 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007Trust the 'expert' cop fails again.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 No Drugs, No Booze, busted for DUI By: Mike Deeson Port Richey, Florida -- Joseph Errichiello is trying to walk a straight line but he is having trouble, just like he did when he was arrested for DUI on September 1st. Errichiello says they asked him if he'd been drinking again and he said no. He says they told him he was under arrest for suspicion of DUI. Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI checkpoint failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of coordination and the mental agility test. <...> Despite the fact that Errichiello blew 0.00 on the breathalyzer test and the Florida Highway Patrol confirms he had a 0.00 on the urinalysis the State Attorney's Office is still prosecuting him for DUI and he can't understand why. Errichiello says that the system in Pasco is wrong because he did nothing wrong. Then he got arrested again. 12 days later the Pasco Sheriff's office pulled him over for the exact same thing Once again the breathalyzer and urine analysis came back as 0.00. In the second case the state attorney is dropping the charges and says once it receives the paper on the urinalysis in the first case it will do the same. But the incident is a sobering thought for the man whose mental and physical disabilities make it impossible for him to pass a field sobriety test even when he hasn't had a drink or ingested a drug. Also see: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/evidence-only-counts-if-its-incriminating/ > http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Also see: > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/evidence-only-counts-if-its-incriminating/ So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess it that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking straight. It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of coordination and the mental agility test. To the officers, it would be a no-brainer that this guy was indeed *impaired*, even if not by alcohol or drugs. Field sobriety tests determine impairment, and the followup tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are causing the impairment. Interestingly enough, though, the article fails to mention if a blood test was administered, and if so, what the reading of the blood test came back as. They only mention field sobriety tests and urine tests. Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol. If this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first suspect cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but easily determined impairment. Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line. Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely. On Dec 3, 12:39 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > >http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license > if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely. I agree with this post, given the caveat that I assume that he was pulled over for erratic driving not at a checkpoint. nate >> Also see: >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp >> >> http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/evidence-only-counts-if-its-incriminating/ > Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have > a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a > straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line. From my reading, it appears that he was caught in a checkpoint both times. [snip] > Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have > a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a > straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line. > Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license > if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely. I don't disagree with this, but if this happens, that town will be inviting an ADA suit and the wrath of the AARP. I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and report. "Its just an old guy".  SignaturePaul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't disagree with this, but if this happens, that town will be > inviting an ADA suit and the wrath of the AARP. Well,that's where a competent Judge should toss the suit as having no merit. After all,it's only "reasonable regulation"... > I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported > over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and > report. "Its just an old guy". GREAT....an old guy who's physical abilities have deteriorated to the point he's a hazard;yeah,give him a pass.(NOT) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported >> over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and >> report. "Its just an old guy". > GREAT....an old guy who's physical abilities have deteriorated to the point > he's a hazard;yeah,give him a pass.(NOT) That's what the wide net is about, include as many people as possible and give certain people or groups passes. Government granted privilege is a powerful thing. Brent P: > >> I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported > >> over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > give certain people or groups passes. Government granted privilege is a > powerful thing. Just ask Senator Edward Kennedy...... SignatureFor the benefit of the nsa, cia and other goon squadss: suitcase nuke mall cleveland allah comes alive at midnight george w bush antichrist incompetent boob warmonger anthrax ebola ecoli ecommerce etrade emortgage ebankrupt 911 inside job patriot act hates freedom wtc pulled fifty nine million americans dumb texas mexico return >Just ask Senator Edward Kennedy...... Nice. :-) Somehow or another, I'll bet that makes sense to SADDAM and GPSTard -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > >Just ask Senator Edward Kennedy...... > > Nice. :-) Thanx... > Somehow or another, I'll bet that makes sense to SADDAM and GPSTard They do seem to think on that level, don't they? ;) Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >They