I like McNair, but this is ridiculous

[LaTunaNostra]

You're fighting with ghosts and against the extemely high probability that a man tooling around at over twice the legal drunkeness was driving like a drunk would drive. hicupp!!

LMAO!!!!!!!

You are a piece of work.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

LMAO!!!!!!!

You are a piece of work.

Well thank you, I enjoy challenging people's notions and having them challenge mine,,,

meanwhile from the Daily Tennesseen:

Police arrest report describes 'strong odor'

By CHRISTIAN BOTTORFF
Staff Writer

Bar owner says player had drinks but was not drunk

Tennessee Titans' quarterback Steve McNair ''had a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath'' when he was accused of DUI early yesterday morning in downtown Nashville, Metro police said.

An arrest affidavit also said McNair's blood-alcohol level was .18%, almost twice Tennessee's legal limit of .10%. The limit decreases to .08% in July.

McNair's speech ''sounded slurred when he spoke. His eyes were very bloodshot and watery and his pupils were dilated,'' the report states.

The incident began about midnight, when Officer Shawn Robert Taylor said McNair's car weaved twice into the center turning lane as he drove westbound on Broadway, crossing the yellow line, near Fifth Avenue.

McNair passed through the intersection with Eighth Avenue and ''still appeared to have difficulty keeping his vehicle in the drive lane,'' according to Taylor's report. **oops!

McNair pulled into the parking lot of Exxon Tigermarket on Broadway at 12th Avenue South, and Taylor approached his vehicle for a traffic stop, the report states.

After he was stopped, McNair told Taylor he was talking on the telephone ''and not paying attention.''

McNair, who led the Titans to the Super Bowl in 2000, was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and with possessing a handgun while under the influence, both misdemeanors. McNair, 30, lives in Franklin,

Taylor's report stated that he found a loaded 9mm handgun inside under the console of the black 1999 Lincoln Navigator that McNair was driving.

McNair has a permit for the gun, police said, but it is against the law to have a firearm while intoxicated. The pistol was seized, and McNair, who was alone at the time, telephoned a friend to pick up his vehicle.

He posted $3,000 bond and was released from Metro Jail shortly after 4 a.m. yesterday, documents show.

Don Aaron, Metro police spokesman, said McNair has no previous history with the department and that he ''was pleasant and cooperative with the officer.''

Police yesterday wouldn't release the videotape of McNair's arrest taken from Taylor's patrol car, saying it is part of a continuing investigation.

Hurricane's owner Tony Barnes said McNair had several mixed drinks at the bar on Second Avenue North before arrest.

McNair arrived with friends between 11 p.m. and 11:30, Barnes said. One of McNair's friends bought him two drinks — made with Absolut vodka and fruit juices — then McNair bought himself one, Barnes said. He also bought a friend a beer, and the total for the two beverages was $7.50. McNair gave the bartender a $50 and told him to keep the change.

''He was perfectly fine when he walked out,'' Barnes said. ''I talked to him several times. He was fine. I know drunk, and that ain't drunk.''

Barnes said he thought McNair left between midnight and 12:30 a.m. The police report states McNair was arrested at 12:08 a.m.

Before he went to Hurricane's, McNair was at Hooters on Second Avenue with several teammates, according to two people with knowledge of his whereabouts.

A first-offense DUI could result in a fine of $350, plus court costs, and 48 hours of jail on weekends, said Ed Yarbrough, a Nashville criminal defense attorney who isn't representing the Nashville NFL football star.

State law mandates that DUI offenses carry at least 48 hours in jail, Yarbrough said.

A conviction would require McNair to lose his driver's license for a year, but he could get a restricted license allowing him to drive to and from work, Yarbrough said.

There is no minimum jail term for the misdemeanor weapon offense, although it probably would result in either a suspended sentence or a jail sentence to run alongside the DUI, if McNair is convicted, Yarbrough said.

He also could face an additional fine of as much as $2,500 for the weapon charge, court officials said.

McNair is scheduled to appear 9 a.m. June 26 before Davidson County General Sessions Judge Leon Ruben.

