Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk drivers
there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that you
actually think it's OK to do it. God forbid you ever injure or kill someone
after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of the dead
kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so long, and
how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it MUST be
OK for you to be driving. Then you can give them your condolences about
their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following the rules
like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. Oh, and if your cop buddies
let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In my
opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobs and
peoples lives seriously.

"Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com... Greetings, I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there a
serious question about a serious issue. First, a little about myself. I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I will
confess that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt. But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must be doing something right. For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit. And I always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing that last martini. To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself on
exercising good common sense. Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with a good
number of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers. I
am also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and I know
this helps. Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these police officers
I know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety test or
nothing like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit. I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor and drive
home, you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet I drive
better better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there who
haven't had a drop all day. But that's neither here nor there. What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers in my
area are retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired, none
of whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the good common
sense to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving under
the influence. Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops? When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me: "Have
you had any alcohol tonight, sir?" What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent them
from doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety test? Do I tell a total lie... and say: "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight
whatsoever, sir!" Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like: "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. I
always wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's my
policy." Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped me
because I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks do
when they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said. But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a few
drinks in my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to some
sort of random sobriety check or something like that. So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get a good
"heads up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get over these
young new cops who are still wet behind the ears. Fraternally Yours, Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.

Depends on your definition of "drunk." Now 4 martinis might be pushing
it but I wouldn't feel bad at all about driving home after a beer or two
(because AFAICT I'm not impaired to any measurable degree at that
point. I *do* detect some impairment after more than that, unless I'm
drinking them over a very long period of time, so I don't drive then.)
It doesn't seem to be a popular stance anymore but I disagree strongly
with the position that lowering BAC limits helps one get "drunk drivers"
off the roads. There's plenty of people out there driving with BACs far
in excess of even the old limits, and those are the ones that cause
wrecks and kill people statistically speaking. How is lowering the
limits going to make those people easier to catch?

nate

swatcop wrote: If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on a semi-regular basis. If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send the message that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead and defile yourself. "zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message news:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax.com... On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk driversthere are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that youactually think it's OK to do it. You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs a mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including his 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% - well BELOW the legal limit in any state. If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes, then waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also still be under the legal limit. <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/> God forbid you ever injure or kill someoneafter you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of the deadkid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so long, andhow all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it MUST beOK for you to be driving. Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated.Then you can give them your condolences abouttheir kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following the ruleslike everybody else before you DO hurt someone. You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then drives home under the legal limit?Oh, and if your cop buddieslet you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In myopinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobs andpeoples lives seriously."Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com...> Greetings,>> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there aserious> question about a serious issue.>> First, a little about myself.>> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I willconfess> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt.>> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must be doing> something right.>> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit. And I> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing that last> martini.>> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself onexercising> good common sense.>> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with a goodnumber> of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers. Iam> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and I knowthis> helps.>> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these police officersI> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety test ornothing> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit.>> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor and drivehome,> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet I drivebetter> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there whohaven't had> a drop all day.>> But that's neither here nor there.>> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers in myarea are> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired, noneof> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the good commonsense> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving underthe> influence.>> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops?>> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me: "Haveyou> had any alcohol tonight, sir?">> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent themfrom> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety test?>> Do I tell a total lie... and say:>> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonightwhatsoever,> sir!">> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like:>> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. Ialways> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's mypolicy.">> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped mebecause> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks dowhen> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said.>> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a fewdrinks in> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to somesort of> random sobriety check or something like that.>> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get a good"heads> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get over theseyoung> new cops who are still wet behind the ears.>> Fraternally Yours,>> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.>>>>>>>

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>
If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on asemi-regular basis.


If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing.

What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few
drinks under my belt."

This is not the same thing as driving drunk.

If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send themessage that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead and defileyourself.

If you'd actually READ my post, you'll see I never said it was okay to
drive drunk.

If you'd read my other post, you'd also see that I advised him that he
should be prepared to pass field sobriety tests if he does drive after a
few drinks.

Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but
if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed.
"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in messagenews:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax .com... On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk driversthere are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that youactually think it's OK to do it. You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs a mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including his 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% - well BELOW the legal limit in any state. If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes, then waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also still be under the legal limit. <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/> God forbid you ever injure or kill someoneafter you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of thedeadkid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so long,andhow all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it MUSTbeOK for you to be driving. Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated.Then you can give them your condolences abouttheir kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following theruleslike everybody else before you DO hurt someone. You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then drives home under the legal limit?Oh, and if your cop buddieslet you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In myopinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobsandpeoples lives seriously."Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com...> Greetings,>> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there aserious> question about a serious issue.>> First, a little about myself.>> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I willconfess> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt.>> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must bedoing> something right.>> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit. AndI> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing that last> martini.>> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself onexercising> good common sense.>> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with agoodnumber> of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers.Iam> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and Iknowthis> helps.>> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these policeofficersI> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety test ornothing> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit.>> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor and drivehome,> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet I drivebetter> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there whohaven't had> a drop all day.>> But that's neither here nor there.>> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers in myarea are> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired,noneof> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the goodcommonsense> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving underthe> influence.>> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops?>> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me:"Haveyou> had any alcohol tonight, sir?">> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent themfrom> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety test?>> Do I tell a total lie... and say:>> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonightwhatsoever,> sir!">> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like:>> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. Ialways> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's mypolicy.">> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped mebecause> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks dowhen> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said.>> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a fewdrinks in> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to somesort of> random sobriety check or something like that.>> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get agood"heads> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get overtheseyoung> new cops who are still wet behind the ears.>> Fraternally Yours,>> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.>>>>>>>