do seem to think on that level, don't they? ;) "think"? Is that what they do? =)) -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy On Dec 5, 10:05 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: > > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -- They seem convinced of it...especially as many times as SADDAM has told others to THINK. > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > at > kua.net Right. Can't prosecute for DUI but his lic. should be pulled. Harry K >> http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 >> Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI >> checkpoint > So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess it > that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive > straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking straight. Instead of guessing maybe try reading the portion about being stopped at a checkpoint. > It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but > I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are > causing the impairment. Maybe the tests and the state employees who interpet the results are flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and it's employees are always correct. As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered acceptable in this society. > Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the > driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol. So, when he pulls over a 90 year old guy who is still licensed and passed the test and everything else and the 90 year old guy doesn't have the strength to stand on one leg or some other nonsense test, he's to be arrested? Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it. > If > this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the > article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first suspect > cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but easily > determined impairment. There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills issues. We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops and the other government employees to just know what the difference is. This is a problem. > Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have > a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a > straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line. > Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license > if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely. If we are going to start questioning that, then most cops I see on the road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the population at large. > >> http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Instead of guessing maybe try reading the portion about being stopped at > a checkpoint. The first time according to the article, it was a checkpoint. The second time, it doesn't specifically say checkpoint. > > It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but > > I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and > it's employees are always correct. There are numerous DUI attorney websites that criticize field sobriety tests. Nowhere did I suggest they were 100% accurate, but they are used in the field to determine impairment. A defense attorney will also willingly get a DUI suspect's charges reduced or dismissed, even if they were truly guilty of DUI. Also, one can refuse to take any sobriety test, but as I understand it, they must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test (at least in the state of California). The latter two, though, would have to be done at the police station, so might as well at least do the breath test at the side of the road. > As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate > that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How > ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered > acceptable in this society. Yes, that may be true. But if that impairment prevents them from remaining within lane markers, then that is a very serious problem. > > Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the > > driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it. I question how the government acts, but I don't have an irrational fear. Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions (the test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards test. None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what law enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any chemical results in the blood test, the driver was still impaired, just not DUI. > > If > > this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills > issues. No, but there are impairments that would prevent one from driving safely. Only lying to the DMV about such an impairment can still get one a license, and then they are a hazard on the road. (But the article fails to state the exact nature of the impairment and only uses general terms.) > We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and > equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops > and the other government employees to just know what the difference is. > This is a problem. If you are simply against field sobriety tests and laboratory tests to determine DUI, then I can't help you there. DUI is a serious enough issue that the checkpoints have to exist. Many drivers just have a beer or two and drive after only a 30 minutes or so. They are clearly under the influence, and those drivers cannot adequately determine their own level of impairment. Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes to field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of being impaired due to DUI. > > Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have > > a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the > population at large. I wasn't discussing police officer driving, which often involves high speed driving (sometimes without lights and sirens) or sudden multiple-lane changes. Since I can't prove whether the officer is just joyriding in traffic, or actually responding to a situation without having a mobile police scanner and knowing what frequency or trunked talk group the officer is using--the benefit of the doubt has to go with the police officer responding to a situation. >> Maybe the tests and the state employees who interpet the results are >> flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and >> it's employees are always correct. > There are numerous DUI attorney websites that criticize field sobriety > tests. Nowhere did I suggest they were 100% accurate, but they are used in > the field to determine impairment. A defense attorney will also willingly > get a DUI suspect's charges reduced or dismissed, even if they were truly > guilty of DUI. At great cost and expense to the citizen charged by the 'expert' cop wielding the tool laws. > Also, one can refuse to take any sobriety test, but as I understand it, they > must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test (at least in the state of > California). The latter two, though, would have to be done at the police > station, so might as well at least do the breath test at the side of the > road. I understand the ways the government compels a person to submit to it. >> As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate >> that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How >> ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered >> acceptable in this society. > Yes, that may be true. But if that impairment prevents them from remaining > within lane markers, then that is a very serious problem. That would be a significant percentage of sober drivers whom I see drifting over a lane line or just MFFY style taking up two lanes. The level of competence is extremely low. >> Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it. > I question how the government acts, but I don't have an irrational fear. Ahh... yes, the old paranoid card.... trouble is the paranoids keep being correct when it comes to drunk driving. 20 years ago someone warning about DUI checkpoints would have been labeled as having an "irrational fear". Now the irrational fear is that innocent people get charged at those very checkpoints. > Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions (the > test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a > straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the > touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards test. The cops make the choices not their victim. > None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what law > enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any > chemical results in the blood test, the driver was still impaired, just not > DUI. He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are missing the point. The point is that the tests are able in one way or another capture a large percentage of the public as being 'impaired' or 'DUI' or whatever you want to call it. The results are subjective and the cop 'makes the call'. We are told to 'trust the cop'. That the cop will be super human, be perfect. That there won't be errors in databases, flaws in the tests, etc and so forth. We can trust the cops and trust the government they work for. No need for due-process for traffic issues... the cop is always right. That's the point I'm making. The cop is often wrong, even when he's not willfully lying to make his numbers good for his next review. >> There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people >> who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills >> issues. > No, but there are impairments that would prevent one from driving safely. > Only lying to the DMV about such an impairment can still get one a license, > and then they are a hazard on the road. (But the article fails to state the > exact nature of the impairment and only uses general terms.) He has his license. Why should not being able to do bizarre motor skills tests on the side of the road be something to notify the DMV about? They don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance beam thing. >> We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and >> equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops >> and the other government employees to just know what the difference is. >> This is a problem. > If you are simply against field sobriety tests and laboratory tests to > determine DUI, then I can't help you there. DUI is a serious enough issue > that the checkpoints have to exist. Many drivers just have a beer or two and > drive after only a 30 minutes or so. They are clearly under the influence, > and those drivers cannot adequately determine their own level of impairment. I am against the 'tool laws' and check points and other ways the police cast a wide net and then decide who gets tossed back and who's a keeper. Remember, no violations occured, a net was cast and they decided this guy was to be charged. I object to the net and it's casting. > Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being > used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or > flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes to > field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it > requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of being > impaired due to DUI. That is simply absurd. The degree and reasonings for the beatings? Checkpoints? That's not a free society, that's an authoritarian one. The random drunk is of little threat compared to a government that does checkpoints just to see whom they end up stopping and what they can charge them with. >> If we are going to start questioning that, then most cops I see on the >> road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the >> population at large. > I wasn't discussing police officer driving, which often involves high speed > driving (sometimes without lights and sirens) or sudden multiple-lane > changes. Sudden multiple lane changes? Damn, you just described standard ISP officer driving as they tailgate one driver, then when they can't get a suitible violation(?) make a sudden and violent lane change to tailgate another.... rinse and repeat. I