People's Exhibit Number One

[Guest guest]

At 09:08 AM 7/1/00 -0400, rita66@... wrote:

***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

<snip>

No one is suggesting that Ms. Kishline should be charged with first or

second degree murder -- of course she never intended to kill anyone.

But the vast majority of killings are unintentional -- doesn't mean the

perpetrator shouldn't serve time, or isn't responsible.

***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

If it happened a couple of states south in California, many prosecutors

_would_ have charged Kishline with second-degree murder.

And her book would have been retitled " People's Exhibit Number One. "

Generally, second degree murder doesn't require an intent to kill. It is

killing of another with " malice aforethought. "

Malice doesn't mean ill will. It can be shown as a " wanton disregard for

human life. " The argument can be made that when a person with a history of

drunk driving continues to drink and -- if they are unable to control their

impulses when drunk, or just don't care -- drive, they are showing no regard for

the potentially deadly consequences of their actions.

In a highly-publicised case in Southern California last year, a man was

found guilty of second-degree murder in very similar circumstances. His main

defense was that the dead woman's injuries wouldn't have been fatal if she

hadn't, as a Jehovah's Witness, refused transfusions.

I am not familiar with Washington law but, frankly, I am surprised Kishline

wasn't charged with second degree murder. I have not read MM, but understand it

details her problem drinking and admits she drove drunk on occasions. The fact

that she continued to drink despite her problems with booze, and encouraged

other problem drinkers to do likewise, would not have played well with a jury.

If Washington law allowed second-degree murder charges under these

circumstances, the fact that Kishline is white, upper middle class, and had some

national following probably saved her from defending against more serious

charges. My current sig file is expecially appropriate in this case.

-----

Every man thinks God is on his side.

The rich and powerful know He is.

-Anouilh

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the excerpt Bob.

This seems a contradiction to me. If they have no control how can they be

held responsible for their actions? Doesn't lack of control imply that

they're unable to show regard for any consequences of their judgments under

the influence? Isn't it often argued that they have no control over taking

the first drink in the first place.

I don't believe my last bit there but it seems like whoever wrote this is

speaking from both sides of their mouth at once.

People's Exhibit Number One

At 09:08 AM 7/1/00 -0400, rita66@... wrote:

***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

<snip>

Malice doesn't mean ill will. It can be shown as a " wanton disregard

for human life. " The argument can be made that when a person with a history

of drunk driving continues to drink and -- if they are unable to control

their impulses when drunk, or just don't care -- drive, they are showing no

regard for the potentially deadly consequences of their actions.

[Guest guest]

" Speaking from both sides of their mouth at once. " --This is a real gift

with AAs -- it's even better if you're two-faced and possess a forked

tongue. If you can speak from both sides at once then you've covered your

bets on being right.

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: RE: People's Exhibit Number One

>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:41:08 -0500

>

>Thanks for the excerpt Bob.

>

>

>This seems a contradiction to me. If they have no control how can they be

>held responsible for their actions? Doesn't lack of control imply that

>they're unable to show regard for any consequences of their judgments under

>the influence? Isn't it often argued that they have no control over taking

>the first drink in the first place.

>

>I don't believe my last bit there but it seems like whoever wrote this is

>speaking from both sides of their mouth at once.

>

>

>

> People's Exhibit Number One

>

>At 09:08 AM 7/1/00 -0400, rita66@... wrote:

>***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

> <snip>

>

> Malice doesn't mean ill will. It can be shown as a " wanton disregard

>for human life. " The argument can be made that when a person with a

>history

>of drunk driving continues to drink and -- if they are unable to control

>their impulses when drunk, or just don't care -- drive, they are showing no

>regard for the potentially deadly consequences of their actions.

>

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Well said!

A thirtyish Iowa man, angered by teens toilet papering his lawn, chased the

car of the 15 and 16 year old teens, forcing them to careen out of control

and causing two to lose their lives. He was up on 2 counts of vehicular

homicide. He was broken by the experience. The jury convicted him of

reckless driving.

And, I agree, yes it was absolutely " wanton disregard for human life " .

This makes her a dangerous person in any environment and she shouldn't get

out of jail until she is too old to drive or see. Throw the book at her.

What a spoiled brat!

Carol

P.S. Court tv rocks! Check out their website.