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:35:40 GMT, Nathan Nagel <njnagel@earthlink.net>
Depends on your definition of "drunk." Now 4 martinis might be pushingit but I wouldn't feel bad at all about driving home after a beer or two

unless they're mixed stronger than a standard cocktail, 1 martini ~= 1
beer. 4 martinis drunk at a rate of 1 per half hour, followed by 30
minutes of abstinence could be pushing it depending on the drinkers
weight and other factors, but it by no means guarantees that someone
will be over 0.08% BAC - although they *could* be.
(because AFAICT I'm not impaired to any measurable degree at thatpoint. I *do* detect some impairment after more than that, unless I'mdrinking them over a very long period of time, so I don't drive then.)It doesn't seem to be a popular stance anymore but I disagree stronglywith the position that lowering BAC limits helps one get "drunk drivers"off the roads. There's plenty of people out there driving with BACs farin excess of even the old limits, and those are the ones that causewrecks and kill people statistically speaking. How is lowering thelimits going to make those people easier to catch?nateswatcop wrote: If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on a semi-regular basis. If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send the message that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead and defile yourself. "zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message news:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax.com... On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> >Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk drivers >there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that you >actually think it's OK to do it. You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs a mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including his 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% - well BELOW the legal limit in any state. If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes, then waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also still be under the legal limit. <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/> > God forbid you ever injure or kill someone >after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of the dead >kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so long, and >how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it MUST be >OK for you to be driving. Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated. >Then you can give them your condolences about >their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following the rules >like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then drives home under the legal limit? >Oh, and if your cop buddies >let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In my >opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobs and >peoples lives seriously. > >"Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com... >> Greetings, >> >> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there a >serious >> question about a serious issue. >> >> First, a little about myself. >> >> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I will >confess >> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt. >> >> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must be doing >> something right. >> >> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit. And I >> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing that last >> martini. >> >> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself on >exercising >> good common sense. >> >> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with a good >number >> of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers. I >am >> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and I know >this >> helps. >> >> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these police officers >I >> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety test or >nothing >> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit. >> >> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor and drive >home, >> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet I drive >better >> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there who >haven't had >> a drop all day. >> >> But that's neither here nor there. >> >> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers in my >area are >> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired, none >of >> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the good common >sense >> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving under >the >> influence. >> >> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops? >> >> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me: "Have >you >> had any alcohol tonight, sir?" >> >> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent them >from >> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety test? >> >> Do I tell a total lie... and say: >> >> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight >whatsoever, >> sir!" >> >> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like: >> >> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. I >always >> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's my >policy." >> >> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped me >because >> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks do >when >> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said. >> >> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a few >drinks in >> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to some >sort of >> random sobriety check or something like that. >> >> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get a good >"heads >> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get over these >young >> new cops who are still wet behind the ears. >> >> Fraternally Yours, >> >> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:070fgv4mi34ke6uu7mvrqpl34ns1jhrp4h@4ax.com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>
If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on asemi-regular basis.
If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing. What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt." This is not the same thing as driving drunk.

Munyan also says, "I bet I drive better better [sic] at a BAC of 0.10 than
90% of all those drivers out there who haven't had a drop all day." From
this statement one can reasonably infer he drives with a blood alcohol level
at or above the legal limit. If he didn't, I doubt he'd be concerned with
having to take a sobriety test.

In reference to "better field sobriety tests," I'll be honest with you. I
don't even need to give you any physical field sobriety tests to tell if
you're drunk or not. If you've ever seen "the pen trick," where an officer
has someone watch the tip of their pen as it moves back and forth, it's
technical name is the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, or "HGN." Someone's
eyes will tell me all I need to know. All of the walking lines, reciting the
alphabet, and other crap is just a formality after you fail the HGN test.
Your level of intoxication will be told through the involuntary reaction
that occurs with your eyes after you've consumed too much alcohol. I can
generally estimate a persons BAC (blood alcohol content) +/- .02% just with
the HGN test.

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:070fgv4mi34ke6uu7mvrqpl34ns1jhrp4h@4ax.com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on asemi-regular basis. If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing. What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt." This is not the same thing as driving drunk. If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send themessage that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead and
defileyourself. If you'd actually READ my post, you'll see I never said it was okay to drive drunk. If you'd read my other post, you'd also see that I advised him that he should be prepared to pass field sobriety tests if he does drive after a few drinks. Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed."zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in messagenews:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax .com... On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> >Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk
drivers >there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that
you >actually think it's OK to do it. You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs a mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including his 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% - well BELOW the legal limit in any state. If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes, then waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also still
be under the legal limit. <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/> > God forbid you ever injure or kill someone >after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of
thedead >kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so
long,and >how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it
MUSTbe >OK for you to be driving. Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated. >Then you can give them your condolences about >their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following therules >like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then drives home under the legal limit? >Oh, and if your cop buddies >let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In
my >opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our
jobsand >peoples lives seriously. > >"Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com... >> Greetings, >> >> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there a >serious >> question about a serious issue. >> >> First, a little about myself. >> >> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I will >confess >> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my
belt. >> >> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must bedoing >> something right. >> >> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit.
AndI >> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing that
last >> martini. >> >> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself on >exercising >> good common sense. >> >> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with agood >number >> of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers.I >am >> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and Iknow >this >> helps. >> >> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these policeofficers >I >> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety test
or >nothing >> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit. >> >> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor and
drive >home, >> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet I
drive >better >> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there who >haven't had >> a drop all day. >> >> But that's neither here nor there. >> >> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers in
my >area are >> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired,none >of >> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the goodcommon >sense >> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving
under >the >> influence. >> >> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops? >> >> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me:"Have >you >> had any alcohol tonight, sir?" >> >> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent
them >from >> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety
test? >> >> Do I tell a total lie... and say: >> >> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight >whatsoever, >> sir!" >> >> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like: >> >> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. I >always >> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's my >policy." >> >> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped
me >because >> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks
do >when >> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said. >> >> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a few >drinks in >> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to
some >sort of >> random sobriety check or something like that. >> >> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get agood >"heads >> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get overthese >young >> new cops who are still wet behind the ears. >> >> Fraternally Yours, >> >> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >

"Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F077D64.59716E30@earthlink.net... Depends on your definition of "drunk." Now 4 martinis might be pushing it but I wouldn't feel bad at all about driving home after a beer or two (because AFAICT I'm not impaired to any measurable degree at that point. I *do* detect some impairment after more than that, unless I'm drinking them over a very long period of time, so I don't drive then.) It doesn't seem to be a popular stance anymore but I disagree strongly with the position that lowering BAC limits helps one get "drunk drivers" off the roads. There's plenty of people out there driving with BACs far in excess of even the old limits, and those are the ones that cause wrecks and kill people statistically speaking. How is lowering the limits going to make those people easier to catch? nate swatcop wrote:

I can't believe you honestly think that driving after consuming intoxicants
is okay. While I don't agree with alot of what you have to say here, I do
recognise that the R.A.D. people are trying to base thier arguments on the
scientific facts that back up thier position.

Whether or not you "feel" drunk was nothing to do with impairment. By the
time the driver notices a degradation of skills, a trained and sober
observer will have noticed it already. (controlled environment)


I have a special place in my heart for DUII and believe me, the ole " i've
only had two beers" statement will most likley get you hooked on my stops.

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:070fgv4mi34ke6uu7mvrqpl34ns1jhrp4h@4ax.com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on asemi-regular basis. If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing. What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt." This is not the same thing as driving drunk. If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send themessage that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead and
defileyourself. If you'd actually READ my post, you'll see I never said it was okay to drive drunk. If you'd read my other post, you'd also see that I advised him that he should be prepared to pass field sobriety tests if he does drive after a few drinks. Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed.


And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in.

john wardle wrote: "Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3F077D64.59716E30@earthlink.net... Depends on your definition of "drunk." Now 4 martinis might be pushing it but I wouldn't feel bad at all about driving home after a beer or two (because AFAICT I'm not impaired to any measurable degree at that point. I *do* detect some impairment after more than that, unless I'm drinking them over a very long period of time, so I don't drive then.) It doesn't seem to be a popular stance anymore but I disagree strongly with the position that lowering BAC limits helps one get "drunk drivers" off the roads. There's plenty of people out there driving with BACs far in excess of even the old limits, and those are the ones that cause wrecks and kill people statistically speaking. How is lowering the limits going to make those people easier to catch? nate swatcop wrote: I can't believe you honestly think that driving after consuming intoxicants is okay. While I don't agree with alot of what you have to say here, I do recognise that the R.A.D. people are trying to base thier arguments on the scientific facts that back up thier position. Whether or not you "feel" drunk was nothing to do with impairment. By the time the driver notices a degradation of skills, a trained and sober observer will have noticed it already. (controlled environment) I have a special place in my heart for DUII and believe me, the ole " i've only had two beers" statement will most likley get you hooked on my stops.

The scientific fact is that unless I've *chugged* two beers and waited
just exactly the right amount of time before getting behind the wheel, I
won't have a BAC that will make me legally intoxicated. If I've sipped
them over a period of time and then driven home an hour or so later I
won't have a BAC any different than someone who's just eaten some moldy
bread.

I agree wholeheartedly that drivers who are actually *intoxicated* are
inexcusable, and it sounds like the OP might fall into that category,
but I think this MADDness of ever-decreasing BAC limits (when there's no
statistical evidence to back them up) is the wrong way to go about
getting them off the road. Concentrate on finding the high-BAC
offenders as they are many, many times more likely to be involved in a
wreck than someone who's had a beer after work. Honestly, is a BAC
limit of .010 or .008 going to make any difference to the hard core
drunk/repeat DUI offender with a BAC of .020 or higher? Those are the
people that are truly dangerous, and they're still out there. Any
slight effect of one beer would be drastically overshadowed by the
distraction involved in changing one's radio station, for example, or
the fatigue of a double shift at work, or a whole raft of other factors
that are common and legal.

