[templar]

... for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

Well, seems like he must a pretty stupid sort of fellow for not taking the test when he would have passed it, now doesn't it? What's he out so far, $10,000 maybe? or more? And just for refusing to take a test he had already agreed to take when he accepted his license (it's called inmplied consent, and it's legal)?

[KrisKrinkle]

"Well, seems like he..."

I won't disagree with "seems like." At least you're not jumping to the conclusion that "he definitly is."

As much as anything, that part of my post was about jumping to conclusions, taking assumptions as fact and then confusing them with what is reality rather than what might be reality. Those tendencies are human and I fall to them myself sometimes, but that doesn't mean that trying to do better is a bad idea.

[GrandEagle]

it's called inmplied consent,
I know it's legal but that still doesn't make it right. This is the same line of thought that says "if you have nothing to hide, they why won't you let them search your house, car, etc.
The burden of proof rests with the accuser and we are not required to assist our accuser in any way. And that's Constitutional.