Sgt. Emerson Boguskie, of the Police Department's Traffic Division, said Metro police have made 1,180 DUI arrests so far this year.

Impaired driving charges

Definitions of some alcohol-related charges in Tennessee:

Reckless driving — A wide-ranging charge that can imply anything from speeding in a school zone to drag racing. Fines vary but include accumulation of points on driver's license.

Driving while impaired — For drivers with a .08% blood-alcohol level. Typically results in $500 fine and points added to driver's license record.

Driving under the influence — For a .10% blood-alcohol level. Results in two days to one year in jail, $350 fine for first-time conviction, loss of license for one year and participation in alcohol and drug DUI safety school.

Most aggravated drunken driving — For a .20% blood-alcohol level. Results in at least seven consecutive days in jail.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

The incident began about midnight, when Officer Shawn Robert Taylor said McNair's car weaved twice into the center turning lane as he drove westbound on Broadway, crossing the yellow line, near Fifth Avenue.

McNair passed through the intersection with Eighth Avenue and ''still appeared to have difficulty keeping his vehicle in the drive lane,'' according to Taylor's report. **oops!

And unfortunately for Offier Taylor, the video did not collaborate his story. I won't call an officer of the law a liar. Perhaps he just needs glasses. Perhaps he got lucky, and pulled Steve over w/o cause, and lo and behold, breath like a distillery. The car did not weave. Do you understand that Egg? There is a v-i-d-e-o which the j-u-d-g-e said did not indicate sufficent cause for a pull over.

This is what you don't seem to GET, EGG. McNair's blood alcohol was near pickling, but his driving did not reflect that. Sometimes that is just the way it goes. "Drunks" can drive a straight line. There is a t-a-p-e and that spells e-v-i-d-e-nc-e.

As for the gun, there could have been 20 Uzis and the remains of Jimmy Hoffa in the car, and it wouldn't and shouldn't matter. NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

We still have a few rights left in this increasing controlled society, EGG. And one of those, thank God, is the right not to be subject to illegal search and seizure because somebody doesn't like the way we look. And even if we turn out to be drunk, if our driving did not indicate that, there is "insufficient cause".

The fact McNair had the high BAL is irrelevent. His driving, according to the
t-a-p-e, proves the officer was, err, mistaken. Unless of course, Steve's money and power and celebrity status translated into a doctored tape! Maybe he bribed that judge, and that is who itinkered with it?


Go ahead and search for more articles. The court has ruled, EGG.

NO PROBABLE CAUSE. LOL!!!!

Now don't let McNair's despicable escape from the glorious halls of justice lose you any sleep.

PS Personally any awesome person who drives drunk I consider a POS. I'd like to see DUIs lose their licenses on first offenses, and the second automatic incarceration. I prefer a gang of hoodlums roaming the streets, to your average potential killer behind the wheel.

But you gotta get 'em the right way, Egg, the right way.

g'nite

 

[dbair1967]

Good lawyers help, but so do illegal search and seizures. He should never have been stopped.

so a guy walks into a home, carves away a couple people and drives off with the murder weapons still bloody in the seat...cop for whatever reason pulls the guy over, sees bloody weapons after he does his job and looks arounf the vehicle and they put 2+2 together (along with dna later) and prove the guy murdered some people

you think he should get off because he was pulled over illegally? or because the cop had no cause to search the vehicle?

Please...just admit it, our legal system blows

David

 

[dbair1967]

its called the rule of law.

We pay our police to protect us, not to violate our homes and our cars from unreasonable searches.

McNair wasnt "violated"

the guy very easily could have seriously injured someone or killed them...drinking and driving is taken FAR to lightly in this country...this kind of crap happens WAY too much in this country, where criminals, thugs and other human excrement are allowed to dance aroudn the law because of some b/s liberals in the court

of course McNair could have drove over 5 kids and like Leonard Little, got off basically scott free and be able to continue to make millions of dollars a yr instead of rotting away in prison or being fried in the chair

you aclu cheerleaders should be ashamed

David

 

[dbair1967]

And unfortunately for Offier Taylor, the video did not collaborate his story. I won't call an officer of the law a liar. Perhaps he just needs glasses. Perhaps he got lucky, and pulled Steve over w/o cause, and lo and behold, breath like a distillery. The car did not weave. Do you understand that Egg? There is a v-i-d-e-o which the j-u-d-g-e said did not indicate sufficent cause for a pull over.