A> If it happened a couple of states south in California, many

prosecutors _would_ have charged Kishline with second-degree murder.

> And her book would have been retitled " People's Exhibit Number One. "

> Generally, second degree murder doesn't require an intent to kill. It

is killing of another with " malice aforethought. "

> Malice doesn't mean ill will. It can be shown as a " wanton disregard

for human life. " The argument can be made that when a person with a

history of drunk driving continues to drink and -- if they are unable to

control their impulses when drunk, or just don't care -- drive, they are

showing no regard for the potentially deadly consequences of their actions.

> In a highly-publicised case in Southern California last year, a man

was found guilty of second-degree murder in very similar circumstances.

His main defense was that the dead woman's injuries wouldn't have been

fatal if she hadn't, as a Jehovah's Witness, refused transfusions.

> I am not familiar with Washington law but, frankly, I am surprised

Kishline wasn't charged with second degree murder. I have not read MM, but

understand it details her problem drinking and admits she drove drunk on

occasions. The fact that she continued to drink despite her problems with

booze, and encouraged other problem drinkers to do likewise, would not have

played well with a jury.

> If Washington law allowed second-degree murder charges under these

circumstances, the fact that Kishline is white, upper middle class, and had

some national following probably saved her from defending against more

serious charges. My current sig file is expecially appropriate in this case.

>-----

>Every man thinks God is on his side.

>The rich and powerful know He is.

> -Anouilh

>______________________________________________

>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.

>http://click./1/4634/2/_/4324/_/962476170/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

>

---

Life is a candy store.

Visit: Information on recovery alternatives at

http://www.bcrecovernet.org

[Guest guest]

The point is that " I was so drunk I was unable to control my actions " isn't a

defense, especially when the person has a history of irresponsible actions when

under the influence.

Kishlike had a history of becoming intoxicated to the point that her

judgment went out the window, yet continued to become intoxicated.

The tragic deaths of two innocent people would be considered a foreseeable

consequence of her drinking, kind of like killing your neighbor is a foreseeable

consequence of doing target practice with a .44 in the living room of an

apartment.

At 03:41 PM 7/1/00 -0500, Arroyo wrote:

***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

If they have no control how can they be

Doesn't lack of control imply that they're unable to show regard for any

consequences of their judgments under

Isn't it often argued that they have no control over taking the first drink in

the first place.

I don't believe my last bit there but it seems like whoever wrote this is

speaking from both sides of their mouth at once.

***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Bob Marshall wrote:

<< The tragic deaths of two innocent people would be considered a

foreseeable consequence of her drinking, kind of like killing your

neighbor is a foreseeable consequence of doing target practice with a

..44 in the living room of an apartment. >>

Sorry, I don't see the logic of this. A " foreseeable consequence "

of excessive drinking is an upset stomach or wicked hangover; or perhaps

(if repeated over a long period of time) permanent GI or liver damage.

Two dead people in a head-on collision is not a foreseeable result of

drinking. The tragedy (and others like it) was a result of operating an

unsafe vehicle. Can you not see this? It is Ms. Kishline's, or anyone

else's, right to consume alcohol, and to risk whatever health problems

their consumption causes. But if she had kept her butt in a chair

instead of getting behind the wheel, no one would have been killed, no

matter how high her BAC was!

I would liken driving a car wth a BAC of .26 to driving a car with

no brakes. If either the vehicle, or the driver, is not fit for

driving, then it is criminally negligent to drive the vehicle. Drinking

in and of itself is not negligent at all. I can't see how Kishline's

book has any relevance at all to the case.

I think all studies on the subject have shown that

ignition-interlock breathalyzers produce the lowest DWI/DUI recidivism

rates of any approach that has been tried in the history of the crime of

DWI/DUI, including fines, license suspension, forced AA, educational

classes, etc. Personally, I think MM could do a lot of damage control

and increase its credibility by visibly encouraging its members (those

who drive) to purchase and install the device.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

I'm with you whole-heartedly on this.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it irritates me to think that the

state takes the stand, on the one hand, the alcoholics have no control and

therefore must be forced into treatment and on the other that they have

control and should be punished accordingly when it comes to situations like

this. The whole thing just seems self serving to me.

