A new threshold for DUI crossed....

richard > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:22:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>
>> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable
>> Vehicle"
>>
>> "Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI)
>> have evolved over the years to cover the situations where
>> police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk
>> behind the wheel. These drivers have been charged under an
>> expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control"
>> with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep
>> off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting
>> to drive home under this legal theory which does not take
>> motive into account.
>>
>> As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI
>> convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing
>> a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck's case to expand the
>> precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven --
>> and perhaps undrivable -- car into the definition of drunk
>> driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim that his car
>> was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the
>> contrary."
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>>
>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>>
>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
> cops and prosecutors have a golden rule they play by: Once
> tagged, you are fair game for a target.
>
> there was a recent case where a guy who may have been a trucker,
> had his own truck parked in the driveway. He got drunk one night
> and went to sleep it off in the truck. After his loving wife
> called the cops, he gets busted for dui simply because he had
> the keys in his possession. It made no difference the truck
> hadn't moved off of private property.

This is America, there no such thing as private property anymore.

gpsman > wrote in
.
com:

> On Jan 25, 12:22*am, Brent >
> wrote:
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> Citing an anonymous blog... again...?!
>
>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>>
>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>>
>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
> Not thinking of buying a car while thinking of a previous
> occurrence of thinking of becoming drunk..?
>
> One cannot help but wonder whether to admire your newfound
> rational moderation or mourn the decline of your k00kY ability
> to extrapolate to ridiculously childish degree.

We're talking about the government. Eventually all laws extrapolate
into kookyness.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Brent > wrote in news:hjj9rj$rsp$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>
>> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>>
>> "Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved
>> over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but
>> recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. These drivers
>> have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having
>> "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime.
>> Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as
>> attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take
>> motive into account.
>>
>> As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in
>> his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The
>> court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of
>> mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the
>> definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim
>> that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the
>> contrary."
>>
>
>
> HAHAHA. You libertarian loonies want drunk driving legalized!!! You're a
> nutter and belong in a cage.

It's strange how you came to that conclusion, since the article
describes a drunk man who passed out in a broken vehicle - in other
words he was NOT DRIVING it.

A vehicle can act as a shelter. No drunk wants to sleep on the street,
so he'll sleep it off in his car. There was one case where a young man
drank too much at a rock concert and was sleeping it off in his car and
a pig woke him up and ordered him to leave because they were clearing
the parking lot. The moment he turned on the car they arrested him for
DUI, and the judge tossed the case out on the grounds of entrapment, and
actually commended the young man for making the right decision not to
drive drunk.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532922,00.html

In m Frito Pendejo
> wrote:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>> HAHAHA. You libertarian loonies want drunk driving legalized!!!
>> You're a nutter and belong in a cage.
>
> It's strange how you came to that conclusion, ...

Remember what you're talking to; it's not strange at all.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On 1/25/2010 3:10 PM, Frito Pendejo wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> Brent > wrote in news:hjj9rj$rsp$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>>
>>> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>>>
>>> "Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved
>>> over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but
>>> recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. These drivers
>>> have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having
>>> "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime.
>>> Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as
>>> attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take
>>> motive into account.
>>>
>>> As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in
>>> his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The
>>> court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of
>>> mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the
>>> definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim
>>> that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the
>>> contrary."
>>>
>>
>>
>> HAHAHA. You libertarian loonies want drunk driving legalized!!! You're
>> a nutter and belong in a cage.
>
> It's strange how you came to that conclusion, since the article
> describes a drunk man who passed out in a broken vehicle - in other
> words he was NOT DRIVING it.
>
> A vehicle can act as a shelter. No drunk wants to sleep on the street,
> so he'll sleep it off in his car. There was one case where a young man
> drank too much at a rock concert and was sleeping it off in his car and
> a pig woke him up and ordered him to leave because they were clearing
> the parking lot. The moment he turned on the car they arrested him for
> DUI, and the judge tossed the case out on the grounds of entrapment, and
> actually commended the young man for making the right decision not to
> drive drunk.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532922,00.html

Lemmesee --article posted by the madman drunk SADAM. About the state
that "elected" Ventura and Franken.

The only interesting question is "why am I reading this??

This is a world where a congress under a constitution that says
"Congress shall make no law" regarding... makes laws regarding..... and
Driving Under the Influence is possible where there is no Driving
involved. Or possible.

Frito Pendejo > wrote in
m:


>
> It's strange how you came to that conclusion, since the article
> describes a drunk man who passed out in a broken vehicle - in other
> words he was NOT DRIVING it.
>

Hey stupid. Drunk drivers kill innocent americans every day so stop
defending them.

Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to each of us than all other criminals
put together.

Larry Sheldon > wrote in
:

> On 1/25/2010 3:1
>
> Lemmesee --article posted by the madman drunk SADAM. About the state
> that "elected" Ventura and Franken.
>
> The only interesting question is "why am I reading this??
>
> This is a world where a congress under a constitution that says
> "Congress shall make no law" regarding... makes laws regarding.....
> and Driving Under the Influence is possible where there is no Driving
> involved. Or possible.
>


Hey stupid. All decent people are sick of you criminal coddlers telling us
that drunk driving is cool. Get help please.

Frito Pendejo wrote:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > Brent > wrote in news:hjj9rj$rsp$1
> > @news.eternal-september.org:
> >
> >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
> >>
> >> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
> >>
> >> "Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved
> >> over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but
> >> recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. These drivers
> >> have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having
> >> "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime.
> >> Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as
> >> attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take
> >> motive into account.
> >>
> >> As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in
> >> his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The
> >> court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of
> >> mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the
> >> definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim
> >> that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the
> >> contrary."
> >>
> >
> >
> > HAHAHA. You libertarian loonies want drunk driving legalized!!! You're a
> > nutter and belong in a cage.
>
> It's strange how you came to that conclusion, since the article
> describes a drunk man who passed out in a broken vehicle - in other
> words he was NOT DRIVING it.
>
> A vehicle can act as a shelter.

FACTS DONT MATTER HERE - ! TO S.D.D.

AUSWITZ NEVER HAPPENED.
CHENEY NEVER HAPPENED.
S.& D.D. ... NEVER HAPPENED.
Creation balances out.
Happy Entropy to all -




> No drunk wants to sleep on the street,
> so he'll sleep it off in his car. There was one case where a young man
> drank too much at a rock concert and was sleeping it off in his car and
> a pig woke him up and ordered him to leave because they were clearing
> the parking lot. The moment he turned on the car they arrested him for
> DUI, and the judge tossed the case out on the grounds of entrapment, and
> actually commended the young man for making the right decision not to
> drive drunk.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532922,00.html

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-01-25, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>>
>>> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>>>
>>> "Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved
>>> over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but
>>> recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. These drivers
>>> have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having
>>> "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime.
>>> Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as
>>> attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take
>>> motive into account.
>
>> Not a problem as I see it. If they aren't in the passenger seat with
>> another
>> sober/designated driver behind the wheel, go ahead and charge them with
>> DUI
>> if they have above the legal limit of alcohol.
>
> Of course you don't see a problem... because it's only for 'bad'
> people. 'good' people like you won't ever have such problems. Or maybe
> you too wish to bring back prohibition through the driving back door?
>
Hey, if a person wants an alcoholic drink, if they are of legal age, go
ahead and have that drink. I'm not for prohibition.

If they get in their vehicle and it's not because they are in the passenger
seat with a designated sober driver in the driver's seat, I'm all for them
being charged with DUI if their BAC is above the legal limit.

>>> As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in
>>> his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The
>>> court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of
>>> mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the
>>> definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim
>>> that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the
>>> contrary."
>
>> Good. Even an undrivable car can be still be pushed. Definitely don't
>> want a
>> drunk pushing their car along a road, let alone driving it.
>
> So owning a car while drunk is a crime? You can't *push* a car from
> inside it.
>
No, but it's a trivial task to open the door, put the vehicle in neutral,
and start pushing the car once inside it. Why even risk that they may do
that with a supposed inoperable vehicle?

>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
>> Don't even get in your car if you are drunk, unless another sober driver
>> is
>> in the driver's seat and the drunk is in the passenger seat.
>
> You just argued that it's fine to charge someone with DUI who might push
> a car. You can be legally drunk, sitting on your couch watching a
> football game and be able to go out and push a car.
>
If they are sitting on the couch, they aren't in the car. DUI involves the
occupant being in the motor vehicle and having a measurable BAC above the
legal limit.

> Anyway, you want to make it illegal to sleep-it-off in a car, which
> guess what? It means that people will decide it is less likely to be
> caught driving drunk for a few minutes to get home than it will be
> getting caught sleeping in their car for a few hours.
>

Isn't it already illegal to sleep it off in the car? I just support that
which is already illegal.

Bars will gladly arrange for taxi rides for those who are actually that
drunk they need to sleep it off. If they choose to sleep it off in their car
then they deserve the legal penalties for doing so if caught and their BAC
is above the legal limit.