assume they are running plates or trying to get someone to make a mistake... I could be wrong, they could just suck at driving. > is using--the benefit of the doubt has to go with the police officer > responding to a situation. And that wide net you give him. Maybe you'll be the dolphin in the tuna net some day. [snip...] > > Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions (the > > test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a > > straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the > > touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards test. > > The cops make the choices not their victim. Yes, they do. But failiing only one sobriety test does not result in a DUI arrest. Read up on this--they use multiple tests, they score the person, and a certain number of points means they are sufficiently impaired to be suspected of DUI. One can also not be DUI and still be impaired. Read up on this too--an officer can cite or arrest a driver who is impaired even if they are not actually DUI. (They just can't legally be charged with DUI.) > > None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what law > > enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wrong, even when he's not willfully lying to make his numbers good for > his next review. Again, a driver can be impaired without being DUI. Nearly falling asleep at the wheel is impairment. Having a slower response due to taking over-the-counter antihistamines is impairment. Having a disability that prevents proper balance is impairment. Having too much alcohol in the system is impairment. To reiterate, the field sobriety tests can only determine a level of impairment. The blood, breath, or urine tests determine any chemical content that may be contributing to the impairment. > >> There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people > >> who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance > beam thing. Horizontal gaze nystagmus tests are a bit more difficult as they require no head motion, only eye motion. Standing on one leg might be a problem for those with weak feet and ankles. But walking in a straight line isn't asking a lot, unless someone has a physical handicap that prevents them from walking straight, or if they are ill... or if they are under the influence. Absent of one of those three conditions, walking in a straight line is hardly what I would consider a "bizarre motor skill". Touching ones nose with their eyes closed isn't a bizarre motor skill. Reciting the alphabet backwards requires mental concentration, but no physical exertion. Finally, your reference to a balance beam? It's psychologically harder to balance knowing one will fall if they misstep vs. walking along a painted line firmly placed on the ground. (It's also a lot easier to do a balance beam without shoes, but the potential of lawsuits prohibits most locations from allowing no shoes on a balance beam.) > >> We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and > >> equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Remember, no violations occured, a net was cast and they decided this guy > was to be charged. I object to the net and it's casting. A difference of opinion, then. > > Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being > > used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > checkpoints just to see whom they end up stopping and what they can > charge them with. Surely you would agree that a suspect charging a police officer with a weapon would deserve a baton hit, or a Taser shock... the police might even be justified to use their guns if the weapon was something like a knife or a gun. (If not, then you apparently want to disable the police from using any force at any time.) However, simply not moving fast enough to a police officer's order does NOT justify a baton hit or Taser usage. That's just two examples of degrees and reasonings for beatings or Taser usage. It really is not that hard to understand. Again, though, I also agree with the checkpoints. When the people show they can manage their own drinking of alcohol without getting behind the wheel too soon, then the need for checkpoints will be reduced significantly. [snip...] > Yes, they do. But failiing only one sobriety test does not result in a DUI > arrest. Read up on this--they use multiple tests, they score the person, and > a certain number of points means they are sufficiently impaired to be > suspected of DUI. Some cops may others may not. The cop interpets the results. The tests are subjective. The cop is rewarded based on his DUI arrest numbers. It's nothing new for cops to cut corners. The system is hopelessly flawed if the goals are the advertised ones. Given the actual performance of the checkpoints and their continued funding not to mention the every increasing intrusions justified under 'DUI' despite being well past the point where there was any bang for the buck, hints at other purposes. > One can also not be DUI and still be impaired. Read up on this too--an > officer can cite or arrest a driver who is impaired even if they are not > actually DUI. (They just can't legally be charged with DUI.) Being stopped at a checkpoint and coerced into motor skills tests and then being charged on the subjective interpetation of the results by someone who is rewarded with promotions and overtime pay by making arrests is not the halmark of a free society. >> He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are >> missing the point. The point is that the tests are able in one way or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> wrong, even when he's not willfully lying to make his numbers good for >> his next review. > Again, a driver can be impaired without being DUI. Nearly falling asleep at > the wheel is impairment. Having a slower response due to taking > over-the-counter antihistamines is impairment. Having a disability that > prevents proper balance is impairment. Having too much alcohol in the system > is impairment. Non-responsive. > To reiterate, the field sobriety tests can only determine a level of > impairment. The blood, breath, or urine tests determine any chemical content > that may be contributing to the impairment. They cannot determine level of impairment. They are subjective motor-skills tests being judged by someone who has a stake in the results. >> He has his license. Why should not being able to do bizarre motor skills >> tests on the side of the road be something to notify the DMV about? They >> don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance >> beam thing. > Horizontal gaze nystagmus tests are a bit more difficult as they require no > head motion, only eye motion. Standing on one leg might be a problem for > those with weak feet and ankles. The test results are subjective, not objective. > But walking in a straight line isn't asking a lot, unless someone has a > physical handicap that prevents them from walking straight, or if they are > ill... or if they are under the influence. Or a whole host of other things... > Absent of one of those three > conditions, walking in a straight line is hardly what I would consider a > "bizarre motor skill". Touching ones nose with their eyes closed isn't a > bizarre motor skill. Reciting the alphabet backwards requires mental > concentration, but no physical exertion. I find them rather bizarre tests for driving ability. > Finally, your reference to a balance beam? It's psychologically harder to > balance knowing one will fall if they misstep vs. walking along a painted > line firmly placed on the ground. (It's also a lot easier to do a balance > beam without shoes, but the potential of lawsuits prohibits most locations > from allowing no shoes on a balance beam.) Maybe it was an IL school thing... back in the first grade or so we all had to undergo these motor skills tests. One was a balance beam a couple inches off the ground about as wide as a lane on the road. If one didn't do it straight enough he ended up in the special group for help with his motor skills. Anyway, the test results are subjective, teeter a bit... be off with a step a half inch, whatever, the cop may call it a 'fail'. Put on a pair of size 14 shoes and do the line... sober. Staying on that line becomes more difficult as it's easier to hit a silver dollar with a bullet than a dime. Basically the cops cast a wide net and start subjecting people to these 'tests'. If the cops interpet tests as a failure then they get charged which leads to great disruption in their lives and costs them a considerable amount of money when they've done nothing wrong. All because some people have a crusade to go after drunk drivers. >> I am against the 'tool laws' and check points and other ways the police >> cast a wide net and then decide who gets tossed back and who's a keeper. >> Remember, no violations occured, a net was cast and they decided this guy >> was to be charged. I object to the net and it's casting. > A difference of opinion, then. The Bill of Rights was to prevent such things. Those with a different opinion should find a nation that wasn't founded on the concept of individual liberty, but rather has the desired parental government instead of destroying the only one of former kind. >> > Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being >> > used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or >> > flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes to >> > field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it >> > requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of being >> > impaired due to DUI. >> That is simply absurd. The degree and reasonings for the beatings? >> Checkpoints? That's not a free society, that's an authoritarian one. The >> random drunk is of little threat compared to a government that does >> checkpoints just to see whom they end up stopping and what they can >> charge them with. > Surely you would agree that a suspect charging a police officer with a > weapon would deserve a baton hit, or a Taser shock... the police might even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > examples of degrees and reasonings for beatings or Taser usage. It really is > not that hard to understand. Yet, the government's police forces see no problem with tazering someone who simply isn't moving fast enough, who simply is refusing to comply with some order. They have accepted the concept of pain compliance. > Again, though, I also agree with the checkpoints. When the people show they > can manage their own drinking of alcohol without getting behind the wheel > too soon, then the need for checkpoints will be reduced significantly. Government as everyone's parent. Trouble is, as a child we get to prove that I was responsible enough and then was trusted. Government doesn't allow that. If government is your parent, demanding you prove your innocence when ever it desires, you have no rights. You are property of the state. Checkpoints have a very poor performance in bringing in drunk drivers. So poor that either they are a wrong headed tactic or the problem of drunk driving was solved long ago. Oh yeah, once the drunk driving numbers fall, the government simply lowers the bar to create more drunk driving. But even when doing that, the checkpoints still perform poorly. The checkpoints are also federally funded much of the time. Smells like other motives to me. > Again, though, I also agree with the checkpoints. I just lost all respect for you. Nobody could ever read the Bill of Rights and subsequently make such a completely asinine statement. I think perhaps you should move to another country where the government might be more to your liking, like North Korea. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are > missing the point. I have to agree. He was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of something, but it was proven that there was no something. Therefore, the DUI should clearly not apply. To pursue this is flat wrong. > He has his license. Why should not being able to do bizarre motor skills > tests on the side of the road be something to notify the DMV about? They > don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance > beam thing. That depends. If this condition--whatever it is--existed when he got his license, then he's good to go. He must have satisfied the examiner who gave him the driving test. OTOH, if the condition developed after that, then a re-examination might be in order for the safety of all. Judging from the photo in the articles, old age is not a factor here. >> He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are >> missing the point. >I have to agree. He was arrested for suspicion of driving under the >influence of something, but it was proven that there was no >something. Therefore, the DUI should clearly not apply. Agreed. The DUI charges should be summarily dismissed. The DMV should also haul his a.s in for a re-test. If he flunks, he should lose his license. >Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have >a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a >straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line. >Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license >if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely. Uh, this is Florida we're talking about here. -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > >Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have > >a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Uh, this is Florida we're talking about here. FloriDUH. SignatureF ools E gomanics & M orons A ssociation > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >FloriDUH. That's what I get for trying to be nice (for once!). ;-) -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's what I get for trying to be nice (for once!). ;-) FloriDUH doesn't deserve nice..... ;-P Signaturenecromancer Criminal Coddler. And Proud of it, Man!! > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): >> > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >FloriDUH doesn't deserve nice..... ;-P Good point. -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy >http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >physical disabilities make it impossible for him to pass a field sobriety >test even when he hasn't had a drink or ingested a drug. If one has such serious disabilities that a) they appear to be driving drunk, and b) they cannot pass a field sobriety test, then THEY SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING! PERIOD!! Brent, you have allowed your hatred of cops to blind you to the truth in this case. Maybe the cop couldn't identify the specific cause of the impairment, but it appears he correctly identified that this driver is impaired. Hopefully the system will respond correctly and revoke Errichiello's license. > If one has such serious disabilities that a) they appear to be driving > drunk, and b) they cannot pass a field sobriety test, then THEY SHOULD > NOT BE DRIVING! PERIOD!! You don't have to 'APPEAR' to be anything at the checkpoints. > Brent, you have allowed your hatred of cops to blind you to the truth > in this case. Maybe the cop couldn't identify the specific cause of > the impairment, but it appears he correctly identified that this > driver is impaired. Hopefully the system will respond correctly and > revoke Errichiello's license. I think I repeated myself enough times that I am faulting the system here. The wide net of checkpoints, the rewards for ruining people's lives with DUI arrests, etc and so forth. If he was actually driving poorly then you have a point. As far as I can tell he was just driving along when he ended up at a checkpoint and then didn't pass their silly tests which have as much to do with driving as one's typing speed. >http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 > >No Drugs, No Booze, busted for DUI >By: Mike Deeson [...] >Despite the fact that Errichiello blew 0.00 on the breathalyzer test and >the Florida Highway Patrol confirms he had a 0.00 on the urinalysis the >State Attorney's Office is still prosecuting him for DUI and he can't >understand why. I'm sorry, Brent, this is too Kafkaesque and therefore cannot be believed. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=68874 >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I'm sorry, Brent, this is too Kafkaesque and therefore cannot be >believed. Har de har har. Unlike a Kafka novel, this story makes perfect sense. There is no doubt the guy is impaired and unable to drive safely. The only error is the cops' assumption that alcohol or drugs are the cause of the impairment. > Unlike a Kafka novel, this story makes perfect sense. There is no > doubt the guy is impaired and unable to drive safely. And your proof is exactly what? Are we going to say next if you can't do that vulcan split-finger greeting that you must not be able to drive safely? The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any relationship to being able to drive safely even if they were good indications of alcohol or drug use. These motor-skills tests are about as relevant to safe driving as being able to achieve a good score at pac-man or doing gymanstics moves. > The only error > is the cops' assumption that alcohol or drugs are the cause of the > impairment. The error is in the entire system. The only impairment he apparently displayed were with regard to silly motor skills tests, not actual driving. >> Unlike a Kafka novel, this story makes perfect sense. There is no >> doubt the guy is impaired and unable to drive safely. > >And your proof is exactly what? Because he failed multiple sobriety tests, and keeps getting pulled over for driving that appears to be impaired. >Are we going to say next if you can't do >that vulcan split-finger greeting that you must not be able to drive >safely? Once again your hatred of authority blinds you. If this guy had been reported to the DMV by his doctor, you'd be one of the people shouting for his license to be taken away as he is obviously unsafe on public roads. >The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any >relationship to being able to drive safely I can't believe you're saying something so ridiculous. Next you'll be saying that geezers should be allowed to keep driving past their expiration dates despite their obviously failed motor skills. >even if they were good indications of alcohol or drug use. Honestly, I think your posts in this thread are pretty solid evidence of drug use. :) >These motor-skills tests are about as relevant to safe driving as being >able to achieve a good score at pac-man or doing gymanstics moves. May 1000 Errichiellos drive all around you with their failed motor skills. >>> Unlike a Kafka novel, this story makes perfect sense. There is no >>> doubt the guy is impaired and unable to drive safely. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because he failed multiple sobriety tests, and keeps getting pulled > over for driving that appears to be impaired. I gpstroll is rubbing off on you. The first was at a checkpoint, the second is undefined. The second, if not a checkpoint may be because of first and nothing more. >>Are we going to say next if you can't do >>that vulcan split-finger greeting that you must not be able to drive >>safely? > Once again your hatred of authority blinds you. If this guy had been > reported to the DMV by his doctor, you'd be one of the people shouting > for his license to be taken away as he is obviously unsafe on public > roads. I actually think the doctor reporting the guy who liked to kick back a few beers at home was completely wrong and smells of a eastern bloc police state if not oceania. Anyway you're dead wrong there. The article didn't indicate his driving isn't any worse than masses out there. >>The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any >>relationship to being able to drive safely > I can't believe you're saying something so ridiculous. Next you'll be > saying that geezers should be allowed to keep driving past their > expiration dates despite their obviously failed motor skills. I have big feet... this means big shoes. A line on pavement can actually narrower than my shoe in some parking lots. If I was forced to walk it stone cold sober I could easily place my feet down in such a way that the cop could decide I was impaired. After all, I have to hit the line dead center each time or it looks like I am much further off than say a woman with small feet that easily stay in boundries of the line with room to spare. The whole thing is perception based. and perception often isn't reality. Driving skill should be based on driving skill, not goof ball motor skills tests with subjective interpetations. >>even if they were good indications of alcohol or drug use. > Honestly, I think your posts in this thread are pretty solid evidence > of drug use. :) Your's are evidence of a slave mentality. I won't be property of government. >>These motor-skills tests are about as relevant to safe driving as being >>able to achieve a good score at pac-man or doing gymanstics moves. > May 1000 Errichiellos drive all around you with their failed motor > skills. They couldn't be any worse than the a.shole MFFY in the BMW this morning. As far as the subject of the article, his driving probably isn't worse than 'average'. >>>> Unlike a Kafka novel, this story makes perfect sense. There is no >>>> doubt the guy is impaired and unable to drive safely. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The first was at a checkpoint, the second is undefined. The second, if >not a checkpoint may be because of first and nothing more. As I said, the DUI charges should be dismissed, but there is enough evidence here to pull this guy in for a DMV re-test. If he fails, he should lose his license. Do you have any objections to that position? >>>Are we going to say next if you can't do >>>that vulcan split-finger greeting that you must not be able to drive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Anyway you're dead wrong there. The article >didn't indicate his driving isn't any worse than masses out there. It said he couldn't pass simple field sobriety tests. I don't know any drivers who can't walk a straight line. >>>The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any >>>relationship to being able to drive safely [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >spare. The whole thing is perception based. and perception often isn't >reality. So let the DMV test him then. I'm willing to accept their conclusion. > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:43:47 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Do you have any objections to that position? I'd certainly agree. DMV testing at regular intervals, say every second renewal until age 69, would make a vast majority of drivers re- think their nasty habits. I doubt that the oil companies or the auto industry would put up with a severe drop in demand if 98% of the drivers were removed from the road. > >>>Are we going to say next if you can't do > >>>that vulcan split-finger greeting that you must not be able to drive [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It said he couldn't pass simple field sobriety tests. I don't know any > drivers who can't walk a straight line. That depends on the case. > >>>The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any > >>>relationship to being able to drive safely [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So let the DMV test him then. I'm willing to accept their conclusion. Sounds good. >>The first was at a checkpoint, the second is undefined. The second, if >>not a checkpoint may be because of first and nothing more. > As I said, the DUI charges should be dismissed, but there is enough > evidence here to pull this guy in for a DMV re-test. If he fails, he > should lose his license. It seems he has had these conditions since childhood. > Do you have any objections to that position? He probably already passed it just as he is. >>Anyway you're dead wrong there. The article >>didn't indicate his driving isn't any worse than masses out there. > > It said he couldn't pass simple field sobriety tests. I don't know any > drivers who can't walk a straight line. To what degree? Pass and fail is subjective. Are you saying someone with an injury