I totally believe that people have control. I believe Ken Bjorn and others

make that pretty clear in their writing. The contrary rationales, I

described above, that appears to be coming from the legal side just seems

wrong to me.

RE: People's Exhibit Number One

The point is that " I was so drunk I was unable to control my actions " isn't

a defense, especially when the person has a history of irresponsible actions

when under the influence.

Kishlike had a history of becoming intoxicated to the point that her

judgment went out the window, yet continued to become intoxicated.

The tragic deaths of two innocent people would be considered a

foreseeable consequence of her drinking, kind of like killing your neighbor

is a foreseeable consequence of doing target practice with a .44 in the

living room of an apartment.

At 03:41 PM 7/1/00 -0500, Arroyo wrote:

***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

If they have no control how can they be

Doesn't lack of control imply that they're unable to show regard for any

consequences of their judgments under

Isn't it often argued that they have no control over taking the first

drink in the first place.

I don't believe my last bit there but it seems like whoever wrote this is

speaking from both sides of their mouth at once.

***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Worldwide Calling with Firetalk!

Click Here:

http://click./1/5481/2/_/4324/_/962504430/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 11:39 PM 7/1/00 -0400, rita66@... wrote:

Bob Marshall wrote:

>>><< The tragic deaths of two innocent people would be considered a foreseeable

consequence of her drinking, kind of like killing your neighbor is a foreseeable

consequence of doing target practice with a .44 in the living room of an

apartment. >><<<

<<<Sorry, I don't see the logic of this. A " foreseeable consequence " of

excessive drinking is an upset stomach or wicked hangover; or perhaps(if

repeated over a long period of time) permanent GI or liver damage.

Two dead people in a head-on collision is not a foreseeable result of drinking.

The tragedy (and others like it) was a result of operating an unsafe vehicle.

Can you not see this? It is Ms. Kishline's, or anyone else's, right to consume

alcohol, and to risk whatever health problems their consumption causes. But if

she had kept her butt in a chair instead of getting behind the wheel, no one

would have been killed, no matter how high her BAC was!>>>

You snipped prior comments that put the quoted remarks in context.

Alcohol consumption results in a lowering of inhibitions and, in larger

quantities, impairment of reasoning and judgement. Along with a " wicked

hangover, " many problem drinkers wake up with the feeling of horror that they

cannot remember how they got home the night before.

Ms. Kishline had a history of drinking and driving. Apparently, when

intoxicated, she was unwilling or unable to conform her behavior to the law

which prohibits driving under the influence. On sobering up, she realized that

she had committed the crime of DUI and regretted her behavior.

(The paragraph above is based on my understanding of her book, which I have

not read. If she did not make these statements, I would welcome references from

those more familiar with the text.)

Faced with a history of failing to " keep her butt in a chair instead of

getting behind the wheel, " she continued to get drunk.

It is quite foreseeable that her behavior pattern would continue, just as

those who have repeatedly become violent or abusive when they use drugs or

alcohol are likely to exhibit those characteristics again when intoxicated.

It follows that they should refrain from using substances which result in

behavior that endangers others.

Can you not see this?

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Hello bob,

Defence Exhibit number one ought to be the BB perhaps.

Kishline's drinking got worse, and the killings occurred, while she

was trying to be abstinent. This incident is pretty well irrelevant

to

the moderation/abstinence debate, but if it indicates anything, it

shows that she should have stuck to moderating!

P.

> ***ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

> <snip>

> No one is suggesting that Ms. Kishline should be charged with

first or second degree murder -- of course she never intended to kill

anyone.

> But the vast majority of killings are unintentional -- doesn't

mean

the perpetrator shouldn't serve time, or isn't responsible.

> ***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

>

> If it happened a couple of states south in California, many

prosecutors _would_ have charged Kishline with second-degree murder.

> And her book would have been retitled " People's Exhibit Number

One. "

> Generally, second degree murder doesn't require an intent to

kill. It is killing of another with " malice aforethought. "

> Malice doesn't mean ill will. It can be shown as a " wanton

disregard for human life. " The argument can be made that when a

person with a history of drunk driving continues to drink and -- if

they are unable to control their impulses when drunk, or just don't

care -- drive, they are showing no regard for the potentially deadly

consequences of their actions.

