean by TLA, but the fact situation described is
>>>definately APC and not DUI.
>>
>>but the original post was lumping them together, therefore it's not
>>correct to in effect say "this was only a discussion on APC and you're
>>an evil person for bring DUI into it"
>
>
> That is not what I said.
>
> Jake mischaractorized the first post in a way that made his position look
> better. So I corrected the mischaractorization.
the first post did indeed begin with an anecdote about a shitty way to
get [what he and the cop who talked to him called] a DWI.
and, for the record, at the time his brother was arrested, and at the
only time for which the cop had any evidence he was drunk, he was not
even in actual physical control of the car, let alone driving it. and
none of the story, nor the cop's reaction on his arrival at the scene,
would have changed if he'd been driving back from the grocery store
instead of from a bar.
Tedthecat85
>
>
>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>>Jordan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know what you mean by TLA, but the fact situation described is
>>>>definately APC and not DUI.
>>>
>>>but the original post was lumping them together, therefore it's not
>>>correct to in effect say "this was only a discussion on APC and you're
>>>an evil person for bring DUI into it"
>>
>>
>> That is not what I said.
>>
>> Jake mischaractorized the first post in a way that made his position look
>> better. So I corrected the mischaractorization.
>
>the first post did indeed begin with an anecdote about a shitty way to
>get [what he and the cop who talked to him called] a DWI.
One and only one post asking whether it is a crime to sit in the driver's seat
while drunk can not be charactorized as "Let's back up here a second: we were
all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs." One person is not a "we". One
person is certianly not a "we all". And a single post about sitting in the
car seat drunk is not mulitple posts about DUI.
>and, for the record, at the time his brother
He said it was a buddy. I don't recall Jake saying that the person was his
brother.
was arrested, and at the
>only time for which the cop had any evidence he was drunk, he was not
>even in actual physical control of the car, let alone driving it. and
>none of the story, nor the cop's reaction on his arrival at the scene,
>would have changed if he'd been driving back from the grocery store
>instead of from a bar.
Which means, logically, that his story was irrelevant to the topic that Russell
asked about.
Your opinion of what would have happenned had the buddy been coming from a
grocery story is rank speculation and meaningless.
Jordan Abel
> One and only one post asking whether it is a crime to sit in the driver's seat
> while drunk can not be charactorized as "Let's back up here a second: we were
> all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs." One person is not a "we". One
> person is certianly not a "we all". And a single post about sitting in the
> car seat drunk is not mulitple posts about DUI.
But it is a single post about DUI (or, rather, as stated, DWI) - and
there is a similarity in that at the time of the arrest, neither person
arrested was driving.
>>and, for the record, at the time his brother
>
> He said it was a buddy. I don't recall Jake saying that the person was his
> brother.
so i misremembered that one detail - don't be such a pedantic ass.
> Which means, logically, that his story was irrelevant to the topic that Russell
> asked about.
because thread drift NEVER happens - his question was not the only
component of the message - Jake was responding to the anecdote in the
_first_ part of the message instead of to the question in the _second_.
> Your opinion of what would have happenned had the buddy been coming from a
> grocery story is rank speculation and meaningless.
The cop wouldn't have been there? given an identical truck in an
identical ditch and an identical tow truck arriving carrying an
identical drunk, the cop would have acted differently?
Tedthecat85
>
>
>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>
>> One and only one post asking whether it is a crime to sit in the driver's
>seat
>> while drunk can not be charactorized as "Let's back up here a second: we
>were
>> all talking about shitty ways to get DUIs." One person is not a "we".
>One
>> person is certianly not a "we all". And a single post about sitting in
>the
>> car seat drunk is not mulitple posts about DUI.
>
>But it is a single post about DUI (or, rather, as stated, DWI) - and
>there is a similarity in that at the time of the arrest, neither person
>arrested was driving.
>
>>>and, for the record, at the time his brother
>>
>> He said it was a buddy. I don't recall Jake saying that the person was his
>> brother.
>
>so i misremembered that one detail - don't be such a pedantic ass.
You can not even get the facts of the story straight.
Your are angry and insulting.
You talk as though you have a stereotypical view that cops are in the wrong.
You are not worth my time.
>> Which means, logically, that his story was irrelevant to the topic that
>Russell
>> asked about.
>
>because thread drift NEVER happens - his question was not the only
>component of the message - Jake was responding to the anecdote in the
>_first_ part of the message instead of to the question in the _second_.
>
>> Your opinion of what would have happenned had the buddy been coming from a
>> grocery story is rank speculation and meaningless.
>
>The cop wouldn't have been there? given an identical truck
Jake did not say it was a truck. He said it was a car. ;)
Les Albert
Or it's possible that the pickup had a crappy speedometer that gave
false readings to you.
Les
incandescent blue
>
> What I see here is a straightforward assertion of fact. I see no
> moral or ethical judgment of this fact set. I suppose that this can
> be taken as implied approval, but we have seen enough of Huey's posts
> elsewhere to have a feel for his personality and I have no feeling
> that he approves of this sort of thing.
Especially since he's mentioned getting hassled himself for Driving
While Poor, and given his occasional Psychotic Longshoreman Look, it's
probably sheer luck that he's avoided hassles for Looking Creepy so
far. Heck, between my typical Trenchcoat Mafia wardrobe, glaringly
unnatural hair color, and visible tattoo and metal face bits, all that
may be saving me from hassles for Driving While Looking Weird is...not
driving.
--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
groo
> The first answer I thought of was "Surely you're joking, and your sense
> of humor is too subtle for me to grasp."
>
> The second answer I thought of was "Holy shit, you're serious. Okay,
> since I'm apparently not conveying my emotions well enough, let me be
> the first to say FUCK YOU RIGHT IN THE EAR. ...WITH A PIANO. ...THAT'S
> ON FIRE. ...AND FULL OF ANGRY BADGERS."
>
> But yeah, 'wtf' is a good answer too.
>
On behalf of the fine people of the state of Wisconsin, I must protest.
Being contained inside a piano which is then set on fire and stuffed in
someone's ear is clearly cruel and unusual. Could you change that to
wolverines?
--
"People you agree with are allowed to be sarcastic. People you don't agree
with are just jerks." - Opus T. Penguin on afca
spa...@pffcu.com
> Especially since he's mentioned getting hassled himself for Driving
> While Poor, and given his occasional Psychotic Longshoreman Look, it's
> probably sheer luck that he's avoided hassles for Looking Creepy so
> far. Heck, between my typical Trenchcoat Mafia wardrobe, glaringly
> unnatural hair color, and visible tattoo and metal face bits, all that
> may be saving me from hassles for Driving While Looking Weird is...not
> driving.
>
inclusive, "Not Owning A Large SUV and General Unamericanness."
--
"Death before dishonor,
Drugs before lunch...."
-Aspen Gun and Drug Club
Xt' Tapalatakettle
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
> Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <884fk05eekn3fndng...@4ax.com>, Les Albert
>><lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>>>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
>>
>>I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
>>cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
>>have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
>>couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
>>you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
>>tenor of the courts are.
>>
>>I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
>>driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
>>enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
>>someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
>>because of impairment.
>>
>>charles
>>
>>[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
>>philosophicaly I'm there
>
>
> So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
> miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>
>
So if someone has a winnebago, it's still illegal? A camper? A larger SUV? A
car? Sleeping beside his motorcycle?