It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Broken Media Enabling Idiocy

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This headline pulled me in to see what charged this person to get arrested for no proper reason.

Abby Wambach's arrest for a crime that makes no sense

Once I started reading the news article, I was simply taken back by the idiocy that came from this story. I could just say... "What would I have expected from CNN". Truth is, I couldn't have imagined stupidity to this level from any news source. I was wrong... This changes everything!

From what I could gather from all of the moronic babbling in this story, is that this lawyer is happy to give the impression that Drunk Driving is totally ok and justified because you're allowed to "drink responsibly" but not get drunk. So since we can drink, we should be able to get drunk. The law is a loophole to put you in jail. Yet, he doesn't say anything about the dangers of killing someone because you're drunk and using a 2 ton murder weapon while doing so.


With DUIs, however, there are mixed messages. Most people are surprised to learn that it's not actually illegal to drink and drive. Technically, it's only illegal to drive while "impaired" by alcohol. What does "impaired" mean? Well, in most states, it means one of two things: 1) some scientific piece of equipment purports to identify, separate and measure the ethanol in your blood, e.g., by using a method called gas chromatography; or, 2) an officer, who has never met you before, just concludes that you are intoxicated by looking at you. Really. I'm not kidding. That's often what the law is.

Either way, the lesson to be drawn from our laws is not "don't ever drink and drive." Instead it's "you can drink and drive until you are 'impaired,' which is an arbitrary concept measured by 1) a sophisticated piece of machinery and a scientific method totally unavailable to the average driver; OR 2) just the opinion of some officer with zero medical or scientific training whatsoever."


So how is... "You can kill someone if you're intoxicated while behind the wheel of a car" confusing? How it is a "mixed message" that throws off the person doing the drinking?


Now, looking at all of the little captions, I found that the person writing this clip happens to be a defense attorney. So not only does the story being published by CNN but it's being written by an attorney. Where in the 9 hells are these guys getting their degree? Online? WalMart?


Editor's Note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst and a personal injury and criminal defense attorney practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his


ok, I get that the opinions are totally "his", but I would believe that CNN is 100% biased to his story IF other stories on this site were conservative, equally in number as they are liberal. In fact, I've been digging and I don't see any conservative opinions posted. So... CNN, it looks like you totally agree. It's not like ATS where everyone has the ability to post their opinions, with maybe the exceptions of really messed up opinions like racial hatred and hard core drug discussion.

Not only are they posting this garbage, but if we want to follow him, they're happy to give us the address.


Let's face it, our government, along with the nightlife and alcohol industry, only pretends to abhor drinking and driving. If our federal or state governments really wanted to end drinking and driving they would simply make it a zero tolerance crime. There would be no ".08" blood alcohol content wiggle-room.

There's no permissible level of intoxication when it comes to driving on '___', or crack. And every beer commercial during the Super Bowl encourages us to drink, but to "drink responsibly." What does that even mean?

Alcohol companies can't tell us to drink responsibly and also sell beer in kegs at the same time. Sure, there are responsible uses for a keg, just not many. And any bar in America that serves shots, and also has a parking lot, is just pretending people don't drive drunk. Ultimately, drunken driving is only "sort of" illegal in this country.


There is no wiggle room. Bring drunk and driving is illegal. No bones about it. There is so much wrong with this story that I can't even sort my own thoughts to the madness behind it to give a clean rundown of all of the wrongs about it.

Can someone else take a stab at this? What do you think?

I mean, I get that he's referring to the crime itself making no sense but in doing so, the reader could think that he's simply justifying DWI. To me, it makes very much sense. But yeah.. He's a lawyer. The idea is for him to use every argument to get her off the hook for DWI. I don't agree with those tactics one bit.












edit on 5-4-2016 by StallionDuck because: added

edit on 5-4-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

all I know is that I will have a jumbo margarita on the rocks (top shelf) every time I eat at my fave Mexican restaurant and then I drive home without once thinking I am drunk.

Truth is, if I swerved and drove like a jack ass then I would probably get a DWI



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
So, by zero tolerance, what do you mean? You want a zero tolerance policy? Do you want to bring back prohibition or what?

Say I took my wife out for dinner at a nice place, I drink a couple of beers, (as in two) then a moron backs into me in the parking lot, should I go to jail?

Zero tolerance is just unreasonable.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Agreed, but if you didn't blow the minimal, there is still a good chance you wouldn't get the DWI. At that point it's up to the officer involved. Still, you have some wiggle room in court and the lawyer would be justified in trying his hardest to get you off.

I think that minimal reading is there for just that reason. If I drank a beer at a friends house then head home about a half hour later, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be intoxicated in the least but I might just blow some minor amount in a device. I don't understand the "Either get rid of the minimal amount and make ALL amounts illegal or not at all" coming form this guy.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I just came to point out the TOOL reference.

