Sig1Hunter

Living in Central Florida, and dealing with the constant press on the story of this missing kid, it is obvious that this woman did not kill herself solely because she was interviewed and accused. She killed herself because of the guilt of whatever she did to her son, who has yet to be found. The interview just brought the guilt to a head. Anyone who saw / heard the interview should see that this is obvious by Melinda Duckett's evasion of simple questions to answer (if she had nothing to do with the kid's disappearance), as well as her extremely bizarre behavior after her son was supposedly kidnapped. This is a horrible story from start to beginning, and my sympathies (at this point) are the least with the mother.

Gumbel and Dierdorf? Ugh....

Your info is generally correct, but I think that it has probably been clouded by years of watching cheesy police shows on TV. There is a legal phrase called "fresh pursuit", which doesn't necessarily mean exactly as it sounds. A "pursuit" as many people think of one does not have to occur. Instead, the violation has to occur within the officer's jurisdiction and the stop can occur outside of the jurisdiction. Its not like you can drive through Podunk, USA at 100mph and try to beat the cop to the city limits. You would be amazed when he doesn't turn around at the city limits, issues you a fat ticket (or worse) and then you lose in court. State Troopers, however, generally don't have to worry 'bout this. As far as mutual aid agreements go, the vast majority of law enforcement agencies have entered into these with surrounding jurisdictions, allowing them to send assistance and perform law enforcement duties within another jurisdiction. In Foley's particular case, we don't really know what happened. What we do know, is that Foley put himself in the position that he is in and he is paying for it.

Probably agency policy. Generally, these types of incidents are handled with much more investigative fortitude than Joe popping a couple rounds in Cincy outside the local gay bar.

By a stingray? Man, I had no idea that they were deadly. I will be more careful at SeaWorld, from now on... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060904/ap_on_en_tv/obit_irwin

Not to hijack this thread, but I am curious... Jason, how are you liking your Samsung so far? I ordered one (30" WS HDTV) and it is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. I have read several complaints that they have some probs with wavy lines and color. What is your experience? Thanks...

In my opinion, a solid QB situation is not defined as having two good starting QBs on the roster. This is definitely a BAD thing, and only causes problems down the road. A solid QB situation is having one leader, one experienced but less than stellar QB as a backup, and one that is an all-pro at holding clipboards and getting water. Reich and Van Pelt were terrific in their roles as backups. If Nall is the man, he can show me next year. This (whole) year is JP's. Backups challenging for starting spots in camp = good! Backups challenging for starting spots in week 5 = BAD!

What's up with Willis wearing the darkly tinted visor? I know in years past, he has worn a clear or lightly tinted one. Have the powers that be let him go with the dark one, or is it just a preseason thing?

Thats just his pimpwalk

Marv! Drop the viagra and get back in the office!

Buffalo's offense is "top secret"? He probably hasn't really even seen it! Of course its top secret - to him! By the way, I love Willis on the field. Off the field, he is a question mark, to say the least.

Just so that everyone understands, I do not just let someone call a ride. I make a determination that I do not have probable cause to believe that this person is impaired, and if the PBT shows that they are over the .08 limit, then a ride is called. Obviously, I can't let them just drive off. This is where "tolerance" may play a role. Any good DUI officer or DUI lawyer will tell you that you need probable cause to arrest, and this is the first really tough hurdle that needs to be jumped in court. Some bad officers cannot get over this hurdle, and the case is dumped at a motion to suppress. This is largely a subjective opinion of the officer, but it depends (generally) on a certain group of observable symptoms of impairment. Some of these symptoms are general, and some of them are a starndardized set that can be noted on the field sobriety exercises. And, since you don't know what I am looking for on the FSTs, frequently you think that you ace the test. This causes you to become shocked when the cuffs get slapped on you. Anyway, tolerance will definitely play a role in 2 out of the 3 standardized exercises. The first one, called the HGN (eye test), will not be effected by your tolerance. It is scientifically proven that alcohol, and certain other types of drugs, will cause your eyes to jerk involuntarily. The sooner they jerk, as they move to the side to follow the pen, the more impaired that you are (generally). So, this will oftentimes give away a tolerant drinker who may not feel impaired but is over the .08 limit. We still need to see other signs during the other tests (walking the line, standing on one leg) to get that probable cause, however. Sometimes, the tolerant drinker will not show these signs, and the person has to be let go. And, yes, it is hammered into our heads at the academy that our job is law ENFORCEMENT. The interpreting part comes in after you start to develop a sort of specialty. Some cops like drugs, some cops like writing speeding tickets, some cops like DUIs. When you find your niche, you learn and train. You see how you get beat in court, and you change your tactics. As far as your personal case, L.Evans - Unfortunately, being arrested and blowing a .07, impairment can be proven. Even though you are not over the .08 limit (at least you didn't lose your license), impairment has been shown to exist at .05. I do agree that the fees that you pay to get out of this charge cause great strain on you. Unfortunately, this is part of the point. All the officer has to do, is show that he had PC to arrest you. If he does, then it doesn't really matter what you blow. You could blow .000, and if he had PC, then he is covered against any civil liability. I don't know the specifics of your case, other than what you have said, and I really don't think that this is the place to air your criminal record, so I don't want to comment on it any further. But, I am sure that you have learned, that it is better to be safe than sorry. Drinking 1, 2, or even 3 drinks with dinner will not put you anywhere close to the legal limit. So, feel comfortable knowing this. 99% of the people that I have arrested are not leaving dinner. They are leaving the club / bar at 2am, where they have been drinking and drinking and partying over a period of time. They hop into the car and drive off. These, frequently, are the ones that get popped. Now, if you decide to start slamming them down with your chicken parmigiana... Forget office, L.Evans, I am gonna start charging you guys attorney's fees for this information!

