|
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message et... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote Drama? Yes, drama. I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind. The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit less. The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not apply. Sorry, Chuck. When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing will sway you. Joe, From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to trial, that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I can tell from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most likely 2nd degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain. There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post. I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case would never fly. If someone said to you TODAY "I have no idea what risks are involved with driving while drunk", and that person was over, say, 21 years of age, what would you say to that person? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message et... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote Drama? Yes, drama. I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind. The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit less. The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not apply. Sorry, Chuck. When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing will sway you. Joe, From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to trial, that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I can tell from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most likely 2nd degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain. There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post. I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case would never fly. If someone said to you TODAY "I have no idea what risks are involved with driving while drunk", and that person was over, say, 21 years of age, what would you say to that person? I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal. Hey, did you stay up all night last night? Nope, I slept my normal 5 hrs. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. I wonder if premeditated is defined as having a specific target, or does "I'm going to kill someone tonight for sure, I just don't know who yet" qualify? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:50:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. I wonder if premeditated is defined as having a specific target, or does "I'm going to kill someone tonight for sure, I just don't know who yet" qualify? Don't know - I'm not a trial lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I'm sure if you could prove that any individual who intended to get drunk and purposly drive into somebody intending to kill them, then you could get a First Degree Murder charge. It would be hard to do though. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal. Personally, if you can prove a Murder First charge using a car as a weapon (as happened here in CT a couple of years ago), then it would seem logical to follow through with the same charge for drunk driving. But that's just me. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. I wonder if premeditated is defined as having a specific target, or does "I'm going to kill someone tonight for sure, I just don't know who yet" qualify? Fortunately for all of us, the vast majority of people driving over the legal limit, do not have wrecks and do not kill people. The vast majority of DUI's drive dangerously, and somehow get home without an accident, or if we are lucky, get pulled over by the cops. Probably most DUI's have driven many many times drunk, before they are caught or have an accident. It sounds like this is a very personal subject and has touched a raw nerve. Keep pushing for maximum sentences, but 1st degree murder will not be one, until they change the definition or make an exception for DUI's. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal. Hey, did you stay up all night last night? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree murder. First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of definition Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton action. That's the definition. The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior. The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge. Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal. Personally, if you can prove a Murder First charge using a car as a weapon (as happened here in CT a couple of years ago), then it would seem logical to follow through with the same charge for drunk driving. But that's just me. Sure you could, if you could prove the drunk planned on killing the victim and being drunk was just an added bonus. Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that includes DUI in the list of crimes. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:17:25 -0400, DownTime
wrote: DownTime wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:10:09 -0500, lid wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:50 -0400, DownTime wrote: What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a 19 yr old 'family friend'? I can think of a couple of VERY good reasons that should not only be acceptable, but encouraged! (Now let's see, if he was 38 and I am 50 then the equivalent gal for me would be 31 - that's not bad, but I wouldn't mind younger). rasises hand OBJECTION, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial. Perry Mason Well, i am 46, by your math, it gives me a 27 yr old 'family friend' for boating adventures. Legal in every state, except one, The Spousal State Of Mind. Ah, but a boater can always dream, can't he? NO WAIT! I double checked the math, 19 is one-half of 38. That gives you a 25 and me a 23. ;) I DO like your math better!!!!! Dave Hall |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, the vast majority of people driving over the legal limit, do not have wrecks and do not kill people. The vast majority of DUI's drive