to his left leg that prevents him from walking a straight line cannot drive (an automatic trans car anyway)? >>>>The ability to do these motor skills tests has little if any >>>>relationship to being able to drive safely >>> I can't believe you're saying something so ridiculous. Next you'll be >>> saying that geezers should be allowed to keep driving past their >>> expiration dates despite their obviously failed motor skills. >>I have big feet... this means big shoes. A line on pavement can actually >>narrower than my shoe in some parking lots. If I was forced to walk it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>spare. The whole thing is perception based. and perception often isn't >>reality. > So let the DMV test him then. I'm willing to accept their conclusion. The way the article reads it already has. >>>The first was at a checkpoint, the second is undefined. The second, if >>>not a checkpoint may be because of first and nothing more. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It seems he has had these conditions since childhood. But it seems to be getting worse. If he were always this bad he would have a long history of bogus DUI stops, yet apparently there were only two. This suggests a progressive deterioration in his motor skills. >> Do you have any objections to that position? > >He probably already passed it just as he is. See above. >>>Anyway you're dead wrong there. The article >>>didn't indicate his driving isn't any worse than masses out there. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that prevents him from walking a straight line cannot drive (an automatic >trans car anyway)? Are you seriously trying to compare an injured leg to a chronic motor skill disorder? >> So let the DMV test him then. I'm willing to accept their conclusion. > >The way the article reads it already has. That's not how I read it. But, since it's the mainstream media, we'll never know the truth. :) >>It seems he has had these conditions since childhood. > > But it seems to be getting worse. If he were always this bad he would > have a long history of bogus DUI stops, yet apparently there were only > two. This suggests a progressive deterioration in his motor skills. He's not getting stopped for DUI! They are using CHECKPOINTS! The checkpoints don't judge a person's driving to stop them. It's every 5th car or every car, or every green car, or every car of someone the cops think they can shake down. It has NOTHING to do with driving performance! >>To what degree? Pass and fail is subjective. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you seriously trying to compare an injured leg to a chronic motor > skill disorder? Ok, fine... someone who has birth defect that renders his left leg well below average in usage. The point is someone could have specific physical problems that really have no impact on street driving. In addition to that, this society has decided that anyone with the driving ability of a half-dead cat is fit to drive. Now why should this man be singled out to be pulled off the road? Because we don't have rule of law any longer. Laws and color of law have been created such that we effectively live under the whim of rulers. >>>It seems he has had these conditions since childhood. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >He's not getting stopped for DUI! They are using CHECKPOINTS! I seem to recall that you yourself admitted earlier in the thread that only one of the two stops could be verified as a checkpoint. >>>Are you saying someone with an injury to his left leg >>>that prevents him from walking a straight line cannot drive (an automatic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Ok, fine... someone who has birth defect that renders his left leg well >below average in usage. Still not the same as a motor skill disorder, which usually affects the entire body, not just one limb. >The point is someone could have specific physical problems that really >have no impact on street driving. Then that person will pass the driving re-test with flying colors and keep their license. >>>>It seems he has had these conditions since childhood. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I seem to recall that you yourself admitted earlier in the thread that > only one of the two stops could be verified as a checkpoint. And in neither case was poor driving mentioned, yet you keep operating under the idea that both were due to poor driving. >>>>Are you saying someone with an injury to his left leg >>>>that prevents him from walking a straight line cannot drive (an automatic >>>>trans car anyway)? > >>> Are you seriously trying to compare an injured leg to a chronic motor >>> skill disorder? >>Ok, fine... someone who has birth defect that renders his left leg well >>below average in usage. > Still not the same as a motor skill disorder, which usually affects > the entire body, not just one limb. And yet, when you go get a license, you are judge on your DRIVING, not motor skills tests. If the motor skills tests were such accurate predictors of driving ability why not just get rid of road tests and replace them with field soberity tests? Could save a ton of money that way and speed things along for everyone renewing or geting a DL. >>The point is someone could have specific physical problems that really >>have no impact on street driving. > Then that person will pass the driving re-test with flying colors and > keep their license. It sounds as if he had them before. They don't make you do field soberity tests at the SOS offices here in IL, maybe your state is different. > Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI > checkpoint failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of > coordination and the mental agility test. Anyone who takes "field sobriety tests" is an idiot. You have to take a blood, breath, or urine test for alcohol/drugs if asked. You do NOT have to attempt any of the acrobatic hogwash known as field sobriety tests, and they are so unreliable that doing so is a dumb idea. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.