Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guilty for smoking
ktsm ^

Posted on 10/28/2002 12:54:44 PM PST by chance33_98


Guilty for smoking
The first trial challenging El Paso's no-smoking ordinance has ended quickly. 

Saturday, October 26, 2002 -- Jurors took just six minutes in handing down a guilty sentence.

Ken Bengston was ticketed for smoking at the Texas Bar and Grill last June. While he claims he wasn't smoking, a police officer says he saw Bengston smoking at the restaurant.

For jurors, regardless of their personal feelings about smoking, this was an open and shut case.

Fred Gardea, Jury Foreman, said, "It was short, we didn't deliberate much. We just figured he was guilty, and that's it."

Bengston has paid the fine, but says he may still appeal the decision.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 10/28/2002 12:54:44 PM PST by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; maxwell
Ping and Puff
2 posted on 10/28/2002 1:00:06 PM PST by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The restaurants in Juarez must be loving this!! Whose brilliant idea was it, anyway? La Florida here I come.
3 posted on 10/28/2002 1:50:35 PM PST by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
In a similar vein, Tempe Arizona passed a smoking ban and now many restaurants are failing as patrons desert them for neighboring Phoenix and Mesa.

Their proposed solution? Spread the smoking ban across the entire metropolitan area, because their law isn't "fair"!

So, just because the anal folks of Tempe are suffering from their own self imposed restrictions they think everyone should join them in their misery..!

4 posted on 10/28/2002 2:15:07 PM PST by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The first trial challenging El Paso's no-smoking ordinance has ended quickly.

This didn't challenge the no-smoking ordinance.
This challenged the word of an LEO.
The citizen says he wasn't smoking, the LEO says he was, the jury went with the LEO.
It didn't challenge the ordinance at all.

5 posted on 10/28/2002 2:15:14 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
For jurors, regardless of their personal feelings about smoking, this was an open and shut case.

The jurors could have, I suppose, told the judge that they found him not guilty because of a bad ordinance.
But then the LEO might have seen them smoking too. Or they might have seen the LEO smoking.;^)

6 posted on 10/28/2002 2:17:25 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I always enjoyed it when the Atlanta airport had those 'ashtray traps' down in the tunnels by the trains.

The little man in the orange blazer would jump out from behind the potted plants and threaten to call over the APD officers who were down the hall drinking coffee, paying no attention whatever to the little man's frenzied gesticulations.

I haven't been to Atlanta recently. Are they still doing this?

7 posted on 10/28/2002 2:20:28 PM PST by XLurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I would LOVE to have been there and applauded was the cop led the guy out in handcuffs!

I know of no more rude, self-centered, totally useless people as the smokers who ignore the rules, and light up anyway.

They deserve about 90 days in the slammer for the infraction, to boot. Let 'em bum their smokes off "Little Nicky" in return for amorous favors!

8 posted on 10/28/2002 2:45:54 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Illbay
Taliban bump!

10 posted on 10/28/2002 3:24:18 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Waskishi
"Boy ! I'LL bet you get tipped over every holloween, How about a courtesy flush?"

Bwahahahaha!

11 posted on 10/28/2002 3:31:02 PM PST by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
They're b-a-c-k, those strange little fanatics.
12 posted on 10/28/2002 4:27:42 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
So, just because the anal folks of Tempe are suffering from their own self imposed restrictions they think everyone should join them in their misery..!

I say, Tempe got what it wanted, now learn to live with it........ OR REPEAL.

13 posted on 10/28/2002 4:30:07 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
Fred Gardea, Jury Foreman, said, "It was short, we didn't deliberate much. We just figured he was guilty, and that's it."

They just "figured he was guilty? That's it?" Goodness, remind me never to have to go to court.

14 posted on 10/28/2002 5:05:42 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
This brings on new meaning to the scene in Basic Instincts -- "Are you going to arrest me for smoking?" "Er, um, well yes."
15 posted on 10/28/2002 6:37:27 PM PST by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Only a total fool such as you would think that this is a good use of police resources.

As a taxpayer, I would be outraged that moral midgits like you had any say whatsoever about the law, and further, if I was the judge and this assembly of idiots took a mere six minutes to return a verdict, I'd throw it out in a heartbeat. Every good judge knows that a jury too stupid to linger at least long enough to get the free lunch, isn't doing it's job.

This will be overturned on appeal, just on that six minute "deliberation".

16 posted on 10/28/2002 7:11:25 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I would be outraged that moral midgits like you had any say whatsoever about the law,...

The "moral midgets" are the smokers who think they own the atmosphere.

Smokers are THE SINGLE MOST rude, self-centered people on the face of this planet.

17 posted on 10/29/2002 4:58:24 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Smokers are THE SINGLE MOST rude, self-centered people on the face of this planet.

Here, let me reinforce your prejudice.
You are the biggest horses patootie on this subject that I have ever heard speak, post, or squeek.
It seems you have no knowledge of the science, or junk science, behind the, so called, threat of ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke). Yet you continue to berate people that you don't know, probably don't WANT to know, simply because they smoke tobacco.
On this subject it seems you are ignorant and have no desire to allay your ignorance. All you do is scream, "I don't like the smell and smokers are rude because they want to smoke."

So be it. Call me rude, I would like to be able to partake of a legal substance in a business whose owner allows it. I would like government, ALL GOVERNMENT, to keep their noses out of where their noses don't belong.

18 posted on 10/29/2002 5:58:10 AM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Damn right!

We oughta stomp on their heads for mere possession of tobacco. Wasn't it you that stated that we need to crack a few skulls to get the message through?

I heard that there is a group of people living in a remote area practicing non-conventional religious beliefs who may not be locking up their cigs in a manner to prevent minors from getting them. Call the FBI, the ATF, the military.

19 posted on 10/29/2002 6:14:08 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
La Florida here I come.

The anti-smoking nazis are about to enact a ban on smoking in ALL indoor workplaces.

It's on the ballot here, and there is a good chance it will pass next week.

20 posted on 10/29/2002 6:16:39 AM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson