Warik said:
Red herring alert. I'm asking YOU.
I'm not asking you if you were convicted of a crime. I'm asking you if you committed a crime. There are only two possible answers: "yes" or "no." Conviction or acquital does not change that. I understand that for legal reasons, you may not be inclined to answer. I will accept "stop being a little kid who's never been to jail" as a "yes I clearly committed a crime."
uh, Florida's legal limit is 0.08. The fact is that you are presenting a mountain of evidence to suggest that you weren't driving under the influence, but none of which pertain to cold hard facts. The machine "could" have been inaccurate, you "could" have driven home just fine.
You know what the problem is? Someone whose test WASN'T inaccurate and who COULD NOT have driven home COULD get off on the same defense on which you're going to get off, and that's a problem.
Trial by jury is to protect the innocent, not the guilty bubba.
I tried to explain this to you in my plast post but I guess I wasn't clear. Driving with a BAC above .08 is NOT A CRIME in Florida. In some states it is. This is not one of them.
I was charged with "driving under the influence". The Breathalyzer test is one of 5 tests I was given to determine intoxication. Some of them I failed, some I passed. The police report, videotapes and other evidence will be compiled in order for a jury to determine if I was in fact under the influence.
One more time:
driving with a .08 BAC is not a CRIME in Florida. Red herring that.
Has an innocent man ever be put to death? If so, who? (not a counterpoint... just asking out of curiousity).
A guy named Roger Coleman was executed in Virginia in 1992. The state of Virginia will not relesae DNA evidence for additional testing. This is likely an example of the "wrong guy" being put to death. There are dozens of inconsistencies and Coleman had a solid alibi (he was at work, his presence was verified by many witnesses).
Police prey on the poor, right? But in order to prey on the poor, the poor must commit crimes, right? So when a poor person commits a crime, the police show up and haul him away, right?
No. Police arrest for suspicion of crime.
Most arrests never lead to trials. You can't discount that. But if you';re poor and you get arrested, you can't make bail and you stay in jail for a while. This only reduces your ability to succeed or as you said "make something of yourself" later on. Even without a conviction, the time is lost, and the mental impact is real.
Snce there is no difference between a poor person and a middle-class or rich person, then rich neighborhoods should be rampant with crime because there are no police there to stop right, right?
Police don't stop crime. If they did, crime would decline acorss the board. But it never drops and stays low. The police presence or absence in any neighborhood IS IRRELEVANT to the amount of crime.
I think we are talking past each other. I never contested that poor people commit more crimes.
The police are a tool of the state, not an entity that reduces crime.
But wait! Middle-class + Rich neighborhoods are NOT rampant with crime. POOR neighborhoods are. But aren't rich people and poor people the same? Aren't poor people just innocent victims who are preyed on by police? Sorry - you'll have to do better than that.
They are in jail because they committed a crime. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If people in rich neighborhoods committed so many crimes, they'd either be in jail or in a criminal warzone. Neither is the case.
Face it - the poor commit more crimes than the rich. [/B][/QUOTE]