> In a highly-publicised case in Southern California last year,

a

man was found guilty of second-degree murder in very similar

circumstances. His main defense was that the dead woman's injuries

wouldn't have been fatal if she hadn't, as a Jehovah's Witness,

refused transfusions.

> I am not familiar with Washington law but, frankly, I am

surprised Kishline wasn't charged with second degree murder. I have

not read MM, but understand it details her problem drinking and

admits

she drove drunk on occasions. The fact that she continued to drink

despite her problems with booze, and encouraged other problem

drinkers

to do likewise, would not have played well with a jury.

> If Washington law allowed second-degree murder charges under

these circumstances, the fact that Kishline is white, upper middle

class, and had some national following probably saved her from

defending against more serious charges. My current sig file is

expecially appropriate in this case.

> -----

> Every man thinks God is on his side.

> The rich and powerful know He is.

> -Anouilh

> ______________________________________________

> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

> Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Bob Marshall wrote:

<< Faced with a history of failing to " keep her butt in a chair

instead of getting behind the wheel, " she continued to get drunk.

         It is quite foreseeable that her behavior

pattern would continue, just as those who have repeatedly become violent

or abusive when they use drugs or alcohol are likely to exhibit those

characteristics again when intoxicated.   It follows that they should

refrain from using substances which result in behavior that endangers

others.

         Can you not see this? >>

I understand your point, and I agree that such an individual ought

to abstain totally from drink.

But many problem drinkers are going to continue drinking; that's

just reality. So shouldn't we as a society be focusing on how to

prevent fatalities on the highways right now, rather than simply

encouraging (or worse, coercing) people into programs which may, but

then again may not, _eventually_ get them to stop drinking?

Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue rather than a

drinking issue, I fear there will be more tragedies of the Kishline

type. They just won't make national news.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

Or perhaps as a public health issue?

>

> << Faced with a history of failing to " keep her butt in a chair

> instead of getting behind the wheel, " she continued to get drunk.

>         It is quite foreseeable that her behavior

> pattern would continue, just as those who have repeatedly become

violent

> or abusive when they use drugs or alcohol are likely to exhibit

those

> characteristics again when intoxicated.   It follows that they

should

> refrain from using substances which result in behavior that

endangers

> others.

>         Can you not see this? >>

>

>

> I understand your point, and I agree that such an individual

ought

> to abstain totally from drink.

>

> But many problem drinkers are going to continue drinking;

that's

> just reality. So shouldn't we as a society be focusing on how to

> prevent fatalities on the highways right now, rather than simply

> encouraging (or worse, coercing) people into programs which may, but

> then again may not, _eventually_ get them to stop drinking?

>

> Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue rather

than a

> drinking issue, I fear there will be more tragedies of the Kishline

> type. They just won't make national news.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

>>> Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue rather

than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more tragedies of the Kishline type.

They just won't make national news. <<<

The problem with the traffic safety approach, including ignition interlock

devices, is that they don't catch people who " fly below radar " and don't get

into the legal system until there is a tragic accident. I know many people

(taking the fifth for my own past) who have managed to drive while quite drunk

and avoid detection for a number of years.

I believe the Fourth Amendment protects us from mass installation of ignition

interlock devices in the general population's vehicles. A person who is

convicted of a crime involving alcohol can accept an interlock device, or choose

to reject probation, serve their time and forfeit their drivers license for a

statutory period of time.

Maybe Big Brother is going to mandate interlock devices on all new cars at some

point, but not without a hell of a fight.

So what is left beside the criminalization of behavior resulting in the death of

innocent people? _That_ is making a person responsible for the result of their

actions.

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

At 01:54 AM 7/3/00 -0000, Kayleigh S wrote:

> Or perhaps as a public health issue?

>In 12-step-freeegroups, rita66@w... wrote:

<snip>

>>Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue

>>rather than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more

>>tragedies of the Kishline type.

***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

It is only a public health issue is alcoholism/addiction is a disease.

-----

Every man thinks God is on his side.

The rich and powerful know He is.

