How The Mighty Have Fallen

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:38 pm

No, the science isn't weaker where I have worked. There's a huge difference between a negative blood test and a positive one. It's because you are all ego and no actual knowledge that you presume to tell a former prosecutor who has handled @ 500 DUI cases that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

I can see why you are so loathed here. It took me a while, but the past few years it's become very clear to me.

Gob · Post by **Gob** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:45 pm

Double-Cock hasn't a clue about science.

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:23 am

BoSoxGal wrote:No, the science isn't weaker where I have worked. There's a huge difference between a negative blood test and a positive one. It's because you are all ego and no actual knowledge that you presume to tell a former prosecutor who has handled @ 500 DUI cases that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

I can see why you are so loathed here. It took me a while, but the past few years it's become very clear to me.

I would not hire you as an atty. in an a DUI case (or anything else). In California you have to show that there is a quantitative blood level of the drug in question and a reasonable presumption that such a blood level will produce impairment. Admitting to have taken a drug is not sufficient unless the person in question wants to plead guilty.

There is a difference between a negative and a positive test but unless you know the NIDA limits for reporting a positive test and what the evidence is for "impairment' for a positive test at the level specified you cannot say what it is.

The fact that you do not know this means you are incompetent. I am not surprised that you no longer practice law.

yrs,
rubato

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:24 am

rubato wrote:
BoSoxGal wrote:No, the science isn't weaker where I have worked. There's a huge difference between a negative blood test and a positive one. It's because you are all ego and no actual knowledge that you presume to tell a former prosecutor who has handled @ 500 DUI cases that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

I can see why you are so loathed here. It took me a while, but the past few years it's become very clear to me.

I would not hire you as an atty. in an a DUI case (or anything else). In California you have to show that there is a quantitative blood level of the drug in question and a reasonable presumption that such a blood level will produce impairment. Admitting to have taken a drug is not sufficient unless the person in question wants to plead guilty.

There is a difference between a negative and a positive test but unless you know the NIDA limits for reporting a positive test and what the evidence is for "impairment' for a positive test at the level specified you cannot say what it is.

The fact that you do not know this means you are incompetent. I am not surprised that you no longer practice law.

yrs,
rubato

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:36 am

Is there a reason you re-quoted your whole response there, Otis?

ETA:

While attempting to demonstrate his "expertise" on the topic of "Driving Under The Influence" (which I suspect he has significant personal experience with ) he has shown, (yet again) that he is "Posting Under The Influence"...

dales · Post by **dales** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:44 am

Yes, our boy pseudo-scientist NEVER FAILS to entertain.

ex-khobar Andy · Post by **ex-khobar Andy** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:57 am

Knowing nothing of the law but quite a lot about toxicology and analytical chemistry, I think Rube's basic point is a good one: for alcohol we have something akin to a speed limit. Over the limit, whether it's 30 mph or 0.08% (= 80 mg/100 mL) BAC means by definition an offense of some kind regardless of whether there was some sort of resulting accident. The problem with most incidents of driving under some sort of putative influence (non-alcohol) is that, for the most part, there is no legal or regulatory number which equals a presumption of effect.

Per the Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 189 (Traffic) (I used to live in Louisville)

189.520 Operating vehicle not a motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicants
or substance which may impair driving ability prohibited -- Presumptions
concerning intoxication.
(1) No person under the influence of intoxicating beverages or any substance which
may impair one's driving ability shall operate a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle
anywhere in this state.
(2) No peace officer or State Police officer shall fail to enforce rigidly this section.
(3) In any criminal prosecution for a violation of subsection (1) of this section, wherein
the defendant is charged with having operated a vehicle which is not a motor
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages, the alcohol
concentration, as defined in KRS 189A.005, in the defendant's blood as determined
at the time of making an analysis of his blood, urine, or breath, shall give rise to the
following presumptions:
(a) If there was an alcohol concentration of less than 0.05, it shall be presumed
that the defendant was not under the influence of alcohol;
(b) If there was an alcohol concentration of 0.05 or greater but less than 0.08,
such fact shall not constitute a presumption that the defendant either was or
was not under the influence of alcohol, but such fact may be considered,
together with other competent evidence, in determining the guilt or innocence
of the defendant; and
(c) If there was an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, it shall be presumed
that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

Clearly this covers alcohol and other substances which may impair driving.

