Posted on 04/09/2009 9:11:11 AM PDT by flowerplough
Neighboring edge-of-Appalachia dairy farmer wrecks car on way home from bar. Gets a ride home, answers door when cops knock. When cops ask, admits that wrecked car is his, and that he'd been drinking at a bar. Cops haul him to closest clinic emergency room (15 miles) for blood alcohol test, subsequently charge Driving Under the Influence of alcohol.
Have heard from Christian radio shows interviewing purported Christian lawyers (oxymoron?) that anyone who ever answers any cops' question about anything is probably taking an un-necessary risk.
“BTW, I’m guessing his lawyer will claim that he was sober when he wrecked the car, but got drunk after he got home.”
The man admitted he was drunk, didn’t he? I’m sure the court will hear that.
“‘Innocent until proven Guilty’ is a fairy-tale.”
In the sense that cops and prosecutors go after people precisely because they think they’re guilty, you’re right. But all that phrase really means is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution’s side. It’s a proceedural thing, and very much real.
“If you think they can’t ruin your life without a conviction, you’re a fool.”
I’ll bet you the Duke lacrosse players and Sen. Ted Stevens kept their mouths shut tight. Look what it got them. The truth is, prosecutors can ruin a life under pretty much any circumstances. The odds that they will when I haven’t done anything wrong simply because I spoke freely is miniscule.
“You’ve exhibited a ‘common misperception’ by the public on this issue”
I don’t want to watch the video. Please inform me how common it is for innocent people to be convicted.
>>>The man admitted he was drunk, didn’t he? I’m sure the court will hear that.<<<
The post said he admitted he had been drinking, it didn’t say he admitted being drunk. I assume the blood test showed he was over the limit, but his lawyer could argue he didn’t get drunk until after the crash.
Whether a jury would buy it is questionable, but given what many juries will accept as “reasonable doubt”, it wouldn’t surprise me if he walked. More likely he’ll use that defense to get a plea deal.
>>“I disagree. There are enough laws, rules, and regulations out there (with exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions) to be able to [rather easily] FIND something, somehow that you have done to be illegal.”
>
>Ignorance of the law is no defense, and shouldn’t be. Besides, local cops don’t often come around asking about the legal minutiae of setback variances and tax returns.
Who said anything about ignorance of the law? Example, as a Citizen of New Mexico I have the right to keep and bear arms, both under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution AND the State Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 6) which reads”
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As
amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
According to Art 2, sec 10 of the state constitution:
The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized, nor without a written showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Now, as specifically stated, I may use arms for security and defense. The other day, the police came through my properties looking for me because of a phone-call they’d received. (Apparently cleaning a gun in public is thought to be illegal, though it is not.) These officers had no warrant, nor did they actually have probable cause (though if TSHTF they would claim so), it would have been well within my rights and legal for me to shoot them as they entered my property with their weapons drawn because they had no business to be there. (Though I did get to talk with an officer friend of mine, so it wasn’t all bad.)
“given what many juries will accept as ‘reasonable doubt’, it wouldn’t surprise me if he walked”
I kinda doubt that. The jury will have to believe that he was drinking, got drunk later, and crashed his car for some other reason, which he failed to tell the cops. That’d be a pretty big coincidence.
After a long day a few years ago, I fell asleep and hit a telephone pole late one night. Had a couple of beers in me. My head hit the windshield and shattered it. My head was pretty banged up as well, broken nose, etc... Took an ambulance ride to the hospital. At the hospital, the police officer said they were going to take a blood test. My eyes were almost completely swollen shut, I was in and out of it. I told him to forget it, I've already given enough blood tonight.
Two months later, I show up at court on DWI charges. The judge threw it out because I was not in the car at the time the officer arrived on the scene and the one witness he did have (the fellow that helped me out of the car) had given the officer a false name and address and he could not locate him.
“Short answer”... they’re sneaky... LOL..
A good understanding of how sneaky? Well, that’s in the video...
“Talk at your own risk of not landing in jail...”
[advice that *any and all* attorneys will give you... for your own good...]
“Who said anything about ignorance of the law?”
I did. I was responding to the logic of this sentence: “There are enough laws, rules, and regulations out there (with exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions) to be able to [rather easily] FIND something, somehow that you have done to be illegal.” I took that to imply that I could confess to a crime without realizing it. If not, what was the point?
I don’t see the relevance of your anecdote.
