Sig1Hunter

I’m not, and I’m not. Then again, I’m not concerned with your opinion. Re-read my edited post. I figured you would construe it as I was supporting the cop. I’m supporting following the evidence, regardless of what the masses say.

No I’m not kidding you. And yes, the cause of death is a highly important piece of evidence in a murder case. It therefore stands to reason that the results might be important to getting a conviction. Unless, you are advocating charging people just to diffuse any potential civil discord? For the record, I was trained to do the opposite of what the cop did. I’m not saying he’s innocent. I’m saying building your case before charging it is solid protocol. The idea of charging people with crimes because that’s the mob wants, regardless of the evidence, doesn’t sit well with me.

Just curious.. but what if the cause of death wasn’t related to the officer putting his knee on Floyd’s neck? You would still want the officer charged immediately?

Does it ever get exhausting being a victim 24/7? If she does get tired, I’m sure that will be my fault too.

I’ve always been ok with Walt Anderson..:it’s Walt Coleman that I can’t stand. Mr. Tuck Rule, himself.

I don’t care if it’s a rotted out 2 x 4 that takes Riverons spot, I’m celebrating his dismissal! At least Walt has a lot of experience being a head ref. Riveron was a bottom tier head ref for like 5 years before he got bumped to the top.

You aren’t the only one

Yeah, but driving under the influence of any controlled substance is illegal in all 50 states I’m pretty sure. Getting high and driving is also a booming business, unfortunately.

I think you are misreading that. It goes back to what I initially said. The Michigan statute says (not sure why we are debating Michigan law, btw) “under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance..”. Under the influence means impaired. Under the influence doesn’t mean just the presence of it in the breath/blood/urine. If that’s how you interpret that law, then the presence of any alcohol in your breath/blood/urine would make you guilty (since the first part says under the influence of alcoholic liquor). An element of under the influence is proving impairment.

When I looked up the state of Michigan’s DUI law, it seems that what you are referencing applies to schedule I controlled substances. I.e. those controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose and a high abuse potential. I don’t believe Adderall is a schedule 1 drug. Admittedly, I’m ignorant on Michigan law. But, that’s what I found when going straight to the government site. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_8665_9070-24488--,00.html

The body adjusts to the medicine, so when there is no or low tolerance, the body can be impaired by therapeutic doses. This is why usually there are warnings like “don’t operate a vehicle until you know how the medicine will effect you”. As he continues to take it, the body builds a tolerance and that therapeutic dose won’t cause impairment. The issue isn’t the presence of a drug in the blood. The State needs to link that presence to evidence of physical impairment. That’s the issue. And, it’s a tough hill to climb from the States perspective. There aren’t any “per se” laws for drugs, yet, like there are for alcohol (that I know of).

No, he’s wrong. It’s the most wrong thing I’ve ever read on this board. Your father and his alcoholism has nothing to do with that.

Edited. This thread isn’t about you. Go away. Thank you for your service and sacrifice, Mr . Kalsu. You will never be forgotten.

Interesting. In Florida, I load up my DUIs with every ticket I can think of. They usually end up getting dismissed in the plea, but it allows me to give out more warnings to regular law abiding types in traffic stops..

I didn’t see where Ed’s BAC was released, however the arrest/no arrest decision is made based upon impairment observed. If his BAC was .03, it doesn’t mean it was a bad arrest. It can legally be presumed that alcohol wasn’t causing the impairment at that level (in jurisdictions that I’m familiar with), but drug impairment remains a possibility. Hopefully a Drug Recognition Expert got involved to help confirm or refute that suspicion. edit: cops aren’t perfect (obviously) and arrests are occasionally made with low blows and no drugs. I just took some umbrage with the notion that the FSEs are unreliable and invalid. A trained and experienced DUI cop is a fantastic evaluator of impairment.

The former prosecutor is nothing but a selling point. He’s a defense attorney trying to peddle his wares. Those stats you quoted are correct. However, the context here is that those studies referenced were the initial validation studies done by NHTSA and the Southern California Research Institute. Those were laboratory only studies. Officers were brought in, and administered ONE test (either the HGN, walk and turn, or one leg stand). They didn’t talk to the test subject and smell the odor of alcohol on their breath, or hear slurred speech. They didn’t see their driving pattern. They only gave them one test in a lab setting. When a certain number of clues were detected (4 out of 6 in the case of HGN, 2 out of 8 in the walk and turn, and 2 out of 4 in one leg stand) the officer was asked if they believed the person was over a .10 (the limit at the time). Officers made a correct decision the percentages you quoted. That includes incorrect decisions in both directions (over .10, when the subject was under AND under .10 when the subject was over). Again, lab setting without any other indicators other than 1 test. On their face, they look poor. But in reality, those percentages are pretty darn good under those contexts. What that attorney (and every other DUI defense attorney) explicitly ignores in his advertisement is that since then there have been many, many field validation studies conducted that show the entire three test battery is well over 90% (sometimes 95%) valid when making arrest/no arrest decisions in the field. The tests are valid. In fact, they are scientifically reliable and valid. https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184c9fb0cc7ee21056b67789/?vgnextoid=1e2fcd8c4e7bff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&vgnextchannel=d8274dc9e66d5210VgnVCM100000656b7798RCRD&vgnextfmt=default

Do you understand the context behind those stats that you posted regarding the FSEs?

Paging DunkirkDon.. Paging DunkirkDon..

Who said they requested one? It’s pretty standard to do a search incident to arrest in a DUI case. Also, if the truck was towed, the cops gotta do an inventory search to document the contents of the vehicle. Both are standard searches that are well established in case law - neither of which requires a request or consent.

I’m not sure what I find more amusing. The extent that you are going to in order to excuse Ed’s behavior, or the irony of your avatar!

No you wouldn’t.

Right, but you gotta have evidence of that. That would have come in the form of evidence during the FSEs. It’s also possible that he refused the breath test, so that set the warrant for blood examination protocol into motion. We shall see. I’m glad no one was hurt in the incident, and hopefully Ed learns the lesson. Sometimes the lessons learned the hard way are the lessons learned for a lifetime. Sometimes they aren’t..

Can’t get that warrant for a blood draw without him “failing” the field sobriety.

He was called in by a citizen. People dont call in suspected impaired drivers over one swerve or drift. In my experience, the ones where the citizens call in are usually the worst driving patterns. EDIT: meant to quote the post you responded to!

Lol probably, but you can actually get a DUI on a horse too.