Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's so much wrong with this, a million dollar bail for meth possession, cops who can't tell cotton candy from methamphetamine, I mean it doesn't even look vaguely similar, and assuming she had a public defender, why didn't they get a court order to get the substance tested sooner?
We called public defenders “public pretenders”. Only the highly motivated ones who were not inclined to be suck-ups would truly challenge a DA.
Heck; your lucky to get one who would even go to trial. They basically function as plea-bargain arrangers. I guess beggars can’t be choosers but they can sure serve to keep the lights on at the jail. It’s the “Poor during an election-year” crime that really gets a response from the courts.
We called public defenders “public pretenders”. Only the highly motivated ones who were not inclined to be suck-ups would truly challenge a DA.
Heck; your lucky to get one who would even go to trial. They basically function as plea-bargain arrangers. I guess beggars can’t be choosers but they can sure serve to keep the lights on at the jail. It’s the “Poor during an election-year” crime that really gets a response from the courts.
Amen to that, it's really shameful and a lot of them are decent litigators but they have such huge caseloads that they don't even read most of the charging documents, they just plead out the cases ASAP.
However there are attorneys who are worse than public defenders, appointed counsel in CPS cases are notoriously awful. Most of them are new attorneys who work for a large firm under a contract with the county, these firms all have very nice names like "Legal advocates for Children" and they are very careful not to upset the County and lose their contract so they show up for court appearances and never question CPS no matter how outrageous their claims are. It's like the outcome is predetermined and they just sit there silently and go through the motions. If a parent hires an aggressive private attorney, CPS will fold like a cheap suit.
Its not about 'freeing the tweakers', its about stopping unconstitutional laws.
Police have gone totally nuts on the drug war, this case proves that, they were too stupid to realize it was cotton candy, they just assumed it was meth, I mean, CMON, really?! Plus, this has happened before, there was another thread on here recently, police mistook salt for meth, took the person to jail and everything.
ALL the "wars" have been utter, complete disasters.
War on Poverty.
War on Drugs.
War on Terror.
They end up being wars on freedom, they bulk up the government to no good end. Rights are diminished, and the identified "problem" ends up far worse.
Kinda like "freeing" Afghanistan has worked out so well. As former House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed once said,
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
It is certainly possible to ingest enough caffeine to be 'under its influence' to the point where one is an unsafe driver. The article you cite blurs the difference between his (apparent) ingestion of a lot of caffeine-laced "workout powders" and a vague floating comment that "caffeine can make people drive better."
It is certainly possible to be 'influenced' enough to lack judgment, attention span, hand-eye coordination and motor skills by a legal, even nominally benign substance - and however silly the charge might seem, anyone attempting to drive while not mentally/physically capable of doing so is indeed driving illegally. The cop's description of the man's behavior is all that's really relevant - so it was an overdose of bubble gum; the cop judged him unable to drive safely and had observed unsafe driving behavior.
And it's possible to eat so many donuts that you throw up while driving and cause an accident but you don't arrest someone for being under the influence of donuts, you charge them with erratic or unsafe driving but you don't try to attribute it to a legal substance like caffeine, or donuts of bubble gum. For one thing there is no presumptive limit of caffeine that can be used to prove intoxication, so how can you link the mere presence of caffeine to driving behavior?
And it's possible to eat so many donuts that you throw up while driving and cause an accident but you don't arrest someone for being under the influence of donuts, you charge them with erratic or unsafe driving but you don't try to attribute it to a legal substance like caffeine, or donuts of bubble gum. For one thing there is no presumptive limit of caffeine that can be used to prove intoxication, so how can you link the mere presence of caffeine to driving behavior?
The donut example is absurd, but someone with diabetes or hypoglycemia could certainly have severe functional affect by eating sugar.
Being "under the influence" does not, in most jurisdictions, mean that the driver must have ingested X amount of some short list of affecting substances. It is the judgment of the arresting officer that you are too impaired to be driving safely, and it is not the same thing as specific unsafe-driving charges. If you jam so much caffeine-laden "workout powder" into your face that you are spasming, jittery and have insufficient coordination and motor control to drive, you are, perforce, under the influence (of an affecting substance). To think it only applies to alcohol and specific drugs, and that attempting to drive while impaired by other things doesn't count, is to completely misunderstand the charge.
But even more so from asinine articles that attempt to make it sound as if the guy was buzzed on two cups of Starbucks brew and the state law, cops and court were klowns.
FWIW, I don't have much respect for people who sit and drink all night at a calculated rate to keep them under the legal BAC. That, too, is missing the point of the law. But people and stupidity go together pretty frequently under the guise of being smarter than the average bear.
The donut example is absurd, but someone with diabetes or hypoglycemia could certainly have severe functional affect by eating sugar.
Being "under the influence" does not, in most jurisdictions, mean that the driver must have ingested X amount of some short list of affecting substances. It is the judgment of the arresting officer that you are too impaired to be driving safely, and it is not the same thing as specific unsafe-driving charges. If you jam so much caffeine-laden "workout powder" into your face that you are spasming, jittery and have insufficient coordination and motor control to drive, you are, perforce, under the influence (of an affecting substance). To think it only applies to alcohol and specific drugs, and that attempting to drive while impaired by other things doesn't count, is to completely misunderstand the charge.
But even more so from asinine articles that attempt to make it sound as if the guy was buzzed on two cups of Starbucks brew and the state law, cops and court were klowns.
FWIW, I don't have much respect for people who sit and drink all night at a calculated rate to keep them under the legal BAC. That, too, is missing the point of the law. But people and stupidity go together pretty frequently under the guise of being smarter than the average bear.
The point is that we can always cite or arrest people who are driving erratically but it is just absurd to try to make a direct correlation to their driving and a food or non alcoholic drink. I understand the charge, but what I don't understand is why you think it's ok to charge people with DUI because they drank too many energy drinks or whatever, that's just silly
There's so much wrong with this, a million dollar bail for meth possession, cops who can't tell cotton candy from methamphetamine, I mean it doesn't even look vaguely similar, and assuming she had a public defender, why didn't they get a court order to get the substance tested sooner?
Because our justice system is flawed and cops don't care about the people they bully and persecute. There was a cop in Dallas recently who walked into a man's apartment for no reason, shot him dead and she's out free now. There is no justice.
I was taught long ago:
Police aren't looking for justice, they're looking for an arrest. You'll do.
Prosecutors aren't looking for justice, either. They're looking for a conviction. You'll do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
