applebutter Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 ^ Royalties please. I think I'll be there later this week. We can settle then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hypothetical? Fact. Were you tried? Hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think I'll be there later this week. We can settle then. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't automatically do anything. I'm human. I know automation, and I'm not automatic. And if you think you can guess why I do what I do, you should get help. I've been struggling with that very issue for some time. You have not fully presented anything. Your question reads like a Netflix add: "If the sky is purple and you have twelve beans in your hand, how much does a cornflake cost?" Your scenario did not describe a realistic case. Realistic cases exist. Do better. No, I don't need to guess and wasn't even considering it. Again, the fact of the matter is that a topic was presented and I posted on it. Because you disagree, I have to be wrong and you HAVE to be right. I presented a challenge where someone could come up with a "realistic" scenario to arrest AND convict someone of a DWI or DUI that I couldn't myself get out of. Do better? I presented a challenge that has been consistently dodged, how much better could I possibly do? I put the whole vehicle into the house scenario because "nothing" else was being presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Were you tried? Hypothetical. They were my cases. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applebutter Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 No, I don't need to guess and wasn't even considering it. Again, the fact of the matter is that a topic was presented and I posted on it. Because you disagree, I have to be wrong and you HAVE to be right. I presented a challenge where someone could come up with a "realistic" scenario to arrest AND convict someone of a DWI or DUI that I couldn't myself get out of. Do better? I presented a challenge that has been consistently dodged, how much better could I possibly do? I put the whole vehicle into the house scenario because "nothing" else was being presented. I have fully acknowleged in several posts in this thread that I may be wrong. I like to be right, and I use all my noodles to try to gather information into a salient lump to make sure that I am. Still, I have been wrong more than once, and I feel sure I will be again. None of that helps your scenario. When I came up with my own missing part for what you refuse to give, I cleaned your clock. Not for DWI, but for just about anything else. And that's the point. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Honestly, I don't care if you are convicted for DWI. What I want is you not to be able to drive. I'll bet that the refusal to blow or give blood will get that for me. And I'll bet that if you get caught driving after that suspension, you'll get jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What I was saying was this, it is difficult to do when the deck is stacked against it? Sure, the penalties are now tougher, but also it is getting more and more difficult to get a conviction against anyone who knows the ins and outs. I think that I have more than adequately proved how difficult it can be to get a conviction. The Fire Service loses GOOD firefighters every year in large part because of how difficult it is to convict arsonists. Still, I don't want anyone's rights infringed to get a conviction even if gaining the conviction verged on impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 They were my cases. If you weren't on trial, they’re clearly hypothetical. Sheeesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 AB, it's a moot point because BluePirate shot him dead after he crashed into Blue's house and almost killed his family. And the grand jury no-billed Blue, because he believed his home to have been invaded by a hostile intruder. When Blue tried to get BEF to indentify himself, BEF, profoundly drunk, rambled wildly about killing him when he got out of his car. So Blue made sure he didn't get out of his car. Due to the rash of car/home invasions, Blue was heralded as a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applebutter Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 AB, it's a moot point because BluePirate shot him dead after he crashed into Blue's house and almost killed his family. And the grand jury no-billed Blue, because he believed his home to have been invaded by a hostile intruder. When Blue tried to get BEF to indentify himself, BEF, profoundly drunk, rambled wildly about killing him when he got out of his car. So Blue made sure he didn't get out of his car. Due to the rash of car/home invasions, Blue was heralded as a hero. Cool. Of course, Blue failed to get a conviction as well. I wonder if Buckeyefan's momma is gonna sue for wrongful death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Cool. Of course, Blue failed to get a conviction as well. I wonder if Buckeyefan's momma is gonna sue for wrongful death? Probably... but she can expect one from me as well. :smirk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The crime you committed took place in the world. Evidence was left at the scene. Police officers have access to that evidence. That evidence consists of lots of things that apparently policemen believe cause dodging of questions. Or did you as a drunken driver tow off your car, clean up the scene and any damage that you caused before anyone else found out? Then, did the psychic hotline calle the police? One of us is certainly dodging something. Are you typing under the influence? Sorry AB, but I have to interject here. A collision is not proof of DWI. Nor are the skidmarks or broke glass on the road. Without the process of a search warrant or an unwarranted forced draw because of seath or serious injury, there's not going to be a conviction. I wasn't a fan of his scenario because of its shallowness, but he makes a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 No no. You're not getting off that easy. You have to tell me why the burden of proof doesn't lie with the state, in a constitutional manner by which it obtains a conviction. You said it wasn't the stat'e responsibility. I want to know why it's not. Consider this closely. The burden of proof does lie with the State. Getting a search warrant for your blood is the lawful means in which we convict you. Like it or not, in Texas, and every other State in the Union, it is legal to get a search warrant for blood evidence. That's how it is. Sorry. I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I have fully acknowleged in several posts in this thread that I may be wrong. I like to be right, and I use all my noodles to try to gather information into a salient lump to make sure that I am. Still, I have been wrong more than once, and I feel sure I will be again. None of that helps your scenario. When I came up with my own missing part for what you refuse to give, I cleaned your clock. Not for DWI, but for just about anything else. And that's the point. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Honestly, I don't care if you are convicted for DWI. What I want is you not to be able to drive. I'll bet that the refusal to blow or give blood will get that for me. And I'll bet that if you get caught driving after that suspension, you'll get jail time. Actually after I'm found not guilty of DWI, my license wouldn't be suspended. Then I could drive all that I wanted. Which would mean no jail time at all AND back out on the road again. I would also like to see how you "cleaned my clock"? Oh, you must have meant by that outlandish scenario that could never possibly happen? If you mean by that, then that was a stretch, even for your imagination. But nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 AB, it's a moot point because BluePirate shot him dead after he crashed into Blue's house and almost killed his family. And the grand jury no-billed Blue, because he believed his home to have been invaded by a hostile intruder. When Blue tried to get BEF to indentify himself, BEF, profoundly drunk, rambled wildly about killing him when he got out of his car. So Blue made sure he didn't get out of his car. Due to the rash of car/home invasions, Blue was heralded as a hero. Actually, I would have been shot and killed while sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle. There would have been no threat of death or severe bodily injury from a man semi unconscious, so I doubt very seriously that a grand jury would have no-billed Blue. But, that would be a hypothetical situation if ever I saw one. No-billing Blue for shooting an unarmed man, unconscious behind the wheel. Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Sorry AB, but I have to interject here. A collision is not proof of DWI. Nor are the skidmarks or broke glass on the road. Without the process of a search warrant or an unwarranted forced draw because of seath or serious injury, there's not going to be a conviction. I wasn't a fan of his scenario because of its shallowness, but he makes a point. Thank you. Yes, the scenario was shallow and was supposed to get some to think, but it clearly was too much of a challenge for those who refused to bite. The idea was to leave them with one thought, just how in the world could I get a conviction on this guy if he REALLY knew how to beat the system and YES, there are those out there who know how to do it. The consistent ducking and dodging only goes to prove my point that some are okay with this fact. That it is okay to let drunk drivers go if the only means to convict is by drawing blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Actually after I'm found not guilty of DWI, my license wouldn't be suspended. Then I could drive all that I wanted. Which would mean no jail time at all AND back out on the road again. I would also like to see how you "cleaned my clock"? Oh, you must have meant by that outlandish scenario that could never possibly happen? If you mean by that, then that was a stretch, even for your imagination. But nice try. ....If you refuse to give the specimen, that refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution. Your license, permit, or privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended or denied for not less than 180 days whether or not you are subsequently prosecuted for this offense.... Sorry, I'm a stickler for the details. ...and yes, I have the DIC 24 memorized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Actually, I would have been shot and killed while sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle. There would have been no threat of death or severe bodily injury from a man semi unconscious, so I doubt very seriously that a grand jury would have no-billed Blue. But, that would be a hypothetical situation if ever I saw one. No-billing Blue for shooting an unarmed man, unconscious behind the wheel. Classic. You must have forgotten where you were. You were sitting in your car that you just drove into Blue's house. There are cases out the rear of cops shooting drivers as they perceived them to be using their vehicles as weapons with which they attacked the officer. No different with a civilian. Blue suspected you to be using your vehicle as a deadly weapon. As such he shot you dead and was within his rights to do so. No conviction, but you don't drive anymore because you are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Thank you. Yes, the scenario was shallow and was supposed to get some to think, but it clearly was too much of a challenge for those who refused to bite. The idea was to leave them with one thought, just how in the world could I get a conviction on this guy if he REALLY knew how to beat the system and YES, there are those out there who know how to do it. The consistent ducking and dodging only goes to prove my point that some are okay with this fact. That it is okay to let drunk drivers go if the only means to convict is by drawing blood. So, let me ask you a question. Does it give you the happy pants when you cast aspersions on the intelligence of those who are posting in this thread? We have not done that to you, yet you have now made similar comments in many of your responses. For you to insinuate we are not bright enough to understand your wild ramblings is at least inaccurate, and at best the rantings of someone who has been completely unable to make his case. To insinuate we believe it to be okay to let drunk drivers go is again not only wrong, but a feeble, weak, childish attempt at a jab. If you want to go down that path, we can. And I can assure you, I WILL win. You will get your feelings hurt, I promise you. Up until now, this has been pretty civil. But it is clear in your frustration, you can't keep that cop attitude in check. So, if that's the direction you feel you need to take this thread, by all means, go ahead. You WILL regret it. It's your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardCubFan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Negative... I'll use the shield offered by the Texas Castle law. :thumbsup: Blue, the Castle Law applies more to protections against civil suits filed against you. It does not necessarily protect you from being charged with a criminal offense, no matter how much you believed you may have been justified to kill someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 A summary of the law known as the Texas Castle Law: Legislative Session: 80® Senate Bill 378 Senate Author: Wentworth et al. Effective: 9-1-07 House Sponsor: Driver et al. Senate Bill 378 amends provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person. The bill creates a presumption of reasonableness for the belief of a person who takes such action that the use of force or deadly force to protect the actor was immediately necessary and provides that the presumption would be reasonable if the actor: 1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor's home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes; 2) did not provoke the person against whom the force or deadly force was used; and 3) was not otherwise engaged in certain criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force was used. The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force. Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force. The key word is "also." It provides criminal assistance first, then provides civil assistance. The key to the whole scenario is don't drive drunk and plow into someone's house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Blue, the Castle Law applies more to protections against civil suits filed against you. It does not necessarily protect you from being charged with a criminal offense, no matter how much you believed you may have been justified to kill someone. Then I'll also use it as a sheild against BEF's momma's wrongful death suit. Thanks. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardCubFan Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 You know...what do I know - I was only a HOMICIDE DETECTIVE for 14 years..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Thank you. Yes, the scenario was shallow and was supposed to get some to think, but it clearly was too much of a challenge for those who refused to bite. The idea was to leave them with one thought, just how in the world could I get a conviction on this guy if he REALLY knew how to beat the system and YES, there are those out there who know how to do it. The consistent ducking and dodging only goes to prove my point that some are okay with this fact. That it is okay to let drunk drivers go if the only means to convict is by drawing blood. Nice cop attitude. Since the implied consent law seems to be a matter of convenience as opposed to constitutionality, why don't we just have the federal government utilize a similar convenience by housing soldiers in your residence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now