“After a long day a few years ago, I fell asleep and hit a telephone pole late one night. Had a couple of beers in me. My head hit the windshield and shattered it. My head was pretty banged up as well, broken nose, etc... Took an ambulance ride to the hospital. At the hospital, the police officer said they were going to take a blood test. My eyes were almost completely swollen shut, I was in and out of it. I told him to forget it, I’ve already given enough blood tonight.”
That’s all well and good, but I was specifically responding to the idea that the cops need a witness to put him behind the wheel.
By the way, unlike the you, the guy admitted to drinking and driving. Different circumstances.
I’ve got a good one for you...my cousin was sitting on a bench at 2am after last call waiting on a cab to pick him up to go home. The bench was on the corner of the town square and there was no one else around. A couple of cops came up to him and harrassed him saying there were a lot of prostitutes around (which was BS)and asked what he was doing. My cousin was wearing a tuxedo as he had attended a wedding earlier. He of course laughed at them and said they were being idiots. They arrested him for disorderly conduct. “Disorderly” seems to be a catch all for the JBTs.
The relevance: I did nothing illegal, and yet the police were given an incomplete picture of things that had happened whereby they acted upon. The actions that they took WERE illegal (should I have chosen to press the matter). The reason the police visited me was because I “could be” dangerous and “might be” armed and “could be” upset about things.
>>“There are enough laws, rules, and regulations out there (with exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions) to be able to [rather easily] FIND something, somehow that you have done to be illegal.”
>I took that to imply that I could confess to a crime without realizing it. If not, what was the point?
Not quite. More like they could take the facts of a situation, selectively, and apply them to the law in such a way as to make you a lawbreaker. A good example would be having a gun in your car and parking up on the university campus, a No Gun zone; and then getting harassed by some official who didn’t know that under the state-law you may keep weapons in your vehicle even on campus.
That is, I am not at all confident that everyone who works in an official capacity actually knows the law. (Though their position of authority suggests that they should.)
“The relevance: I did nothing illegal, and yet the police were given an incomplete picture of things that had happened whereby they acted upon.”
You said they acted upon you because of a phone call. This thread is about people talking themselves into trouble.
“More like they could take the facts of a situation, selectively, and apply them to the law in such a way as to make you a lawbreaker.”
Well, okay, applying the law, selectively or not, to a situation would still be seeking to determine whether or not, I had committed a crime. I specifically said that it’s only dangerous to talk if you have committed a crime. No disagreement there.
According to the post, the guy never admitted to drinking AND driving. He admitted that it was his car and that he had been drinking.
In my case, it was quite obvious based on the condition of my head and the location of the star on the windshield that I was the one driving. And I had admitted that I must have fallen asleep (according to the police report and citation). The fact, and the most pertinant part of the case was that the officer was not a witness nor did he have a witness to the incident nor did he have a legal admission of guilt from the suspect.
Of course, my opinion is based on the story as presented. Now, if the story changes, i.e. the car owner did in fact, admit, after waiving his rights that he was indeed drinking and driving and that caused his wreck, than my opinion will change. But we can only go with what we know.
The point is that the law as it is written (by lawyers), makes the most obvious quite obscure. ;-)
“A good example would be having a gun in your car and parking up on the university campus, a No Gun zone; and then getting harassed by some official who didn’t know that under the state-law you may keep weapons in your vehicle even on campus.”
In that case, I’m pretty sure nothing I said could help or hurt the situation, unless I could quote the exact statute I needed. Anyway, the officer would be the one in the wrong, and I’d have nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things.
“According to the post, the guy never admitted to drinking AND driving.”
No, the post said he’d been drinking at a bar. I guess it’s possible that he could have walked from the crash to a bar and then home, but I doubt it.
“He admitted that it was his car and that he had been drinking.”
He also admitted that he crashed it.
For some reason I am reminded of the Duke boys and now Sen Stevens.. 'nough said.
Al
"When cops ask, admits that wrecked car is his, and that he'd been drinking at a bar.
You said...
"He also admitted that he crashed it."
According to the original post, he never admitted that he wrecked the car to the police officer, just that the wrecked car was his.
Again, as the facts change, my opinion will undoubtedly change. But until then...
You said — He of course laughed at them and said they were being idiots. They arrested him for disorderly conduct. “Disorderly” seems to be a catch all for the JBTs.
—
LOL... even when exercising one’s rights under the Constitution, the *smart way* to do it — is to be respectful too, especially to the guy wearing a gun on his belt, standing in front of you... :-)
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.