Marijuana, for example, is fat soluble (unlike ethanol) so is not evenly distributed in the body. Your brain is the fattiest organ in the body, and that's where cannabinoids exert their effect. So you can be quite high and therefore unable to drive safely with undetectable quantities in the blood. And if you have a different fat/lean tissue distribution than another individual, your distribution of marijuana may be very different from another individual but the same general level of effect. For alcohol, as a very general statement, 0.08% BAC in my blood will lead to a similar level of impairment that 0.08 will cause in your system. If I were pulled over and it became clear that I had been smoking weed, there is no simple code-defined test in most US jurisdictions which will indicate that I am or I am not impaired.

Some states (e.g., WA) have chosen a number (5 micrograms per mL) for THC in the blood to be the redline which gives an automatic DUI. But while the 0.08% for ethanol is based on many years of epidemiological research, the 5 ug/L for THC is much more arbitrary.

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:37 am

I'm going with all the circumstantial evidence that has been presented.

Judge RayThom hereby accepts Mr. Woods nolo contendere plea of a lesser charge of reckless driving. I sentence him to loss of his driving privileges for ninety (90) days, a fine of $1,000, probation of one (1) year, fifty (50) hours of community service, and an ignition interlock device installed in any car driven Mr. Woods, and a jail sentence of ninety day -- suspended.

Golf, and sin no more.

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:51 am

...Plus, he has to roll down the window and shout "FORE!" whenever he gets behind the wheel.

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:54 am

You don't have to be .08 to get convicted of DUI, I've convicted people well under because of impaired driving as evidenced in law enforcement video or by witness testimony.

There is also no threshold level of drug intoxication that is statutorily required to establish DUI drugs. It's difficult to decipher entirely rubato's intoxicated ramblings, but as I've said, I've been trained by national prosecuting associations on the elements of DUI prosecutions and I've handled well over 500 DUI cases. I know what elements are required to produce a conviction, and in the Woods case there is plentiful evidence.

I've also successfully defended DUI cases.

As I've shared here already, rubato, I'm not currently practicing law because I suffer a crippling illness, not for any reason of competence to practice. I'm a very good attorney. You couldn't hire me because I'd never represent such a toxic sack of shit as you. Go fuck yourself.

Joe Guy · Post by **Joe Guy** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:23 pm

I accept Judge RayThom's judgement against Mr Woods and Econoline's stipulation...

He wasn't driving when they found him and he surely has good lawyers. As long as he didn't damage anyone's property besides his, he very likely won't get a DUI.

Burning Petard · Post by **Burning Petard** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:55 pm

BUT. . . . the driver's side of the vehicle had signs of recent damage--looks to me like that could be probable cause for leaving the scene of an accident.

On the other hand, recall the header for this thread. Why is it such a big deal that this individual tangled with traffic cops in the wee hours of the morning? No other property or persons were harmed, according to all the stories I have heard/read about the incident. The immediate consequences will probably not impact his financial statement. Why do we regard Mr. Woods as part of 'the Mighty' ?

snailgate

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:39 pm

DUI has become solidly frowned upon in polite society since MADD changed societal attitudes; Woods made $45.5 million from endorsements in 2016 alone. He stands to lose significant income if any of those corporate endorsements are cancelled over this. Beyond that he's currently ranked 674th in the world, a pretty long fall from his mighty of 683 weeks at #1. Finally, he's just coming off a back surgery and apparently struggling to manage his prescription drug use, with longstanding rumors he's been struggling with pain meds for a while.

I'd say the thread title is apt.

Burning Petard · Post by **Burning Petard** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:53 pm

So why was an old over-the hill pro golfer [CURRENTLY RANKED 674 IN THE WORLD] ever considered mighty? Any data on any of those ranked 1-673 and their recent public use of intoxicants? He has been on television frequently since he was a preschooler, like Honey boo-boo. I rank him right there with Kim Kardashian among my list of people of interest. Is it really the number of appearances on 'Entertainment Tonite' that makes a person important in America?

As another famous 'mighty' pro athlete said "I'm not paid to be a role model."

snailgate

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:18 pm

I think it is fair to characterize Woods as a tragic figure... (though much of the tragedy has been of his own poor decision making)

Nine years ago Woods had it all...