nate

john wardle wrote: "Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3F0A2044.3B9AB706@earthlink.net... john wardle wrote: "Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3F077D64.59716E30@earthlink.net... > Depends on your definition of "drunk." Now 4 martinis might be pushing > it but I wouldn't feel bad at all about driving home after a beer or two > (because AFAICT I'm not impaired to any measurable degree at that > point. I *do* detect some impairment after more than that, unless I'm > drinking them over a very long period of time, so I don't drive then.) > It doesn't seem to be a popular stance anymore but I disagree strongly > with the position that lowering BAC limits helps one get "drunk drivers" > off the roads. There's plenty of people out there driving with BACs far > in excess of even the old limits, and those are the ones that cause > wrecks and kill people statistically speaking. How is lowering the > limits going to make those people easier to catch? > > nate > > swatcop wrote: I can't believe you honestly think that driving after consuming intoxicants is okay. While I don't agree with alot of what you have to say here, I do recognise that the R.A.D. people are trying to base thier arguments on the scientific facts that back up thier position. Whether or not you "feel" drunk was nothing to do with impairment. By the time the driver notices a degradation of skills, a trained and sober observer will have noticed it already. (controlled environment) I have a special place in my heart for DUII and believe me, the ole " i've only had two beers" statement will most likley get you hooked on my stops. The scientific fact is that unless I've *chugged* two beers and waited just exactly the right amount of time before getting behind the wheel, I won't have a BAC that will make me legally intoxicated. If I've sipped them over a period of time and then driven home an hour or so later I won't have a BAC any different than someone who's just eaten some moldy bread. I agree wholeheartedly that drivers who are actually *intoxicated* are inexcusable, and it sounds like the OP might fall into that category, but I think this MADDness of ever-decreasing BAC limits (when there's no statistical evidence to back them up) is the wrong way to go about getting them off the road. Concentrate on finding the high-BAC offenders as they are many, many times more likely to be involved in a wreck than someone who's had a beer after work. Honestly, is a BAC limit of .010 or .008 going to make any difference to the hard core drunk/repeat DUI offender with a BAC of .020 or higher? Those are the people that are truly dangerous, and they're still out there. Any slight effect of one beer would be drastically overshadowed by the distraction involved in changing one's radio station, for example, or the fatigue of a double shift at work, or a whole raft of other factors that are common and legal. nate Assuming that I have PC to stop in the first place, SFSTs and anything else is just icing on the cake. I can get a conviction for observation only. It is just harder to do.

Sure, and if you have PC to stop someone with a low BAC because they're
driving in an obviously impaired manner, I have no problem with that.

nate

zzz <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message news:<0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax.com>... Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated.

Don't go confusing yourself. In almost *every* state, there are *two*
distinct definitions for driving after drinking.

The one you're discussing here is the *status* offense of driving with
a *prohibited blood alcohol content*. It does *not* require that your
driving or behavior exhibit any impairment; only that testing shows
that you have a level of blood alcohol above a statutory maximum. You
could be able to drive better than Michael Schumacher and *still*
sustain a conviction for this (Yes, Ralph & Juan, this means *you*!).

The other standard is the older one, used before sophisticated testing
was available, and it *does* require a demonstration of impairment,
but it does *not* require a minimum level of blood alcohol content.
This same statute is also used for *drug*-impaired drivers where they
would exhibit *no* blood alcohol content, but they would be impaired
by drugs they have taken. In my own not-so-humble opinion, most
average motorists could sustain convictions for this after *no* drinks
.... but that's another thread.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; litigated that)

"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed. And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in.

I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful
detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who:

1. exhibits no driving impairment
2. passes all FSTs and
3. has no prohibited BAC,

IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; litigated that)

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:27:53 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>
In reference to "better field sobriety tests," I'll be honest with you. Idon't even need to give you any physical field sobriety tests to tell ifyou're drunk or not. If you've ever seen "the pen trick," where an officerhas someone watch the tip of their pen as it moves back and forth, it'stechnical name is the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, or "HGN." Someone'seyes will tell me all I need to know. All of the walking lines, reciting thealphabet, and other crap is just a formality after you fail the HGN test.Your level of intoxication will be told through the involuntary reactionthat occurs with your eyes after you've consumed too much alcohol. I cangenerally estimate a persons BAC (blood alcohol content) +/- .02% just withthe HGN test.

It may be enough to get them off the road immediately, but your own
self-proclaimed ability to determine BAC from an HGN is not enough to
get a conviction.

And even if what you say about your ability to determine BAC with a
relatively high degree of accurary is correct, the same certainly isn't
the case with many cops out there.

You have to prove someone's guilt in a court of law before they are
convicted of a crime.

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in messagenews:070fgv4mi34ke6uu7mvrqpl34ns1jhrp4h@4ax .com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on asemi-regular basis. If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing. What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt." This is not the same thing as driving drunk. If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send themessage that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead anddefileyourself. If you'd actually READ my post, you'll see I never said it was okay to drive drunk. If you'd read my other post, you'd also see that I advised him that he should be prepared to pass field sobriety tests if he does drive after a few drinks. Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed."zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in messagenews:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax .com...> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>>> >Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunkdrivers> >there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times thatyou> >actually think it's OK to do it.>> You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs a> mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including his> 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% - well> BELOW the legal limit in any state.>> If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes, then> waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also stillbe> under the legal limit.>> <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/>>> > God forbid you ever injure or kill someone> >after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents ofthedead> >kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for solong,and> >how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so itMUSTbe> >OK for you to be driving.>> Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the> legal definition of driving while intoxicated.>> >Then you can give them your condolences about> >their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following therules> >like everybody else before you DO hurt someone.>> You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then> drives home under the legal limit?>>> >Oh, and if your cop buddies> >let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. Inmy> >opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take ourjobsand> >peoples lives seriously.> >> >"Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in message> >news:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com...> >> Greetings,> >>> >> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out there a> >serious> >> question about a serious issue.> >>> >> First, a little about myself.> >>> >> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I will> >confess> >> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under mybelt.> >>> >> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must bedoing> >> something right.> >>> >> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit.AndI> >> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing thatlast> >> martini.> >>> >> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself on> >exercising> >> good common sense.> >>> >> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with agood> >number> >> of police officers in my area, including some of our state troopers.I> >am> >> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year, and Iknow> >this> >> helps.> >>> >> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these policeofficers> >I> >> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety testor> >nothing> >> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit.> >>> >> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor anddrive> >home,> >> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet Idrive> >better> >> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there who> >haven't had> >> a drop all day.> >>> >> But that's neither here nor there.> >>> >> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers inmy> >area are> >> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired,none> >of> >> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the goodcommon> >sense> >> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of drivingunder> >the> >> influence.> >>> >> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops?> >>> >> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me:"Have> >you> >> had any alcohol tonight, sir?"> >>> >> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to preventthem> >from> >> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobrietytest?> >>> >> Do I tell a total lie... and say:> >>> >> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight> >whatsoever,> >> sir!"> >>> >> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like:> >>> >> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. I> >always> >> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's my> >policy."> >>> >> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stoppedme> >because> >> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunksdo> >when> >> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said.> >>> >> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a few> >drinks in> >> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due tosome> >sort of> >> random sobriety check or something like that.> >>> >> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get agood> >"heads> >> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get overthese> >young> >> new cops who are still wet behind the ears.> >>> >> Fraternally Yours,> >>> >> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>

