Who says guns and alcohol are a bad mix?
Milosz Reterski | Wikimedia Commons
Not The Governor’s Gun Club in Georgia, that’s who. This opulent facility is like a country club except that instead of a golf course it has 16 shooting ranges.
The city council of Powder Springs (ya gotta love that name, eh?) has just approved an alcohol license for the joint.
Developers Kristina and Bert Brown say the 16-range facility will cost $3.5 million and will operate like a country club, with members-only privileges. She told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that a valet will take firearms when members have finished at the range. Members will not be allowed to return to the range after having a drink.
Drat that valet! They won’t be able to shoot after they drink! Golly, what will they do instead?
Drive home?
:
September 25, 2012 - 8:00 AM
So, bascially it’s going to be a whole lot like my wife’s family reunions in rural(swampy) South Carolina. A little barbecue, more than a few beers, and then some good old target shooting in the swamp with various handguns. This behavior comes mostly from the same branch of the family that does their own dental work. Obama isn’t gonna get any votes from this crowd.
Another irony. You can’t carry a gun at a gun club bar. Who’s going to protect these guys while they drink?
So my question is this: What’s the big deal? The guns are taken when they leave the range and they cannot access the guns if they have even one beer. And you can’t tell me that having 1 beer and driving home is an issue, b/c I am sure most everyone on this blog has done it at some point in time. I’m not condoning it, just stating the facts.
I really think what this comes down to is misplaced thoughts regarding guns. Most everyone who owns a gun is a law abiding citizen. Then you have the crazy people who get their hands on a gun that shoot people. Guns don’t kill people, people who are idiots with guns kill people. This is the exception, not the norm for gun owning citizens.
I can’t imagine anyone in this day and time that would not own a handgun or shotgun; don’t need a bazooka yet but the time might be coming. If you want peace in the land then you must have strength. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they encouraged us to have the right to bear arms.
“I can’t imagine anyone in this day and time that would not own a handgun or shotgun; don’t need a bazooka yet but the time might be coming. If you want peace in the land then you must have strength. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they encouraged us to have the right to bear arms.”
And besides, those guns might come in handy if you decided the communist/socialist hoards are trying to steal YOUR democracy, right?
“If you want peace in the land then you must have strength.”
Yeah. Every time we have yet another mass shooting I reflect on how “peaceful” guns are making the country. Much in the same way McDonalds is making it healthy.
#4 You DO realize that maybe half of Americans don’t own a gun, don’t you?
@gdad,
Is it the same half that don’t pay taxes?
#8 Well, let’s see, I pay taxes and I don’t own a gun. Same with my parents, my brother, my sister, all my in-laws (except one, who does own a gun but had to quit shilling for the NRA when they got too embarrassing) … Anyway, you get the idea.
Jack:
“Is it [non-gun owners] the same half that don’t pay taxes?”
LOL!
This club is imposing stricter standards than are found anywhere else. Lots of ranges have bars and they haven’t been a big deal. I find it far more disturbing that everyday, bars open, their parking lots flood with patrons, and then those same parking lots are almost completely empty when the drunks get in thier very deadly cars and drive home. Let’s do something about this very real everyday problem first. That IS getting people killed.
JohnW, pretty sure drinking and driving is already illegal.
The guns will come in handy when the UN tries to relocate people to Soviet style apartment buildings.
@Kristen: “JohnW, pretty sure drinking and driving is already illegal.”
Wow, I can’t believe this came out of Kristen’s mouth. I guess it all depends on the topic.
I’m sorry, Jack…is it not in fact already illegal? Has there ever been a thread in which I’ve claimed it’s not?
Debbie LOL! One bullet, one blue helmet.
Re: Comment by Mike Scott — September 25, 2012 @ 8:51 am
Ditto here for my Southside Virginia family, also.
Re: Comment by Kristen — September 25, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
JohnW, pretty sure drinking and driving is already illegal.
———
And it really solved the problem.
[/sarcasm]
I don’t now, never have, and really have no desire to ever own a firearm. That said, I don’t have an issue with the gun & country club. It seems they plan on being responsible regarding keeping alcohol off the shooting ranges. As far as the driving home part goes, I don’t see how it’s really any different from the members leaving a regular country club.
