The conversation is priceless!
I have another one that I think you're not going to beleive. I think they're right.
Forgetting about the legal interpretations for the moment, here is my one question: is there any evidence that she was driving erratically? Put into other words, if she had not been seen breast-feeding, would anyone have pegged her driving as being dangerous? If the answer to that is no, then I think everything else goes right out the window.
Would I do that while driving? Well, besides the fact that it would be a bit anatomically difficult for me, no, most likely not. But that alone does not make it inherently dangerous for someone else. Some people can talk on a cell phone while driving, some can't. Some can listen to the radio, or keep a conversation, or have a drink, and some can't. The burden of proof as far as I can see is on the her accusors to prove that her actions were unnecessarily dangerous. If they cannot do that by looking at the data (her speed, use of signals, changing lanes, etc.) then IMO, the case is closed.
My apologies, as my views are far more libertarian than the average poster here, even though I do lean conservative. But I can't in good conscience not stand up and defend this couple. In pretty much every point I've seen debated on this, I have to side with them.
People like this guy and his wife are their own lemon, when life hands them lemons.
They go out of their way to research the laws so they can figure out how to break them. They are a bane to society and are raising a little scofflaw.
Darwin usually catches up with people like this. Hope when that happens it is only them that pay the price.
Finally, simply because our Constitution grants one the right to handle rattlesnakes does not make it okay to bring said snake into anothers life. His religion is his business, but it is obviously bravo sierra.
Brad does not seem to subscribe to the idea "Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
This is just deep-fried unbelievable.