-Anouilh

______________________________________________

FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Yes, it is only a public health issue -- so why is it like " you are a total

F@~~~~ing loser if you don't do it our way and your kids will have to grow

up without you and even the pain of their soul-hurt will accrue to the

accounts of our stepNazi righteousness and btw if you die soon that's cool

but jest f~~@@ off anyway. If you don't maybe we'll get round to ripping

your spine out at some sacrifice or just driving you to death some general

way but rest assured yew R Finnish cos we R PowR " or just sort of normative

clean-gene society Nazi f*** & & ??@ HimmlerKamp FEEEElth strictly Qu'ran

AOKpproved Kontent Kids will inhairit thee Urth. Oh, and btw, Islam is

definitely a cheapo con trick perpetrated upon the peoples of the Middle

East by the Mecca and Medina Chambers of Kommerce in a downtown Delhi urinal

deal with the Bank of Calcutta,

DH.

Help, the paranoids is SURE after ME.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:08:39 -0400 (EDT)

>

>At 01:54 AM 7/3/00 -0000, Kayleigh S wrote:

> > Or perhaps as a public health issue?

> >In 12-step-freeegroups, rita66@w... wrote:

><snip>

> >>Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue

> >>rather than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more

> >>tragedies of the Kishline type.

>***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

>

>It is only a public health issue is alcoholism/addiction is a disease.

>-----

>Every man thinks God is on his side.

>The rich and powerful know He is.

> -Anouilh

>______________________________________________

>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Well, I am not sure where is coming from here, but I can say with regard

to Bob's post that I see no utility whatsoever in debating whether or not

alcoholism is a disease.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>Yes, it is only a public health issue -- so why is it like " you are a total

>F@~~~~ing loser if you don't do it our way and your kids will have to grow

>up without you and even the pain of their soul-hurt will accrue to the

>accounts of our stepNazi righteousness and btw if you die soon that's cool

>but jest f~~@@ off anyway. If you don't maybe we'll get round to ripping

>your spine out at some sacrifice or just driving you to death some general

>way but rest assured yew R Finnish cos we R PowR " or just sort of normative

>clean-gene society Nazi f*** & & ??@ HimmlerKamp FEEEElth strictly Qu'ran

>AOKpproved Kontent Kids will inhairit thee Urth. Oh, and btw, Islam is

>definitely a cheapo con trick perpetrated upon the peoples of the Middle

>East by the Mecca and Medina Chambers of Kommerce in a downtown Delhi urinal

>deal with the Bank of Calcutta,

>

>DH.

>Help, the paranoids is SURE after ME.

>

>>

>>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>>Subject: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

>>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:08:39 -0400 (EDT)

>>

>>At 01:54 AM 7/3/00 -0000, Kayleigh S wrote:

>> > Or perhaps as a public health issue?

>> >In 12-step-freeegroups, rita66@w... wrote:

>><snip>

>> >>Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue

>> >>rather than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more

>> >>tragedies of the Kishline type.

>>***END ORIGINAL MESSAGE***

>>

>>It is only a public health issue is alcoholism/addiction is a disease.

>>-----

>>Every man thinks God is on his side.

>>The rich and powerful know He is.

>> -Anouilh

>>______________________________________________

>>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>>

>

>________________________________________________________________________

>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Click here for savings: beMANY!

>http://click./1/4115/2/_/4324/_/962750407/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

Good Grief,

Is it the Fourth Amendment that " protects " ppl from banning the sale

of Police Radar Detection devices so that ppl can drive at breakneck

speed with impunity?

Early on in the history of the car, could it have been used to prevent

the mandatory requirement to fit breaks or headlamps?

That this argument could be used I consider staggering. Such a device

would prevent the " flying below radar " that you refer to.

I find it amazing that ppl are quite happy to have, and actively seek,

the mass introduction of safety devices for the car, and yet will not

countenance mandatory safety limits on its most important and

unpredictable component, the driver.

P.

> >>> Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue rather

> than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more tragedies of the

Kishline type. They just won't make national news. <<<

>

> The problem with the traffic safety approach, including ignition

interlock devices, is that they don't catch people who " fly below

radar " and don't get into the legal system until there is a tragic

accident. I know many people (taking the fifth for my own past) who

have managed to drive while quite drunk and avoid detection for a

number of years.

>

> I believe the Fourth Amendment protects us from mass installation of

ignition interlock devices in the general population's vehicles. A

person who is convicted of a crime involving alcohol can accept an

interlock device, or choose to reject probation, serve their time and

forfeit their drivers license for a statutory period of time.