This is what you don't seem to GET, EGG. McNair's blood alcohol was near pickling, but his driving did not reflect that. Sometimes that is just the way it goes. "Drunks" can drive a straight line. There is a t-a-p-e and that spells e-v-i-d-e-nc-e.

As for the gun, there could have been 20 Uzis and the remains of Jimmy Hoffa in the car, and it wouldn't and shouldn't matter. NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

We still have a few rights left in this increasing controlled society, EGG. And one of those, thank God, is the right not to be subject to illegal search and seizure because somebody doesn't like the way we look. And even if we turn out to be drunk, if our driving did not indicate that, there is "insufficient cause".

The fact McNair had the high BAL is irrelevent. His driving, according to the
t-a-p-e, proves the officer was, err, mistaken. Unless of course, Steve's money and power and celebrity status translated into a doctored tape! Maybe he bribed that judge, and that is who itinkered with it?


Go ahead and search for more articles. The court has ruled, EGG.

NO PROBABLE CAUSE. LOL!!!!

Now don't let McNair's despicable escape from the glorious halls of justice lose you any sleep.

PS Personally any awesome person who drives drunk I consider a POS. I'd like to see DUIs lose their licenses on first offenses, and the second automatic incarceration. I prefer a gang of hoodlums roaming the streets, to your average potential killer behind the wheel.

But you gotta get 'em the right way, Egg, the right way.

g'nite

ok whatever...your argument is pretty lame...the guy could ahve been passed out at the wheel and drove straight for some distance

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

so a guy walks into a home, carves away a couple people and drives off with the murder weapons still bloody in the seat...cop for whatever reason pulls the guy over, sees bloody weapons after he does his job and looks arounf the vehicle and they put 2+2 together (along with dna later) and prove the guy murdered some people

you think he should get off because he was pulled over illegally? or because the cop had no cause to search the vehicle?

Please...just admit it, our legal system blows

David

It's called the Constitution.

I recommend reading it.

 

[dbair1967]

It's called the Constitution.

I recommend reading it.

I've read it several times actually...

I'm quite sure our founding fathers didnt expect mass murderers to be let out after serving a couple of yrs in a prison where they get free medical care, free workouts and TV

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt expect said murderer who was given the death penalty wouldbe allowed to live for 20-30 years while lawyers and liberal judges try to figure out a way to get him off

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt expect that drunk drivers who severely injure or kill innocent person/s would get off with a suepended license for awhile, serve a few months and then be allowed to get right back behind the wheel

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt intend for every law imagined to be twisted, turned or just ignored by a bunch of bleeding heart liberal judges

we're way too slack on crime and criminals in general, its a fact

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I've read it several times actually...

I'm quite sure our founding fathers didnt expect mass murderers to be let out after serving a couple of yrs in a prison where they get free medical care, free workouts and TV

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt expect said murderer who was given the death penalty wouldbe allowed to live for 20-30 years while lawyers and liberal judges try to figure out a way to get him off

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt expect that drunk drivers who severely injure or kill innocent person/s would get off with a suepended license for awhile, serve a few months and then be allowed to get right back behind the wheel

I'm quite sure the founding fathers didnt intend for every law imagined to be twisted, turned or just ignored by a bunch of bleeding heart liberal judges

we're way too slack on crime and criminals in general, its a fact

David

Let's try to get beyond the FOX TV rhetoric of 'bleeding heart, liberal judges" shall we? It’s just a knee jerk whiney-victim response.

I am very leery of any argument that is prefaced with "our founding father did not intend". What our founding fathers were concerned with. David, more than anything else, was framing a constitution that guaranteed personal liberties, while ensuring a strong enough central government to be able to do the things a government has to do. Remember, the Constitution was not our first US government. The Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781 , failed because it did not give enough power to the Federal government. We've been trying to balance the rights of the individual with ability of the government to do what it needs to do (which of course is also highly debatable) ever since.