On 8 Jul 2003 10:04:54 -0700, warp2_shadow@yahoo.com (C.R. Krieger)
zzz <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message news:<0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax.com>... Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet the legal definition of driving while intoxicated.Don't go confusing yourself. In almost *every* state, there are *two*distinct definitions for driving after drinking.

I'm not confused at all.

To rephrase what I said for those who don't understand plain English:

Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he neither exceeds a
specified BAC nor does he show any signs of impairment.

The one you're discussing here is the *status* offense of driving witha *prohibited blood alcohol content*. It does *not* require that yourdriving or behavior exhibit any impairment; only that testing showsthat you have a level of blood alcohol above a statutory maximum. Youcould be able to drive better than Michael Schumacher and *still*sustain a conviction for this (Yes, Ralph & Juan, this means *you*!).The other standard is the older one, used before sophisticated testingwas available, and it *does* require a demonstration of impairment,but it does *not* require a minimum level of blood alcohol content.This same statute is also used for *drug*-impaired drivers where theywould exhibit *no* blood alcohol content, but they would be impairedby drugs they have taken. In my own not-so-humble opinion, mostaverage motorists could sustain convictions for this after *no* drinks... but that's another thread.

Thanks for the refresher course on state laws, I'll try to keep them in
mind.

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:12dngvkk06ugr7jeqvpakd62a0ir1vq7eg@4ax.com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:27:53 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>In reference to "better field sobriety tests," I'll be honest with you. Idon't even need to give you any physical field sobriety tests to tell ifyou're drunk or not. If you've ever seen "the pen trick," where an
officerhas someone watch the tip of their pen as it moves back and forth, it'stechnical name is the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, or "HGN."
Someone'seyes will tell me all I need to know. All of the walking lines, reciting
thealphabet, and other crap is just a formality after you fail the HGN test.Your level of intoxication will be told through the involuntary reactionthat occurs with your eyes after you've consumed too much alcohol. I cangenerally estimate a persons BAC (blood alcohol content) +/- .02% just
withthe HGN test. It may be enough to get them off the road immediately, but your own self-proclaimed ability to determine BAC from an HGN is not enough to get a conviction. And even if what you say about your ability to determine BAC with a relatively high degree of accurary is correct, the same certainly isn't the case with many cops out there. You have to prove someone's guilt in a court of law before they are convicted of a crime."zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in messagenews:070fgv4mi34ke6uu7mvrqpl34ns1jhrp4h@4ax .com... On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:55 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> >If you actually READ his original post, he admits to driving drunk on
a >semi-regular basis. If you'd actually READ it you'll see he admits to no such thing. What he does say is that "there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under my belt." This is not the same thing as driving drunk. > If you'd like to defend his standpoint and send the >message that it's OK to drive drunk, then by all means go ahead anddefile >yourself. If you'd actually READ my post, you'll see I never said it was okay to drive drunk. If you'd read my other post, you'd also see that I advised him that he should be prepared to pass field sobriety tests if he does drive after
a few drinks. Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed. > >"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message >news:0j1egvg3teng4c7nh167objjambeaqq0j9@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:06:45 GMT, "swatcop"
<swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> >> >> >Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunkdrivers >> >there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times
thatyou >> >actually think it's OK to do it. >> >> You're assuming he's actually drunk after 4 martinis. If he weighs
a >> mere 160 pounds, and spends 2 hours drinking 4 martinis (including
his >> 30 minute abstinence period), he should have a BAC of only 0.06% -
well >> BELOW the legal limit in any state. >> >> If he weighed 180 pounds and drank the 4 martinis in 40 minutes,
then >> waieted an additional 30 minutes before he left, he should also
stillbe >> under the legal limit. >> >> <http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/bac-chart/> >> >> > God forbid you ever injure or kill someone >> >after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents ofthe >dead >> >kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for solong, >and >> >how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so itMUST >be >> >OK for you to be driving. >> >> Maybe the cops don't do anything about it because he does not meet
the >> legal definition of driving while intoxicated. >> >> >Then you can give them your condolences about >> >their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following
the >rules >> >like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. >> >> You mean everyone else who has a couple of drinks at a bar and then >> drives home under the legal limit? >> >> >> >Oh, and if your cop buddies >> >let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are.
Inmy >> >opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take ourjobs >and >> >peoples lives seriously. >> > >> >"Mr Munyan" <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote in message >> >news:20030704225140.06709.00000109@mb-m11.aol.com... >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> I would like to ask some of you law enforcement officers out
there a >> >serious >> >> question about a serious issue. >> >> >> >> First, a little about myself. >> >> >> >> I am a 53-year old man. I do drink. And I do drive. And I
will >> >confess >> >> that there are times when I drive home with a few drinks under mybelt. >> >> >> >> But to my credit, I have never had a DUI. Never. So, I must
be >doing >> >> something right. >> >> >> >> For one thing, I always stop at four martinis. That's my limit.And >I >> >> always wait a good thirty minutes to drive home after downing
thatlast >> >> martini. >> >> >> >> To me, this is good common sense. I have always prided myself
on >> >exercising >> >> good common sense. >> >> >> >> Another thing in my favor is that I am on a first name basis with
a >good >> >number >> >> of police officers in my area, including some of our state
troopers. >I >> >am >> >> also a regular contributer to our police charities every year,
and I >know >> >this >> >> helps. >> >> >> >> Sometimes, when I am driving home from a bar, one of these police >officers >> >I >> >> know will pull me over. Not to give me some stupid sobriety
testor >> >nothing >> >> like that. But just to chew the fat a little bit. >> >> >> >> I don't want any of you to think that I can't hold my liquor anddrive >> >home, >> >> you understand. I happen to be one of those who can. I bet Idrive >> >better >> >> better at a BAC of 0.10 than 90% of all those drivers out there
who >> >haven't had >> >> a drop all day. >> >> >> >> But that's neither here nor there. >> >> >> >> What worries me is that a lot of the "old guard" police officers
inmy >> >area are >> >> retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being
hired, >none >> >of >> >> whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the
good >common >> >sense >> >> to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of drivingunder >> >the >> >> influence. >> >> >> >> Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops? >> >> >> >> When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me: >"Have >> >you >> >> had any alcohol tonight, sir?" >> >> >> >> What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to
preventthem >> >from >> >> doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobrietytest? >> >> >> >> Do I tell a total lie... and say: >> >> >> >> "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight >> >whatsoever, >> >> sir!" >> >> >> >> Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like: >> >> >> >> "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago.
I >> >always >> >> wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's
my >> >policy." >> >> >> >> Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you
stoppedme >> >because >> >> I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common
drunksdo >> >when >> >> they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said. >> >> >> >> But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a
few >> >drinks in >> >> my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due
tosome >> >sort of >> >> random sobriety check or something like that. >> >> >> >> So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get
a >good >> >"heads >> >> up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get
over >these >> >young >> >> new cops who are still wet behind the ears. >> >> >> >> Fraternally Yours, >> >> >> >> Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >

Skip <skipfromla@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<lt9ngv074at708c2mog0tm9d6alvk7ssf5@4ax.com>... On 8 Jul 2003 10:12:08 -0700, warp2_shadow@yahoo.com (C.R. Krieger) wrote:I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawfuldetainer suit! An unlawful detainer law suit is brought against a tenant for back rent as a precursor to eviction.

Nice catch. Why I do bankruptcy, not LL-T ... ;^)
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)

As the originator of this thread, I have something to add.

I once knew a guy who swears up and down that he once got out of a DUI charge
by challenging the state trooper to an arm wrestling match on the hood of his
car.

The deal with this. If the state trooper won, then he could charge the driver
with anything he liked, in addition to the DUI charge.

But if the driver won, the state trooper was to charge him with nothing and let
him go.

Sure enough, according to my pal, he (the driver) won. And so, the state
trooper let him go.

I'm dying of curiosity. For you police officers out there, what would be your
response if a suspected drunk driver you pulled over challenged you to an arm
wrestling match with this kind of offer?

Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.

Mr Munyan wrote:
The deal with this. If the state trooper won, then he could charge the driver with anything he liked, in addition to the DUI charge.

Assuming this is true, the trooper can charge the driver with anything
he wants arm wrestling notwithstanding. Its whether he wins in court or
not. If this were the case the trooper acted very unprofessionally. He
(1)- allowed a criminal act to be decided outside a courtroom in a show
of physical strength and (2)- maybe allowed a drunk driver to drive on
and continue to endanger others.
Sure enough, according to my pal, he (the driver) won. And so, the state trooper let him go.

I am skeptical of this. Sounds more like a barroom legend to me.
I'm dying of curiosity. For you police officers out there, what would be your response if a suspected drunk driver you pulled over challenged you to an arm wrestling match with this kind of offer?

"Sir, you are under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Place your
hands behind your back." (assuming he otherwise matched the criteria of
drunk driving)

"swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:F3ANa.20112$bK5.409826@twister.tampabay.rr.co m... Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk drivers there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that you actually think it's OK to do it. God forbid you ever injure or kill
someone after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of the
dead kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so long,
and how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it MUST
be OK for you to be driving. Then you can give them your condolences about their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following the
rules like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. Oh, and if your cop
buddies let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In my opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobs
and peoples lives seriously. area are

So, a drunk driver who has avoided accidents and getting in trouble, is as
bad as those drunk drivers who have killed others? Tell, me -- do you
believe in individual responsibility? In what country have you learned your
values? North Korea?