Maybe the valet should take their keys, too.
@Kristen: “I’m sorry, Jack…is it not in fact already illegal? Has there ever been a thread in which I’ve claimed it’s not?”
No, but I believe we’ve already told you that murder (or mass murder) is already illegal, but you seem to want to make changes to keep it from happening again.
Next time there is a thread about the 2007 Virginia Tech mass murder, can we simply remind you that murder is already illegal and that nothing else needs to be done?
I’ll be the first to admit that I do have guns and alcohol in my house. Have for years, never had a problem. Once or twice I’ve even consumed a couple of drinks. Still don’t see the problem.
(Literally, once or twice. I rarely drink.)
Jack,cops are free to set up road blocks and look for drunk drivers. Would you be comfortable with them searching cars for guns at the same time?
And if you’re driving drunk, you can be thrown jail without having hurt or killed anyone. Just the act of driving drunk is a crime. To put it in gun terms….the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers aren’t “criminals” – so why do we throw them in jail before they’ve hurt anyone? You’d scream if gun owners were proactively locked up.
There’s no analogy here.
Jack:
20.”I’ll be the first to admit that I do have guns and alcohol in my house. Have for years, never had a problem. Once or twice I’ve even consumed a couple of drinks. Still don’t see the problem.”
This is great. Let’s see if Jack gets crucified for this, where the blogger who drinks responsibly on rare occasion and gets behind the wheel is deemed OK by this board….
Kristen:
“…the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers aren’t “criminals” – so why do we throw them in jail before they’ve hurt anyone? You’d scream if gun owners were proactively locked up.”
It happens all the time, Kristen. People unknowingly carrying guns into places they aren’t allowed like the Statue of Liberty or various airports. A few years back, I heard of two hunters who missed their Texas highway exit and came up to the border checkpoint. When they wanted to turn around, the checkpoint pulled them aside, confiscated their rifles, and those two guys pulled several years in a Mexican jail for that very honest mistake. On a side note, contrast that with our own goverment perpetrating straw purchases to send guns into Mexico.
One big difference with your analogy is that someone who is driving drunk is actively doing something dangerous and actually committing a crime.
FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive. I’d bet that nearly everybody on this blog has done it legally at least once in their life. It IS illegal to drink to a certain excess and drive.
“it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive. I’d bet that nearly everybody on this blog has done it legally at least once in their life. It IS illegal to drink to a certain excess and drive.”
I believe it’s illegal to consume alcohol while driving, even in St. Mary’s County, Md (where some bars used to have drive-through windows). That would be the definition of “drinking AND driving. It’s most definitely not necessarily illegal to have a drink and then drive, though.
Meanwhile, as some idiot frat boys in Tennessee have recently proved, it is possible to get intoxicated on alcohol without “drinking” any booze.
Michael Howdyshell, did you ever engage in such nonsense at U of T?
Jack:
“Next time there is a thread about the 2007 Virginia Tech mass murder, can we simply remind you that murder is already illegal and that nothing else needs to be done?”
Jack, in case you missed it on another thread, I told dave how many gun control advocates it takes to change a lightbulb… None. They just pass a law against burned out bulbs, then curse the darkness when it doesn’t work.
gdad:
24.”FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive. I’d bet that nearly everybody on this blog has done it legally at least once in their life. It IS illegal to drink to a certain excess and drive.”
Also FWIW, it’s not illegal to drink and open carry either. In general, it is illegal to drink while carrying discretely (concealed)…. unless you’re an on duty cop/off duty cop/Commonwealth Attorney/Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. That self-seving exception must go… all of us or none of us! Could you imagine the uproar if those same people were expressly exempted by statute from drunk driving laws?
No gdud,
There are laws against having open alcoholic containers in moving vehicles, thus it is illegal to drink and drive. You can even be convicted of drinking while driving if the cops find an empty beer can in your vehicle. Please know what you are talking about before posting false information. Sheesh.
It’s not actually illegal to drink and ride. It’s gray area, and a topic we’ve discussed on here before.
#25 Right you are, Dan, it is now illegal to drink while driving, even in Louisiana, home of the drive-through daiquiri stands. I should have been more specific. It’s not actually illegal to drink and THEN drive.
#27 I’ve already clarified my remark, matt, buddy, and I’m absolutely, 100 percent right. It’s not illegal to drink and then drive. You might think a little before you rush to insult people.
gdud, you didn’t clarify ANYTHING until Dano and I informed you that your comment at 9:59am was utterly false. You were NOT 100 percent right about anything in that comment. Quite the opposite, actually.
You say: 24.”FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive.” Well, gdud, that is absolutely false. Even if you are completely sober, it is 100 percent illegal to drink alcohol while one is driving. No amount of rephrasing or twisting your owns words after the fact erases your initial false statement.
Guns and alcohol: Pretty much always a bad idea.
“A soldier trying to scare another soldier out of hiccups shot his comrade in the face, killing him, authorities said Tuesday.
Both soldiers, joined by a third man, were drinking alcohol and watching football at the time of the Sunday night incident, authorities said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/us/texas-hiccups-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Scott,
The only gray area involves a passenger drinking, which is technically still legal. But, if an officer pulls the car over and is suspicious that the driver has been drinking too, the officer can require the driver to perform sobriety tests and can also search the vehicle.
“gdud, you didn’t clarify ANYTHING until Dano and I informed you that your comment at 9:59am was utterly false. You were NOT 100 percent right about anything in that comment. Quite the opposite, actually.”
matt, give it a rest. You’re veering into MMM territory (and that’s not flattery, AT ALL).
A common vernacular for drinking and THEN driving is “drinking and driving.” We both know that, and we both know what he meant. He was imprecise, that’s all, and he has admitted such.
Booze, guns, football and hiccups. What a combination.
24.”FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive. I’d bet that nearly everybody on this blog has done it legally at least once in their life.”
Dano, NO I didn’t know what he meant, and YOU didn’t either. That’s why you essentially told him he was wrong in your next comment. If we are to substitute the words you say gdud meant to say, then this would have been his statement: “FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and THEN drive…” See? Still completely wrong.
#31 I did indeed reply to Dan’s post but yours had not yet been approved when I did so, matt. And I most certainly was NOT wrong. The term “drink and drive” absolutely does NOT refer ONLY to drinking WHILE driving. When MADD tells you not to drink and drive, do you REALLY think they’re talking only about drinking while you’re driving? Of course not. Dan also either misread what I said or was picking a nit, but he didn’t find it necessary to call me names or insult me, did he?
Now, mattie, go ahead and show me where I ever said it’s legal to drink WHILE driving? Crickets.
Just a continuation of your manic idiocy from another thread. It’s not hard to see how wrought up you get when you’re being savagely pummeled on this blog.
(well, unless you drink ONE shot or ONE beer etc etc and THEN drive…)
In that case, ol’ gdud has an out…
Kristen @ 21 – “There’s no analogy here”
An analogy isn’t the only thing that’s missing. Your post is completely devoid of logic as well.
“Jack, cops are free to set up road blocks and look for drunk drivers. Would you be comfortable with them searching cars for guns at the same time?”
Doesn’t really matter if he would be comfortable with it or not. The Supreme Court isn’t. They have already ruled that random checkpoints for drugs and weapons are NOT Constitutionally permissible under the same exception the Courts granted for DUI roadblocks. They felt that guns or drugs in cars DO NOT pose the same immediate threat to other motorists as does a drunk driver. Apparently they didn’t consider the “but guns are scary” argument.
And while I know liberals contradict themselves a lot . . . in consecutive sentences? That’s a bit much even for you.
” Just the act of driving drunk is a crime.”
But the very next sentence says:
“the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers aren’t “criminals””
So, if a criminal isn’t someone who commits a crime, how exactly do you define a criminal?
John W. I know the cops/prosecutors exception to concealed carry reeks of hypocrisy and to be honest I don’t know why a prosecutor would need to be armed and drink in a bar or restaurant. However, there are certain times when a cop working undercover might need to be able to have a drink to maintain his cover. Most agencies have policies to regulate this. However, in most cases, while they may not stand to be charged criminally for being in possession of a firearm and drinking in a bar/restaurant, most cops do stand to suffer a more severe punishment than does the average citizen if they are found to be in violation of their departmental policies covering this.