You can list all the things the founding founders did not intend, and both overlook or exaggerate the historical context. Just as gun law advocates maintain the founding farthers did not intend either criminals or law abiding citizens full discretion to have guns. The FFs were concerned with the citizenry's right to bear arms against its own government, should it become too tyrannical. We had, after all, just fought such a war. So perhaps the argument that our constitutional right to bear arms should be revisited is valid. Perhaps Article II needs to be re-interpreted. You will always find those willing to water down the Bill or Rights on historical context.

The Founding Fathers didn't mean us to have guns.

The right to bear arms was about the importance of raising and maintaining a militia before we had standing armed forces.

It was a different time.

Ok.

But frankly, altho I have never and will never own a firearm, there isn’t much I'd not do to defend your right to have one. That criminals have them is a superfluous issue, important societally, but irrelevant constitutionally. Your line of thinking, taking away OUR rights to minimize THEIRS, would do naught but play into the criminals hands, imo.

Motor vehicles did not exist in 1787. Perhaps the Supreme Court's broadening of Article IV against illegal search and seizure to motor vehicles was too broad. Perhaps the FF's would not want that right extended beyond the domicile.

Perhaps they intended the government have full right to search and seizure on a whim when we step outside our doors. But I think not.

Your problem is with some of the more recent interpretations of the constitution. You feel they cater to criminals. I feel any diminishing of the rights of law abiding citizens is too steep a price to pay. Frankly, I prefer to see 100 murderers go free than see one innocent executed. It bothers me when law enforcement messes up and a criminal goes free. Bothers me more when I lose some freedom of action, expression, or mobility because legal and practical due diligence wasn't appreciated.

I prefer knowing that should I be falsely or even fairly accused, a full range of constitutionally guaranteed rights are open to my defense. I have lived in a country where there is a military dictatorship and virtually no civil rights. Kinda made me appreciate what we've got here, tho in these days, we are dangerously skirting the abyss.

The extension of the rule against illegal search and seizure to motor vehicles was a sound one. First, it puts the onus on law enforcement to do things right. To collect evidence in a careful, honest manner, without bias. To use procedure, which works FOR the citizenry, not against it. If a murderer goes free becomes law enforcement screws up , I am livid. But my anger extends to both the criminal and the incompetents whose salaries I pay.

As far as drunk drivers are concerned, I suppose you could make the argument a convicted murderer who can be careful monitored is a preferred neighbor to good old Joe next door coming home sloshed from Happy Hour and taking out some kid on his bicycle. The neighbors can keep careful eye on the ex-con. But you just don't know which of your nice guy/gal homies will turn killer on wheels. I want to see the full weight of the law thrown at anyone who gets behind a wheel drunk, EVER, because that person is quite simply, a danger to the community. But I also want to see the law carried out procedurally and fairly. The price is just too high to pay if it isn't. As much as I detest drunk drivers, I dislike the threat of my own rights being eroded more.

This one's been moved from main board to NFL. Time to take it to the politics board, I think, where Eric can have a field day with it.

 

[dbair1967]

Let's try to get beyond the FOX TV rhetoric of 'bleeding heart, liberal judges" shall we? It’s just a knee jerk whiney-victim response.

I am very leery of any argument that is prefaced with "our founding father did not intend". What our founding fathers were concerned with. David, more than anything else, was framing a constitution that guaranteed personal liberties, while ensuring a strong enough central government to be able to do the things a government has to do. Remember, the Constitution was not our first US government. The Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781 , failed because it did not give enough power to the Federal government. We've been trying to balance the rights of the individual with ability of the government to do what it needs to do (which of course is also highly debatable) ever since.

