MotorHome accident yesterday in WA
Ty
between a Dodge Dakota pulling a 5th Wheel and a motorhome. The best
assumption I can come up with was that the Dak was trying to pass someone,
and couldn't get back into their lane in time. The collision was nearly
head-on, the top of the 5th Wheel caught the front of the RV. Both were
obviously a total loss. It appeared that no one was injured though.. which
was surprising considering the condition of the RV. The accident was on HWY
2 between Stevens Pass and Leavenworth.
I know this is kind-of OT, but it was another reminder to choose your moves
carefully when traveling the roads.
Ty
Andrew S.
just drove past with our jaws wide open! (I just got done making an
appointment to have a towing sway bar installed on my TT while thinking
about the accident) I was driving my Dodge Dakota and the comment my GF
made was how the hell can that Dakota pull that 5th anyhow? Thank goodness
no one was hurt. For the people that didn't see the accident...it is hard to
describe. I would say 70% of the motorhome's interior was laying all over
the highway. Talk about lucky!!!!
"Ty" <tybala "at" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uYU8uEL1$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa08...
fishguy
nothing has shown up on their page yet.
Ron
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ty
funds are better (New baby coming in three weeks). Besides.. I dont think I
could handle taking pictures of accidents.. maybe this one because no one
was hurt.
Ty
"justin credible" <goldf...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13af60f2a...@news.earthlink.net...
> I wish you'd carried a digital camera..they are so nice especially for
> current photo's online...we have the nikon coolpix800.
>
> In article <uYU8uEL1$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa08>, "Ty" <tybala "at" hotmail.com>
> says...
Andrew S.
newspapers (the ones that have web sites anyhow) would have covered it.
I'll look for you and post here if I find something. :)
"Rich" <rk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39457d1d...@news.earthlink.net...
> what newspaper would have covered that? maybe they have an on-line
> edition with details and photos.
justin credible
current photo's online...we have the nikon coolpix800.
In article <uYU8uEL1$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa08>, "Ty" <tybala "at" hotmail.com>
says...
justin credible
> We are looking into getting a Digital camera, but holding off until the
> funds are better (New baby coming in three weeks). Besides.. I dont think I
> could handle taking pictures of accidents.. maybe this one because no one
> was hurt.
>
>
>
a safety thing. :=)
can...@dtgnet.com
Morbid is a better word, rather than appropriate, much like those who
slow down while driving past an accident to gape at whatever there is
to see.
Canoli
96 883 Hugger, customized
Steve Wolf
snap pictures. We'll be reading about them in the Darwin Awards.
justin credible <goldf...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13af891d3...@news.earthlink.net...
DsrtTravlr
>> We are looking into getting a Digital camera, but holding off until the
>> funds are better (New baby coming in three weeks). Besides.. I dont think
>I
>> could handle taking pictures of accidents.. maybe this one because no one
>> was hurt.
>>
>>
>>
>a safety thing. :=)
>
"Can we film the operation, is the head dead yet?
You know the fellows in the newsroom got a running bet.
Get the widow on the set, we love dirty laundry."
Don Henley (Dirty Laundry)
Steve
Illigitimi non carborundum.
justin credible
> That's just what the safety forces need. A bunch of citizens stopping to
> snap pictures. We'll be reading about them in the Darwin Awards.
>
>
>
FWTW:
..why do you have to stop to take a picture?
I'd be willing to bet ya Steve,if someone posted pictures of RV
wrecks/stories..the vast majority of users here would visit the
site..it's been proven here in the past,if it wakes-up ONE idiot driver
to the reality of how vulnerable big RV's really are..then it's worth
posting IMO.
MADD reminds us all the time on how effective showing actual wrecks of
drunk driving accidents are..they say it's a wake-up call.
can...@dtgnet.com
<goldf...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>FWTW:
>
> ..why do you have to stop to take a picture?
>
> I'd be willing to bet ya Steve,if someone posted pictures of RV
>wrecks/stories..the vast majority of users here would visit the
>site..it's been proven here in the past,if it wakes-up ONE idiot driver
>to the reality of how vulnerable big RV's really are..then it's worth
>posting IMO.
>
> MADD reminds us all the time on how effective showing actual wrecks of
>drunk driving accidents are..they say it's a wake-up call.
What's been proven here in the past, may I ask? For openers, this
isn't a binary group, so no way could anyone see or have seen here the
pictures you envision..
Out of curiosity, what exactly qualifies me, or anyone, as idiot
drivers? Are you one? Are we all, in your opinion? The RV drivers
I've met have universally been aware of the consequences of reckless
maneuvering, and drive carefully. There may be differences in skills
and abilities, but I've yet to meet an RV driver who exhibits the
feeling of invulnerability of a truck driver.
The picture concept is just pandering to morbid curiosity, as is
slowing down to see what ever gruesome sight there is because of an
accident. As far as MADD goes, their advertising is focused on people
who were killed by drunk drivers, not the vehicles involved. I doubt
if seeing a smashed vehicle has much long-term effect on drivers,
idiots, drunks, or otherwise.
fishguy
Morbid is a better word, rather than appropriate, much like those
who slow down while driving past an
accident to gape at whatever there is to see.
My response:
As someone recently the focus of a fairly serious RV accident I'd
like to speak up for the picture takers. They are not all morbid
jerks.
5 minutes after I was extracted, in fairly good shape, from a
totaled Durango that had been pulling a small Airstream (also
totaled) a couple approached to ask if they could help. They
were
Airstream owners who had arrived on the scene as the dust was
settling. They pulled off the road and, while staying out of the
way, took pictures of everything in sight. They offered copies
of
the pictures if I wanted them and I gave them my address. Three
days later the pictures arrived in the mail.
Their offer reminded me that I carried a throwaway camera so I
proceeded to take more pictures both on the scene and later at
the
wrecking yard. (I carry a throwaway camera ever since it served
me well in an earlier accident.)
The resulting collection of photos helped understand the accident
and the damage and, in my opinion, made dealing with the
insurance
company a relatively happy event.
Yes I know that taking pictures of an accident in progress is
unlikely. However, they can be very useful when taken
intelligently, after the fact.
Ron
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
<fishguy...@rockisland.com.invalid> wrote:
> The Wenatchee World (www.wenworld.com) is the nearest daily but
> nothing has shown up on their page yet.
Nothing in today's PI (Tues) or Monday's either, don't know about the
Times (www.seattletimes.com, www.seattle-pi.com)
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@amsat.org
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/rv
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
cdn
>The picture concept is just pandering to morbid curiosity, as is
>slowing down to see what ever gruesome sight there is because of an
>accident. As far as MADD goes, their advertising is focused on people
>who were killed by drunk drivers, not the vehicles involved. I doubt
>if seeing a smashed vehicle has much long-term effect on drivers,
>idiots, drunks, or otherwise.
>
I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases. Let me
state at the onset, I defend, I cannot make someone NOT GUILTY.
That said, I have dealt with MADD and consider the vast majority to be
driven by pure emotion. I sympathize with any mother or father who
has lost a child, for any reason. It must be terrible.
In Arizona, the penalty for a first offense DUI is - Minimum
1 day jail.
$500 + in fines.
Alcohol screening and classes.
Loss of drivers license for 30 days, flat. No driving at all, with a
subsequent 60 day period of driving on a work permit basis.
This occurs if the individual has a BAC of 0.10 or 0.175. Accident or
not.
In other words, a person who is convicted (or not, and I will explain
later) of DUI must lose his/her DL
In AZ, we have (as most states do) an Implied Consent Statute. This
means that you agree to take a breath/blood test when asked to do so
by a Law officer. Failure to do so results in a loss of driving
priviledges for ONE year.
Now, my kick is that this occurs whether the defendant is convicted or
not. Believe it or not, sometimes the machines give false readings.
Not often but once in a while.
I defended a gentleman that had just celebrated his 25th anniversary
as a driver for a local milk company. He and a couple friends stopped
at a watering hole to have a mid-summer draft. He had 3-4 quick beers
and left to go home. An officer saw that his tail light was out and
stopped him in his driveway, 2 blocks from the bar. The Cop noted an
odor of alcohol and after suitable field sobriety tests, arrested him.
A breath test taken about 1 hour later showed an alc. concentration of
0.101.
Now, it takes about 1 hour for alcohol to fully affect a person and
register. Acknowledged scientific calculations showed that his BAC at
the time of driving was substantially below the minimum threshold for
DUI. His charges were dismissed.
Unfortunately, the offficer reported the BAC charge to Arizona MVD.
He lost his license and... AND his job of 25 years.
Now folks, he had never had a citation prior to this time and NEVER a
DUI. There was no accident, no bad driving, and no crime.
Nonetheless, he lost everything. BTW, MVD loss of DL is a civil
sanction and not for "punitive" purposes, but REMEDIAL???
Anyway, I thought this result was unduly harsh and went to my State
Senator. He agreed and promptly set about to alter the MVD law to
allow for a work permit for first time offenders where no accident
occurred.
Then MADD stepped in and stated to my dear senator in no uncertain
terms that, should he alter the already too lenient law, he would
never hold elective office again.
The Arizona head of MADD told me that in her view, "All persons
arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for DUI should be PUT TO
DEATH.
Hope I have not bored you, but DUI is nothing to mess with and MADD -
is!
cdn
Don't forget the Ft. Tuthill Hamfest.
July 28-30, 2000
can...@dtgnet.com
<fishguy...@rockisland.com.invalid> wrote:
Tried to Email you but since your address doesn't work, will ask
publicly.
I have a Durango, and have been considering buying a small Airstream
for short trips where we don't feel like using the diesel pusher.
Since that is the same rig you had your problem with, may I ask what
kind of accident, and what caused it? Was there something out of
balance with towing v. weight, mechanical failure, collision, loss of
control, the infamous sway, or what?
I don't want you to think I'm prying, but now I have some concern as
to whether there is some problem with this set-up that I'm not seeing,
and would appreciate your advice.
can...@dtgnet.com
>
>
>I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases. Let me
>state at the onset, I defend, I cannot make someone NOT GUILTY.
>
>That said, I have dealt with MADD and consider the vast majority to be
>driven by pure emotion.
As opposed to cold, scientific thinking? Why would they be emotional,
do you suppose?
(removed, penalty for dui.
>In other words, a person who is convicted (or not, and I will explain
>later) of DUI must lose his/her DL
>
(removed, further explanation of AZ dui penalty.
>
>I defended a gentleman that had just celebrated his 25th anniversary
>as a driver for a local milk company. He and a couple friends stopped
>at a watering hole to have a mid-summer draft. He had 3-4 quick beers
>and left to go home. An officer saw that his tail light was out and
>stopped him in his driveway, 2 blocks from the bar. The Cop noted an
>odor of alcohol and after suitable field sobriety tests, arrested him.
>A breath test taken about 1 hour later showed an alc. concentration of
>0.101.
Which means that at some point prior to the test, his BAC was over the
limit, since it takes about one hour for the effects of one drink to
wear off. Ergo, he was driving drunk.
>
>Now, it takes about 1 hour for alcohol to fully affect a person and
>register. Acknowledged scientific calculations showed that his BAC at
>the time of driving was substantially below the minimum threshold for
>DUI. His charges were dismissed.
Either you got lucky, or the prosecutor was woefully incompetent, or
both. If it takes one hour for one drink to affect a person, and your
client had four drinks, do the math. If he had a BAC of .101 by the
time he pulled into his driveway, and it takes one hour for the body
to throw off the effects of just one drink, then he was driving drunk.
>
>Unfortunately, the offficer reported the BAC charge to Arizona MVD.
>He lost his license and... AND his job of 25 years.
>
>Now folks, he had never had a citation prior to this time and NEVER a
>DUI. There was no accident, no bad driving, and no crime.
Driving drunk is not a crime? That sounds like a defense attorney's
point of view, as does the complaint about the officer reporting the
charge.
>Nonetheless, he lost everything. BTW, MVD loss of DL is a civil
>sanction and not for "punitive" purposes, but REMEDIAL???
>
>Anyway, I thought this result was unduly harsh and went to my State
>Senator. He agreed and promptly set about to alter the MVD law to
>allow for a work permit for first time offenders where no accident
>occurred.
>
>Then MADD stepped in and stated to my dear senator in no uncertain
>terms that, should he alter the already too lenient law, he would
>never hold elective office again.
That's a problem of no guts, not undue influence. If he couldn't
stand up to the lobbying, then he probably was not worth keeping in
office.
>
>The Arizona head of MADD told me that in her view, "All persons
>arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for DUI should be PUT TO
>DEATH.
That's a tough call, but if I lost a child to a drunk driver, I would
hope someone would hide my guns. The arrested/convicted position is
extreme, but the grief of burying a child, a wife, or anyone you love
because of someone's stupidity will make you a little crazy, I
guarantee.