dangerously, and somehow get home without an accident, or if we are lucky, get pulled over by the cops. Probably most DUI's have driven many many times drunk, before they are caught or have an accident. It sounds like this is a very personal subject and has touched a raw nerve. Keep pushing for maximum sentences, but 1st degree murder will not be one, until they change the definition or make an exception for DUI's. But the truly sad aspect of this is that while this subject has so many hot buttons and opinions, that no matter how you define it, some innocent person(s) end up killed or maimed through no fault of their own. And the guilty can end up walking away with nothing more than a reputation smear than anything else in some cases. The lawyers and politicians of this great country have reduced the justice system to basically more a matter of who has the most money for the best attorney, not necessarily who is right or wrong. Who here remembers the single greatest behavioral deterrent from their childhood: "Wait until your father gets home!"? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good telescope. Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good telescope. Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence? Of course - makes the cigar taste better. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good telescope. Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence? Of course - makes the cigar taste better. Gotta have contrast in life, or everything would be the same. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that includes DUI in the list of crimes. I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute. Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts for a lesser charge. Very Kafkaesque. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good telescope. Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence? Of course - makes the cigar taste better. Gotta have contrast in life, or everything would be the same. Exactly. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that includes DUI in the list of crimes. I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute. Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts for a lesser charge. Very Kafkaesque. Your son might've been impressed with something I saw a month ago: Not a DWI checkpoint, but what could only be described as an assembly line. (I was impressed). Pulled off the highway at my exit at 2:00 AM and at the bottom of the ramp, under the highway overpass, noticed a whole lot of police lights. It was pouring rain. My companion said "Wow...must be quite an accident here". Two flatbed tow trucks were hauling away cars. A cop directed us into the melee, at which point we saw 4 more flatbeds with cars loaded, 4 cop cars, and a couple more flatbeds on the other side of the overpass, waiting their turn. There were hapless looking people standing around, presumably watching their cars disappearing. When it was my turn for questioning, I told the guy the truth - 2 glasses of wine between 8 & 9 with dinner. He said "Headed home? Have a good night". I guess they have an intuition for these things after a while. There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that includes DUI in the list of crimes. I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute. Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts for a lesser charge. Very Kafkaesque. Your son might've been impressed with something I saw a month ago: Not a DWI checkpoint, but what could only be described as an assembly line. (I was impressed). Pulled off the highway at my exit at 2:00 AM and at the bottom of the ramp, under the highway overpass, noticed a whole lot of police lights. It was pouring rain. My companion said "Wow...must be quite an accident here". Two flatbed tow trucks were hauling away cars. A cop directed us into the melee, at which point we saw 4 more flatbeds with cars loaded, 4 cop cars, and a couple more flatbeds on the other side of the overpass, waiting their turn. There were hapless looking people standing around, presumably watching their cars disappearing. When it was my turn for questioning, I told the guy the truth - 2 glasses of wine between 8 & 9 with dinner. He said "Headed home? Have a good night". I guess they have an intuition for these things after a while. There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. In Norway the legal limit is .02, I personally think we should use the same standard. If you have one drink in Norway, you either walk or have someone else drive. I am all for a similar limit in the US. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. Checkpoints have a very low success rate, usually @ 1 -2% arrested, with a lower conviction rate. Their value isn't in catching drunks, but in visibility, reminding drunks not to drive. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:26:22 -0400, DownTime wrote:
Who here remembers the single greatest behavioral deterrent from their childhood: "Wait until your father gets home!"? Sexist, my Mom never waited, not did she have to. ;-) |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"thunder" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. Checkpoints have a very low success rate, usually @ 1 -2% arrested, with a lower conviction rate. Their value isn't in catching drunks, but in visibility, reminding drunks not to drive. They're also open to criticism due to profiling on people who smell funny. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment issues, etc. It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment issues, etc. It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way. Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this country, in which case you are rewarded. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