You can list all the things the founding founders did not intend, and both overlook or exaggerate the historical context. Just as gun law advocates maintain the founding farthers did not intend either criminals or law abiding citizens full discretion to have guns. The FFs were concerned with the citizenry's right to bear arms against its own government, should it become too tyrannical. We had, after all, just fought such a war. So perhaps the argument that our constitutional right to bear arms should be revisited is valid. Perhaps Article II needs to be re-interpreted. You will always find those willing to water down the Bill or Rights on historical context.

The Founding Fathers didn't mean us to have guns.

The right to bear arms was about the importance of raising and maintaining a militia before we had standing armed forces.

It was a different time.

Ok.

But frankly, altho I have never and will never own a firearm, there isn’t much I'd not do to defend your right to have one. That criminals have them is a superfluous issue, important societally, but irrelevant constitutionally. Your line of thinking, taking away OUR rights to minimize THEIRS, would do naught but play into the criminals hands, imo.

Motor vehicles did not exist in 1787. Perhaps the Supreme Court's broadening of Article IV against illegal search and seizure to motor vehicles was too broad. Perhaps the FF's would not want that right extended beyond the domicile.

Perhaps they intended the government have full right to search and seizure on a whim when we step outside our doors. But I think not.

Your problem is with some of the more recent interpretations of the constitution. You feel they cater to criminals. I feel any diminishing of the rights of law abiding citizens is too steep a price to pay. Frankly, I prefer to see 100 murderers go free than see one innocent executed. It bothers me when law enforcement messes up and a criminal goes free. Bothers me more when I lose some freedom of action, expression, or mobility because legal and practical due diligence wasn't appreciated.

I prefer knowing that should I be falsely or even fairly accused, a full range of constitutionally guaranteed rights are open to my defense. I have lived in a country where there is a military dictatorship and virtually no civil rights. Kinda made me appreciate what we've got here, tho in these days, we are dangerously skirting the abyss.

The extension of the rule against illegal search and seizure to motor vehicles was a sound one. First, it puts the onus on law enforcement to do things right. To collect evidence in a careful, honest manner, without bias. To use procedure, which works FOR the citizenry, not against it. If a murderer goes free becomes law enforcement screws up , I am livid. But my anger extends to both the criminal and the incompetents whose salaries I pay.

As far as drunk drivers are concerned, I suppose you could make the argument a convicted murderer who can be careful monitored is a preferred neighbor to good old Joe next door coming home sloshed from Happy Hour and taking out some kid on his bicycle. The neighbors can keep careful eye on the ex-con. But you just don't know which of your nice guy/gal homies will turn killer on wheels. I want to see the full weight of the law thrown at anyone who gets behind a wheel drunk, EVER, because that person is quite simply, a danger to the community. But I also want to see the law carried out procedurally and fairly. The price is just too high to pay if it isn't. As much as I detest drunk drivers, I dislike the threat of my own rights being eroded more.

This one's been moved from main board to NFL. Time to take it to the politics board, I think, where Eric can have a field day with it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this too...we're way to easy on crime here in the USA and there isnt much you can bring into te conversation to convince me of otherwise.

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this too...we're way to easy on crime here in the USA and there isnt much you can bring into te conversation to convince me of otherwise.

David

Far be it from me to try to convince anyone of anything. There are open minds and there are closed ones. I learned long ago not to beat on the doors of certain houses.

Food for thought tho, re our "easy on crime stance", before I sign off this thread.


The 2003 mid year numbers are approxiamtely 2.1 MILLION inmates, which is about 3 percent higher than 02. I do know we have had an over 30 year rise in incareration, but last year we really kicked it up a notch. I thik it's 715 inmates over 100,000 residents now. As a comparison, Germany is about 95. We've even put Mother Russia to shame.

At the same time, the crime rate has been going DOWN. I can't recall the exact stats, but they are easily found.

The reason of course, that incarceration numbers keep going UP while the crime rate is going DOWN, is that we are far less "easier" on crime than you think. We may still be "far too easy on crime" than you would like, but the numbers most certainly do not bear that out.

 

[dbair1967]

Far be it from me to try to convince anyone of anything. There are open minds and there are closed ones. I learned long ago not to beat on the doors of certain houses.

Food for thought tho, re our "easy on crime stance", before I sign off this thread.