>Hope I have not bored you, but DUI is nothing to mess with and MADD -
>is!
>
>cdn
Canoli
96 883 Hugger, customized
George E. Cawthon
can...@dtgnet.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:36:42 GMT, justin credible
> <goldf...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >FWTW:
> >
> > ..why do you have to stop to take a picture?
> >
> > I'd be willing to bet ya Steve,if someone posted pictures of RV
> >wrecks/stories..the vast majority of users here would visit the
> >site..it's been proven here in the past,if it wakes-up ONE idiot driver
> >to the reality of how vulnerable big RV's really are..then it's worth
> >posting IMO.
> >
> > MADD reminds us all the time on how effective showing actual wrecks of
> >drunk driving accidents are..they say it's a wake-up call.
>
> What's been proven here in the past, may I ask? For openers, this
> isn't a binary group, so no way could anyone see or have seen here the
> pictures you envision..
>
> Out of curiosity, what exactly qualifies me, or anyone, as idiot
> drivers? Are you one? Are we all, in your opinion? The RV drivers
> I've met have universally been aware of the consequences of reckless
> maneuvering, and drive carefully. There may be differences in skills
> and abilities, but I've yet to meet an RV driver who exhibits the
> feeling of invulnerability of a truck driver.
>
> The picture concept is just pandering to morbid curiosity, as is
> slowing down to see what ever gruesome sight there is because of an
> accident. As far as MADD goes, their advertising is focused on people
> who were killed by drunk drivers, not the vehicles involved. I doubt
> if seeing a smashed vehicle has much long-term effect on drivers,
> idiots, drunks, or otherwise.
>
> Canoli
>
> 96 883 Hugger, customized
You got that right about the long-term effect on drivers. The most
dramatic accident that I've ever seen happened near Ellensburg WA when I
was about 16. A truck carrying steel and a sedan had crashed. We got
there all most immediately after it happened and before the police got
there. 2-3 dead people were hanging head down out of the sedan, just
like a scene in a movie. It affected me a lot because I had never
before seen a serious accident or an obviously dead person. People seem
to drive much slower after seeing the accident, but, after about 10-15
miles, most drivers sped up and reckless passing resumed.
GBinNC
response to "cdn's" post about defending an accused drunk driver:
>Which means that at some point prior to the test, his BAC was over the
>limit, since it takes about one hour for the effects of one drink to
>wear off. Ergo, he was driving drunk.
Canoli, I'm with you here.
Anybody who pops into a bar for three or quick beers and then drives
anywhere deserves whatever he/she gets. There is absolutely no
justification or excuse whatsoever for this behavior. It is a direct
threat to the safety of everyone else on the road and cannot be
tolerated, no matter what the cost to the offender.
MADD has made a tremendous difference in drunk driving laws and their
enforcement in NC and I for one am grateful to them. The fact that a
criminal defense lawyer publicly condemns them (nothing personal here,
"cdn") is that much more reason for me to support them.
Of course they're driven by emotion. I would be too, if a drunk driver
hurt or killed a loved one of mine. In fact, I would be enraged beyond
belief.
GB in NC
cdn
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:21:37 -0700, cdn <dno...@k7no.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases. Let me
>>state at the onset, I defend, I cannot make someone NOT GUILTY.
>>
>>That said, I have dealt with MADD and consider the vast majority to be
>>driven by pure emotion.
>
>As opposed to cold, scientific thinking? Why would they be emotional,
>do you suppose?
>
Do you want laws based on emotion or reasoned factual information?
>(removed, penalty for dui.
>
>
>>In other words, a person who is convicted (or not, and I will explain
>>later) of DUI must lose his/her DL
>>
>(removed, further explanation of AZ dui penalty.
>>
>>I defended a gentleman that had just celebrated his 25th anniversary
>>as a driver for a local milk company. He and a couple friends stopped
>>at a watering hole to have a mid-summer draft. He had 3-4 quick beers
>>and left to go home. An officer saw that his tail light was out and
>>stopped him in his driveway, 2 blocks from the bar. The Cop noted an
>>odor of alcohol and after suitable field sobriety tests, arrested him.
>>A breath test taken about 1 hour later showed an alc. concentration of
>>0.101.
>
>Which means that at some point prior to the test, his BAC was over the
>limit, since it takes about one hour for the effects of one drink to
>wear off. Ergo, he was driving drunk.
Wrong! He had just finished drinking within 5-10 minutes and his BAC
was on the rise. When stopped he likely had a BAC of 0.02-0.04.
>>
>>Now, it takes about 1 hour for alcohol to fully affect a person and
>>register. Acknowledged scientific calculations showed that his BAC at
>>the time of driving was substantially below the minimum threshold for
>>DUI. His charges were dismissed.
>
>Either you got lucky, or the prosecutor was woefully incompetent, or
>both. If it takes one hour for one drink to affect a person, and your
>client had four drinks, do the math. If he had a BAC of .101 by the
>time he pulled into his driveway, and it takes one hour for the body
>to throw off the effects of just one drink, then he was driving drunk.
>>
It takes 1 hour for the alcohol to be fully assimilated. That is, for
it to create the highest BAC reading. He did NOT have a .101 reading
when he was pulled over. He had that reading more than 1 hour later.
He had drank 4-5 beers in less than one hour as evedenced by
witnesses. You really should read more closely.
>>Unfortunately, the offficer reported the BAC charge to Arizona MVD.
>>He lost his license and... AND his job of 25 years.
>>
>>Now folks, he had never had a citation prior to this time and NEVER a
>>DUI. There was no accident, no bad driving, and no crime.
>
>Driving drunk is not a crime? That sounds like a defense attorney's
>point of view, as does the complaint about the officer reporting the
>charge.
>
Absolutely driving with a BAC > 0.10 is a crime. As is driving
impaired. You are trying to put words in my mouth. As I stated first
off, I defend, I do not make NOT guilty.
>>Nonetheless, he lost everything. BTW, MVD loss of DL is a civil
>>sanction and not for "punitive" purposes, but REMEDIAL???
>>
>>Anyway, I thought this result was unduly harsh and went to my State
>>Senator. He agreed and promptly set about to alter the MVD law to
>>allow for a work permit for first time offenders where no accident
>>occurred.
>>
>>Then MADD stepped in and stated to my dear senator in no uncertain
>>terms that, should he alter the already too lenient law, he would
>>never hold elective office again.
>
>That's a problem of no guts, not undue influence. If he couldn't
>stand up to the lobbying, then he probably was not worth keeping in
>office.
My point! So nice of you to acknowledge it.
>>
>>The Arizona head of MADD told me that in her view, "All persons
>>arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for DUI should be PUT TO
>>DEATH.
>
>That's a tough call, but if I lost a child to a drunk driver, I would
>hope someone would hide my guns. The arrested/convicted position is
>extreme, but the grief of burying a child, a wife, or anyone you love
>because of someone's stupidity will make you a little crazy, I
>guarantee.
Gads, you love to play with facts not in evidence. I NEVER claimed to
by unsympathetic with that fact! I merely stated that THIS person did
not cause an accident. My opinion of the laws is not the same for
those who have BAC higher than 0.180 OR cause an accident.
BTW, it is my understanding that MADD uses for their statistics about
drunk drivers, anyone in the vehicle who has also been drinking.
Therefore if you have been drinking and have a drunk buddy with you
and are in an accident that is caused by a sober driver, MADD counts
this incident as TWO sounts of drunks in a DUI accident! Interesting
manipulation of reality.
>
>>Hope I have not bored you, but DUI is nothing to mess with and MADD -
>>is!
>>
>>cdn
>
>Canoli
>
>96 883 Hugger, customized
bill horne
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:17:34 -0700, can...@dtgnet.com wrote, in
> response to "cdn's" post about defending an accused drunk driver:
>
> >limit, since it takes about one hour for the effects of one drink to
> >wear off. Ergo, he was driving drunk.
>
>
> Anybody who pops into a bar for three or quick beers and then drives
> anywhere deserves whatever he/she gets. There is absolutely no
> justification or excuse whatsoever for this behavior. It is a direct
> threat to the safety of everyone else on the road and cannot be
> tolerated, no matter what the cost to the offender.
>
> MADD has made a tremendous difference in drunk driving laws and their
> enforcement in NC and I for one am grateful to them. The fact that a
> criminal defense lawyer publicly condemns them (nothing personal here,
> "cdn") is that much more reason for me to support them.
>
> Of course they're driven by emotion. I would be too, if a drunk driver
> hurt or killed a loved one of mine. In fact, I would be enraged beyond
> belief.
>
> GB in NC
Actually, MADD did some of their best early work by Not being driven by
emotion. They started out by targeting the drunk driver, and not the
alcohol in the container. And that's the way it should be. However, they
may now be groping about, searching for a way to justify their continued
existence. This could very well result in sense being replaced by
emotion, and that in turn will probably result in ridiculous attempts to
pass dumbass laws targeted at alcohol itself - much like the
emotion-driven antigunners are doing.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
DsrtTravlr
so difficult about that? I like Sweden's Laws. If you get caught driving with
any BAC, you go to prison for a year. Prison. Period. NO smartass lawyer and
no amount of money gets you out of it.
It is like these idiots running around saying marijuana is harmless and should
be decriminalized. Yeah. Right. Pot doesn't affect anyone's brain, and one
can drive as long as they don't exceed the legal limit. Hmmmmm.
That is like, " Hardly any radiation, a little pregnant, and I will only stick
it in a little."
Steve
Illigitimi non carborundum.
sbourg
>
>Wrong! He had just finished drinking within 5-10 minutes and
his BAC
>was on the rise. When stopped he likely had a BAC of 0.02-0.04.
He had three to four beers then hit the road - and this a person
whose profession is driving. I think the spirit of the laws was
well served here. You are pissed because you couldn't weasel him
off on a technicality. How about someone whose conviction is
overturned after killing a family in a DUI accident - because his
Miranda's weren't read to him in his native tongue? Would this
technicality be a success story in your book?
Fact is, your client's actions were totally irresponsible, and he
is paying for it. Justice has been served, and this is what is
what our clumsy system occasionally stumbles into - and it did so
before his driving resulted in another statistic.
Steve
Bruce Thiel
Time to put my 2cents in...
How many cold medications contain alcohol??
Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
fishguy
with a decision.
Anyone else wants them, try <fis...@rockisland.com>
GBinNC
wrote:
>How many cold medications contain alcohol??
>Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
>people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
I don't intend to get into an argument about this, but:
1.The labels of those cold medications -- and many others -- always
(AFAIK) advise against operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment
while taking the medicine, I assume for that very reason. Alcohol
consumed from medicine would have the same effect as that consumed
from beverage alcohol, if someone took enough (WAY too much, I would
imagine) of the medicine.
2. I can't speak for other churches, but in my denomination the amount
of wine "consumed" at Eucharist (communion) is very small -- really no
more than enough to wet the lips -- and certainly less than a
"swallow." (It's also diluted about half and half with water.) One
could not possibly consume enough to show up in a blood test, IMO, but
just for the record, I would be more than willing to try it sometime
if you want to arrange it. (I'm not being sarcastic.)
YMMV.
GB in NC
justin credible
can...@dtgnet.com the troll says...
> Out of curiosity, what exactly qualifies me, or anyone, as idiot
> drivers?
>
This is a waste of time but.....
canoli
Do we need to actually explain to you what a IDIOT DRIVER IS..if you
don't know, then you probably qualify as one! sheez!!
DsrtTravlr
>>
>> Driving with ANY measurable alcohol in your system is driving drunk. What
>is
>> so difficult about that? I like Sweden's Laws. If you get caught driving
>with
>> any BAC, you go to prison for a year. Prison. Period. NO smartass lawyer
>and
>> no amount of money gets you out of it.
>>
>> It is like these idiots running around saying marijuana is harmless and
>should
>> be decriminalized. Yeah. Right. Pot doesn't affect anyone's brain, and
>one
>> can drive as long as they don't exceed the legal limit. Hmmmmm.
>>
>> That is like, " Hardly any radiation, a little pregnant, and I will only
>stick
>> it in a little."
>>
>> Steve
>> Illigitimi non carborundum.
>
>
>Time to put my 2cents in...
>
I might have missed something in the fine print, but doesn't it also say, " DO
NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHEN USING THIS MEDICATION."?
>Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
>people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
>
Is driving under the influence of alcohol now to be presumed to be a religious
freedom argument? Right in there with the ________ (you fill in the blank)
defense which now is proffered by every slick slimy lawyer to get their clients
out of facing the consequences of their behavior? Sugar intoxication, internet
intoxication, etc, etc.
How big are the wine cups at your church?
And yes, if it gives you a measurable BAC, you need a designated driver.
Render unto Caesar....................
If it is the law, go by it. The laws need to be stiffened. Zero tolerance.
Steve
Illigitimi non carborundum.
DsrtTravlr
>> drivers?