akheel wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in : On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment issues, etc. It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way. Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this country, in which case you are rewarded. My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the number of people who are drinking and driving. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:43:57 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the number of people who are drinking and driving. Yup, checkpoints aren't very effective in catching drunks, but they are very effective in scaring drunks. I'm not sure entrapment applies, but I'm guessing probable cause might. Thus the advertising of checkpoints. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:43:57 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: akheel wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in : On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup. I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment issues, etc. It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way. Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this country, in which case you are rewarded. My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the number of people who are drinking and driving. Well, I know this from my involvement with MADD and SADD. When Joe Lieberman was Attorney General of CT, there was an attorney in Torrington who was caught at a check point, which at the time were brand new in CT. I don't know all the details and the legal beagle ins and outs, but as I remember it, his argument for entrapment was based on the single purpose nature of the check point and the CT Supreme Court agreed with him. Like I said, I don't know all the legal beagle stuff, but that's what happened. It was related to the nature of the type of stop and some other issues. Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. Your son should be able to shed some light on all of this. Let's say there's a burglary in my neighborhood, and the homeowner is roughed up a little bit by the perp. So, the cops aren't there just to give the victim the 7th-layer illegible pink carbon copy. They're interested in whoever touched the victim. It's dark, and they see 3-4 people out for walks. Aren't the cops allowed to stop their cars and ask pedestrians a few questions? They don't know which pedestrian, if any, may be the perp, but they do know that some people walk regularly and may have seen something unusual. (Here, they ignore such information, but that's another story). Extend this to DUI checkpoints. How are they supposed to ask questions without stopping cars? Searching cars is another story. I'm talking about just asking a question or two. Just wondering. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. Your son should be able to shed some light on all of this. Let's say there's a burglary in my neighborhood, and the homeowner is roughed up a little bit by the perp. So, the cops aren't there just to give the victim the 7th-layer illegible pink carbon copy. They're interested in whoever touched the victim. It's dark, and they see 3-4 people out for walks. Aren't the cops allowed to stop their cars and ask pedestrians a few questions? They don't know which pedestrian, if any, may be the perp, but they do know that some people walk regularly and may have seen something unusual. (Here, they ignore such information, but that's another story). Extend this to DUI checkpoints. How are they supposed to ask questions without stopping cars? Searching cars is another story. I'm talking about just asking a question or two. Just wondering. Down here, the sheriff calls 'em what they are, and more power to him, too. There's little more pleasing in the area of local law enforcement than busting drunk drivers. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"HK" wrote
There's little more pleasing in the area of local law enforcement than busting drunk drivers. That being the case, why don't they simply post cops next to bars and shoot fish in a barrel, so to speak? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
... On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:06:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. They don't need probable cause.... that battle was fought and decided over the issue of Terry Stops. Roadblocks are legal; random stops are not. The stops have to be "consistently applied", if I recall the words correctly. All cars, or every 4th car, something like that. Of course, you can make yourself into the 4th car by having expired registration or inspection stickers on the windshield. That's like having a "kick me" sign on your back. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:15:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. Your son should be able to shed some light on all of this. Let's say there's a burglary in my neighborhood, and the homeowner is roughed up a little bit by the perp. So, the cops aren't there just to give the victim the 7th-layer illegible pink carbon copy. They're interested in whoever touched the victim. It's dark, and they see 3-4 people out for walks. Aren't the cops allowed to stop their cars and ask pedestrians a few questions? They don't know which pedestrian, if any, may be the perp, but they do know that some people walk regularly and may have seen something unusual. (Here, they ignore such information, but that's another story). Extend this to DUI checkpoints. How are they supposed to ask questions without stopping cars? Searching cars is another story. I'm talking about just asking a question or two. Just wondering. I don't know. I woudl suspect that if they were responding and after obtaining information, they would stop and ask the walkers if they had seen anything at such and such a time. Other than that, I just flat don't know. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:15:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time. I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause. That too. Your son should be able to shed some light on all of this. Let's say there's a burglary in my neighborhood, and the homeowner is roughed up a little bit by the perp. So, the cops aren't there just to give the victim the 7th-layer illegible pink carbon copy. They're interested in whoever touched the victim. It's dark, and they see 3-4 people out for walks. Aren't the cops allowed to stop their cars and ask pedestrians a few questions? They don't know which pedestrian, if any, may be the perp, but they do know that some people walk regularly and may have seen something unusual. (Here, they ignore such information, but that's another story). Extend this to DUI checkpoints. How are they supposed to ask questions without stopping cars? Searching cars is another story. I'm talking about just asking a question or two. Just wondering. I don't know. I woudl suspect that if they were responding and after obtaining information, they would stop and ask the walkers if they had seen anything at such and such a time. Other than that, I just flat don't know. Well, I wish they would, although that's based on an experience I had here. One night, around 1:00 AM, I saw two people on bikes at the end of my neighbor's driveway. I'm sure they heard my screen door open & close, but they didn't split especially fast. Just left "normally". Next morning, the neighbor says his cars were broken into. Next night (or maybe 2 nights later), I see two bikes again, a few houses down in the other direction. I call 911, tell the ****** "It's dark. No, I can't tell you if they're Puerto Rican, Venezualan, Mexican...just get a cop here. And, ask them to stop at my house after they check it out". What does the cop do? He stops at my house FIRST, and tells me he can't just question people because they're on bikes. I explain reality to him, but the guy just doesn't get it: Robbery that probably involved 2 people on bikes. Neighborhood streets all go in circles, so nobody here is going from one part of town to another. If it's 1:00 AM, they either live here, they're visiting, or they are "anything unusual", and "Your chief keeps saying citizens should help the police by reporting "anything unusual". Blank stare. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:43:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Well, I wish they would, although that's based on an experience I had here. One night, around 1:00 AM, I saw two people on bikes at the end of my neighbor's driveway. I'm sure they heard my screen door open & close, but they didn't split especially fast. Just left "normally". Next morning, the neighbor says his cars were broken into. Next night (or maybe 2 nights later), I see two bikes again, a few houses down in the other direction. I call 911, tell the ****** "It's dark. No, I can't tell you if they're Puerto Rican, Venezualan, Mexican...just get a cop here. And, ask them to stop at my house after they check it out". What does the cop do? He stops at my house FIRST, and tells me he can't just question people because they're on bikes. I explain reality to him, but the guy just doesn't get it: Robbery that probably involved 2 people on bikes. Neighborhood streets all go in circles, so nobody here is going from one part of town to another. If it's 1:00 AM, they either live here, they're visiting, or they are "anything unusual", and "Your chief keeps saying citizens should help the police by reporting "anything unusual". Blank stare. Can't tell you how many times the cops nabbed me for breaking curfew when I was a kid. Used to duck behind bushes, in gangways, behind cars, etc, if walking home after 10 PM. Different world now. But your story doesn't ring true. One AM and the cop can't check these guys out? --Vic |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:43:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Well, I wish they would, although that's based on an experience I had here. One night, around 1:00 AM, I saw two people on bikes at the end of my neighbor's driveway. I'm sure they heard my screen door open & close, but they didn't split especially fast. Just left "normally". Next morning, the neighbor says his cars were broken into. Next night (or maybe 2 nights later), I see two bikes again, a few houses down in the other direction. I call 911, tell the ****** "It's dark. No, I can't tell you if they're Puerto Rican, Venezualan, Mexican...just get a cop here. And, ask them to stop at my house after they check it out". What does the cop do? He stops at my house FIRST, and tells me he can't just question people because they're on bikes. I explain reality to him, but the guy just doesn't get it: Robbery that probably involved 2 people on bikes. Neighborhood streets all go in circles, so nobody here is going from one part of town to another. If it's 1:00 AM, they either live here, they're visiting, or they are "anything unusual", and "Your chief keeps saying citizens should help the police by reporting "anything unusual". Blank stare. Can't tell you how many times the cops nabbed me for breaking curfew when I was a kid. Used to duck behind bushes, in gangways, behind cars, etc, if walking home after 10 PM. Different world now. But your story doesn't ring true. One AM and the cop can't check these guys out? --Vic Believe what you like, but it's true. The same cop later hit a pedestrian. I don't recall if the person died or not. It was big news on the day it happened, but I never heard any more about it. He's still on the force, though. Our police chief likes to stand around our seasonal farmer's market and smile at people. I related the bike story to him, and asked him if he could give me a good reason why anyone should call the police for things like that. I won't even describe the rest of the conversation. You probably know it already. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Ernest Scribbler wrote:
"HK" wrote There's little more pleasing in the area of local law enforcement than busting drunk drivers. That being the case, why don't they simply post cops next to bars and shoot fish in a barrel, so to speak? The local sheriff post cops on the one road leading from the Sailing Club after all of their regattas and parties. The word gets out quickly if you are going to drink, either get a DD or spend the night in your boat. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com