Would it be wrong to play that in during game 4 at HSBC? Nah...

L.Evans - Respectfully, I disagree with you on the washing your car drunk with the keys in the ignition and "touching" the car. Actual physical control requires one to be in an immediate position to operate the vehicle. This, at the very least, would require them to be inside the vehicle where the driver would sit. In addition, it would require that the keys to the vehicle, at the very least, be in their immediate possession (or within immediate reach), and obviously they would have to be impaired. Those are the three elements of a DUI with actual physical control. Honestly, I did not go to your link because I am leery with going to links that I don't know about, so the case law that is supposedly referenced in there is unknown to me. But, I see absolutely no way in which someone can be charged with a DUI while washing their car, drunk. The State Attorney would drop that charge in a heartbeat. As far as sleeping in the car, yes. That can be actual physical control if the above elements are met. I have made several actual physical control cases, with a couple being someone passed out behind the wheel. Sometimes they do this in the middle of the road, while sitting at a stop light. Sometimes, they pull off and into a parking lot and leave the keys in the ignition. I've also had a APC case where the suspect actually flagged me down as I was driving by yelling at me "HEY!". Turns out, he really didn't want to flag me down, he just wanted to yell at a cop passing by. He was impaired, sitting in his car, with the keys in his hand. He went to jail. Yes, you can be charged with DUI on a scooter, lawn mower, mini bike (all motor vehicles), as well as a non-motorized bicycle. I can tell you that I have never, and never plan to make any of these cases, cuz if you are willing to ride a bicycle drunk, the only one that you will hurt is yourself. That is on you! As far as MADD goes, MADD is merely a victim's rights group. They attempt to intervene on behalf of those that become victims of impaired drivers. They do lobby for certain laws to be passed, and usually do so successfully. For example, new legislation that has recently been passed in Florida making it a misdemeanor to refuse to submit to a test of your breath,blood or urine after being arrested for DUI. Whereas, before it was a misdemeanor for a second / subsequent refusal. I do not believe that this is infringing on your personal rights as a human being. I know this is cliche, but driving is not your right. Driving is a privilege that is offered to you. By taking that privilege, you automatically give your consent to these tests. You also put yourself in a position to be arrested (or worse) when you drink and then drive. DUI suspects are usually only concerned with their rights, and how were their rights violated. MADD is concerned with the victim's rights, and how their rights were violated when someone else put their safety and life at risk. Both sides are understandable, however I tend to side with one more than the other... L.Evans / FutureBillsGM - Knowing your limit is always a good thing. A common observation, at least from my point of view, is that there is frequently a difference between someone's perceived limit and the illegal per se limit allowed for by law. I never drink, so at a .08 I would be 100% trashed. Heck, at a .04 I probably shouldn't drive. I can't tell you how many times I have arrested someone after they showed me obvious signs of impairment, and they swore that they were fine. Many times, they were significantly over the .08 limit (.13, .15, .17). When our judgements start to become impaired, we lose our ability to judge our impairment! Check out this site: http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp 3 beers will not impair a normal, adult male. 3 long island ice teas? Yeah, that probably would. But, unless you are drinking on an empty stomach and weigh 100 lbs, 3 budweisers will not put you over a .08. This is a common misconception that goes around. A normal adult male would probably need somewhere around 5-8 beers, depending on body weight / type, time span that the alcohol was consumed, and how much they have had to eat (anything). Eating ANYTHING, before or during drinking, will keep the alcohol from just dumping into your system. This will keep the BAC from rising to high levels quickly, and allows your liver time to keep up with the metabolism / elimination process. As far as where I work, it sounds like you were arrested in Orange County? That's where I work. Hope that this helps. Always remember, a cab fare is SO much cheaper than a DUI.

Photo 20: "JP, you mind handing me the gatorade, buddy? It doesn't look like you are gonna need it."