An IDIOT DRIVER is compound stupid. They don't know that they don't know.
Steve
Illigitimi non carborundum.
W F Sill
>I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases. Let me
>state at the onset, I defend, I cannot make someone NOT GUILTY.
>
>That said, I have dealt with MADD and consider the vast majority to be
>driven by pure emotion. I sympathize with any mother or father who
>has lost a child, for any reason. It must be terrible.
I am sure there are cases where the law is too harsh and/or
administered unfairly, but having spent quite a few years as a
volunteer in the ambulance service, I admit my sympathies are much
closer to MADD's POV than yours. The idea that sucking on a few suds
and driving is harmless unless your blood alky is over an arbitrary
figure and/or you crash with or without fatalities.
In defense of the POV you express, I am confident a few are unfairly
inconvenienced. But IMO there is no real defense for engaging in a
known criminal activity with the potential for deadly consequences.
MADD may be too emotional, but that is somewhat less of a crime than
deliberately impairing your ability and then driving a vehicle.
Will KD3XR ---- the Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
"Everyone is entitled to his own views. No one
is entitled to his own facts." J. Schlesinger
Neon John
cdn wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:52:27 -0700, can...@dtgnet.com wrote:
>
> >The picture concept is just pandering to morbid curiosity, as is
> >slowing down to see what ever gruesome sight there is because of an
> >accident. As far as MADD goes, their advertising is focused on people
> >who were killed by drunk drivers, not the vehicles involved. I doubt
> >if seeing a smashed vehicle has much long-term effect on drivers,
> >idiots, drunks, or otherwise.
> >
>
> I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases.
Ah, the lowest layer of the pile of shit that goes by the title
"criminal defense Attorney". I suppose the mind can rationalize
anything but I'll be damned if I can figure out how anyone who gets
drunk drivers off can sleep at night.
>
> I defended a gentleman that had just celebrated his 25th anniversary
> as a driver for a local milk company. He and a couple friends stopped
> at a watering hole to have a mid-summer draft. He had 3-4 quick beers
> and left to go home.
"3-4 quick beers?" riiight. What was the guy doing, shotgunning
them?
>An officer saw that his tail light was out and
> stopped him in his driveway, 2 blocks from the bar. The Cop noted an
> odor of alcohol and after suitable field sobriety tests, arrested him.
> A breath test taken about 1 hour later showed an alc. concentration of
> 0.101.
>
> Now, it takes about 1 hour for alcohol to fully affect a person and
> register. Acknowledged scientific calculations showed that his BAC at
> the time of driving was substantially below the minimum threshold for
> DUI. His charges were dismissed.
Proud of yourself, aren't you.
>
> Unfortunately, the offficer reported the BAC charge to Arizona MVD.
> He lost his license and... AND his job of 25 years.
So, despite your worst efforts, the system worked. Hurray for
Arizona!!!!
>
> Now folks, he had never had a citation prior to this time and NEVER a
> DUI. There was no accident, no bad driving, and no crime.
The crime was, he was driving drunk. There was no accident because
the cop managed to snatch him off the road before he could kill
someone.
> Nonetheless, he lost everything. BTW, MVD loss of DL is a civil
> sanction and not for "punitive" purposes, but REMEDIAL???
Boohoohoohooo. My heart bleeds. Maybe he'll think about that the
next time he chooses to shotgun "3-4 beers" and then drives.
>
> Anyway, I thought this result was unduly harsh and went to my State
> Senator. He agreed and promptly set about to alter the MVD law to
> allow for a work permit for first time offenders where no accident
> occurred.
>
> Then MADD stepped in and stated to my dear senator in no uncertain
> terms that, should he alter the already too lenient law, he would
> never hold elective office again.
In this case, good for MADD. MADD scares me because they're willing
to accept almost any erosion of the rights of everyone in order to
get to the drunks but in this case, looks like they were useful.
>
> The Arizona head of MADD told me that in her view, "All persons
> arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for DUI should be PUT TO
> DEATH.
Change that word "arrested" to "convicted" and I'm in full
agreement. There is never, ever any excuse for drinking and
driving. Period. Ever! I would, however, be interested to see you
rationalization of some reason to drive with any booze in the
system.
The guy who hit me head-on had a whole slimy trail of scumbag
lawyers like you stringing out behind him. He had a lifetime of
DUIs, most of which were pled down to something lesser. At the time
he hit me, he was so plastered that he thought that my lane on the 2
lane highway was a turn lane. He just dropped out of traffic right
in front of me to make a left turn. In one of the rare instances of
justice, he was killed in the wreck while I was not hurt (thank God
for good seatbelts and a crashworthy car). Unfortunately he also
killed his wife. The BAC of his residue that they scraped up off
the road was 0.25. Even though I can think of no real reason to
want to preserve this guy's life, perhaps had there been less of
YOU, then he would have been in jail that day and still might have
been alive. And I'd still have my cherished Datsun 280Z.
John
--
John De Armond
johngd...@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
Neon John's Custom Neon
Cleveland, TN
"Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"
Neon John
Bruce Thiel wrote:
>
> How many cold medications contain alcohol??
> Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
> people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
I suggest that in the even you and the priest sit down to chugalug
the communion wine, then perhaps you would be best served to find a
pew and sleep it off. Or... go to jail.
And perhaps if you're so sick that you feel the need to get stoned
on cold remedy, then perhaps again, you should either stay at home
or sleep it off at work before going home. Or... go to jail.
George E. Cawthon
GBinNC wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:17:34 -0700, can...@dtgnet.com wrote, in
> response to "cdn's" post about defending an accused drunk driver:
>
> >Which means that at some point prior to the test, his BAC was over the
> >limit, since it takes about one hour for the effects of one drink to
> >wear off. Ergo, he was driving drunk.
>
> Canoli, I'm with you here.
>
> Anybody who pops into a bar for three or quick beers and then drives
> anywhere deserves whatever he/she gets. There is absolutely no
> justification or excuse whatsoever for this behavior. It is a direct
> threat to the safety of everyone else on the road and cannot be
> tolerated, no matter what the cost to the offender.
>
> MADD has made a tremendous difference in drunk driving laws and their
> enforcement in NC and I for one am grateful to them. The fact that a
> criminal defense lawyer publicly condemns them (nothing personal here,
> "cdn") is that much more reason for me to support them.
>
> Of course they're driven by emotion. I would be too, if a drunk driver
> hurt or killed a loved one of mine. In fact, I would be enraged beyond
> belief.
>
> GB in NC
I'd be pissed (more likely take action) if some drunk killed one of my
loved ones too. But the problem with DUI laws is that in practice those
that are found drunk but don't have an accident or are often punished
severely for just being drunk. But those that are drunk and severely
injure or kill someone are often times punished less than a sober person
is.
Drunkenness is often used as an excuse to ameliorate what might
otherwise be punished for intent or gross negligence.
W F Sill
>How many cold medications contain alcohol??
>Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
>people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
There should be separate jail cells for hecklers & nitpickers. You'd
be better off if you DID stay in church.
Will Sill KD3XR
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but
in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
George E. Cawthon
GBinNC wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:24:11 -0400, Bruce Thiel <b...@iti-oh.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How many cold medications contain alcohol??
> >Isn't wine part of comunion the first sunday of every month for many
> >people?? So can't drive home after church... or go to jail..
>
>
> 1.The labels of those cold medications -- and many others -- always
> (AFAIK) advise against operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment
> while taking the medicine, I assume for that very reason. Alcohol
> consumed from medicine would have the same effect as that consumed
> from beverage alcohol, if someone took enough (WAY too much, I would
> imagine) of the medicine.
>
> 2. I can't speak for other churches, but in my denomination the amount
> of wine "consumed" at Eucharist (communion) is very small -- really no
> more than enough to wet the lips -- and certainly less than a
> "swallow." (It's also diluted about half and half with water.) One
> could not possibly consume enough to show up in a blood test, IMO, but
> just for the record, I would be more than willing to try it sometime
> if you want to arrange it. (I'm not being sarcastic.)
>
> YMMV.
> GB in NC
Yeah, but the priest gets drunk. Seriously, the injunction on the cold
medicine is not for the alcohol but the other stuff and it assumes you
are taking the correct dose which is what? two tablespoons full? You
wouldn't be able to detect that much in the blood stream.
Jynndi
> in my denomination the amount
>> of wine "consumed" at Eucharist (communion) is very small --
Second poster said;
>Yeah, but the priest gets drunk.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Or was it just a bigotted shot at
another person's religion? 8-(
Digger, AKA Grumps (old and crusty)
All errors; spilling, grimatical, ore tieping intenshunal.
Erich Coiner
The priest was filled with the holy spirit.
Proof was not specified or required for religious things.
Erich
al...@nospam.net
<johngd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases.
>
>Ah, the lowest layer of the pile of shit that goes by the title
>"criminal defense Attorney". I suppose the mind can rationalize
>anything but I'll be damned if I can figure out how anyone who gets
>drunk drivers off can sleep at night.
I like lawyer jokes as well as the rest, but I think this last
statement goes over the line. If you were charged wrongly, then you
sure as hell would want a good criminal defense atty. Everyone
deserves a proper defense, even scumbags. If we lose that thought,
then we all lose our liberty that so many of you in this NG fought for
in service to this country. Not all DUIs are repeat offeders. Many are
first time young adults, scared to death of what they did, and of the
consequences, like your kid, or mine. People who want to put to death
everyone who has a DUI are nuts. Punish the offeder properly, and
maybe they won't do it again.
Tom. a non-lawyer, AND a non-drinker.
cdn
<bourgN...@hrl.com.invalid> wrote:
>cdn <dno...@k7no.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Wrong! He had just finished drinking within 5-10 minutes and
>his BAC
>>was on the rise. When stopped he likely had a BAC of 0.02-0.04.
>
>
>He had three to four beers then hit the road - and this a person
>whose profession is driving. I think the spirit of the laws was
>well served here.
You once again prove your inability to read and/or understand. THE
CHARGES WERE DISMISSED,YOU IDIOT. HE HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME. THE
PROSECUTOR HAD NO CHOICE.
> You are pissed because you couldn't weasel him
>off on a technicality. How about someone whose conviction is
>overturned after killing a family in a DUI accident - because his
>Miranda's weren't read to him in his native tongue? Would this
>technicality be a success story in your book?
I am pissed because a person who was not guilty of a crime lost his
drivers license because the civil penalties for the situation do not
take into account, the factual results.
As a defense attorney, I would try to get the same decision. Would I
be happy about it...NO. BTW, Miranda, which began in Arizona, is
going away.
>
>Fact is, your client's actions were totally irresponsible, and he
>is paying for it. Justice has been served, and this is what is
>what our clumsy system occasionally stumbles into - and it did so
>before his driving resulted in another statistic.
>
>Steve
Steve, I truly hope you are never falsely accused of a crime. His
actions were totally within the law. He was not irresponsible. He
paid a penalty for a crime he did not commit. Are you happy with that
justice?
By the way, I bet you think the jury found OJ innocent! They found
that the state had NOT proven guilt. There is a big difference. An
11-1 guilty verdict has the same outcome as a 1-11 guilty verdict.
Neither pronounces innocent. When a judge gives a directed verdice,
innocense may be presumed.
cdn
>Not long ago, cdn <dno...@k7no.com> wrote:
>
>>I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases. Let me
>>state at the onset, I defend, I cannot make someone NOT GUILTY.
>>
>>That said, I have dealt with MADD and consider the vast majority to be
>>driven by pure emotion. I sympathize with any mother or father who
>>has lost a child, for any reason. It must be terrible.
>
>I am sure there are cases where the law is too harsh and/or
>administered unfairly, but having spent quite a few years as a
>volunteer in the ambulance service, I admit my sympathies are much
>closer to MADD's POV than yours. The idea that sucking on a few suds
>and driving is harmless unless your blood alky is over an arbitrary
>figure and/or you crash with or without fatalities.
>
There is not much arbitrary about the BAC limits. They have been
pretty well scientifically defined. All states define DUI as >0.10.
Some define at 0.08.
>In defense of the POV you express, I am confident a few are unfairly
>inconvenienced. But IMO there is no real defense for engaging in a
>known criminal activity with the potential for deadly consequences.
>MADD may be too emotional, but that is somewhat less of a crime than
>deliberately impairing your ability and then driving a vehicle.
Oooohhh, watch it Will. Under this analysis, shooting a gun then
becomes an illegal activity. Drinking is legal. Driving is legal.
Driving after drinking is legal in some instances. Shooting is legal.
In some instances!
I drive to court in my RV sometimes. Gotta keep on point!
cdn
cdn
>> I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases.
>
>Ah, the lowest layer of the pile of shit that goes by the title
>"criminal defense Attorney". I suppose the mind can rationalize
>anything but I'll be damned if I can figure out how anyone who gets
>drunk drivers off can sleep at night.