>

> Maybe Big Brother is going to mandate interlock devices on all new

cars at some point, but not without a hell of a fight.

>

> So what is left beside the criminalization of behavior resulting in

the death of innocent people? _That_ is making a person responsible

for the result of their actions.

>

> ______________________________________________

> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

> Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

There are states where sale of radar detection devices is banned, just as there

is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " ) that does not require the use

of seat belts or bike helmets. This argument whether safety devices should be

required or not will go on as long as people are people, I think.

Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not required, in part, because

it would prevent an embarrassingly high number of people from driving. Would it

stop me if I had been taking cough syrup, for example?

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>Good Grief,

>

>Is it the Fourth Amendment that " protects " ppl from banning the sale

>of Police Radar Detection devices so that ppl can drive at breakneck

>speed with impunity?

>

>Early on in the history of the car, could it have been used to prevent

>the mandatory requirement to fit breaks or headlamps?

>

>That this argument could be used I consider staggering. Such a device

>would prevent the " flying below radar " that you refer to.

>

>I find it amazing that ppl are quite happy to have, and actively seek,

>the mass introduction of safety devices for the car, and yet will not

>countenance mandatory safety limits on its most important and

>unpredictable component, the driver.

>

>P.

>

>

>

>

>> >>> Until DWI/DUI is approached as a traffic safety issue rather

>> than a drinking issue, I fear there will be more tragedies of the

>Kishline type. They just won't make national news. <<<

>>

>> The problem with the traffic safety approach, including ignition

>interlock devices, is that they don't catch people who " fly below

>radar " and don't get into the legal system until there is a tragic

>accident. I know many people (taking the fifth for my own past) who

>have managed to drive while quite drunk and avoid detection for a

>number of years.

>>

>> I believe the Fourth Amendment protects us from mass installation of

>ignition interlock devices in the general population's vehicles. A

>person who is convicted of a crime involving alcohol can accept an

>interlock device, or choose to reject probation, serve their time and

>forfeit their drivers license for a statutory period of time.

>>

>> Maybe Big Brother is going to mandate interlock devices on all new

>cars at some point, but not without a hell of a fight.

>>

>> So what is left beside the criminalization of behavior resulting in

>the death of innocent people? _That_ is making a person responsible

>for the result of their actions.

>>

>> ______________________________________________

>> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com

>> Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.

>http://click./1/4633/2/_/4324/_/962814671/

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

> There are states where sale of radar detection devices is banned,

just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " ) that

does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This argument

whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as long as

people are people, I think.

In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone found

with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " . ALso,

I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

mandatory in tghe US?

>

> Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not required, in

part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number of people

from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough syrup, for

example?

I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so if it

stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving after

cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this would

produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving have

toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been around a

long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to doing we can

get used again to not doing.

P.

[Guest guest]

I'm not too sure on which side sanity lies, re banning radar detectors.

Banning them means that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that

citizens are forbidden to perceive. This just doesn't seem right to me,

regardless of whether any real Constitutional justification can be found for

opposing the ban.

--wally

-----Original Message-----

> There are states where sale of radar detection devices is banned,

just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " ) that

does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This argument

whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as long as

people are people, I think.

In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone found

with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " . ALso,

I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

mandatory in tghe US?

[snip]

[Guest guest]

My insurance company would love you Pete. As it happens the speed limit on

the highways here are around the 70ish mark. As for not wanting to be

caught, the radar detector came with insurance to cover the cost of the

ticket up to a certain amount cant remember just now. Also I didn't play

around with the cheapo brands I bought an expensive model and a few times it

paid off giving me about a two mile warning when I was using it at reckless

speeds of well over 100 mph. What can I say I used to be quite reckless in

my driving habits.

As I said though I hit 24 or 25 and I just grew out of it. I think that

happens when you're forced to realize that reaction times are non existent

when you're driving over a hundred close your eyes to sneeze and when you

open them realize you're barreling down the back end of a semi in an iddy

biddy sports car

I can tell you nothing better to mature a guy real quick.

Re: People's Exhibit Number One

> In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

found

> with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

>

> Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

> there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

ALso,

> I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> mandatory in tghe US?

> >

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatalogLink offers hundreds of catalogs for FREE!

