Danger! Danger!

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0..5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab.. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist
manifesto.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 2:57:17 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

Duh! The underlying presumption of the bipartisan project of replacing expensive American labour with cheap Mexican labour, and votes for the Democrat Party, via an open border has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is in fact an insult to the Founders to suggest, as the subtext of this whole business about identifying Americans entitled to vote, that they would have needed an explanation why a nation, any nation, needs its borders defended because without firm borders it will cease to be a nation.

Andre Jute
Hypocrisy is a live and well in Washington

On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION—RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
• Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
• Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
• Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/11/2020 11:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Dumb.

The States do not have the power to enforce immigration laws, nor does
the federal government provide them funding to do so.

And it works both ways. In the past, when states have tried to take
immigration law into their own hands and do their own enforcement, they
were not permitted to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the
federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%.. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION�RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
• Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
• Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
• Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

I don't think New Jersey is seceding is it?


Oddly, nullification is okey-dokey if it involves guns. E.g. Printz v. United States (federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.)

Oregon police officers aren't arresting the locals for smoking marijuana. It is a federal offense. "Out of my cold dead hands!" [shaking joint in the air]. I guess we're nullifiers with reefers instead of rifles.

Wisconsin has a long history of refusing to follow federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth How could you not return other folk's property? Bad! Bad Wisconsin!

Open borders is a conservative boogeyman. Nobody serious is proposing a wholesale repeal of our immigration laws. We love to get worked up about it though. It mobilizes the base.

We'll always have illegals. I was jumping over the US/Canadian border up in Washington, back and forth, and nobody stopped me. Legal, illegal, legal, illegal. It's not hard to do. https://tinyurl.com/spgc8h4 (Whatcom Co. Washington).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...RDER.jpg?w=620 I was looking to start up a gang in Canada -- "hey hosers, say we start a hockey gang!" Build that wall, eh? What's that aboot?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

No you are correct, it has to do with an individual being in the
country legally.

I might point out that foreigners who wish to enter the U.S. legally
must present proof of identity... and (I believe) have fingerprints
and a photo recorded.

But it is unconstitutional to then check someone's identity inside
the U.S.?

But perhaps more to the point, the U.S. is the only country that I've
lived in that makes such a loud noise about "illegal immigrants". and
yes, there are some here in Thailand but no government to date has run
for election based on keeping them out as the police and immigration
authority do a pretty good job of it. Probably because there is a
national identification card law here, and people must present it if
requested :-)

As an aside, the solution to the U.S. illegal immigrant problem is
simple. Just as Thailand has done, pass a national law that states
that anyone who employees or provides a residence to an illegal
resident is liable to a 10,000 baht fine - in U.S. terms, based on a
$10/hour minimum wage that would be US$2,669.00 for each individual
employed or housed. :-)
--
cheers,

John B.