>
Mainly because your Constitution says I can.
`justin gredible
says...
> Ah, the lowest layer of the pile of shit that goes by the title
> "criminal defense Attorney".
>
chill Neon...
Sheez,I suppose your also against people even having lawyers..aye? When
you've got a big legal problem,do you represent yourself?
I think you went way overboard calling this person names like
scumbag,lowest of the pile of shit etc..this got personal IMO. It's a
shame someone can't express themselves to an opinion without this. I
think you owe an apology Neon,this type of posting is not your style.
After all,he was just doing his job...which happens to still be legal in
this country.
side note...
Don't ever let MADD get your ph#,address or email addr..they will
hound you for donations forever,we've tried getting them to stop spamming
us (almost weekly) for over a year..maybe we need a lawyer. :=)
George E. Cawthon
Jynndi wrote:
>
> First poster said:
> > in my denomination the amount
> >> of wine "consumed" at Eucharist (communion) is very small --
>
> Second poster said;
> >Yeah, but the priest gets drunk.
>
> Where in the world did you get that idea? Or was it just a bigotted shot at
> another person's religion? 8-(
>
> Digger, AKA Grumps (old and crusty)
> All errors; spilling, grimatical, ore tieping intenshunal.
I wouldn't considered it bigotted as it is a common joke, often referred
to by those whose religious leader is called a priest. BTW, what
specific religious group do you think was targeted, yours? And which
one of the several groups that use the term priest would that be? And
what makes you think I don't belong to the same group?
Note that the following word was "Seriously," but in your case that
obviously was not necessary.
Steve Wolf
Neon John <johngd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3947CE34...@bellsouth.net...
> > I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases.
> anything but I'll be damned if I can figure out how anyone who gets
> drunk drivers off can sleep at night.
That's incredibly unfair and tramples any form of justice both here and
abroad.
With cameras in the cruisers, digital audio taping devices and strict laws,
there isn't a reason in the world a person should get out of a DUI unless the
law enforcement authority screwed up or lied. Our justice systems allows
those cases to be defended.
China has an excellent example how your system works. The Arab nations also
have no use for a fair trial. Mexico is even more creative. The U.S. should
do the same?
Neon John
Steve Wolf wrote:
>
> Neon John <johngd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3947CE34...@bellsouth.net...
> > > I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and do mainly DUI cases.
> > Ah, the lowest layer of the pile of shit that goes by the title
> > "criminal defense Attorney". I suppose the mind can rationalize
> > anything but I'll be damned if I can figure out how anyone who gets
> > drunk drivers off can sleep at night.
>
> That's incredibly unfair and tramples any form of justice both here and
> abroad.
>
> With cameras in the cruisers, digital audio taping devices and strict laws,
> there isn't a reason in the world a person should get out of a DUI unless the
> law enforcement authority screwed up or lied. Our justice systems allows
> those cases to be defended.
Assuming, of course, that this department had said equipment in its
cruisers. Risky assumption.
>
> China has an excellent example how your system works. The Arab nations also
> have no use for a fair trial. Mexico is even more creative. The U.S. should
> do the same?
What the f*ck? Who said anything about no use for a trial? Instead
of jumping to wild-assed conclusions like that, perhaps you ought to
take a day sometimes and go witness how the drunk court works. I
get the unfortunate opportunity to witness this process every month
or so when I go to prosecute bad check warrants. Bad checks are
considered even lower in priority than drunks so we get to sit and
watch all day. I'll give you a short course on how it works.
In Cleveland, the court that hears drunk cases is the General
Sessions Court. The judge is elected - first big problem. The
judge who has sat ever since I can remember is impaired far beyond
what should be required to remove him. He's always been of
questionable mental stability. he's prone to wandering off in the
middle of a case to lecture the courtroom on his experience in the
Army during WWII or something similar. He's had Parkinson's disease
for several years and it's advanced to the point where his mental
faculties are further degraded. A docket that would take a normal
judge an hour to dispose of takes all day.
The first question is, why doesn't the legal profession take action
against him. Best explanation is one that was given me by a lawyer
friend, namely, sharks don't feed on sharks regardless.
Even before this guy lost his mind, he would almost never hear a DUI
case through. He'd toss any case where every single "t" wasn't
crossed. Those which he couldn't legitimately toss, He'd
practically force the prosecution to plea down. He was a major
reason why Tennessee passed mandatory minimum sentences for DUI a
few years ago. Now he typically sentences the drunk to weekend jail
- a loophole we're working on fixing right now. I've never seen a
1st time offender in court. Usually the drunk has a thick file of
convictions.
So the drunk and the drunk attorney (who stands out among the other
attorneys by his especially slimy looks) stand before the bench.
Unless the drunk couldn't make bail, his breath is probably
flammable from a night of drinking. Of course, he's never arrested
for public drunkenness. Usually the guy will plead either guilty or
nolo because he knows the fix is in. He does have to serve the jail
time but usually only on the weekends. There's a minimum fine of
$500 for the first offense (which they always get away with
claiming) so the judge can't let them out of it but he can do the
next best thing - put 'em on a 2 year installment plan. All the
drunk has to say is that he can't pay - never is his story checked.
So the next question is, how does this guy get elected? Easy,
really. Intersection of several influences. Usually he never even
has an opponent. The local bar, aware that they don't make money if
they can't get clients off, stand practically 100% united behind
him. According to my attorney friend, there is extreme pressure on
any attorney who lets it be known that he's thinking about running.
And the same bar got the law changed a few years ago to preclude
non-laywers from running. The second factor is, as is typical of
small dry towns, Cleveland is filled with boozers. And those who
aren't boozers are related to one. Oh, everyone talks a good story
but in the last election where we finally managed to field an
opposition candidate, we could get NO public support. The most
frequent comment was along the lines of "hey, I might be up there
someday."
So what we have here is a state where the DUI laws are as tough as
any but have practically no teeth because of corrupt/incompetent
judges. At this point we're just waiting for him to die.
The other thing you might want to think about is how these drunk
lawyers work. They handle cases in bulk. AS such, they have a
powerful weapon to use against the prosecutors before they ever even
get to court. The weapon is to force full process of every single
case, tying the courts in knots. Under this threat, rotten deals
are struck. Run of the mill scumbags get some minor penalty, the
drunk lawyer gets to brag to his client how lucky he was to get off
with a slap and the drunk lawyer gets a chit that he can call in
when needed. Say, when he feels sorry for some client. I've sat
near the prosecution table during the deal making so I know that
this is how it work.
See, this scumbag lawyer who is so proud of getting his drunk client
off has only told you his own, cooked side of the story. I'm sure
that the real story is greatly at variance with his report. And
even if this story was to be accurate, it would certainly be the
exception to the rule. People don't just out of the blue shotgun
enough beer to blow 0,101 shortly thereafter. You gotta have a
history to be able to "quickly" drink that much beer.
What's the solution to all this mess? Got me. I think that the
first step will be for most of us to accept that drunk driving IS a
serious crime that deserves hard jail time and property forfeiture
(AFTER conviction and not before.) It's funny how people work. If
some scumbag snatches a purse or picks a pocket, people howl like
they're being killed. And yet they seem to accept drunk driving
with little more than a wagged finger. At least until they either
get hit by a drunk driver or have a close one killed by a drunk.
This area is where MADD has really dropped the ball. Instead of
concentrating their resources on further education of the public to
the results of drunk driving, they've detoured off toward falling
into the old prohibition fallacy. We can't make people stop
drinking (nor should we) but we could stop people from driving drunk
- at least more than once - if we had the will. It's sad that it
takes getting a loved one killed or injured before one gets
interested in the subject.
So no, steve, I'm not in favor of whatever autocratic society you
imagine me to be. What I AM in favor of is actually trying these
drunks instead of corrupting the system to get the guy off by legal
maneuver.
sbourg
<dno...@k7no.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:33:40 -0700, sbourg
><bourgN...@hrl.com.invalid> wrote:
>You once again prove your inability to read and/or understand.
THE
>CHARGES WERE DISMISSED,YOU IDIOT. HE HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.
THE
>PROSECUTOR HAD NO CHOICE.
This idiot understands perfectly what you wrote - perhaps you
have to be an idiot then to understand the difference between
justice and working the legal system.
You worked the legal system and got charges dismissed against an
irresponsible jerk who would down 3-4 beers before hitting the
road. Apparently you find this acceptable behavior. Luckily
JUSTICE prevailed and this sop is no longer a danger to innocents
on our roadways. If justice were perfect, of course, you would
lose your license to practice due to lousy moral character and
uncouth behavior.
Steve
cdn
wrote:
>
>What the f*ck? Who said anything about no use for a trial? Instead
>
>See, this scumbag lawyer who is so proud of getting his drunk client
>off has only told you his own, cooked side of the story. I'm sure
>that the real story is greatly at variance with his report. And
>even if this story was to be accurate, it would certainly be the
>exception to the rule. People don't just out of the blue shotgun
>enough beer to blow 0,101 shortly thereafter. You gotta have a
>history to be able to "quickly" drink that much beer.
Don't bother me with the facts... I have already formed an opinion.
Ad hominem comments aside John, you are so far in left field you are
out of the game. You epitomize the emotional view some people have
towards justice, the Constitution and law. No facts, just emotion.
No wonder the Constitution is a shambles. Wooud you like me to send
you a copy of the Constitution so you can refresh?
The real story is exactly as I report. I live in Phoenix and we have
some of the toughest DUI law in the country. They are rabidly
enforced, too. Also, it was well over 100 degrees on the day the
gentleman got stopped. Popping 4-5 12 ouncers after working outside
all day is not difficult, nor rare.
This man did not drink except on rare social occasions. Drinking 4-5
is easy, I used to do it myself. Handlin it one hour later is another
story. When you take an aspirin for a headache, does the hurt
dissapear immediately? No, it takes some time, doesn't it!
------
I don't give a rat's rectum what you believe. I was there and know the
facts. I have not enhanced or lied. I do not lie; to clients,
judges, prosecutors, or most importantly, myself. I am confortable
with my position and place in the legal system. Can you say the same
for yourself? My firm has, on occasion (and every occasion), fired
attorneys who do not work to the ethical guidelines.
I (as stated in my original post) tell my clients that I can defend
them but I cannot make them not guilty.
On to more facts.---
The state of Arizona is currently in a turmoil over some DUI related
breath test devices. I hope you can understand that electronic
devices providing data have tolerances and reading error (the breath
test machines used in this state are electronic). They also require
calibration as directed by the manufacturer.
(BTW, I have a degree in Physics, worked in the semiconductor
manufacturing field for 25 years and was quality assurance manager for
a major electronics company before I decided to get a law degree. I
am also a licensed Patent Attorney.)
Now, it seems the group responsible for maintaining the breath test
devices decided to computerise all testing and set up a system to link
all machines and keep data in a central database. Qualification of
machines is done monthly and full QA cert is quarterly.
Well, before this elegant system, a machine that tested out of
calibration was taken out of service and tests that showed a subject
to be drunk were disqualified (as they should be). YOu would not want
to convice someone on faulty evidence, would you?
With the new system, evidence of faulty machines was destroyed by a
person that stated he did so so they would not lose cases in court!
We defense folks were going along fat and happy because we we told the
machines don't fail??? That was their undoing. The prior history
showed a very reliable machine but not infallible.
Now, the state is in the sad position of having to toss out thousands
of DUI convictions because of on person (or group) that wanted to win!
Justice!!!!!!!
cdn
JOE NEAR
I teach in an introductory course on the principles of drug action to
medical students, including alcohol and many cold medications. The
amount of alcohol in a recommended dose of over-the-counter cold
medication is not likely to put your blood alcohol level anywhere near
the legal definition of impaired or intoxicated. The active ingredient
(the real drug), not the alcohol, CAN cause impairment including
increased reaction time, drowsiness, etc. In fact the typical dose of
OTC antihistamine such as chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimetron) can cause
impairment equal to or greater than that from a blood alcohol level at
the legally permissible limit in most people. One of the reasons that
the newer prescription antihistamines are so popular is that they cause
less drowsiness. If you drive and take an antihistamine, you should
probably be taking one of these. IMO they are worth the money
considering the added safety.
Other kinds of drugs you should watch out for: drugs for motion sickness
such as dramamine, anti-anxiety drugs like Valium, sleeping pills that
can cause next-day drowsiness, some anti-depressants, some pain killers
(not aspirin, advil, tylenol or most other drugs to treat arthritis
though). There are many more.
Every pharmacist is highly trained about the adverse effects of both
prescription and over-the-counter drugs. They should be happy to tell
you which drugs you are taking could impair alertness. I ask them
questions all the time because they have more practical knowledge about
a wider range of drugs than I do and most physicians do.
I'd be happy to answer general questions about the effects of drugs. Be
aware that I am not a physician or a pharmacist, and much of my
knowledge is academic and theoretical rather than practical.
