RiotAct Posted June 14, 2020 Posted June 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Happy said: we all are being punished wearing the #metoo masks. Saying Oliver shouldn't get punished by the league with all that is going on regarding the marches, protests, etc would be nice, though probably too much to hope for. masks are the alpha and the omega. More important than water. I better see every one of you wearing one at the games this season, or I’m going to clock you good, y’hear? 1
Manther Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) On 6/13/2020 at 12:02 PM, Johnny Hammersticks said: So when should we expect to hear about any disciplinary decisions here? Slightly before the ruling on the Pats** taping of the Bengals? Edited June 17, 2020 by Manther Spelling
The Dean Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) On 6/13/2020 at 10:02 PM, MJS said: Probably because he broke the law. You usually get punished for breaking the law. Let me try to fix that. People without power and influence typically get punished when they get caught breaking the law. I'd say a small percentage of people who break the law actually get punished for it. Most don't get caught. Many skate because of who they are/know/etc/ With that said,. Oliver probably deserves some punishment and will probably receive some. Edited June 17, 2020 by The Dean 1
fansince88 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 10:32 PM, RiotAct said: masks are the alpha and the omega. More important than water. I better see every one of you wearing one at the games this season, or I’m going to clock you good, y’hear? I would need to get one.
plenzmd1 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 6:26 PM, billsbackto81 said: Sobriety tests are a joke. You can walk a tight rope line and touch your nose with both fingers while standing on one leg flawlessly. YOU WILL STILL FAIL!! Once you're asked to submit to a FST get ready to take a ride. All you can do is pray you blow under the legal limit. Most cops know many can drive competently while under the influence. The only way to collar you is if you blow over the legal which we all know isn't much. i was stopped a while back, did my tests perfectly, cop asked me to take a breathalyser so " i could drive home"...he stressed to me like 4 or 5 times if i blew over .08 it would have no impact ...they were not going to charge me based on my field test....yep, had to have my wife pick me up..no way i blowing into that thing. And i think most lawyers now always advise do not blow...just refuse it. On 6/13/2020 at 10:02 PM, MJS said: Probably because he broke the law. You usually get punished for breaking the law. he did? How you know that?
thebandit27 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 39 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: i was stopped a while back, did my tests perfectly, cop asked me to take a breathalyser so " i could drive home"...he stressed to me like 4 or 5 times if i blew over .08 it would have no impact ...they were not going to charge me based on my field test....yep, had to have my wife pick me up..no way i blowing into that thing. And i think most lawyers now always advise do not blow...just refuse it. he did? How you know that? Really depends on where you are; NYS has implied consent for breathalyzer tests. Refusal means an automatic suspension of one’s license for 6 months (subject to appeal) and a fine of up to $500.
plenzmd1 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 23 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Really depends on where you are; NYS has implied consent for breathalyzer tests. Refusal means an automatic suspension of one’s license for 6 months (subject to appeal) and a fine of up to $500. agreed..and one needs to calculate that risk. At the very least, i would insist on a chemical test in the station....my 60's upbringing may be coming up LOL, but i just don't trust those field breathalyser... and in my case i knew 100% i was not impaired, did all my tests perfectly...why would i consent to a test that could be faulty when i just emphatically had proven i was fine to drive... I contemplated hiring an attorney as i don't think he was legally allowed to restrain my ability to drive home, but decided the money was not worth the point.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, thebandit27 said: Really depends on where you are; NYS has implied consent for breathalyzer tests. Refusal means an automatic suspension of one’s license for 6 months (subject to appeal) and a fine of up to $500. Refusal gets you a 1 year suspension, no matter the outcome of your DUI stop. What appeal?
thebandit27 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Refusal gets you a 1 year suspension, no matter the outcome of your DUI stop. What appeal? Last I was told was 6 months, and you could file for a hearing to get your license back. Perhaps that’s outdated or was never accurate but that’s what I was told EDIT: Google tells me that it is indeed one year. Not sure what the 6 months is about...apparently the hearing allows one to drive for work/professional purposes Edited June 17, 2020 by thebandit27
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 16 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Last I was told was 6 months, and you could file for a hearing to get your license back. Perhaps that’s outdated or was never accurate but that’s what I was told EDIT: Google tells me that it is indeed one year. Not sure what the 6 months is about...apparently the hearing allows one to drive for work/professional purposes Yeah the appeal can not reduce the suspension but can give limited travel work only.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 9:02 PM, MJS said: Probably because he broke the law. You usually get punished for breaking the law. Um, how do we know he broke the law? Isn't there supposed to be a presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law?
BringBackFergy Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 3 hours ago, thebandit27 said: Really depends on where you are; NYS has implied consent for breathalyzer tests. Refusal means an automatic suspension of one’s license for 6 months (subject to appeal) and a fine of up to $500. If a driver has a prior Misdemeanor DWI within 10 years they should absolutely refuse the breathalyzer (at the station). If they take the breath test at the station and fail it, it's a slam dunk Felony DWI for the prosecutor. Take the refusal suspension (which is an administrative penalty) as opposed to a criminal charge felony. Just pointing out, there is a difference between the "alcosensor test" at the time of the stop and the "breathalyzer" test at the station. The alcosensor test is a handheld device they use to determine the presence of ETOH in the system. The Breathalyzer test (at the station) is a highly calibrated, maintained computerized system that spits out a percentage ETOH reading. The alcosensor is not admissable to prove intoxication per se...it can be used in conjunction with other field sobriety tests to establish "common law DWI" whereas the breathalyzer test at the station can establish "DWI with blood alcohol over .08" (a separate charge under the NYSPL.) I haven't defended (or prosecuted) DWI cases in probably 5 years years or so. Things may have changed. 2
MJS Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Um, how do we know he broke the law? Isn't there supposed to be a presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law? I'm not a court of law. I don't have to presume innocence. Not saying he's a hardened criminal. But it's pretty obvious he did something wrong. Maybe he'll get a fine, maybe not. We'll see.