Violating 18.2-308 sub-section J3 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and for the typical first offense, if the person has no prior criminal history, they receive a fine of between $100 and $250, similar to a traffic offense. However, most cops found to be in violation of agency policy covering this particular act would be fired. So in comparison, would you rather be fined, or get fired from your job? Ideally the legislature should clarify this by adding the ubiquitous “and working in their official capacity” clause.
“You can even be convicted of drinking while driving if the cops find an empty beer can in your vehicle.”
Boy I sure hope they don’t ever stop me on the way to the recycling center. (humor)
Comment by John Wilburn — September 26, 2012 @ 10:37 am
I told dave how many gun control advocates it takes to change a lightbulb… None. They just pass a law against burned out bulbs, then curse the darkness when it doesn’t work.
———
And and then when curse doesn’t work, they try to pass more laws — to limit the size of light-bulbs, to register all light-bulbs, to track all light-bulbs, to make it illegal to sell any light-bulb that might, just might, illegally burn out, etc.
If, as you pointed out, the SC views drinking and gun ownership differently, there is indeed no analogy. As to what makes a “criminal”, I’m assured that gun owners, up until the moment they shoot 1 or 13 people, are perfectly law abiding citizens. A “drunk driver” who hasn’t actually run anyone over could be viewed the same way, yet isn’t.
Sorry you don’t like my logic.
gdud,
You can’t blame others for the words YOU typed. Again, you are more than welcome to rephrase, contort, walk back, and twist your words until they show what you MEANT to say…but that’s your issue, not mine.
“Now, mattie, go ahead and show me where I ever said it’s legal to drink WHILE driving? Crickets.” Hmmm, again: “FWIW, it’s not actually illegal to drink and drive. I’d bet that nearly everybody on this blog has done it legally at least once in their life.” There it goes again, gdud. Your words, not mine.
And what names did I call you, gdud? Just gdud? Is that it? That’s what you are whining about? Is that like you calling me “mattie.” Lol. And weren’t you just whining to another poster about over-the-top outrage and overreacting and such?
Re: Comment by matt — September 26, 2012 @ 10:38 am
You can even be convicted of drinking while driving if the cops find an empty beer can in your vehicle. Please know what you are talking about before posting false information. Sheesh.
———
Hum?
http://tinyurl.com/chcjksp
**
§ 18.2-323.1. Drinking while operating a motor vehicle; possession of open container while operating a motor vehicle and presumption; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to consume an alcoholic beverage while driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this Commonwealth.
B. A rebuttable presumption that the driver has consumed an alcoholic beverage in violation of this section shall be created if (i) an open container is located within the passenger area of the motor vehicle, (ii) the alcoholic beverage in the open container has been at least partially removed and (iii) the appearance, conduct, odor of alcohol, speech or other physical characteristic of the driver of the motor vehicle may be reasonably associated with the consumption of an alcoholic beverage.
For the purposes of this section:
“Open container” means any vessel containing an alcoholic beverage, except the originally sealed manufacturer’s container.
“Passenger area” means the area designed to seat the driver of any motor vehicle, any area within the reach of the driver, including an unlocked glove compartment, and the area designed to seat passengers. This term shall not include the trunk of any passenger vehicle, the area behind the last upright seat of a passenger van, station wagon, hatchback, sport utility vehicle or any similar vehicle, the living quarters of a motor home, or the passenger area of a motor vehicle designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of persons for compensation, including a bus, taxi, or limousine, while engaged in the transportation of such persons.
C. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
[Emphasis added]
**
Please note that the use of and in a law requires all the elements in a list to be true.
#36 Dan’s right, matt, you’re freefalling into MMM territory. That’s bad. Actually, I think I asked before if maybe you weren’t MMM in disguise.
It’s not that I don’t like your logic. I can’t dislike what doesn’t exist. Possessing a gun by itself is not a crime absent some other fact or circumstance. The gun owner is not a criminal until uses it in an illegal act. You are arguing that a drunk driver isn’t a criminal until he hits someone, but that is patently incorrect. The drunk driver has already committed a crime by driving drunk, regardless of whether he hurts anyone and therefore could not be considered a “perfectly law-abiding citizen.” The converse is not true for the gun owner. You should be careful. Your argument is dangerously close to revealing the true belief of the anti-gun crowd, that being that they allow their fear to cause them to think of gun owners as being circumspect and just slightly criminal for merely owning a gun.