>>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
>> Prohibition against drunks getting behind the wheel of a car whether
>> moving
>> or stationary? I'm all for it.
>
>>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
>> Now that's just paranoia.
>
> Your argument is getting pretty close to just what I wrote. I've just
> extended what has been going on for the past 25 years or so a couple
> steps ahead. But it's fascinating to me that this is considered paranoia
> when it's a simple prediction of a steady increase in the power of the
> government to regulate and control our lives. Something that has been
> on-going for decades. Even more fascinating is that when a government
> type slaps down a much more unreasonable extrapolation it's considered
> kooky and paranoid not to believe it, like global warming.
>
>
You aren't the visionary you try to portray yourself as being, sorry.

On Jan 25, 6:34*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-01-25, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:02 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-01-25, richard > wrote:
>
> >> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:16:09 -0800 (PST), gpsman wrote:
>
> >> >> On Jan 25, 12:22 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> >>>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> >> >> Citing an anonymous blog... again...?!
>
> >> >>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
> >> >>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
> >> >>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
> >> >> Not thinking of buying a car while thinking of a previous occurrence
> >> >> of thinking of becoming drunk..?
>
> >> >> One cannot help but wonder whether to admire your newfound rational
> >> >> moderation or mourn the decline of your k00kY ability to extrapolate
> >> >> to ridiculously childish degree.
>
> >> >> This is a point of law in an atypical case light years beyond your
> >> >> comprehension, due to a complete absence of prerequisite education, as
> >> >> is always your failure.
>
> >> >> <q>In Starfield, we reinstated the DWI conviction of a person found
> >> >> behind the wheel of a vehicle that was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
> >> >> and could not be moved without the assistance of a tow truck. 481 N..W.
> >> >> 2d at 835.
>
> >> >> The jury found Starfield guilty, but the court of appeals reversed the
> >> >> conviction, holding that the State had failed to show that the
> >> >> defendant was in physical control of the vehicle. Id.
>
> >> >> In reversing the court of appeals, we held that intent to operate is
> >> >> not an element of Minn. Stat. 169A.20. Id. at 839 (citing S.F. 223;
> >> >> Journal of the Senate, p. 1633, for April 13, 1989) (noting that a
> >> >> legislative attempt to add lack of intent as an affirmative defense to
> >> >> Minn. Stat. 169A.20 had been defeated).
>
> >> >> We held that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the
> >> >> evidence?Starfield behind the wheel, in her own vehicle, keys in her
> >> >> pocket, towing assistance likely available?that Starfield was in
> >> >> physical control of the vehicle when it was in the ditch. Id. at
> >> >> 838.<q>
>
> >> >>http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/...80072-0121.pdf
>
> >> >> Your report is obviously not, in fact or in law, the slightest
> >> >> evidence suggesting any "new threshold".
> >> >> -----
>
> >> >> - gpsman
> >> > The whole point of the case is the fact that the prosecutor persuaded the
> >> > jury to convict Fleck based upon the man's history of charges. NOT the
> >> > actual facts at hand.
>
> >> Trying to explain what the courts did to lower the standard at which
> >> someone could be tried and convicted of DUI doesn't matter to gpstroll..
> >> Understanding isn't his purpose here. That's why he uses insult, spin,
> >> lies, and his own stupidity to try to get responses. The difference
> >> between an inoperable car parked at a person's residence and a car in a
> >> ditch is something which even gpstroll would be able to figure out. A
> >> car in a ditch was obviously being driven recently prior to entering the
> >> ditch, regardless of engine temperature. A car parked at someone's
> >> residence with no sign of having been operated recently could have been
> >> there for days, weeks, months, even years or decades because unlike a
> > *roadside ditch, a person's residence is where the car is kept.
>
> > You must have missed that part in the law that states being in a
> > vehicle with the keys is presumptive control. *There is nothing at all
> > in there about the vehicle have been moved. *Control is control not
> > matter where or when the vehicle last moved.
>
> No, I didn't miss that part. Previously such was interpeted with regards
> to vehicles that had been recently operated or at least could be
> operated immediately. For instance, a car in a ditch which is part of
> the right of way of the road. Other previous cases allowed for police to
> charge people in parked cars on private property. This takes it a step
> further. Now the car doesn't even have to function. It can be on private
> property and not able to move under it's own power.
>
> Maybe you're heard of people who have a car somewhere on their property
> that's been rotting away for 10-20 years. They parked it and left the
> keys in it and it's sat there since. Should someone get into that 'car'
> while legally 'drunk', it's DUI. Never mind that the tires are all flat
> and the car sunk into the mud.
>
> One baby step after another.
>
> > I vaguely recall a local case over 20years ago where a defendant
> > claimed he was _not_ in control as the keys were locked in the trunk.
> > I can't recall if that worked or not.
>
> Likely worked as well as them being in the center console.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I suspect you are right

Harry K