As for communion wine, amounts probably vary but a sip of wine contains
very little alcohol. Probably less than the dose of anti-cold
medication.
Joe Near
JOE NEAR
This is a sticky topic. If really pushed, modern technology could
probably measure residual alcohol from a single glass of wine consumed
several days ago. There is absolutely no evidence that this level of
alcohol causes any significant impairment. In fact, the alcohol levels
used as permissible limits in most states are based on statistical
measures of the correlation between certain blood alcohol levels and
measures of diminished capacity. There is not a perfect correlation
between BAC and impairment, and some individuals will be significantly
impaired at lower levels, a few may not be impaired at or above the
legal limit.
I would favor a different tack: take the car away from the drunk. Most
weeks I can read in our local small-town newspaper about the conviction
of 4 or 5 repeat offenders of the DWI law. Sometimes they have no
license, sometimes they have no insurance. They sure wouldn't be driving
if they didn't have a car.
Joe Near
....
bill horne
Here
http://www.intox.com/Physiology_F.html
is some interesting stuff on that, and here
http://www.intox.com/Drink_Wheel_F.html
is a neat little thing to help you figure out where you may be on the
chart before the fact.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
TKatt
"sbourg" <bourgN...@hrl.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:072ea1b1...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
You are right he is no longer a danger to society but has just become a
burden on society due to something he was found not guilty for.
Peter Wantz (dr.doo)
Canoli the TROLL
You've been creaping around this newsgroup for months AFTER YOU SAID YOU WERE NEVER
COMING BACK,you were told then as your told now,your an ASSHOLE whose only purpose is to disrupt
so you quailfy as an IDIOT AND LIAR AS FAR AS THIS NEWGROUP IS CONCERNED. Friggen
TROLL!!
Peter Wantz (dr.doo)
`justin gredible
can...@dtgnet.com says...
> Not "we" justincredible, you were the one I asked, and no,I actually
> do not know what you consider to be an idiot driver, so perhaps you
> could explain to me how I qualify. You made the bet, now let's see
> your cards.
Simple..you qualify simply because your don't have a clue. hehe
`justin gredible
> "criminal defense Attorney".
>
chill Neon...
Sheez,I suppose your also against people even having lawyers..aye? When
you've got a big legal problem,do you represent yourself,you know the old
adage: "Those who represent themselfs have a fool for a client" :=)
I think you went way overboard calling this person names like
scumbag,lowest of the pile of shit etc..this got personal IMO. It's a
shame someone can't express themselves to an opinion without this. I
think you owe an apology Neon,this type of posting is not your style.
After all,he was just doing his job...which happens to still be legal in
this country.
Can't we all just get along? <g>!
DsrtTravlr
>> weeks I can read in our local small-town newspaper about the conviction
>> of 4 or 5 repeat offenders of the DWI law. Sometimes they have no
>> license, sometimes they have no insurance. They sure wouldn't be driving
>> if they didn't have a car.
>>
>> Joe Near
>>
Sorry, but personal family experience tells me different. A criminally minded
relative, age 23, male, wrecked two cars in one year after sneaking the keys.
One belonged to his sister, one belonged to his mother. He had no license or
car before the first wreck where he took out two parked cars, his sister's car,
a power box, and some block wall. It could not be proven he was driving the
car. He did the same thing with his mom's car, except this time, he just hit a
curb and totaled Mom's car, which had less than 3,000 miles on it. He also
abandoned that car, and could not be prosecuted because no one saw him actually
driving it. Because of not wanting to prosecute a family member, neither
pressed charges. And since he was related, he could not be charged with grand
theft auto anyway, but only unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Since it was
a male under 25, neither accident was covered by insurance.
The point? Drunks can still get cars. They are very creative that way.
Taking a car away from a drunk in no way guarantees they will not get a car and
drive.
Steve
Illigitimi non carborundum.
George E. Cawthon
nonsense of your first sentence, "If really pushed, modern technology
could probably measure residual alcohol from a single glass of wine
of wine would probably disappear in 4 hours in all cases and certainly
in 24 hours no matter what the test.
Your last sentence, "They sure wouldn't be driving if they didn't have a
car," also undoes your credibility. If they drive without insurance
and without a license why wouldn't they just drive someone else's car
(borrow or steal)?
JOE NEAR wrote:
>
> Steve:
>
> This is a sticky topic. If really pushed, modern technology could
> probably measure residual alcohol from a single glass of wine consumed
> several days ago. There is absolutely no evidence that this level of
> alcohol causes any significant impairment. In fact, the alcohol levels
> used as permissible limits in most states are based on statistical
> measures of the correlation between certain blood alcohol levels and
> measures of diminished capacity. There is not a perfect correlation
> between BAC and impairment, and some individuals will be significantly
> impaired at lower levels, a few may not be impaired at or above the
> legal limit.
>
> I would favor a different tack: take the car away from the drunk. Most
> weeks I can read in our local small-town newspaper about the conviction
> of 4 or 5 repeat offenders of the DWI law. Sometimes they have no
> license, sometimes they have no insurance. They sure wouldn't be driving
> if they didn't have a car.
>
> Joe Near
>
George E. Cawthon
> Here
> http://www.intox.com/Physiology_F.html
> is some interesting stuff on that, and here
> http://www.intox.com/Drink_Wheel_F.html
> is a neat little thing to help you figure out where you may be on the
> chart before the fact.
>
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Using the drink wheel it indicates that 4 beers in an hour would result
in less than 0.08 concentration. Of course there could be extenuating
circumstances, but if the guy had 0.101 an hour after he got caught,
then he probably had more than 3-4 beers in the 15 minutes before he
went out driving. Not proof, but some evidence that the drinker was
lying about the intake and the alcohol concentration may have been going
down not going up when he was tested.
W F Sill
>>In defense of the POV you express, I am confident a few are unfairly
>>inconvenienced. But IMO there is no real defense for engaging in a
>>known criminal activity with the potential for deadly consequences.
>>MADD may be too emotional, but that is somewhat less of a crime than
>>deliberately impairing your ability and then driving a vehicle.
Then, cdn <dno...@k7no.com>, who seems unaware that the term Criminal
Defense Attorney is redundant to most of us, wrote:
>Oooohhh, watch it Will. Under this analysis, shooting a gun then
>becomes an illegal activity. Drinking is legal. Driving is legal.
>Driving after drinking is legal in some instances. Shooting is legal.
>In some instances!
Don't be an ass! There is virtually no relevant connection, except
perhaps in the lawyerly mind, between firing a weapon and driving a
car. We are talking about your POV that an individual who got
himself sloshed and drove home got abused by the legal system on a
technicality. I say he got what's coming to him IN SPITE of your
successful intervention to get the formal charge dismissed. You are
entittled to disagree, but I have seen quite enough drunken "good
guys" on the road - it is high time they paid dearly for thumbing
their nose at their fellow citizens and of course the law. Obviously
you believe the technicality of being a bit less drunk than the
statutes call for removes guilt -- I say your client got what he
deserved.
Will KD3XR ---- the Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
"Everyone is entitled to his own views. No one
is entitled to his own facts." J. Schlesinger
W F Sill
> . . . Popping 4-5 12 ouncers after working outside
>all day is not difficult, nor rare.
>
>This man did not drink except on rare social occasions. Drinking 4-5
>is easy, I used to do it myself.
It is completely evident that you think this guy should not be
inconvenienced on the grounds that other people commonly get away with
the same criminal behavior! You may be a good lawyer but your logic
sucks.
`justin gredible
can...@dtgnet.com says...
> Wonderful! I would ask what I don't have a clue about
privat...@my-deja.com
ignorant newbie's who need to be slapped. Cotse is not and has never
been an anounymous host,anyone whose tried to post using it is
a true idiot,as was pointed out..anyone can trace posts via that site.
I suggest you don't post crap like that one ignorant fool(dtgnet.net)
posted,ya may need to find a new provider when your admin is notified of
this abuse.
Now grow up or leave!!
PI
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
justin`gredible
can...@dtgnet.com says...
> It's obvious that you will retreat into your mantra when challenged,
> which is good, simple people should stay with simple processes.
Could be..but I'm not going to play your silly game Canoli,your barking
up the wrong tree buddy! :=)
Ty
"justin`gredible" <goldf...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13b2fb7e3...@news.earthlink.net...
DsrtTravlr
wrote:
>Now grow up or leave!!
>
>
>PI
>
I advocate zero tolerance for people who post foulmouthed rants. Rants are bad
enough, but when they cross a line, I think they are justified in being
disconnected from their ISPs for the first offense. The recent visits from
kingtut (whoever) et al demonstrate my point.
Like the original thread on drunk drivers, how many times does it take to show
intent? To a reasonable and prudent person, once does it.
Steve
Illegitimi non carborundum.
Guy reading here
just with a question.
With such wide and deeply felt opinions
as are being expressed, isn't it amazing
this country works as well as it does?
I am amazed at the dear friends I meet
in RV settings who share views I abore.
Yet, they are wonderful people.
This is not Pollyannish. This is how we
live in a successful society.
The acceptance of divergent political
opinion is one sign of civilization.
Fortunately, RVers seem more accepting
than most.
Dick Barber
<privat...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
news:8iblju$jaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The two dweebs who are trying to post
anounymously are both total
> ignorant newbie's who need to be
slapped. Cotse is not and has never
> been an anounymous host,anyone whose
tried to post using it is
> a true idiot,as was pointed
out..anyone can trace posts via that
site.
>
> I suggest you don't post crap like
that one ignorant fool(dtgnet.net)
> posted,ya may need to find a new
provider when your admin is notified of
> this abuse.
>
> Now grow up or leave!!
>
>
> PI
>
>
>
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
Lindberg & Ellen Winnie <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote:
> In article <2e473230...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>, fishguy
> <fishguy...@rockisland.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The Wenatchee World (www.wenworld.com) is the nearest daily but
> > nothing has shown up on their page yet.
>
> Nothing in today's PI (Tues) or Monday's either, don't know about the
> Times (www.seattletimes.com, www.seattle-pi.com)
Turns out that the location this wreck happened is walking distance to
a co-workers summer cabin. This location (despite being a straight
stretch) has a fair number of wrecks.
His take (he was there, heard the wreck, and was quickly on site). Was
that something had happened and the truck-5er vered to get out of the
way of the MH, didn't make it and the 5er impacted the drivers side of
the MH.
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@amsat.org
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/rv
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
JOE NEAR
I get your point. This sounds like a pretty slippery critter. I still
believe that confiscation might reduce repeat offenses, though I agree
they will not be eliminated completely.
Joe Near
DsrtTravlr wrote:
>
> >> I would favor a different tack: take the car away from the drunk. Most
> >> weeks I can read in our local small-town newspaper about the conviction
> >> of 4 or 5 repeat offenders of the DWI law. Sometimes they have no
> >> license, sometimes they have no insurance. They sure wouldn't be driving
> >> if they didn't have a car.
> >>
> >> Joe Near
> >>
>
DsrtTravlr
wrote:
>Oh fine, I will weigh in on this, but
>just with a question.
>
>With such wide and deeply felt opinions
>as are being expressed, isn't it amazing
>this country works as well as it does?
>
>I am amazed at the dear friends I meet
>in RV settings who share views I abore.
>Yet, they are wonderful people.
>
>This is not Pollyannish. This is how we
>live in a successful society.
>
>The acceptance of divergent political
>opinion is one sign of civilization.
>Fortunately, RVers seem more accepting
>than most.
>
>
Unfortunately, in the real world, attitudes change with experience. Most
people's attitudes on DUIs are based on their own experience. If they haven't
had a bad experience, their attitude is soft. Most people's attitudes on guns
are based on their own experience. If they have never been robbed, raped,
shot, or beaten, their attitude is soft. I think even Pollyanna's attitude
changed after her first of second time..................and it is all something
you just have to be there to experience. It cannot be told in a story.
Steve
Illegitimi non carborundum.
JOE NEAR
I agree that typical methods are not this sensitive. Whether you could
measure alcohol several days later is arguable, but theoretically it
could be done. Once the alcohol level falls enough the concentration vs.
time curve follows that for exponential decay. The point is that even
simple tests can give a reliable figure above 0 for blood alcohol levels
that would not lead to significant impairment. So the talk of "zero
tolerance" in terms of 0 BAC is not logically consistent with the
rationale for DWI laws that I have heard: to prevent people from driving
with enough alcohol on board to impair their driving skills and
judgement and therefore endanger themselves and others.
Your second point is interesting. Makes me wonder why I ever buy a
vehicle when I can just as easily drive someone else's. I see your
point, and it's probably valid in some cases, but I still believe that
confiscation would be a deterrent for some.