If you look at the Supreme’s reasoning you can infer that they recognize what the anti-gunners are so loathe to admit. Drinking and driving is a more dangerous and immediate threat than is gun possession. Far more people are killed by drunk drivers annually than are killed by gun crime.
#43 So tell me again, mattie, do you think MADD means just drinking WHILE driving when they say you shouldn’t drink and drive? Yes or no. If yes, then you need some help interpreting English. If no, then why would you think that’s all I meant? As I said, you can’t show where I ever said drinking WHILE driving, because I didn’t.
I’m well aware of Virginia’s open container law because I know one of the people who helped write it. In fact, he used to marvel at the fact that at least initially the General Assembly chose the most legally confusing version of the law, which then led to more court business for quite a few attorneys.
As for names, you also accused me of posting false information, which, of course, I didn’t do. So you lied.
Quite a few right wingers on this blog have really stepped into la-la land lately. And you’re leading the way.
gdud has absolutely nothing else to do Matt, he is a serial blogger who knows nothing
I am sure I have told this one before, as it is a fav. My daughter was 5 and we were getting into the car to go somewhere. I had a can of Dr. Pepper and as I put it into the car cup holder, my daughter gasped, “Mama! Your not supposed to drink and drive”!
Why do we need to quibble over a word or phrase so often here? We say that we will ignore typos and next thing you know….in chimes girl about “nickle”. We say that we are not “nit-picking” and the next thing you know….in chimes matt with a fight over whether “drink and drive” means “drink while driving” and no amount of clarification or taking the point as intended will suffice. Seriously is this a blog or a playground? Because frankly, some days it is darned hard to tell. Between the nits, name calling and tortured prose, the right wing fringe here looks to be unraveling. And no, we do not offer any assistance as we fan the flames of your burnout.
GROW the hell UP!
Dave Hicks,
Hmmm… “and (iii) the appearance, conduct, odor of alcohol, speech or other physical characteristic of the driver of the motor vehicle may be reasonably associated with the consumption of an alcoholic beverage.”–All this does is put the driver at the total mercy of a police officer’s subjective opinion.
Here is a case that illustrates my point:
“The portion that snags people is Section B. It creates a rebuttable presumption that the driver has violated the statute if:
1. An open container is in the passenger compartment,
2. Some of the alcoholic beverage has been removed from the container, and
3. The driver does or says something that indicates they’ve been drinking.
What does that all mean? Let’s look at an example.
I was sitting in Spotsylvania General District Court and heard a drinking while driving case called. The officer testified that he found an empty beer can in the car and that it was cold. The driver told the officer that she had drank at a friend’s house an hour and a half before driving. She blew a .03 on the preliminary breath test.
The defendant testified that the can was old. She said it was cold that night, so everything in her car was cold. She admitted to drinking, but maintained it was only before driving.
What do you think happened? Yep, convicted of drinking while driving.”
http://www.andrewflusche.com/blog/beware-of-virginias-open-container-law/
Please note, in my comment that you referenced, I stated: “You can even be convicted of drinking while driving if the cops find an empty beer can in your vehicle.” I would say the case I referenced proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Chuck, I think our problem here is unfair and capricious bigotry against drunk drivers.
@Kristen: “Jack,cops are free to set up road blocks and look for drunk drivers. Would you be comfortable with them searching cars for guns at the same time?”
No, just like narcotics checkpoints, that would be unconstitutional.
As a side note, they are welcome to have a roadblock to check for drunk drivers, but I am just as welcome not to participate.
@Dan Casey: “I believe it’s illegal to consume alcohol while driving,…”
Isn’t it simply illegal to have an open container in the vehicle, whether you are consuming it or not?
@Kristen: “If, as you pointed out, the SC views drinking and gun ownership differently, there is indeed no analogy. As to what makes a “criminal”, I’m assured that gun owners, up until the moment they shoot 1 or 13 people, are perfectly law abiding citizens. A “drunk driver” who hasn’t actually run anyone over could be viewed the same way, yet isn’t.”
So it is your belief that in order to be a criminal you must hurt someone else?