The 2003 mid year numbers are approxiamtely 2.1 MILLION inmates, which is about 3 percent higher than 02. I do know we have had an over 30 year rise in incareration, but last year we really kicked it up a notch. I thik it's 715 inmates over 100,000 residents now. As a comparison, Germany is about 95. We've even put Mother Russia to shame.

At the same time, the crime rate has been going DOWN. I can't recall the exact stats, but they are easily found.

The reason of course, that incarceration numbers keep going UP while the crime rate is going DOWN, is that we are far less "easier" on crime than you think. We may still be "far too easy on crime" than you would like, but the numbers most certainly do not bear that out.

I'm quite sure I if I dig deep enough, I could find numbers that refute your claims as well...depends on who you listen to and how they spin things...

all you have to do is watch/read the news to see my point of view though...why is Leonard Little not incarcerated, or even better on death row? why is OJ Simpson still "looking for Nicole's killer"...why is it I know a man here who has had 9 DUI's (and many include serious injury) and not only is still on the street, but is still legally driving a car. Why do I constantly see rapists, muderers, armed robbers etc etc serve just fractions of their time in prison only to be released early and become repeat offenders?

Also, do you realize a murderer on death row is higher on the transplant priority list than you or I? Not only that, but if its needed WE pay for it...they get all their medical care and drugs for free. They get TV, they get free workout and exercise facilties. They can advance their education at no sost. Hell some even GET PAID while in prison.

I know the answer, and so does just about everyone else.

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I'm quite sure I if I dig deep enough, I could find numbers that refute your claims as well...depends on who you listen to and how they spin things...

Well, since you issued yourself a challenge..find them.

The incarceration statistics and crime rate staistics are kept by the good old US of A. Go and dig deep and find some that refute them. Those stats are as subject to spin as any stats are, but you are claiming you can find numbers that refute those the guv itself uses, so go ahead. I will be waiting to see them.

David, sorry but you're a very poor debater. All you have is your emotional response, a generalized sense of victimization, that "they " are better off than you are, and anecdotal complaints about transplants. I've already put more time into this than common sense dictates, but if you can find those stats that you claim exist, those that refute that incarceration rates went up by near 3 percent last year, number of inmates (I won't even look it up, I know it's about 2.1 mil - common knowledge for any informed citizen, imo), and that the crime rate nation wide actually decreased, I will be willing to listen to more of your opinion masquerading as "fact".

If not, we're both wasting our time.

All opinions are not equal. Informed ones are superior to misinformed or lazy ones.
I'll be happy to continue this debate if you can come up with anything beyond a whine.

 

[dbair1967]

Well, since you issued yourself a challenge..find them.

The incarceration statistics and crime rate staistics are kept by the good old US of A. Go and dig deep and find some that refute them. Those stats are as subject to spin as any stats are, but you are claiming you can find numbers that refute those the guv itself uses, so go ahead. I will be waiting to see them.

David, sorry but you're a very poor debater. All you have is your emotional response, a generalized sense of victimization, that "they " are better off than you are, and anecdotal complaints about transplants. I've already put more time into this than common sense dictates, but if you can find those stats that you claim exist, those that refute that incarceration rates went up by near 3 percent last year, number of inmates (I won't even look it up, I know it's about 2.1 mil - common knowledge for any informed citizen, imo), and that the crime rate nation wide actually decreased, I will be willing to listen to more of your opinion masquerading as "fact".

If not, we're both wasting our time.

All opinions are not equal. Informed ones are superior to misinformed or lazy ones.
I'll be happy to continue this debate if you can come up with anything beyond a whine.

ok, whatever...

you can lead a horse to the water, but you make him drink

you've apparently convinced yourself that everything is hunky-dory here in the USA in regards to crime and how slack we are in regards to how we police this country. Do me a favor, if you know any long time law enforcement people go and have a serious discussion with him/her about this same thing...I do have several close friends who work in law enforcement in some capacity, and most share an opinion similar to mine. These people bust their tails to help keep us safe/r, only to see people liek yourlself helpslide some hardcore criminal through on some loopholes in the law, or even worse just let off by liberal judges who think everyone deserves a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc etc chance

David

 

[dbair1967]

Well, since you issued yourself a challenge..find them.