Joe Near
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> Two comments. Your other statements are diminished by the complete
> nonsense of your first sentence, "If really pushed, modern technology
> could probably measure residual alcohol from a single glass of wine
> consumed several days ago." The evidence of consuming a single glass
> of wine would probably disappear in 4 hours in all cases and certainly
> in 24 hours no matter what the test.
>
> Your last sentence, "They sure wouldn't be driving if they didn't have a
> car," also undoes your credibility. If they drive without insurance
> and without a license why wouldn't they just drive someone else's car
> (borrow or steal)?
>
>
> JOE NEAR wrote:
> >
> > Steve:
> >
> > This is a sticky topic. If really pushed, modern technology could
> > probably measure residual alcohol from a single glass of wine consumed
> > several days ago. There is absolutely no evidence that this level of
> > alcohol causes any significant impairment. In fact, the alcohol levels
> > used as permissible limits in most states are based on statistical
> > measures of the correlation between certain blood alcohol levels and
> > measures of diminished capacity. There is not a perfect correlation
> > between BAC and impairment, and some individuals will be significantly
> > impaired at lower levels, a few may not be impaired at or above the
> > legal limit.
> >
> > I would favor a different tack: take the car away from the drunk. Most
> > weeks I can read in our local small-town newspaper about the conviction
> > of 4 or 5 repeat offenders of the DWI law. Sometimes they have no
> > license, sometimes they have no insurance. They sure wouldn't be driving
> > if they didn't have a car.
> >
> > Joe Near
> >
bill horne
>
> Your second point is interesting. Makes me wonder why I ever buy a
> vehicle when I can just as easily drive someone else's. I see your
> point, and it's probably valid in some cases, but I still believe that
> confiscation would be a deterrent for some.
>
> Joe Near
I do, too. I've known a number of drunk drivers, and just plain drunks,
in my time. Not one of them appeared, or proved, to be a potential car
thief. And only a fool would lend a car to someone who had had his
confiscated for DUI. If they did, soon the fools would be without a car,
and that might not be a bad thing, either.
justin`gredible
dsrtt...@aol.com says...
> I advocate zero tolerance for people who post foulmouthed rants. Rants are bad
> enough, but when they cross a line, I think they are justified in being
> disconnected from their ISPs for the first offense
>
,a very sick post from someone who has deep problems.
George Lowry
Read a book once called, "The way things ought to be". Among other
things, the author addressed the problem of DUI. His theory was that
we did it all wrong. If you catch someone under the influence, you
don't arrest him, you arrest the car/vehicle. That way he/she can't
drive drunk because they no longer have a vehicle. The vehicle is
sold at auction to cover costs of administering the program. If it
needs work, those that are incarcerated do the repair work, as part of
their rehabilitation/training.
He had a lot of other good ideas that will never be instituted....
George
Neon John
George Lowry wrote:
> Read a book once called, "The way things ought to be". Among other
> things, the author addressed the problem of DUI. His theory was that
> we did it all wrong. If you catch someone under the influence, you
> don't arrest him, you arrest the car/vehicle. That way he/she can't
> drive drunk because they no longer have a vehicle. The vehicle is
> sold at auction to cover costs of administering the program. If it
> needs work, those that are incarcerated do the repair work, as part of
> their rehabilitation/training.
>
> He had a lot of other good ideas that will never be instituted....
Until the cars get smart enough to know and appreciate the
difference between right and wrong, that's a really, really stupid
idea. "Punish" the car for what the drunk did? Riiight. Meanwhile
the drunk goes down to the nearest "tote the note" used car lot and
for a couple hundred dollars is back on the road before the buzz
wears off.
The best solution, I think, would be, after due process and a
finding of guilty, toss the guy in jail for a year and confiscate
the vehicle regardless of who owns it. This should be mandatory with
no judicial discretion at all, other than to up the minimum jail
time. The year in the pen makes sure he can't repeat too often.
Taking the car regardless of the owner will end the common practice
of people loaning their cars to drunks with a wink and a nod.
Either the owners will stop letting drunks drive their cars or
they'll soon be without their cars - either way, the drunks are
eventually deprived of their means to kill. It will also put a stop
to the "tote the note" car lots practice of selling beaters to
drunks for a dollar down and a dollar a week.
John
--
John De Armond
johngd...@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
Neon John's Custom Neon
Cleveland, TN
"Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"
gonzo
good one, just like the confiscation of autos, etc. of
those "carrying drugs"... and that little system's been badly
abused by local constabulary all over the country. I'd hate to
see what they'd do by "skewing the report" just because they
took a fancy to your car or RV.
Mark
mtsof...@aol.com
JOE NEAR <ne...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Steve:
>
>I get your point. This sounds like a pretty slippery critter. I
still
>believe that confiscation might reduce repeat offenses, though
I agree
>they will not be eliminated completely.
>
>Joe Near
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
al...@nospam.net
And you are willing to spend enough money to build jails to house all
these first time offenders? I doubt it. Methinks your methods are of
the knee-jerk variety.
Tom
George E. Cawthon
George Lowry wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:15:40 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net> wrote:
>
> >JOE NEAR wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Your second point is interesting. Makes me wonder why I ever buy a
> >> vehicle when I can just as easily drive someone else's. I see your
> >> point, and it's probably valid in some cases, but I still believe that
> >> confiscation would be a deterrent for some.
> >>
> >> Joe Near
> >
> >I do, too. I've known a number of drunk drivers, and just plain drunks,
> >in my time. Not one of them appeared, or proved, to be a potential car
> >thief. And only a fool would lend a car to someone who had had his
> >confiscated for DUI. If they did, soon the fools would be without a car,
> >and that might not be a bad thing, either.
>
> Read a book once called, "The way things ought to be". Among other
> things, the author addressed the problem of DUI. His theory was that
> we did it all wrong. If you catch someone under the influence, you
> don't arrest him, you arrest the car/vehicle. That way he/she can't
> drive drunk because they no longer have a vehicle. The vehicle is
> sold at auction to cover costs of administering the program. If it
> needs work, those that are incarcerated do the repair work, as part of
> their rehabilitation/training.
>
> He had a lot of other good ideas that will never be instituted....
>
> George
Yeah, George, that's a great idea. Apparently you haven't followed the
news of DEA people confiscating property and selling it without any
proof of wrong doing or a conviction. And, sometimes they are simply
wrong. But let's say they only do it after full proof and conviction.
What happens to the mother and kids when the house, the boat, the
airplane, etc. are ripped away. Anyway, what gives the state the right
to confiscate property just because a person commits a crime. (A fine
yes, but confiscation is inherently unjust when you take a 1957 plymouth
from one person and a 1999 BMW from another.) And how do they get
reasonable representation if they are stripped of their valuables. Oh,
excuse me, I forgot. One of the main points of confiscation is so those
bad people can't buy reasonable representation in our famous very just
justice system. Seems to me that violates just about everything that
our Constitution stands for.
George E. Cawthon
Neon John wrote:
>
> George Lowry wrote:
>
> > Read a book once called, "The way things ought to be". Among other
> > things, the author addressed the problem of DUI. His theory was that
> > we did it all wrong. If you catch someone under the influence, you
> > don't arrest him, you arrest the car/vehicle. That way he/she can't
> > drive drunk because they no longer have a vehicle. The vehicle is
> > sold at auction to cover costs of administering the program. If it
> > needs work, those that are incarcerated do the repair work, as part of
> > their rehabilitation/training.
> >
> > He had a lot of other good ideas that will never be instituted....
>
> Until the cars get smart enough to know and appreciate the
> difference between right and wrong, that's a really, really stupid
> idea. "Punish" the car for what the drunk did? Riiight. Meanwhile
> the drunk goes down to the nearest "tote the note" used car lot and
> for a couple hundred dollars is back on the road before the buzz
> wears off.
>
> The best solution, I think, would be, after due process and a
> finding of guilty, toss the guy in jail for a year and confiscate
> the vehicle regardless of who owns it. This should be mandatory with
> no judicial discretion at all, other than to up the minimum jail
> time. The year in the pen makes sure he can't repeat too often.
> Taking the car regardless of the owner will end the common practice
> of people loaning their cars to drunks with a wink and a nod.
> Either the owners will stop letting drunks drive their cars or
> they'll soon be without their cars - either way, the drunks are
> eventually deprived of their means to kill. It will also put a stop
> to the "tote the note" car lots practice of selling beaters to
> drunks for a dollar down and a dollar a week.
>
> John
>
> --
> John De Armond
> johngd...@bellsouth.net
> http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
> Neon John's Custom Neon
> Cleveland, TN
> "Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"
Yep, taking the car, regardless of who owns it will result in justice in
our famous system of laws. Like it hasn't already happened. The guy
lives next door, somebody leaves the keys in your car, and the guy next
door "borrows" the car. Your word against his, and you did invite him
over for dinner one day and you did lend him a wrench once. The
prosecutor is hot to make a case and increase his fame, the judge hates
(the drunk, the druggie, whatever), so who do they believe and what
happens to your car. Yep. It sounds like a real good solution.
Focus on the problem? Forget the peripheral crap. Focus on the
problem. The gun, the car, the drug, the alcohol, the poorly fitting
shoes are not the problem.
bill horne
Ohmygod. Are you suggesting that PEOPLE are the problem? Gasp! How
gauche and politically incorrect can one be?
--
bill
George Lowry
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:51:30 -0400, Neon John <joh...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>they're being killed. And yet they seem to accept drunk driving
>>with little more than a wagged finger. At least until they either
>>get hit by a drunk driver or have a close one killed by a drunk.
>
>In general, vehicular homicide is pretty much tolerated. A woman who
>was late for work where my wife used to work in Westchester County,
>NY, pulled off of the road and started driving up the shoulder at 50+
>miles an hour (past a line of stopped traffic), and killed someone who
>was changing a tire. She was stone cold sober at around 8 in the
>morning.
>
>IMHO, she should have been charged with enough stuff, including
>reckless driving and manslaughter and so forth that her license was
>suspended and she had to do time. Instead, she got a slap on the
>wrist and never even had her license suspended. This seems to be
>common practice --- a friend of mine who is an insurance adjuster
>noted that this seemed to be the norm.
>
>In my opinion, her crime far exceeded that of someone who happened to
>be driving impaired but who had no accident, was not driving
>recklessly, etc.
>
>The only time that vehicular homicide is ever prosecuted vigorously is
>when there is a big noise made about the case. Else, common practice
>seems to be to just sweep it under the rug.
>
>>This area is where MADD has really dropped the ball. Instead of
>>concentrating their resources on further education of the public to
>>the results of drunk driving, they've detoured off toward falling
>>into the old prohibition fallacy. We can't make people stop
>>drinking (nor should we) but we could stop people from driving drunk
>>- at least more than once - if we had the will. It's sad that it
>>takes getting a loved one killed or injured before one gets
>>interested in the subject.
>>
>>So no, steve, I'm not in favor of whatever autocratic society you
>>imagine me to be. What I AM in favor of is actually trying these
>>drunks instead of corrupting the system to get the guy off by legal
>>maneuver.
>
>I guess I'm in favor of treating everyone the same. Someone killed in
>an accident is no less or more dead if the driver of the at fault
>vehicle was sober or not. Is someone who is falling asleep at the
>wheel and weaving down the road less dangerous than someone who has
>had enough alcohol to impair them? Is someone who is driving
>recklessly because they are late to work more or less dangerous than
>someone who is driving recklessly because they have had just enough
>alcohol to lower their inhibitions?
>
>Heard a great ad on the radio last night: Don't have stressful
>conversations on the cell phone while driving. Right. "I'm sorry,
>but I have to quit talking to you. I'm driving and the conversation
>is too stressful." I guess you are not allowed to talk to your
>passengers either.
>
>You are right - MADD seems to be following a prohibitionist agenda
>these days and they are losing credibility. I'd like them to start
>focusing on safer driving in general --- an educational campaign on
>how to make a left turn and why speeding through intersections is bad
>would probably save more lives around here than continuing to press on
>the DUI issue. And they could build all of this around the "You are
>more likely to make bad choices when you are mildly intoxicated,"
>theme.
More years ago than I care to remember, there was a safety movie
called "Courtesy is Contagious". It did more to change the attitudes
of drivers than anything else I have seen in the last 50+ years of
driving. I really think that the movie should be remade and be
required viewing before any license is issued or renewed. Most
problems are caused by a complete lack of courtesy and any sense of
responsibility. However, I sometimes feel that I am preaching to the
choir.....
George
W F Sill
> A woman who
>was late for work where my wife used to work in Westchester County,
>NY, pulled off of the road and started driving up the shoulder at 50+
>miles an hour (past a line of stopped traffic), and killed someone who
>was changing a tire. She was stone cold sober at around 8 in the
>morning.
<snip>
>In my opinion, her crime far exceeded that of someone who happened to
>be driving impaired but who had no accident, was not driving
>recklessly, etc.