motocat













retiring. In their place are all these young new cops being hired,
none of whom know me, and none who would have learned to exercise the good
common sense to refrain from stopping me when they might suspect me of driving under the influence. Here's my question. How do I handle these young new cops? When they pull me over, and start acting all gung ho, and ask me: "Have you had any alcohol tonight, sir?" What is the best way to respond? What is the best way to prevent them from doing something stupid, like trying to give me an actual sobriety test? Do I tell a total lie... and say: "Sir, no sir, officer, sir. I have consumed no alcohol tonight whatsoever, sir!" Or do I tell a little half lie......and say something like: "Okay, I'll be honest. I did have one drink about an hour ago. I always wait an hour before I drive home after having a drink. That's my policy." Now, then. I'm not stupid. I know damned well that if you stopped me because I was weaving or swerving all over the road, like most common drunks do when they drive, then it wouldn't matter a tinker's damn what I said. But I'm different. I know how to handle a motor vehicle with a few drinks in my system. Therefore, the only reason you would stop me is due to some sort of random sobriety check or something like that. So, in the event something like this happens, I would like to get a good "heads up" from some of you pros out there, as to the best way to get over
these young new cops who are still wet behind the ears. Fraternally Yours, Arthur Claude Munyan, Sr.

"Nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fNzPa.6188$o54.5785@lakeread05... Mr Munyan wrote: The deal with this. If the state trooper won, then he could charge the
driver with anything he liked, in addition to the DUI charge. Assuming this is true, the trooper can charge the driver with anything he wants arm wrestling notwithstanding. Its whether he wins in court or not. If this were the case the trooper acted very unprofessionally. He (1)- allowed a criminal act to be decided outside a courtroom in a show of physical strength and (2)- maybe allowed a drunk driver to drive on and continue to endanger others.

Can anyone in this newgroup offer real advice to Mr. Munyans's question --
which was what would be the best reply towared an officer so as not to
arrouse suspicion of drunk driving? I guess all once the preacher starts
preaching, he just can't stop. My guess would be -- a simple and short "no
officer", all the while cooperating and appearing somewhat frustrated (yet
friendly) and bored with the stop. It's worked for me.
Oh -- it always helps if you can also make some fraternal bond with the
officer. I've been let of for going 130+ mph by an officer who shared the
same passion for riding as me before. Remember -- the officer wants to
catch the bad guys -- and if he gets it in his mind that you are one of his
type, the good guys, he will more than likely let you go.

motocat

"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message
news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be
developed. And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in. I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: 1. exhibits no driving impairment 2. passes all FSTs and 3. has no prohibited BAC, IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; litigated that) And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would be
no PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes, etc...) And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they could have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life!

So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey, why
don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them safely
in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with
consititutional protections.

"motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or
not, but > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed. > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in. I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: 1. exhibits no driving impairment 2. passes all FSTs and 3. has no prohibited BAC, IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; litigated that) And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would
be no PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes,
etc...) And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they could have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey, why don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them safely in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with consititutional protections.

What are you whining about troll?

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:3iv3hvohlr0s3dudd1s2926ne9p07rtaso@4ax.com... On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:03:01 GMT, "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com>"swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:F3ANa.20112$bK5.409826@twister.tampaba y.rr.com... Sir, with all due respect, you're one of the worst kind of drunk
drivers there are. You've done it and gotten away with it so many times that
you actually think it's OK to do it. God forbid you ever injure or killsomeone after you've had your 4 martinis. You can explain to the parents of thedead kid in the road how you're a pro since you've been doing it for so
long,and how all of your little cop buddies don't do anything about it so it
MUSTbe OK for you to be driving. Then you can give them your condolences about their kid. My suggestion to you is to wise up and start following therules like everybody else before you DO hurt someone. Oh, and if your copbuddies let you drive drunk, then they're just as much at fault as you are. In
my opinion they're a disgrace to the rest of us who actually take our jobsand peoples lives seriously. area areSo, a drunk driver who has avoided accidents and getting in trouble, is
asbad as those drunk drivers who have killed others? Tell, me -- do youbelieve in individual responsibility? In what country have you learned
yourvalues? North Korea? They have values in North Korea?

Similar to the notions of collective responsibilty we now have in regards to
having a few drinks and driving: becasue a few people have done something
and been involved in a tragedy, everyone who has done that something is bad
and must be punished very severely. Slogans like "just say no" "don't drink
and drive" are also good examples of communist moralistic slogans -- kept
short and simple and repeated again and again so all the stupid cows will
follow the leader.

> What are you whining about troll?

Yes, if you call them whiners and trolls long enough, they will all just go
away.

Why he's whining about your keyboard slip of course. Very juvenile of
him. Harry K

Quite. It's just funny how ya'll never make the same call when LEO's do the
same, such as with Nitespark with my "marini" above, and considering Mr
Wardle's lock em' all up spirit (usuall/unusuall speed changes for him
warrent bringing motorist to jail, see above) -- I don't think it's out of
line to call him on a mistaken word when he locks people in cages just
because they change speed when he does not think is normal.

Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts replying to
his own posts. In a word, "LOSER."

"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message
news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, but > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed. > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in. > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > 2. passes all FSTs and > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion. > -- > C.R. Krieger > (Been there; litigated that) And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would be no PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes, etc...) And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they
could have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey, why don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them
safely in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with consititutional protections. What are you whining about troll?

"swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FCXRa.124459$ic1.2618498@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts replying
to his own posts. In a word, "LOSER." "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test or not, > but > > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be developed. > > > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in. > > > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful > > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > > 2. passes all FSTs and > > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion. > > -- > > C.R. Krieger > > (Been there; litigated that) > > And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there
would be no > PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) > > Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes, etc...) > And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they could > have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey,
why don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them safely in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with consititutional protections. What are you whining about troll?

