Sig1Hunter

There is no presumptive impairment level with drug impairment cases like there is with alcohol impairment cases. Drug impairment is harder to prove - mainly for this reason. Sure, his urine (assuming they got a urine sample) may come back with THC in it. But, the officer(s) still has to tie any impairment observed at the scene with the evidence of cannabis consumption. Many symptoms of THC impairment are similar to alcohol impairment, but a lot are different as well. And, yes, slurred and mumbling speech is a symptom of THC impairment. Either way, it should be an interesting case to follow - and it will surely be a tough one for the prosecution to prove.

You're preachin' to the choir, JJ. I was just saying that I think that it is rationale behind it.

Right. I read the case. However you are reading the standing to bring a civil lawsuit in the same manner as the right of the government to bring criminal charges. These are two completely different things. Furthermore, had the Supreme Court intended for this decision to apply to criminal cases it would have a clearly defined case law tree saying as much. But, it doesn't. There are no criminal cases before the Supreme Court where the Court references this case as controlling or even influencial. Add to that this case is from 1984 and nothing has come from it, and I think it is plainly clear that you have totally misunderstood the Court's ruling and it's applicability (or lack thereof) to criminal cases.

Which law is this again? Statute number? USC number? Article of the US Constitution? Supreme Court case law? Enlighten me, please.

If you don't like law and order, you can always leave. I hear Mexico is pretty much devoid of it right now. You should fit right in.

Yeah, I'm sure you do. Like calling them pigs under an anonymous screenname on a message board. Real tough. Also, I'd like to point out the obvious to you. The officer wasn't arresting her for jaywalking. He was doing his lawful duty by enforcing a law enacted by a legitimate representative government. When she resisted this is when it turned into a criminal, arrestable offense. There are ways of fighting such perceived injustices as the enforcement of a law you claim trivial. It's called court.

We may not care, but some people take that cruel and unusual punishment part of the Constitution literally!

I think you hit the nail on the head there, DrD. This officer knew he was being videotaped. He knew it was a black female vs a white male officer. Somewhere in his subconscious he wanted to go easy on her, I'm sure. He needed to put her on the ground and cuff her, but he also didn't want it to *look* bad. In the end, he failed to control the situation effectively and caused a VERY dangerous situation for himself and everyone else had any one of those bystanders produced a weapon or started rioting. This is exactly what happens when people in the media and public cry about tasers and other means of effective force. It forces the cop on the street to second guess himself and not act as he was trained. Darned if you do, darned if you don't...

My top three reasons for shooting the heart and not the head: 1) tradition 2) though people have a predisposition against killing another, blowing someone's brains out has a much less humane feel to it - even though there is no real difference. Shooting someone in the face/head is psychologically tougher. The face is how we typically recognize humanity. The head/brain are also typically viewed as the seat of the soul and mind. 3) it saves the brain of a madman for scientific study. From my understanding, a well placed shot to the heart, exploding it on impact, has the same effect as a well placed shot to the brain stem: immediate deanimation.

You would think ESPN would pay her a decent enough salary to at least get that gap in her teeth fixed.

How could I forget that?! Wasn't that the first game with play by play announcers? Graphics weren't half bad either, if I recollect properly. Before that, there was John Elway football for the Nintendo. Heck, I even remember playing the original John Madden football on my PC on 5 1/4" floppy disks!

Let me know how your "a message board said it was ok" defense works. Driving under the influence is illegal.

So, that leaves KFC. I knew there was something about the Colonel's "original recipe"!

Yes there is. It's called crash reconstruction. Police do it all the time with serious crashes, and involves relatively basic physics.

Wang could probably use some protection, too.

Retarded, huh? Interesting.

My bad. I was under the impression that logic was part of intelligence...

We are... I do recall having a few healthy debates with you... healthy debates are what make the world a better place, IMO.

I'll give you a hint: It doesn't involve constant name calling and personally attacking those who have differing opinions than yours. Its when I can state my viewpoint, you can state yours, and we can discuss the merits of each person's point of view. Where did I say that I would like to deny their rights? Where is there a right to have a legally recognized marriage? If there is none, then how am I advocating the denial of their "rights" by my position? I should have clarified. I was referring to a morally conservative viewpoint - not politically conservative.

Same tactic that the Westboro folks use, I suppose...

Its interesting. There is one side to this argument that does not seem to be able to hold an intelligent debate on the subject, ignores the same repeated question, and has its only response as name calling and inflammatory rhetoric. When are you going to answer the question: Show me where there is intolerance?

Good dogs, no doubt! I am thinking about going over to Belgian Malinois for my next dog, though. They don't have as many genetically predisposed medical issues as GSDs. Or, so I've heard...

Where is there intolerance? Because I don't agree with it means I am intolerant? On the contrary... My friends who have an alternative lifestyle know that I love them. They know that I would do anything for them. They also know where I stand. We can have (and have had) intelligent, mature discussions about the topic. It seriously bothers me that anyone who stands for a conservative value in this country is quickly demonized (in this case as a bigot).

Where is anything in Exiled posts bigotry? The part where he says he doesn't agree with gay marriage? The part where he says it shouldn't be recognized by the government? From the polls I've seen, more than 50% of the populace feels the same way. If I disagree with it and think it shouldn't be recognized by the government, does that make me a bigot? Personally, I think it just means that I stand up for what I believe in...

They can also save on jockstraps and cups! Depending on which way the tranny was going, I guess...