Obviously we will continue to have differences of opinion on what
"justice" is. IMO the lady's crime was reckless endangerment and the
consequence was involuntary homicide, for which she should have been
received the same punishment as others doing the same thing.
In the case of DUI, the crime is also reckless endangerment, and would
be involuntary homicide if a death resulted. I fail to see a
difference otherwise.
IMO it is utter foolishness to throw the book at someone because an
injury or death resulted, and merely administer soft wrist slaps at
activities that we (society) know to be deadly - like DUI and passing
stopped traffic on the right @50+. Obviously the consequences need to
be considered in deciding the punishment, but I think we all agree
that deliberate murder deserves a greater punishment than an
accidental death - even when the latter grows out of a stupid/illegal
act.
But if you are waiting for mankind to perfect the establishment and
administration of justice, take a seat. It will be a long wait, even
with the frenzied aid of the liberal establishment, who would rather
pass laws than enforce them any day!
George E. Cawthon
bill horne wrote:
>
> Ohmygod. Are you suggesting that PEOPLE are the problem? Gasp! How
> gauche and politically incorrect can one be?
>
> --
> bill
Yeah, I know I am an anachronism. Off with my head.
George E. Cawthon
Nick Simicich wrote:
((snip))
> I guess I'm in favor of treating everyone the same. Someone killed in
> an accident is no less or more dead if the driver of the at fault
> vehicle was sober or not. Is someone who is falling asleep at the
> wheel and weaving down the road less dangerous than someone who has
> had enough alcohol to impair them? Is someone who is driving
> recklessly because they are late to work more or less dangerous than
> someone who is driving recklessly because they have had just enough
> alcohol to lower their inhibitions?
Aha, a note of rationality. The results are the same whether a person
is irrational while drunk or sober. It doesn't make any difference if a
person is killed by a gun, a knife, or an automobile. And it doesn't
make any difference if the person is killed in the dark or the light.
Dead is dead.
The problem with automobile deaths is the term "accident" which has two
meanings. All automobile mishaps are called accidents. But, "accident"
is a term usually reserved for something that is unavoidable or
unforeseen. Crashing into or killing someone while driving 50+ on the
shoulder past a line of traffic is certainly not unforeseen. That's why
driving on the shoulder is illegal.
If a death or crash can be reasonably foreseen by a type of action, then
the action should be prosecuted as intent not as an unavoidable
"accident." If you shoot a gun across a highway and hit a driver, you
will be prosecuted for some type of murder. If you shoot your car
across a highway (fail to stop at a stop sign) you should be prosecuted
in the same way. The first step in drinking, driving, and killing
someone in an accident is an intentional decision to drink). It should
be obvious that driving while drunk is foreseen and driving while drunk
is dangerous.
But prosecution of the law appears to be less and less rational and more
bent toward emotional appeal, politics, etc.
cdn
<mtsoft622...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>Personally, I'm not too fond of this idea. In theory it's a
>good one, just like the confiscation of autos, etc. of
>those "carrying drugs"... and that little system's been badly
>abused by local constabulary all over the country. I'd hate to
>see what they'd do by "skewing the report" just because they
>took a fancy to your car or RV.
>
>Mark
Come on Mark. Just ask John and some of the others hereabouts that
believe if you are charged with a crime, you are guilty. No matter
what the facts and evidence shows, if you are charged with DUI, by
God, you are guilty of DUI. After all, you only have a "slimy" lawyer
to defend you.
There is not much left of the Constitution but a few tattered threads
remain.
cdn
Don't forget the Ft. Tuthill Hamfest.
July 28-30, 2000
cdn
<johngd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>The best solution, I think, would be, after due process and a
>finding of guilty, toss the guy in jail for a year and confiscate
>the vehicle regardless of who owns it.
Golly John. Just a few days ago you didn't give a rats ass about due
process and a VERDICT of Guilty. The very fact that one had been
stopped and arrested for DUI was sufficient. Will you concede that
the defendant has the right to a "slimy" attorney? Or must he face
the charges alone?
> This should be mandatory with
>no judicial discretion at all, other than to up the minimum jail
>time. The year in the pen makes sure he can't repeat too often.
>Taking the car regardless of the owner will end the common practice
>of people loaning their cars to drunks with a wink and a nod.
>Either the owners will stop letting drunks drive their cars or
>they'll soon be without their cars - either way, the drunks are
>eventually deprived of their means to kill. It will also put a stop
>to the "tote the note" car lots practice of selling beaters to
>drunks for a dollar down and a dollar a week.
>
Don't know about your state John, but in Arizona, a lot cannot sell a
car to a person who does not have a drivers license and insurance.
And since the DL goes whether the person has been found guilty of DUI,
you can be assured the drunk will be unable to buy a car. I am sure
there are exceptions so please don't regale the NG with examples.
bill horne
>
> Golly John. Just a few days ago you didn't give a rats ass about due
> process and a VERDICT of Guilty. The very fact that one had been
> stopped and arrested for DUI was sufficient. Will you concede that
> the defendant has the right to a "slimy" attorney? Or must he face
> the charges alone?
> cdn
If you're a defense attorney, you may as well either get out of the
business, or just accept the fact that folks like defenders who get
'innocent' people off, and detest those that get 'guilty' people off.
cdn
>
>Then, cdn <dno...@k7no.com>, who seems unaware that the term Criminal
>Defense Attorney is redundant to most of us, wrote:
>
Ad hominem attack incoming---
>
>Don't be an ass! There is virtually no relevant connection, except
>perhaps in the lawyerly mind, between firing a weapon and driving a
>car.
Both are acts undertaken by an individual with intent. Intent to do
something. Shooting knowing that the act may kill someone is the same
as to drive knowing that the act may kill someone.
>We are talking about your POV that an individual who got
>himself sloshed and drove home got abused by the legal system on a
>technicality.
He was not sloshed, as you say. After the alcohol had come to full
effect, he was definately under the influence and definately was over
the legal limit of 0.10. This occurred about 1 hour after he
completed driving. BTW the facts were NEVER disputed by the
prosecution.
> I say he got what's coming to him IN SPITE of your
>successful intervention to get the formal charge dismissed.
I did not get the charge dismissed. The prosecutor dismissed the
faulty charge on his own. You see, he also believes in Justice.
> You are
>entittled to disagree, but I have seen quite enough drunken "good
>guys" on the road - it is high time they paid dearly for thumbing
>their nose at their fellow citizens and of course the law. Obviously
>you believe the technicality of being a bit less drunk than the
>statutes call for removes guilt -- I say your client got what he
>deserved.
>
Will, (and others) you have purposely avoided the fact that I do not
"get guilty people off". I stated at the outset that I tell my
clients I represent them, I do not, and can not, make them "not
guilty".
I dislike criminals but I was taught that every one is innocent until
proven guilty. Every one has the right to a trial and counsel. I
would not deprive you or John or others of this right and I hope,
should you ever be falsely accused, you have an attorney that feels
the same. In fact, should it ever occur that you make a mistake and
do something that society has deemed criminal, I bet you are wishing
for an attorney that WILL make you not guilty.
Interesting to note that DUI (first offense) is a misdemeanor in
Arizona. It is a traffic offense in NJ and Il (and perhaps others) and
therefore not even counted in the criminal statistics. Same for
stolen cars. In Il, stolen cars are not a criminal offense. You see,
some states would "look bad" if they played by the rules the rest of
us do.
I suspect we agree on the big picture but you are reacting to emotion.
I must act on facts. Is it not you that states that we all have the
right to our own opinion but we do not have the right to our own
facts!
W F Sill
defense of his POV, ending with:
>I suspect we agree on the big picture but you are reacting to emotion.
>I must act on facts. Is it not you that states that we all have the
>right to our own opinion but we do not have the right to our own
>facts!
Sorry, but your claim that I'm reacting to emotion is simply untrue.
I realize the business you're in requires you to put a spin on
everything, but it's a _fact_ that impaired drivers are a menace. You
claim your guy was "not guilty" because lawyers decided he couldn't be
legally charged, and I say he was morally guilty and deserved some
level of punishment.
As I undersstand it, your basic premise was/is that MADD is an
emotional outfit with ulterior motives. Mine is that they are closer
to right that you are--- because you'd rationalize drinking & driving
on the basis that a) it's commonly done; b) that a mistake by a good
guy should not require crucifixion; and c) that as long as the
arbitrary BA% was within limits there is no crime.
IMO it is a crime when a person knowingly engages in a proscribed
practice, such as DUI. The arbitrary BA% exists only as a means of
quantifying criminal behavior, and is meaningless otherwise. [I
assume you already know some folks can function well with a huge
overload of booze, and others get silly on a glass of wine.]
I realize you have a job to do and you seem to be an intelligent
individual, but weeping over the fact that your client suffered
consequences outside the legal system simply reveals that you haven't
thought through the whole DUI issue. IMO.
cdn
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:51:30 -0400, Neon John <joh...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>they're being killed. And yet they seem to accept drunk driving
>>with little more than a wagged finger. At least until they either
>>get hit by a drunk driver or have a close one killed by a drunk.
>
>In general, vehicular homicide is pretty much tolerated. A woman who
>was late for work where my wife used to work in Westchester County,
>NY, pulled off of the road and started driving up the shoulder at 50+
>miles an hour (past a line of stopped traffic), and killed someone who
>was changing a tire. She was stone cold sober at around 8 in the
>morning.
>
I guarantee you that would not be the case in Arizona. I have noticed
that many have commented just how lenient their local courts are. I
suggest you come to Az and spend a day in court. Nothing soft here.
Phoenix City Court (and others) do NOT plea. They say plea to the
charges...period. Mesa is worse with >50% Morman. DUI not-guilty is
less than 1%, facts aside.
>IMHO, she should have been charged with enough stuff, including
>reckless driving and manslaughter and so forth that her license was
>suspended and she had to do time. Instead, she got a slap on the
>wrist and never even had her license suspended. This seems to be
>common practice --- a friend of mine who is an insurance adjuster
>noted that this seemed to be the norm.
>
>In my opinion, her crime far exceeded that of someone who happened to
>be driving impaired but who had no accident, was not driving
>recklessly, etc.
That was the basic point of my original post but it got lost in
emotion.
>
>The only time that vehicular homicide is ever prosecuted vigorously is
>when there is a big noise made about the case. Else, common practice
>seems to be to just sweep it under the rug.
One case to the contrary here is Arizona was when a local female radio
station "personality" hit and ran, killing an 80 year old Lawyer. No
big deal, so no charges. She has had at least 2 DUI since then. One
slap on wrist for the first. Second case is not known to me.
>
>I guess I'm in favor of treating everyone the same. Someone killed in
>an accident is no less or more dead if the driver of the at fault
>vehicle was sober or not. Is someone who is falling asleep at the
>wheel and weaving down the road less dangerous than someone who has
>had enough alcohol to impair them? Is someone who is driving
>recklessly because they are late to work more or less dangerous than
>someone who is driving recklessly because they have had just enough
>alcohol to lower their inhibitions?
>
>Heard a great ad on the radio last night: Don't have stressful
>conversations on the cell phone while driving. Right. "I'm sorry,
>but I have to quit talking to you. I'm driving and the conversation
>is too stressful." I guess you are not allowed to talk to your
>passengers either.
>
>You are right - MADD seems to be following a prohibitionist agenda
>these days and they are losing credibility. I'd like them to start
>focusing on safer driving in general --- an educational campaign on
>how to make a left turn and why speeding through intersections is bad
>would probably save more lives around here than continuing to press on
>the DUI issue. And they could build all of this around the "You are
>more likely to make bad choices when you are mildly intoxicated,"
>theme.
Again, my original post stated this in general. I had my character
impuned by people who have never met me nor have any knowledge of me
personally. But I am a big boy and can take it. I merely consider
the mentality of the sources. ALSO, Attorney's keep a ledger and when
my detractors need a lawyer (and someday, they WILL need a lawyer),
the service and fee will reflect their past.
JUST KIDDING WILL!..
cdn
So true. Believe it or not, I love the work but I should note that I
do not do trials. I do preliminary work including plea negotiations.
I don't think I have ever gotten a guilty person "OFF". I have worked
to get lesser pleas but they are normally reduced to the least
sentence available rather than pleading to lesser charges.
I have gotten innocent people "off". I have had more than a few cases
where a father was suddenly (in the middle of a nasty divorce) charged
with molesting his daughter.
One daughter had suppressed memory of molestation that occurred when
daddy dearest was in the service saving her ass from aggression. She
should have cleared the story with mommy a bit better.
The sad fact is the mommy and daughter were not charged. In this case
the daddy lost his high paying job and mommy got only about 10% of the
support she would have gotten otherwise. Every one lost.
cdn
Guy reading here
parties, that believe this remedy has
gotten out of hand.
Work is underway from several quarters
to change this mis-applied remedy.