#1 Golfer in the world, on a pace to become the number one golfer of all time, having won 14 majors by age 32; (three years younger than when Nicklaus reached that level at 35) he was seen as pretty much a dead cert to blow past Nicklaus's career record of 18 majors titles...

He was a ubiquitous presence in the media with all his endorsements, and his "good guy" image with his wife and family...

Then came the infamous 2009 Thanksgiving night car crash, followed by the revelations of his serial philandering, followed by loss of endorsements and his good guy image, followed by a lengthy absence from the golf course, followed by a series of injuries followed by not having won a single majors title since...

As BSG pointed out, he's now the the 674th ranked golfer in the world, (I was surprised to see that his endorsement money has recovered to such a high level; he must have one hell of an agent...) and he has been so craving to get back on top that he has not followed the physical therapy programs prescribed for him after his injuries, returning to the pro circuit too soon, only compounding his problems...

Woods life has essentially been in a downward spiral ever since his father died. I think a large part of the difficulties Tiger has experienced since his death spring from the fact that he had been so reliant on Earl to provide the personal discipline and structure for him to keep him out of trouble and focused on his craft that he never developed these qualities for himself. He has been struggling with the problems that lack of internalized discipline have created for him ever since...

The tragic irony here is that the very thing that enabled Woods to first develop the phenomenal skills that made him such a great in his sport, (his relationship with his father) is the very thing that also carried with it the cost that led to his fall...

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:20 pm

13 years at number one, one of the greatest talents the sport has ever known - I'd say that qualifies as mighty when it comes to athletes.

Wayne Gretzky hasn't played hockey in almost 18 years, but he will forever be mighty in the game. I think if he showed up in a mug shot and dashcam tape like that, a few years after losing his wife and kids over an alleged sex addiction, folks might still describe such a fall from grace as 'oh how the mighty have fallen'.

But perhaps RT wants to weigh in on the appropriateness of his thread title?

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:24 pm

So why was an old over-the hill pro golfer [CURRENTLY RANKED 674 IN THE WORLD] ever considered mighty?

SG, I'm pretty sure the subject line is intended to refer to his "fall" from the pre-eminent position he once held to where he is now, not just his most recent problems...

Jarlaxle · Post by **Jarlaxle** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:55 pm

Lord Jim wrote:

Is there a reason you re-quoted your whole response there, Otis?

ETA:

While attempting to demonstrate his "expertise" on the topic of "Driving Under The Influence" (which I suspect he has significant personal experience with ) he has shown, (yet again) that he is "Posting Under The Influence"...

Come on, Jim, get it right-rube is Ozzie, not Otis.

Jarlaxle · Post by **Jarlaxle** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:57 pm

Burning Petard wrote:BUT. . . . the driver's side of the vehicle had signs of recent damage--looks to me like that could be probable cause for leaving the scene of an accident.

On the other hand, recall the header for this thread. Why is it such a big deal that this individual tangled with traffic cops in the wee hours of the morning? No other property or persons were harmed, according to all the stories I have heard/read about the incident. The immediate consequences will probably not impact his financial statement. Why do we regard Mr. Woods as part of 'the Mighty' ?

snailgate

My work truck has obvious damage on the side...that is proof of nothing more than a damaged vehicle. (No, not me...yard guy scraped the hell out of it on a parked trailer.)

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:39 am

BoSoxGal wrote:... But perhaps RT wants to weigh in on the appropriateness of his thread title?

OK... I paraphrased a quote from my Holy Bible:
"How have the mighty fallen (in the midst of the battle!)..." 2 Samuel 1:25

However, I used the word 'mighty' somewhat synonymous to 'powerful' or 'famous', or even 'well known.'

And then there's this definition that fits my intended usage best:
How the mighty have fallen.
Prov. a jovial or mocking way of remarking that someone is doing something that he or she used to consider very demeaning. (Jill: Ever since Fred's wife left him, he has had to cook his own meals. Jane: Well! How the mighty have fallen! When Dan lost his money, he had to sell his expensive sports car. Now he drives an ugly old sedan. How the mighty have fallen.)
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/How ... ave+fallen

Plan B Forum