#50 I’m sorry, matt, but I’m sure it was quite clear to everybody that you meant that a driver is automatically guilty if they simply ind an empty container in your car. You said nothing about the other elements. And you’r ewrong. Can’t back out of this one.
Matt,
1) Do you understand “rebuttable presumption”?
2) The term “can be” covers a lot of territory. Folk are improperly convicted all the time. One “can be” convicted of a crime for walking down the street, being in the wrong place at the right time, drawing the wrong lab tech, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/cf8jfww
Drug lab chemist accused of lying
Testified that she had master’s from UMass, but school denies that
By Andrea Estes, Brian Ballou and Milton J. Valencia
SNIP
Dookhan started working for the drug lab, run at the time by the state Department of Public Health, in 2003. She handled 60,000 drug samples, casting doubt on the reliability of evidence used in some 34,000 criminal cases.
Additionally, the chemist testified in criminal cases about 150 times since 2009 and may have jeopardized all of those cases by claiming under oath that she had a master’s degree in chemistry. A transcript suggests she lied about her education in at least one court hearing, in August 2010.
SNIP
As drug cases continued to unravel in the scandal’s wake, a Brockton man serving 17 years in prison was released on bail Tuesday morning and a Wareham man was freed minutes later after serving half of his three-year sentence.
SNIP
**
Yup, there is a lot of “can be” in the world.
#53 “Isn’t it simply illegal to have an open container in the vehicle, whether you are consuming it or not?”
That’s not the law.
If you really want to split hairs, a police officer can always find a reason to stop you. Whether it be “weaving”, headlight out, taillight out, failure to signal, etc. Thankfully the vast majority of law enforcement stick to the letter of the law.
If you’ve ever been to traffic court you probably noticed that the judge always seem to side with the officer. So, in a your word against his debate, your going to lose.
Jack, at what point do law-abiding gun owners become criminals?
Dave Hicks,
Do you have any links to how the chemist scandal got uncovered, and to any of the actual bad acts (in testing drugs) that she did? I’ve been looking for stories about that
(not too hard tho) and I haven’t found any. It sounds horrendous.
Can you have a previously opened bottle of liquor in your trunk, legally?
Or would that be possession of concealed (but unsealed) whiskey?
Dave Hicks,
Then what was the point of your initial comment? My statement was true, and I provided a recent Virginia case in which a driver was convicted simply for having an open container in the car-just an empty beer can.
Yup, so if you want to risk driving around with empty beer cans in your car, be my guest. I’ll simply avoid such things, since it’s been proven in a Virginia court of law that a single empty can of beer in your car can get you convicted for drinking while driving.
“I’ll simply avoid such things, since it’s been proven in a Virginia court of law that a single empty can of beer in your car can get you convicted for drinking while driving.”
CAN. Not WILL. Not necessarily at all.
Dan,
Here is a portion of the article I linked to Dave Hicks earlier, written by a Virginia attorney, that seems to provide a little insight on your “previously opened bottle of liquor” question :
“This law could also unjustly catch people in another common scenario: You go out for dinner and have some wine. The restaurant re-corks the bottle. You put it in the back seat of the car and drive home.
If you’re pulled over and the officer sees the bottle, you’re in trouble. The only other element he needs is some indication of drinking; he can probably CLAIM that he smelled alcohol on your breath.
In that scenario, you might be able to defend the case if the cork was truly seated deep into the bottle. But the law DOESN’T provide an exception for that. Any container is considered “open” if it’s not the original factory seal.”
http://www.andrewflusche.com/blog/beware-of-virginias-open-container-law/
matt, I hear you on the wine in the back seat that but in my experience, most police officers are reasonable people and it would take an unreasonable a–hole to charge you under those circumstances. And even if they did, a judge would most likely toss it out if the unreasonable officer told the truth in court.
@65- MOST. Not all. Not necessarily the majority.
@Kristen: “Jack, at what point do law-abiding gun owners become criminals?”
When they commit a crime? Maybe?
Kristen:
59.”Jack, at what point do law-abiding gun owners become criminals?”