I'm a bit thick at times so....is the moron reference to me? If so...


Pistols at dawn? ;^)

No, absolutely not. I was referring to "motocrap," er, I mean motoCAT.

"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message
news:F8YRa.61470$0v4.4105558@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:FCXRa.124459$ic1.2618498@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts replying to his own posts. In a word, "LOSER." "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > >
news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety test
or not, > > but > > > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be > developed. > > > > > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him
in. > > > > > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an
unlawful > > > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > > > > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > > > 2. passes all FSTs and > > > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > > > > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of
propulsion. > > > -- > > > C.R. Krieger > > > (Been there; litigated that) > > > > And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would be > no > > PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) > > > > Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes, etc...) > > And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they could > > have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! > > So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey, why > don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them safely > in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with > consititutional protections. > > What are you whining about troll? I'm a bit thick at times so....is the moron reference to me? If so... Pistols at dawn? ;^)

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:43:15 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>
No, absolutely not. I was referring to "motocrap," er, I mean motoCAT.


Then why is your reply top-posted to john wardle's message?

"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in messagenews:F8YRa.61470$0v4.4105558@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:FCXRa.124459$ic1.2618498@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts replying to his own posts. In a word, "LOSER." "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > >news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety testor > not, > > > but > > > > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to be > > developed. > > > > > > > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring himin. > > > > > > > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of anunlawful > > > > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > > > > > > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > > > > 2. passes all FSTs and > > > > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > > > > > > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode ofpropulsion. > > > > -- > > > > C.R. Krieger > > > > (Been there; litigated that) > > > > > > And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would > be > > no > > > PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) > > > > > > Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed changes, > etc...) > > > And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell, they could > > > have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! > > > > So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone? Hey, why > > don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put them safely > > in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with > > consititutional protections. > > > > > > What are you whining about troll? > > > I'm a bit thick at times so....is the moron reference to me? If so... Pistols at dawn? ;^)

"swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D1bSa.7321$d47.558600@twister.tampabay.rr.com ... No, absolutely not. I was referring to "motocrap," er, I mean motoCAT. "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:F8YRa.61470$0v4.4105558@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:FCXRa.124459$ic1.2618498@twister.tampabay.rr. com... Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts
replying to his own posts. In a word, "LOSER." "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > > news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety
test or > not, > > > but > > > > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to
be > > developed. > > > > > > > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring him in. > > > > > > > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of an unlawful > > > > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > > > > > > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > > > > 2. passes all FSTs and > > > > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > > > > > > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode of propulsion. > > > > -- > > > > C.R. Krieger > > > > (Been there; litigated that) > > > > > > And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor, there would > be > > no > > > PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) > > > > > > Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed
changes, > etc...) > > > And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell,
they could > > > have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! > > > > So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone?
Hey, why > > don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put
them safely > > in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell with > > consititutional protections. > > > > > > What are you whining about troll? > > > I'm a bit thick at times so....is the moron reference to me? If so... Pistols at dawn? ;^)

I thought so....long shift....a little rummy then.

Good question. I must've replied to the wrong one. Purely unintentional.

"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:8vmihvka3vqd6jfn4g3ap8qo0skb4othh2@4ax.com... On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:43:15 GMT, "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com>No, absolutely not. I was referring to "motocrap," er, I mean motoCAT. Then why is your reply top-posted to john wardle's message?"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in messagenews:F8YRa.61470$0v4.4105558@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:FCXRa.124459$ic1.2618498@twister.tampabay.rr. com... > Ya' know, it's comical. I don't reply to the moron so he starts
replying to > his own posts. In a word, "LOSER." > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > news:rMCQa.54443$0v4.3712224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:_AhQa.48288$GL4.12781@rwcrnsc53... > > > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > >
news:42DOa.45097$3o3.3033704@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > > > "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > news:a8a578a8.0307080912.6eb85c5b@posting.google.c om... > > > > > "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message > > > >news:<PrhOa.43919$3o3.2924098@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm not sure if a drunk can pass a field sobriety
testor > > not, > > > > but > > > > > > > if they can, perhaps better field sobriety tests need to
be > > > developed. > > > > > > > > > > > > And if stopped and he passes the SFSTs, I'll still bring
himin. > > > > > > > > > > I can't *wait* to see how your answer gets you out of anunlawful > > > > > detainer suit! If you've pulled over someone who: > > > > > > > > > > 1. exhibits no driving impairment > > > > > 2. passes all FSTs and > > > > > 3. has no prohibited BAC, > > > > > > > > > > IMH&PO, you're up a certain waterway seeking a mode ofpropulsion. > > > > > -- > > > > > C.R. Krieger > > > > > (Been there; litigated that) > > > > > > > > And by the 3 point situation you've set up here counselor,
there would > > be > > > no > > > > PC for the stop in the first place. Nice try though. ;^) > > > > > > > > Now if I observed impaired driving (weaving, usual speed
changes, > > etc...) > > > > And points #2 and #3 were true, I'd still bring 'em in. Hell,
they > could > > > > have had a stroke or something, I just might save a life! > > > > > > So "usual speed changes" are enough for you to arrest someone?
Hey, why > > > don't you just start arresting everyone at first site, and put
them > safely > > > in a cage -- who knows, you just might save a life -- to hell
with > > > consititutional protections. > > > > > > > > > > What are you whining about troll? > > > > > > > > I'm a bit thick at times so....is the moron reference to me? If so... Pistols at dawn? ;^)