Brand new crime
3 Responses to “Brand new crime”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
That is just stupid. There is a catch all law, known as Driving While Impaired, which applies even if no drugs or alcohol were involved at all. That is what should have been charged.
I got one of those once. The officer thought I was drunk, but tests proved I was not. What I was, was recovering from a gunshot wound and had overestimated my stamina and became so fatigued on my way home that I made an illegal turn one block from my home. When asked how I pled to the Driving Under the Influence charge, I said, I plead the results of that alcohol screen. No drunk driving, the judge dropped it and asked me if I thought I was impaired when stopped. I said that obviously I was, I just hadn’t been aware of how debilitated I was from the injury. We reached an accomodation. I was guilty of not being in full control. Now sweat. Nobody’s fault but mine that I made an error in assessing my ability to get home safely. But it beats the hell out of being labeled a drunk driver.
Expansion of definitions is the very thing that has criminalized non-criminals and made assault weapons of ordinary firearms, threats out of drawings of guns, expellable offenses of “finger” guns in childhood games of cops and other robbers, and a host of other sins of state possible.
Christ, if they won’t live by their own rules, why should they be allowed to expand the definitions of the terms?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
So New Jersey nails a guy for being hungover but dos’nt do a damn thing to the Governor when he crashes while speeding and violates the seatbelt law….
August 24th, 2007 at 8:59 am
As a digression (which is what I do best in comment threads), Lis Wiehl is hot!