The incarceration statistics and crime rate staistics are kept by the good old US of A. Go and dig deep and find some that refute them. Those stats are as subject to spin as any stats are, but you are claiming you can find numbers that refute those the guv itself uses, so go ahead. I will be waiting to see them.

David, sorry but you're a very poor debater. All you have is your emotional response, a generalized sense of victimization, that "they " are better off than you are, and anecdotal complaints about transplants. I've already put more time into this than common sense dictates, but if you can find those stats that you claim exist, those that refute that incarceration rates went up by near 3 percent last year, number of inmates (I won't even look it up, I know it's about 2.1 mil - common knowledge for any informed citizen, imo), and that the crime rate nation wide actually decreased, I will be willing to listen to more of your opinion masquerading as "fact".

If not, we're both wasting our time.

All opinions are not equal. Informed ones are superior to misinformed or lazy ones.
I'll be happy to continue this debate if you can come up with anything beyond a whine.

and by the way, in regards to my debate skills. You totally avoided the main topic of my response and instead offered up some condesending reponse, which is typical of someone who leans towards the left politically. Go back and read the topic and see if you can get the main idea, which had NOTHING to do with "them being better off than me"...you never once offered up an explanation as to why people continually get off easily or with no punishment, serve small percentages of their terms, become repeat offenders more often than not etc etc

I do agree with one thing you said though, this has become a huge waste of my time...as I said in another response, we'll just have to agree to disagree

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

and by the way, in regards to my debate skills. You totally avoided the main topic of my response and instead offered up some condesending reponse, which is typical of someone who leans towards the left politically. Go back and read the topic and see if you can get the main idea, which had NOTHING to do with "them being better off than me"...you never once offered up an explanation as to why people continually get off easily or with no punishment, serve small percentages of their terms, become repeat offenders more often than not etc etc

I do agree with one thing you said though, this has become a huge waste of my time...as I said in another response, we'll just have to agree to disagree

David

But David, where is YOUR evidence that "people get off easy", with "no punishment". We are jailing folks at a record rate. We can barely house them all. In fact, corrections has been a growth industry for a generation. "Becoming repeat offenders more often than not?" Recidivism rates are notoriously bad for some crimes, particularly sex offenses. But do you have any proof recidivism rates have increased overall? Got some evidence for that? Which crimes are you alluding to, or is it crime in general? Recidivism rates aren't difficult to find, if you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Condescending? True. But I'm trying hard not to be. You make opinionated statement after statement with no sourcing, no referencing, other than to call them "facts". They are your opinions, David, and not especially informed ones at that. You simply cannot support your contentions. Even by sports board standards, it's a poor showing, David. You can only fall back on simplistic tabloid name-calling like "bleeding hearts", "liberal judges"? Your original thesis - that "people get off easy or with no punishment" , reiterated again in your last post, how about some evidence for that?

I really didn't set out to bully or embarrass you, but geez, there is a limit to even net debate and that is the ability to support your initial claims. If they are the "facts" you say they are, it should be easy enough.

Still waiting for those refutations on the growth of the incarceration rate, David.

 

[dbair1967]

But David, where is YOUR evidence that "people get off easy", with "no punishment". We are jailing folks at a record rate. We can barely house them all. In fact, corrections has been a growth industry for a generation. "Becoming repeat offenders more often than not?" Recidivism rates are notoriously bad for some crimes, particularly sex offenses. But do you have any proof recidivism rates have increased overall? Got some evidence for that? Which crimes are you alluding to, or is it crime in general? Recidivism rates aren't difficult to find, if you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Condescending? True. But I'm trying hard not to be. You make opinionated statement after statement with no sourcing, no referencing, other than to call them "facts". They are your opinions, David, and not especially informed ones at that. You simply cannot support your contentions. Even by sports board standards, it's a poor showing, David. You can only fall back on simplistic tabloid name-calling like "bleeding hearts", "liberal judges"? Your original thesis - that "people get off easy or with no punishment" , reiterated again in your last post, how about some evidence for that?

