Posted on 08/12/2005 11:36:01 AM PDT by Rodney King
Apparently once the prosecution presents the evidence that the defendant had a .08 BAC, the only defense in California is that the test was not accurate. Evidence of actual impairment is irrelevant. This Virgina judge has made it highly likely that the Virginia Legislature will adopt the California model.
Thank you Judge O'Flarety.
BS. I told you in my post that the police departments were told that their funding was going to be based on the number of DWI tickets written.
For 6 months it was a witch hunt. I was pulled over for failture to signal exiting a deserted interstate. I had had one drink 3 hours earlier. I admitted that and the trooper put me through every test he had in his book and still couldn't arrest me. I wasn't a danger to myself or anyone else, but they needed the arrests and I hadn't signaled. If the 'witch hunt' wasn't on, he would never have pulled me over.
I have a friend who was the designated driver and was pulled over. A person in the back seat had an open beer. They had crossed into a 'no open container' jurisdiction and he lost his license for 6 months. Utter crap.
There are about 175 million people here of driving age and roughly 45,000 fatal wrecks/year.
This means that any driver has about a 1:10,000 lifetime chance of dying due to a fatal car crash.
Your one statistic allowing a 15,500 increase in risk seems to be a bit overstated.
Pardon me, you are not reinforcing your argument by using the term, "recklessly" as much as you are accepting the notion of intent which is the crux of the legality with presumption of intoxication and impairment laws.
You were doing much better with strict prohibition in your earlier posts.
Really? Where does it say that?
It is true that I am a relative abstentionist. I do not require it of others. Drinking is not a sin in my book. Drinking and driving however, is not something I do not tolerate too well. My religious beliefs do not enter into that intolerance.
While I am not an abstentiouist, What I do demand, however, is that people who are armed with 2 ton deadly projectiles need to be responsible enough to not point those weapons at me or my family right after they finish their second or third glass of wine. Driving is dangerous enough without adding alcohol to the fuel tanks of the drivers. The single most deadly instrument of destruction in the history of the country is the automobile. Allowing people to drink before they operate that piece of machinery is a recipe for disaster.
If everyone was impaired, at least we would have a level playing field.
Would you let your children play on that field? Be honest.
This is the third time in these last few posts that you have made insulting remarks to sandy; do you think that is called for?
4.
In my state this is already a fact. If you blow at .08 or higher you are going to lose your license for at least 90 days, be required to post SR22 (proof of insurance) attend Victims Impact Panel, and go through SATOP. No trial. Just a hearing and you have no chance in the hearing unless you can prove the officer had 'no probable cause'. The administrative hearings are decided in favor of the state in 99.99% of the time.
End result, you are guilty with no trial. You can appeal the judgment but you will lose your license for the mean time until it comes up on the docket and once again you are guilty and must prove your innocence.
How many miles would you say a typical driver with a .35 BAC could statistically drive before he crashed?
Neither. I think both options suck. I prefer to punish people for driving poorly. A system which finds some impaired drivers more equal than others, assuming impairment in some circumstances while not giving a damn about it in *most* circumstances, is to me morally revolting. Granting a person the "privilege" of proving his legal innocence is in no way a remedy.
Your pulpit is not guaranteed.
All the way to the cemetery.
I love rhetoric. Hope the farm crowd doesn't find you advocating against gasahol.
I think we kissed and made up already.
Hey, I thought #180 was pretty funny.
I can't think of a more appropriate use for it. You want the gas tanked, not the driver.
Geez, it is hard to understand. It's a good thing I was just typing and not driving or ruling from the bench!
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.