Click here to find the latest and greatest in the

world of catalogs - check out our featured Picks of the Week

and also look to enter our $500 catalog shopping spree!

http://click./1/6068/2/_/4324/_/962908239/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Have I mentioned I like the way you think lately?

Re: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

I'm not too sure on which side sanity lies, re banning radar detectors.

Banning them means that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that

citizens are forbidden to perceive. This just doesn't seem right to me,

regardless of whether any real Constitutional justification can be found for

opposing the ban.

--wally

[Guest guest]

Seat belt usage is required in 49 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, Washington D.C., American Samoa, Guam and the nas.

The thing I'm not clear on is whether these interlock devices detect

any alcohol at lock and freeze things up, or whether they can

determine actual limits. Also it would be important to know how

accurate they are.

> > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is banned,

> just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " )

that

> does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

argument

> whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as long

as

> people are people, I think.

>

> In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

found

> with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

>

> Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

> there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

ALso,

> I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> mandatory in tghe US?

> >

> > Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not required, in

> part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number of

people

> from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough syrup,

for

> example?

>

> I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

> determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so if it

> stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving after

> cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

> that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this would

> produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving have

> toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been around a

> long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to doing we

can

> get used again to not doing.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

55 mph is no longer the mandatory speed limit in the US. Most places

it is probably 65.

> > Hi Pete:

> >

> > Many people here think it's BS when I say this but the truth is I

> actually

> > drove slower when I used my radar/laser detector with radar

> scrambler and

> > radar detector blocker.

> >

> > Without it I would routinely run at around 90 - 105 mph. With it

I

> was

> > sticking to around 75 - 85. That was in my youth around 10 years

> ago. Now

> > I just sort of grew out of it. I'm about 70 - 75 on the highways

> now

> > without a radar/detector.

> >

> > Seat belt use is largely mandatory including rigid child safety

> restraint

> > usage when called for.

> > Re: People's Exhibit Number One

> > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

> found

> > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> >

> > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

> > there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

> ALso,

> > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > mandatory in tghe US?

> > >

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh wrote:

<< Seat belt usage is required in 49 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, Washington D.C., American Samoa, Guam and the nas.

The thing I'm not clear on is whether these interlock devices detect any

alcohol at lock and freeze things up, or whether they can determine

actual limits. Also it would be important to know how accurate they are.

>>

-------------------

Kayleigh --

They can be set by the manufacturer at whatever is considered the

" safe " limit of alcohol in the locality in which it is being used.

Since they are connected to a breath analysis device, their

accuracy is that of breath analysis devices -- and the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration guidelines for breathalyzer

accuracy is ± 0.005 mg/dl. This is pretty accurate -- if the

breathalyzer estimate " passes " someone who is really over the limit by

such an amount, they still will not be likely to be dangerously

inebriated; and if the device " fails " someone who is under by such an

amount, well, they can just wait around for another half hour and err on

the side of caution.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

Hi, Rita,

If I am understanding you correctly, then, if someone tested on a

breathalyzer at .01, they could be .005 or .015? And this would be

about one-tenth of the legal limit in most states? Does the accuracy

change with levels of alcohol? That is, can it be more accurate at

higher levels than lower, or vice versa?

I really don't know much about breathalyzers, but one thing I do know

is that they have to be calibrated (at least unless there've been

advances in technology since I tried my one and only DUI in the early

'80's) and if this has not been done within the proper time frame the

test is considered inaccurate and is thrown out of court. So how can

these interlock devices work the same way?

Just for the record, I was the prosecutor and the guy was convicted.

But there were some pretty tense arguments in chambers about the

admissibility of the breath test.

> -------------------

> Kayleigh --

>

> They can be set by the manufacturer at whatever is considered

the

> " safe " limit of alcohol in the locality in which it is being used.

>

> Since they are connected to a breath analysis device, their

> accuracy is that of breath analysis devices -- and the National

Highway

> Transportation Safety Administration guidelines for breathalyzer

> accuracy is ± 0.005 mg/dl. This is pretty accurate -- if the

> breathalyzer estimate " passes " someone who is really over the limit

by

> such an amount, they still will not be likely to be dangerously

> inebriated; and if the device " fails " someone who is under by such

an

> amount, well, they can just wait around for another half hour and

err on

> the side of caution.

>

> ~Rita