I’m not Jack, but I’d like to take a crack at what you’re setting him up for anyway. Kristen, if a drunk driver is using a road where others must interact with that driver at traffic lights and stop or yield signs, then the ability of that driver to competently perform those tasks without impairment is critical. Wilfully getting in a car and driving on a public road after getting impaired is criminal. In contrast, mere possession of a gun doesn’t affect one’s faculties. A DRUNK gun carrier MIGHT be a very different scenario indeed, but you’re reaching to attach liability to something that doesn’t inherently have it because of your disdain for gun carriers in general. Also, there is literally CONSTANT skilled interaction demanded of the driver of a car, but NO interaction asked by the gun if the carrier actually were to be drunk while carrying.
By definition, the potentially lethal car demands action, while the potentially lethal handgun is passively carried until purposeful action is taken on it.
That about right?
Imagine that, a law written to benefit the cops and not the citizen they suspect. Color me shocked and appalled.
Dan,
From what I have read it was likely a whistle-blower.
http://tinyurl.com/c4g3g7b
**
Chemist in lab scandal told investigators: ‘I messed up bad’
09/26/2012 5:34 PM
By Brian Ballou and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff
The former state chemist at the heart of the state drug lab scandal admitted to investigators that she improperly removed evidence from storage, forged colleagues’ signatures, and didn’t perform proper tests on drugs for “two or three years,” according to a copy of a State Police report obtained by the Globe.
Annie Dookhan, whose misconduct may have jeopardized evidence in about 34,000 drug cases, also admitted that she recorded drug tests as positive when they were negative “a few times” and sometimes tested only a small sample of the drug batch that she was supposed to analyze.
SNIP
However, the troopers’ interviews with other chemists in the lab make clear that Dookhan’s colleagues had concerns about her unusually large caseload and lab habits and raised them with supervisors. But the supervisors took little action even when they learned that she had forged other chemists’ initials on some drug samples.
SNIP
**
———
http://tinyurl.com/cnez3cj
**
SNIP
Suspicion of the testing being conducted by chemist Annie Dookhan first surfaced in June 2011 when an evidence officer noticed that tests had been performed on 90 drug samples that had never been signed out of the evidence room, breaking the chain of custody. Nassif was notified of the breach in protocol, but she did not immediately inform superiors at the Department of Public Health, according to a chronology provided by state officials.
Days later, upon further inspection of the log book, officials found that Dookhan had added her initials and those of others to the sign-out sheet after the fact. Though she was immediately removed from full-time testing duties, Bigby said her office has since learned Dookhan continued to perform periodic testing and testify in court.
SNIP
**
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 26, 2012 @ 4:00 pm
Imagine that, a law written to benefit the cops and not the citizen they suspect. Color me shocked and appalled.
———–
Don’t know if that is satire or not. However, were folk here on a jury would you give more credence to:
1) the LEO, for whom testifying is a routine occurrence and for whom the outcome any specific case has no ramifications (save negative ramifications, if he or she lies — see the discussion on Annie Dookhan, above); or,
2) to the defendant who has a great deal invested in the specific case on trial and for whom the negative ramifications, if convicted, could be significant?
“However, were folk here on a jury would you give more credence to:
1) the LEO, for whom testifying is a routine occurrence and for whom the outcome any specific case has no ramifications (save negative ramifications, if he or she lies — see the discussion on Annie Dookhan, above); or,
2) to the defendant who has a great deal invested in the specific case on trial and for whom the negative ramifications, if convicted, could be significant?”
Dave Hicks,
At this point I will repeat the statement, uttered to me directly when I was a cub police reporter in 1985, by Bill Lindsey who was then chief of the Anne Arundel County Police Department. At the time, they had about 550 officers, it is probably more now:
“The minute I find out out one of my detectives can’t lie convincingly on the witness stand, is the minute he gets busted down to patrol.” And then Chief Lindsey told me he was only half-kidding.
I will agree with you that police are more credible to a jury than a defendant.
I would NOT agree, though, that they are necessarily more credible than a disinterested witness. In 1989, the testimony I heard from one of them persuaded me to take up the cause of a convicted murderer, Bernie Ward. Based on my work he won a new trial, 5 years later, and the jury deliberated an hour before finding him not guilty — of a murder that he could never have committed in Maryland because he was 1,000 miles away in Florida when it happened.
