Verily, in article <107tjmn$2kfbk$1@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
On 8/17/2025 5:11 PM, shawn wrote:
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
She's a quaff-law...
LOL.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge. Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him >beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:53:29 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge. Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
I once heard of an impaired charge when the PASSENGER was over the
limit and a witness had seen the driver door open but couldn't say
whether anybody had actually gotten out of the car. I think charges
were stayed but am not sure.
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
You are completely missing the point.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being
in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk driving even though she didnrCOt drive anywhere and they dragged her off to jail.
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>>broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course >>>>his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>>- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of >>>drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >>in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk >>driving even though she didnrCOt drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >>jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas and >pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he >couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and >listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because he >was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He >ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since the >car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't >apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time before >the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have >driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and >remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still >be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>> emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>>> broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course >>>>> his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>>> - .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >>> in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk
driving even though she didnrCOt drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >>> jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas >> and
pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he >> couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and
listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because >> he
was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He >> ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since >> the
car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't
apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time
before
the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have
driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and
remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still
be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
I'm tired of these stories. Does someone have a story in which a police officer encountered someone possibly in trouble, checked to make sure he
was okay, they had a polite encounter, the cop wasn't attempting to
perform a warrantless search, and everybody went on his way?
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>> broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>> - .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >> in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk
driving even though she didnrCOt drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >> jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas and
pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because he
was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since the
car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time before
the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
I'm tired of these stories. Does someone have a story in which a police officer encountered someone possibly in trouble, checked to make sure he
was okay, they had a polite encounter, the cop wasn't attempting to
perform a warrantless search, and everybody went on his way?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 12 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 48:08:31 |
| Calls: | 173 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,938 |