Dick Barber
"Nick Simicich" <n...@spamcop.net> wrote
in message
news:c8mokssnqs6e8i02luce2jcp6njbn39m8a@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:55:45 GMT,
"George E. Cawthon"
> <george...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> There is a fine jurisdiction in
Florida that will confiscate cash no
> matter what the documentation for it
is. Like someone coming back
> from a flea market with a receipt
book. Or a military man who had his
> pay records lost and who had collected
several months back pay and had
> pay stubs to prove it.
>
> When you contest, even if you have
good proof that the cash is from
> legit sources, they offer to settle
with you for 50 cents on the
> dollar, noting that it will cost you
money to hire a lawyer. I forget
> which county it is, it is the one
Daytona is in.
>
> Of course, all this is necessary to
win the war on drugs, and, of
> course, to provide operating funds for
the sheriff so that they can
> hire more officers to rob more people
driving through.
>
Lon VanOstran
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
Seems to me that violates just about everything that
> our Constitution stands for.
Sorry George. You suffer the misfortune of living in a time when that
has no value to most of the people, and to others the Constitution is
better used as toilet paper.
Individual rights? Not today my friend. Especially if those rights might
inconvenience "society".
Lon, who thinks Patrick Henry was right.
Barndance
beyond and not react to the emotions of other posters. I look forward to
reading your future contributions. (oh by the way, I'm in some
trouble.....VBG)
My problem with the way drunk drivers are handled by present laws is that
all of us do something illegal (speeding, no toad brakes, exceeding towing
limits, going too fast for conditions) or do things that are not well
thought out. If we were pursued as vigorously as those who drink and drive
(irregardless of the amount drunk, or the technical blood alcohol level, or
intent to drive irresponsibly) we would not feel we were treated fairly.
MADD and the legislatures have singled out the drinker for more scrutiny and
punishment than other causes although the effects of speeding have also been
blown out of proportion.
The other thing that is apparent in this discussion is that many of us
(myself included) cannot conceive of a rational person drinking 4-5 beers
and then driving. I would have sworn that such a person would be legally
drunk by the time that last drink hit his stomach. If it could be shown that
the legal blood alcohol limit would not have been reached until after the
driver had reached home (which apparently is the case), then the argument
changes to whether it is reasonable to drink at this rate and more
importantly whether we as a society should punish this behavior. MADD would
severely limit any drinking and driving.In the real world people do drink
and then drive. The educational effort can either be focused on stopping
people from drinking at all and driving (the MADD method) or on correctly
estimating when the driver is going to be impaired beyond an acceptable
level. (If we are going to insist on absolute non-impairment we are going to
have ground all drivers who drive beyond 1-2 hours, between the hours of 2-5
AM, before age 21 and after age 45, and in any adverse highway condition. It
is not feasible to eliminate all risks.)
I am aware of the need to keep this list on topic. RVers are at risk of
becoming the target of many social law-making by zealots limiting our
lifestyle i.e. the places we can camp, the dimensions of our rigs, what
drinks we can carry in our frigs, etc. If we are targeted with the zeal that
driving while intoxicated has incited then we all are in trouble. Thus we
need to be on our guard when the rights of another group is threatened even
if we have a good horror story to tell.
I am the father of teen-agers and the possibility exists that drugs or
alcohol will are some time be in my car when my teenager is driving, though
I have made it abundantly clear that such things cannot happen. Are some
contending that it would be fair and reasonable for me to lose my car in
this manner? That would put a serious crimp in my 17 yr old's driving
privileges and in subsequent co-signings if it were not required that the
authorities establish that I knew that that possibility was greater than
2-90%.(pick a number)
Phil
George E. Cawthon
Yeah, I know. Instant gratification is a bitch to argue against.
Jay Denebeim
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>IMO it is a crime when a person knowingly engages in a proscribed
>practice, such as DUI.
Uh Will, if the facts of the case were as presented he wasn't DUI nor
was he expecting to be under the influence before he arrived at his
destination. I'll grant you it's iffy in the case of beer, but I'm
fully confident that I could shoot four shots of alcohol and then
drive two blocks before they were metabolized. We're talking a minute
or two here don't forget.
>I realize you have a job to do and you seem to be an intelligent
>individual, but weeping over the fact that your client suffered
>consequences outside the legal system simply reveals that you haven't
>thought through the whole DUI issue. IMO.
I disagree. How long have you been retired Will? Are you aware of
how fascist it has gotten in the workplace the last few years? It's a
real problem.
Now, I don't believe the scenerio described could actually happen,
however I don't think putting a person on the streets is an
appropriate response. This person is likely to be unemployable from
this point onward. You might say 'good' now, but what would you do if
this became common place? The democrats are the only people who would
be happy if the homeless population increased by an order of
magnitude.
Besides which I don't see much in the way of danger for even a sloshed
person driving two blocks. They'd be hard pressed to get up enough
speed to do much damage in that distance.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
al...@nospam.net
wrote:
> The democrats are the only people who would
>be happy if the homeless population increased by an order of
>magnitude.
The rest of your treatise contained reasonable thoughts and arguments
regards drunk driving. Why would you then make such a stupid statement
regarding Democrats? No one, democrats or republicans, wants more
homeless people.
Tom
DsrtTravlr
>wrote:
>>Uh Will, if the facts of the case were as presented he wasn't DUI nor
>>was he expecting to be under the influence before he arrived at his
>>destination. I'll grant you it's iffy in the case of beer, but I'm
>>fully confident that I could shoot four shots of alcohol and then
>>drive two blocks before they were metabolized. We're talking a minute
>>or two here don't forget.
>>
>>Besides which I don't see much in the way of danger for even a sloshed
>>person driving two blocks. They'd be hard pressed to get up enough
>>speed to do much damage in that distance.
Jay:
Is stealing a piece of bubblegum stealing? How about stealing a piece of
bubblegum when you just spent a hundred bucks in the store on groceries? How
about stealing a piece of bubblegum when the store charged you a buck more for
an item than a competing store?
Are we talking about what is right and wrong, or about justification?
And there is the argument about what is right and what is wrong. Nudity is
wrong to some people. Stealing is wrong to some people. Drinking then driving
is wrong to some people. Selling your ass is wrong to some people. Lying is
wrong to some people. How, why, when, and to what degree matters not to people
who believe it is basically wrong. You know the old joke about "Would you go
to bed with me for $2? How about $2 million?"
To each his own.
And, pardon me for bringing up a horrible story, but in answer to:
>They'd be hard pressed to get up enough
>>speed to do much damage in that distance.
A friend of mine ran over and killed his own son backing out of the driveway.
He was sober.
Steve
Illegitimi non carborundum.
Jay Denebeim
<can...@dtgnet.com> wrote:
>Jay, beer is alcohol, there is no difference in terms of impairment
>between beer, wine, and any other alcoholic beverage, with the
>exception of the 151 proof rums. And if there is any time at all
>between shots, metabolism starts with the first shot, not the last.
I was thinking of the quantity of liquid that would have to be
consumed. I didn't think one could get it down quick enough. IMO it
would take about 15 minutes after taking the shots to reach a point of
inebriation where driving would be a problem (for me at least).
>Is balderdash still a word in use? Because that's descriptive of the
>idea that a drunk driver can't stomp the gas pedal if he's so
>inclined. I don't know what you drive, but my car will hit sixty
>within a few seconds, and certainly have enough speed to kill, maim,
>or destroy a person within one block, let alone two.
And? We're talking about people driving while imparied, not people
who decide to be malicious. The latter group are rather minute in
number.
>You sound as though you feel drunk driving is not a serious problem,
>that it's acceptable to have a few belts in a bar and then drive home.
I'm saying that IMO endangering other people with your car is wrong,
but some things are not a danger.
W F Sill
>Uh Will, if the facts of the case were as presented he wasn't DUI nor
>was he expecting to be under the influence before he arrived at his
>destination. I'll grant you it's iffy in the case of beer, but I'm
>fully confident that I could shoot four shots of alcohol and then
>drive two blocks before they were metabolized. We're talking a minute
>or two here don't forget.
I see I have not articulated my POV with clarity. While agreeing that
his condition may not have been _legally_ under the Influence, he
plainly imbibed heavily and then drove a car and was therefore - to
some unknown degree - "DUI". The law was and is clearly intended to
make that behavior punishable. The arbitrary BA% is simply a way of
quantifying a limit.
IMO he was dead wrong and deserves consequences. To accept the POV
that 99% of the limit is not wrong because it is not legally a crime
is to ignore the reality that impairment is dangerous to society.
Don't ask me what I think the number oughta be, because I don't have
the expertise and if I did I would probably be telling you there are
different numbers for different folks.
> How long have you been retired Will? Are you aware of
>how fascist it has gotten in the workplace the last few years? It's a
>real problem.
I've been retired 11 years and frankly don't understand the meaning of
the word "fascist" in connection with the workplace. I've always
thought of employment as a voluntary arrangement between employer &
employee, where the employer can only enforce such rules as employees
voluntarily accept. (IOW I don't accept the mindset that an employer
can "force" me to do things. I am always free to leave, and
maintained that attitude thoroughout most of my working life!)
>Now, I don't believe the scenerio described could actually happen,
>however I don't think putting a person on the streets is an
>appropriate response. This person is likely to be unemployable from
>this point onward. You might say 'good' now, but what would you do if
>this became common place? The democrats are the only people who would
>be happy if the homeless population increased by an order of
>magnitude.
I suppose you are saying the person should not have lost his position
because he was arrested for DUI. Opinions differ, but in the context
of today's abundance of sue-happy lawyers I would NEVER knowingly keep
a person with a DUI arrest on the payroll as a driver. If he was an
employee I really wanted to keep and I had other employment for him,
I'd do what was possible to keep him. If not, I'd feel compelled to
turn him loose.
You express concern about the number of people made homeless by
punishment, and all I can say to that is that swift & sure retribution
would be a deterrent to individuals who now think sucking a few suds
on the way home is OK! Frankly, I am more concerned about the
victims of DUI drivers than I am about the morons who just don't get
the fact that booze impairs their already-poor judgment!
>Besides which I don't see much in the way of danger for even a sloshed
>person driving two blocks. They'd be hard pressed to get up enough
>speed to do much damage in that distance.
If you had the experience on ambulance duty that I've had, some of
these preconceptions would be dashed to pieces. The vast majority of
grisly wrecks involving booze are NOT high-speed crashes on the
superslab, but fairly slow-speed collisions often listed as "driver
fell asleep".
Allow me to expand on the latter: many a shift worker putting in long
hours (12-hour stints are common today) stops at the tavern at the end
of a long week. He belts down a couple of beers and starts for home
just a couple of blocks or miles away. He nods off and takes out a
power pole (if really unlucky, it's a gasoline truck!). He's not
drunk or speeding, and won't be even when the booze metabolizes. But
he fell asleep because the alcohol relaxed him. Can't be found guilty
of DUI, even in States with a .08 limit.
What shall we do with this type? Shall we let 'em keep doing it over
& over until they make the front page and generate emotional outrage
by running down a cute little girl and her kitten? How about if it
is YOUR little girl?
Yes, the law is incapable of wisely handling all these problems, and
if I was King, I too would be incapable of enacting (let along
administering fairly) laws that would eliminate this problem. But
public safety demands that booze-impaired people be kept off the
streets to the best of our ability, and I cannot force myself to weep
great tears for the guy who downs 5-6 beers, drives home, gets charged
with DUI, has the charge dismissed on a technicality, but suffers
consequences outside the law.
What goes around comes around.
Guy reading here
beating your wife -right or wrong.
Medically, alcohol consumption and
inebriation is related to basically body
size, food consumption and time to
metabolize. Other factors run the gamut
from race to the type of food we eat
before, during and after drinking.
Politically, a person can say someone is
out of control after one shot in
virtually no time at all.
Medically and legally that is not true.
A 200 pound man under average conditions
can drink more than most 200 men do
drink before driving and still be at or
below the 0.08 limit. They certainly
will be within 0.06. If they pound the
drinks or drink on an empty stomach that
is different; one to two drinks is
enough for light headedness.
Now, I am sick of any contrary view that
is not as Taliban strict as possible to
be called real world. I have seen enough
of death and destruction to know what
the real world is and I imagine others
have as well.
Just because someone has a stricter view
of something does not make the rest of
us unrealistic. It also does not make
you unrealistic. That is a difference of
opinion and whatever JS is quoted as
saying, those are also facts.
If you need cites, I will provide them
for you from sources in law and in
medicine, but do your homework first.
For starters, you can call NCADI
(National Clearinghouse on Drug and
Alcohol Information) at 301-468-2600 and
request their 800-number so you can ask
(for free) a researcher to provide you
with blood alcohol levels which
correspond with body weights.
steamed. thank you
Dick Barber
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org>
wrote in message
news:8ilv6d$54s$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article
<0qnskscnbofb6ts2p58rs7bqbdqvjbtukp@4ax.