Numark3 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Um, how do we know he broke the law? Isn't there supposed to be a presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law? that is not how the NFL player discipline works.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 35 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said: If a driver has a prior Misdemeanor DWI within 10 years they should absolutely refuse the breathalyzer (at the station). If they take the breath test at the station and fail it, it's a slam dunk Felony DWI for the prosecutor. Take the refusal suspension (which is an administrative penalty) as opposed to a criminal charge felony. Just pointing out, there is a difference between the "alcosensor test" at the time of the stop and the "breathalyzer" test at the station. The alcosensor test is a handheld device they use to determine the presence of ETOH in the system. The Breathalyzer test (at the station) is a highly calibrated, maintained computerized system that spits out a percentage ETOH reading. The alcosensor is not admissable to prove intoxication per se...it can be used in conjunction with other field sobriety tests to establish "common law DWI" whereas the breathalyzer test at the station can establish "DWI with blood alcohol over .08" (a separate charge under the NYSPL.) I haven't defended (or prosecuted) DWI cases in probably 5 years years or so. Things may have changed. Doesn't the "implied consent" also require the driver to submit to chemical testing at the station? If not, why would anyone consent ever and how would DWI cases be prosecuted? In court?
BringBackFergy Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Doesn't the "implied consent" also require the driver to submit to chemical testing at the station? If not, why would anyone consent ever and how would DWI cases be prosecuted? In court? Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right. Some people refuse to take the test at the station because they already have a prior DWI conviction (not DWAI which is a violation). As I said, if you have a prior DWI within 10 years, most should not take the test at the station. Others think they should refuse the test at the station because they can beat the case at trial on the common law charge (failing field sobriety tests, odor, etc....maybe they have a bad knee, on medication, etc.) but if they refuse, they get hit with the suspension/revocation by the DMV. If it's your first time, most should take the test because then you qualify for a plea reduction to the violation DWAI and can attend DDP and get conditional use license. 1
Doc Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: that is not how the NFL player discipline works. How does it work? I haven't see Patrick Chung, who was caught with cocaine, be suspended yet.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, BringBackFergy said: Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right. Some people refuse to take the test at the station because they already have a prior DWI conviction (not DWAI which is a violation). As I said, if you have a prior DWI within 10 years, most should not take the test at the station. Others think they should refuse the test at the station because they can beat the case at trial on the common law charge (failing field sobriety tests, odor, etc....maybe they have a bad knee, on medication, etc.) but if they refuse, they get hit with the suspension/revocation by the DMV. If it's your first time, most should take the test because then you qualify for a plea reduction to the violation DWAI and can attend DDP and get conditional use license. How does the DA win a DUI case with no lab data? They go with the common law charge and describe what they saw? 19 minutes ago, Doc said: How does it work? I haven't see Patrick Chung, who was caught with cocaine, be suspended yet. Don't they usually wait until the case gets adjudicated before they suspend?
BringBackFergy Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 38 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: How does the DA win a DUI case with no lab data? They go with the common law charge and describe what they saw? Don't they usually wait until the case gets adjudicated before they suspend? Common law DWI conviction depends on odor, speech, erratic driving, inability to exit vehicle, bloodshot eyes, failure to follow directions, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and failure of various tests (one leg stand, finger to nose, walk and turn, alphabet, etc.). With dash cam footage, it becomes easier for DA to prove the case. Many years ago, all the DA could rely on was the 710.30 notice of the officer's interview and the Bill of Particulars which detailed all the failures and defense attys could rip it apart. Video proof is much more damning. 1
billsbackto81 Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: i was stopped a while back, did my tests perfectly, cop asked me to take a breathalyser so " i could drive home"...he stressed to me like 4 or 5 times if i blew over .08 it would have no impact ...they were not going to charge me based on my field test....yep, had to have my wife pick me up..no way i blowing into that thing. And i think most lawyers now always advise do not blow...just refuse it. he did? How you know that? I'm retired law enforcement so I know the drill all too well. Did they dash cam video your FST? There's a reason most times they record with your back turned to the camera. This way nobody but the officer can determine how good or bad you performed. It becomes his call at that point, advantage police. I ran into an unfortunate situation years back in Florida for what was deemed an illegal 3pt turn. I was lost and over shot my street. Made the turn in the presence of a parked LEO. Had I been drinking? Yes. Impaired? No. Passed the FST flawlessly and still got dragged in. Not to sound privileged but I was hoping for some professional courtesy considering I was a 1/4 mile away from my destination. Nope! Refused the breathalyzer, posted bond and fought it in court. Totally aggravating not to mention time and money. They even laughed at the station using the old Florida adage, " come on vacation, leave on probation". Funny, 11 years later I now live here. Edited June 18, 2020 by billsbackto81 1 1
Recommended Posts