Cincinnati PD doesn't have the best reputation, I will give you that. I do consider myself a fair and reasonable officer when it comes to arriving at probable cause. As I said before, I absolutely disagree with the decisions that impaired drivers make. I also will say that I have let numerous ones go (calling a ride for them), after deciding that probable cause did not exist, but a PBT (portable breath test - not admissible in court in FL) indicated they were over the .08 limit. Maybe I expect my fellow officers to have the same level of integrity, education, training to do the same. And therefore, that DUI arrests in large part, are valid and the the probable cause decision was arrived at properly. I don't mean to toot my horn, but am only trying to explain my point of view. I do appreciate the venting that you allowed me to do, Stuck, and now I do believe that I can go to bed and sleep peacefully.

I am absolute in my opinion. The facts of the Droughn's case is that he was at the blood alcohol level for presumed impairment. That is absolutely improper / illegal / unsafe. I am also absolute in my opinion that there are some bad officers and questionable statutes out there, and I was basing my opinion on him getting off on an apparently "good arrest" solely upon the BAC reading on the Intoxilyzer (the facts that were presented). It was merely a rant. I just got back from a court hearing where a defense attorney tried to get his client off on a technicality, this being his 4th DUI arrest. He failed, but I was still frustrated at the system. Nothing more, nothing less. However... The facts of this case that you referred to are completely different. Apparently, illegal, yes. However, impairment at a .03? Doubtful. As said in the article, that is nearly impossible - unless she was also under the influence of drugs. The law in DC does not follow with the laws in the rest of the country for DUI, to my knowledge. "If a person 21 years of age or older has a blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent [to] .04 percent and extremely bad driving, this person can be placed under arrest for Driving Under the Influence of an alcoholic beverage." I do not believe that driving without your headlights on constitutes "extremely bad driving", and therefore does not meet the requirements for this woman to be arrested. Therefore, my opinion, based upon the facts in the article (fairly one sided point of view) is that it is a garbage statute. I do not agree with it, at all. How does she get arrested, yet a politician that had the obvious appearances of impairment gets let go? A poor system, as stated before, that starts with bad officers, goes to poor prosecutors, poor legislation (loopholes), and liberal judges. Oh, and what the heck is a jackboot? Go Bills? Anyone?

Still sucks! Down here in FL we are having such a problem with the breath tests getting into court. People blowing over .20 and getting off because the jury doesn't hear that evidence. Not to mention, if the breath does get in to evidence, and the jury hears that he blew a .08, the level at which someone is presumed impaired, it should automatically be a guilty verdict. I suppose that he could argue that the alcohol level was lower at the time of the stop / arrest, and since went up as it metabolized in his body.

Oh boy.... Not to hijack this thread, but... First of all, you CANNOT get a DUI in the manner that you described above. An element of "actual physical control" is actually being in the car. Second of all, you probably have not seen the carnage that goes along with impaired drivers. There is a reason that it is against the law. It kills people, and for some unfortunate reason, it usually isn't the drunk driver. Third of all, some states are lowering the levels? If they are, it is because it has been scientifically proven that impairment occurs (by the American Medical Association) at levels of .05. I haven't heard that any states have lowered the levels, though. You state that DUI laws are a sham? Indeed they are. They allow way too many people to get away with murder, literally. Next time I am on the scene where a small child here on vacation at Disney World was killed by a drunk driver, I will give you a call. Maybe you can swing by and explain to their family why DUI laws are a sham....

Being a Trooper (in Florida) that specializes in DUI, these things discourage me. I get tired of hearing about high profile people getting popped for the DUI, make excuses for their improper behavior, and then get completely off of it. The system is in such a sad state. Had this been Joe Blow who couldn't afford a high priced attorney, he would have pled to it. ARGH... Ok, got that off of my chest...

Its not about any one of these qualities. Its about the mix of them. Talent on its own can get you so far. Intelligence, same way. Same thing with a willingness to learn, and so on and so forth. When you start putting all of these characteristics together, the picture looks very appealing.

Lemme ask this one question: Did Roscoe graduate? Because, graduation really has little to do with it. When I heard Roscoe talk last year he sounded like one of the most uneducated, ignorant players in the league (ala the U). Listening to these guys talk, they seem confident, soft spoken, intelligent, willing to work, and having great leadership qualities (especially Whitner). I liked everything that I heard them say, and it seemed genuine. It was the complete opposite end of the intelligence/maturity spectrum that we have seen in years past. I love it.

How does this debate relate to KO? Geez, I love that name!

Man, looking at his highlight reel on Yahoo, this guy looks to have great size. I also love all of the things that having a safety named KO brings to the NFL Primetime highlights! I would second the motion to bring back the number 32 to throw on Mr Simpson

Ralph? Is that you?