|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,387
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,387 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Doesn't mean the law is always correct. It was not that long ago some poor sap was doing life in Nevada for being a three time looser with small possessions of pot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
WTF are grand juries for? A 9 month investigation into the murder of a man that wasn't a suspect at all by 2 cops that are more than a little dirty doesn't warrant convening a grand jury? An elected official that is part and parcel of the police department gets to make the decision?
And people wonder how cover ups are successful or why there is no faith in the system. From Hilary all the way to BFE Idaho this country is crooked. Give it to a grand jury and let the facts speak, anything else is pure corruption. I have a hell of a lot more faith in a panel of citizens than I do in some god-like lawyer. BLM! Don't piss and moan if your kid gets smoked. Dave
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
I guess this is another example of why I not only have no faith in the justice system and why I don't shed any tears when the cops are ambushed or killed. Us against them.
As far as I'm concerned blue lives don't matter until innocent lives matter.
Those pigs, prosecutors and the sheriff can rot in hell.
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
WTF are grand juries for? A 9 month investigation into the murder of a man that wasn't a suspect at all by 2 cops that are more than a little dirty doesn't warrant convening a grand jury? An elected official that is part and parcel of the police department gets to make the decision?
And people wonder how cover ups are successful or why there is no faith in the system. From Hilary all the way to BFE Idaho this country is crooked. Give it to a grand jury and let the facts speak, anything else is pure corruption. I have a hell of a lot more faith in a panel of citizens than I do in some god-like lawyer. He's not part and parcel of the PD. The PD is local; the AG is state. Huge difference. A local DA that has to work with the SO on cases daily might factor in stuff he/she shouldn't on an investigation like this. An AG who is far removed and couldn't care less about a small SO will have NO qualms about throwing two deputies into the ringer. None. You keep blathering about corruption at all levels and not even thinking about the levels involved or how they interact. The State Police ran the investigation. Never seen an SP that would cover for an SO at all; almost always the opposite. Never seen a State AG that wouldn't fry a local cop at the drop of a hat to be able to say they were "fair, impartial, and no one is above the law". If this had been an SO investigation and local DA call, then I could see your point. SP and State AG? No. Not at all. You're not going to get a more impartial, or in fact likely skewed toward finding reasons to prosecute the deputies, situation that this. And yet, still no indictment.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC. I didn't ask about public intox. I asked about operating motor vehicles and increased charges for any crimes committed.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC. I didn't ask about public intox. I asked about operating motor vehicles and increased charges for any crimes committed. Was I responding to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Doesn't mean the law is always correct. It was not that long ago some poor sap was doing life in Nevada for being a three time looser with small possessions of pot. I didn't say it was correct. I was stating what the laws actually are.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
[quote=JoeBob]Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC. I didn't ask about public intox. I asked about operating motor vehicles and increased charges for any crimes committed. [/quote Was I responding to you? I've noticed that you won't, especially on this one.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 |
I guess this is another example of why I not only have no faith in the justice system and why I don't shed any tears when the cops are ambushed or killed. Us against them.
As far as I'm concerned blue lives don't matter until innocent lives matter.
Those pigs, prosecutors and the sheriff can rot in hell. I bet you splattered all over a Claude Dallas photo after that post.
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate. No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not? Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC. I know what our statute states, and I know how I had to get the evidenciary proof to proceed with a case Then perhaps you should show me where your public intox statute makes mention of a specific BAC level.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
It doenst it states manifestly appears under the influence then I would apply for a warrant for blood
Last edited by gitem_12; 07/29/16.
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
JoeBob: The King of Worthless Debate
Dave
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
It doenst, but I had to have proof that he was intoxicated which meant getting a warrant to get blood drawn You don't get a warrant for public intox. You testify that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
It doenst, but I had to have proof that he was intoxicated which meant getting a warrant to get blood drawn You don't get a warrant for public intox. You testify that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and so on and so forth. And I would apply for a warrant for a blood draw.
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
It doenst, but I had to have proof that he was intoxicated which meant getting a warrant to get blood drawn You don't get a warrant for public intox. You testify that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and so on and so forth. And I would apply for a warrant for a blood draw. You've never drawn blood for a public intox and you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
It doenst, but I had to have proof that he was intoxicated which meant getting a warrant to get blood drawn You don't get a warrant for public intox. You testify that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and so on and so forth. And I would apply for a warrant for a blood draw. You've never drawn blood for a public intox and you know it. I've never drawn blood for anything, I'm not a blood drawer
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295 |
Sixteen (16) spent .223 casings and four (4) spent .45 shell casings were recovered at the scene.These casings indicate twenty (20) shots were fired by the officers.Finally,a .20 caliber bullet was found on the scene.While this bullet could have come from Jacks .204,The FBI expert who tested the bullet will not testify to that fact conclusively.There isno solid explanation how that bullet,if fired from Jacks gun,came to rest in the middle of the scene. And to say these cops were calm and placing there shots, is an understatement.Idiots anyway you look at it....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
Sixteen (16) spent .223 casings and four (4) spent .45 shell casings were recovered at the scene.These casings indicate twenty (20) shots were fired by the officers.Finally,a .20 caliber bullet was found on the scene.While this bullet could have come from Jacks .204,The FBI expert who tested the bullet will not testify to that fact conclusively.There isno solid explanation how that bullet,if fired from Jacks gun,came to rest in the middle of the scene. And to say these cops were calm and placing there shots, is an understatement.Idiots anyway you look at it.... You know those casings include the ones shot at the bull right? Or do you think the deputies picked up those casings prior to the altercation with yantis?
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295 |
Four (4) .223 fired at the bull and no .45's..
|
|
|
|
|
535 members (10Glocks, 1beaver_shooter, 1Akshooter, 222Sako, 01Foreman400, 21, 54 invisible),
2,434
guests, and
1,192
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,455
Posts18,489,729
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