No satire at all. Ask any CA and they will admit that the laws and procedures are all stacked against any accused and are purposely so. Even invoking your rights under the Constitution of this nation is “considered” suspicious. The ONLY chance an accused has is if they go to court and fight and even then as you so wisely point out, who is going to be “believed” the officer with “no motive to lie” or the “defendant”? Our prisons have plenty of less than guilty as charged, if not outright innocent people in them.
Factor in the capability of the defense attorney you can afford or the old boys network that sees the CA office notch wins that would turn heads, and indeed, justice is all too often a figment of the imagination and too many find that out the hard way.
I am not defending any criminal, but there are just too many ways for a mistake or a lie to ruin someone’s life and that is not what justice was meant to do IMO.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — September 26, 2012 @ 8:53 pm
Ah, Dan! Now you have introduced a disinterested witness. And, BYW, I agree, fully.
However, requiring a disinterested witness in many cases or for traffic, drunk-in-public, domestic disputes, etc cases would be handcuffing the enforcement of laws, IMHO.
How do folk think the law should be rewritten to benefit the defendants and not the LEOs doing their job?
Take the case cited by matt @ 1:17 pm. How would a disinterested witness requirement play into it scenario? She gets to walk, if no one is available or willing to testify to support either her or the LEO?
———
FWIIW, I had a hunch that you would bring up that AA County case.
FWIIW2, anyone who reads my regular rants about the CSI effect / syndrome should know that I too and offended by miscarriage of justice.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 26, 2012 @ 9:01 pm
FWIIW, I agree, in great part, but would add that too many walk also, IMHO.
In principle, I agree that it is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.
However, what would you do to improve the system?
Dave Hicks,
Disinterested witnesses ay or may not be present in any case. Surely they’re less likely in DUI trials in GD court.
I’m just saying if they are present, and it’s easy to ascertain they indeed are disinterested, I would tend to believe them more than a police officer where the testimony conflicts.
AND, if I was a judge and a cop brought an open container/driving case where there was a recorked bottle of wine in the back seat, and THAT was all the evidence, I would dismiss the case, then call up the Commonwealth’s Attorney and warn him that his assistants shouldn’t bring a case like that before me again. I doubt a judge can award damages to the defendant in that kind of situation, but if I could, I would!
Re My Comment @ 9:39 pm
Should have been, “FWIIW2, anyone who reads my regular rants about the CSI effect / syndrome should know that I too [am] offended by miscarriage of justice.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — September 26, 2012 @ 10:23 pm
No argument, from me.
As to “AND, if I was a judge and a cop brought an open container/driving case where there was a recorked bottle of wine in the back seat, and THAT was all the evidence…”:
Yup.
The law clearly requires the LEO to articulate his/her observation of “the appearance, conduct, odor of alcohol, speech or other physical characteristic of the driver of the motor vehicle may be reasonably associated with the consumption of an alcoholic beverage.“
In all honesty, I fear it cannot be fixed and improvements would mean a Progressive justice system and we all know how that will go over. It IS that bad. At this point all we can do individually is tread lightly and support the ACLU and the groups who fight for justice. And be better jurors.
It’s understandable, but one may be showing one’s age by focusing on the DUI ramifications, as DUI may in some ways be anachronistic sooner than we realize:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/25/4854581/googles-driverless-car-law-poses.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 26, 2012 @ 10:36 pm
Could you enlightened us a tad about what you mean by a Progressive justice system?
Most of what I have seen cites P.R. Sarkar’s insistence that judicial systems must be corrective, not penal. Most are short on detail as to what will work / is working somewhere. Sarkar recognizes that science has not yet physiologically, psychologically or sociologically satisfactorily rectified criminal behavior. For that matter, he recognizes that “their disease is of a stubborn type”. Yet he then claims that, “Of course it can be cured in a few days through spiritual sa’dhana’ [meditation on the Cosmic Entity], and in a little more time through yogic methods…. It is fairly difficult to convert habitual criminals to spirituality, yet it is not entirely impossible through psychological methods…. But for this, too, a congenial environment is essential.” So the environment of prison should be more pure, more human.”
Is that what you are proposing? If not, what? Is there another proponent you would recommend that I read?
Second, in your opinion, can a “Progressive justice system” exist / work in a less than Progressive society, given that the criminal will be being reintroduced into society?
Third, what in your opinion is the most “Progressive justice system” in the world today?