I really didn't set out to bully or embarrass you, but geez, there is a limit to even net debate and that is the ability to support your initial claims. If they are the "facts" you say they are, it should be easy enough.

Still waiting for those refutations on the growth of the incarceration rate, David.

I gave you examples, you chose to ignore them, or just didnt read them...

why is OJ Simpson free today and claims "I'm still looking for Nicole's killer"...or did he say he's given up the search now?

why is Leonard Little being allowed to make millions a yr instead of rotting away in prison, or more deservedly on death row?

why is Ray Lewis in the same position Leonard Little is?

why (and this is just the one example I am close associated with) is a guy with with 9 DUI's not only NOT in jail, but being allowed to legally drive?

why did another drunk driver cross the middle line, hit my brother in law head on at 65mph and never serve a single day in jail despite having a blood alcohol of nearly .25?

These are just a few examples, tune in the news, open the paper, listen to the radio and you can hear dozens upon dozens of more examples just like the above, or in some cases even worse

open your eyes...

David

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I gave you examples, you chose to ignore them, or just didnt read them...

why is OJ Simpson free today and claims "I'm still looking for Nicole's killer"...or did he say he's given up the search now?

why is Leonard Little being allowed to make millions a yr instead of rotting away in prison, or more deservedly on death row?

why is Ray Lewis in the same position Leonard Little is?

why (and this is just the one example I am close associated with) is a guy with with 9 DUI's not only NOT in jail, but being allowed to legally drive?

why did another drunk driver cross the middle line, hit my brother in law head on at 65mph and never serve a single day in jail despite having a blood alcohol of nearly .25?

These are just a few examples, tune in the news, open the paper, listen to the radio and you can hear dozens upon dozens of more examples just like the above, or in some cases even worse

open your eyes...

David

David, those examples all qualify as anecdotal evidence. Of course there are highly sensationalized public cases in which criminals walk. There are also highly publicized cases where innocent people have languished in jail for years, and finally evidence is uncovered, sloppy defense work exposed, or outright conspiracy proven, and finally justice is served.

I'm certainly not so naive as to think the wheels of justice don't spin erratically. The guilty often go free, the innocent are convicted much more often than we like to admit. Or believe.

I am sincerely sorry for your brother-on-law and family. I think we've all had our lives impacted by a drunken driver in some way. One of my students, a beautiful 25 year old girl, was killed just over a year ago, right before she was to receive her graduate degree. A similar case to yours, drunk and crossed the center line, moving downhill to boot.

Some folks seem to see organizations like MADD almost as some sort of lunatic fringe. Really. In reality, if it weren't for such "special interests", pressure would seldom come to bear on that type of crime. I think part of the resistance to heavier penalties was the feeling that some time in anyone's life, he or she has been guilty of driving while intoxicated, which simply isn't true. It's like speeding -everyone does it sometimes. Bull. But half the state legislature was driving home sloshed from Happy Hour too. The number of local pols I've known of over the years with drinking problems probably equals, proportionately, the number of NFL player using weed. So 'change' is not exactly welcomed.

We may disagree on a lot here, but we are certainly in agreement on the need for stricter drunk driving laws. I want probable cause to guide arrests at all times, but there is no reason, imo, why a first offense (I am assuming that's why this cretin never served a day) that ends in death should not carry a manslaughter charge. A vehicular homicide charge, even better. Even if death or disability is not the result, penalties should be severe. Here's where I disagree with the law as it is written in many places- if you hit someone when under the influence, it was no true "accident". It is premeditation, a deliberate decision to drive and present a danger to the community.

I don't know what state you live in, but it sounds like things need to change re drunk driving penalties there. If some drunken sot can cross the center line, and hit someone at 65 mph, then some grass roots organizing and lobbying is in order on the issue. A guy with nine DUI's driving legally (with license and insurance?)Where the heck do you live? Alaska?

Nuff said! Sorry I got so uppity.