DUI is trick because at this point 2 craft beers will cause you to blow over the limit but impaired? Doubt it.

Driving Drunk is definitely not ok though .



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SteamyJeans

Very good point about craft beers.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Agreed.

Being a former officer myself, I can't once think of a time where I've had to take someone in for a DWI where they read anything close to a minimal legal limit. People don't usually think "Oh damn... I'm feeling a tingle. I better stop". At that point it's usually "Time for another"!

Personally, If I'm going to have 2 beers, I spread them out because of the above reason. I like beer. If I have 1, I'll want a 2nd. If I have a 2nd, I certainly want a 3rd. At this point, they taste SO great I'll want another and then another. I really love the taste of beer. If I try to be the smart guy, then I either wont drink at all or I'll grudgingly have 1 and walk away. In almost all cases, either I drink or I don't. There is no in between. None = none... 1 = I'll stop when I feel like I've had enough. Enough could be 2 or it could be 8... or it could be going home when the rooster crows. Zero = I drive, while the rest = "who's driving my drunk arse home"!

I've had my margaritas with dinner but I've often sat at that table talking for a couple of hours as well.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

"2) an officer, who has never met you before, just concludes that you are intoxicated by looking at you. Really. I'm not kidding. That's often what the law is. "

Not sure how that would ever hold up in court, the cop can accuse you of being drunk when you have not had a drop of alcohol in years....where's the proof of over limit?

I couldn't get the article open to read it.

Sometimes it's also hard to tell when ones self is too drunk to drive - I don't drink hardly anything anymore, but in my younger, dumber days (years ago), I always ended up as the drunk designated driver because I could drive no matter what. It was the next day that I could not drive - I was more impaired by the massive hangover.
These days I would not trust my driving skills (if drunk) as much.....

One drink maximum for me these days if I have to drive within the hour of that drink. .08 is one drink for me, and because I rarely ever drink now, I feel that one drink more than I used to feel 10...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
We're supposed to be 'reasonably inebriated', a contradiction in terms if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SteamyJeans

i must have missed it, where is the tool reference?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

ok, I get that the opinions are totally "his", but I would believe that CNN is 100% biased to his story IF other stories on this site were conservative, equally in number as they are liberal. In fact, I've been digging and I don't see any conservative opinions posted. So... CNN, it looks like you totally agree.


So you think that CNN is in lock step with this lawyers evaluation of the DUI laws and you can find no cases of stories from CNN that are conservative. And by this you think that all CNN stories are all liberal. Am I following you here? So this would mean that if all stories on CNN are liberal and CNN is 100% in agreement with this author in running this story and that the story is about promoting drunk driving, then the conclusion is this. That CNN is a low life liberal rag and that liberals are in favor of drunk driving.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
"I was wrong....This changes everything!"

Flood maybe?

More of a quote than a reference and probably unintentional ...


a reply to: NobodiesNormal



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SteamyJeans

oh got ya, ya probably unintentional,

as to the OP, i cant access your source, says i need to log in?

if this is an article only for people registered to your source i wouldnt worry about it at all people rarely bother with sites like that.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: SteamyJeans

oh got ya, ya probably unintentional,

as to the OP, i cant access your source, says i need to log in?

if this is an article only for people registered to your source i wouldnt worry about it at all people rarely bother with sites like that.


Definitely intentional!


Hmmm not sure about the log-in. I don't subscribe to CNN and it's open for me.
(OOOPS! Damn big mistake on my part. I am at work and accidentally used a link on my work site instead of the news source. I fixed it)


I guess there is no time start for vids posted here





edit on 5-4-2016 by StallionDuck because: big oops



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

www.welldata.net...

The link doesn't go to CNN for me....I get ^ that link...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Generally speaking, I think the purpose of a good law is to protect my rights from someone else.

In this case, a drunk driving law does in the sense that it attempts to protect me from idiots who are too stupid to realize they have no business driving which can royally screw up my life when they plow into me. So I think there does need to be a standard.

That being said, I think the wording of this lawyer's article is completely spoken/written like a defense attorney who plays the law like a game and thinks with every client "Sure, you may be guilty as sin, but let's look at ways this might be played in our favor to get you off anyhow."

I mean really, let's totally blame the cop for all your drunk driving woes as a way to try to defend you from driving when you are drunk. Let's call the limits imposed completely arbitrary and without any merit. Sure, they are, but the alternative is to either try to calbrate every single person's perfect drunk factor or wait until they kill or seriously injure someone to tell them they shouldn't have been driving drunk.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: StallionDuck

www.welldata.net...

The link doesn't go to CNN for me....I get ^ that link...


I have fixed it since. I was juggling pages at the time while at work.




top topics



 
2

log in

join