I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Sorry dear but I had already correct the year before your reply and in fact if my connection had not gone out for a time I would had edit the post itself as I saw the error at once.

You would had seen that if you had not been in such a hurry to post an attack on my lovable self.

An yes Izzy is a fool as he did not know the recent history of his own country when it fate was hanging by a thread and needed to be corrected by a Yankee who country save his from becoming German colony for the next few hundreds years.

At a cost in Americans lives that began long before dec 7 1941.

So what he believe or does not believe is completely beside the point on any subject.

By the way happy new year Firefly.................

Maybe; that is among the possibilities.
We hear that it was a very foggy nite.





Being bored is a lot better than being oppressed
by government. We have seen too much of that.
Now, obama has signed a statute authorizing more drastic military powers of arrest.

The relationship between government (our creation, our baby)
and the Individual citizen is ADVERSARIAL. As good citizens,
we must ever be alert for an opportunity to drag down government,
demoralize it, and to curtail its jurisdiction, as it ever seeks to curtail our freedom.





David

What I have a problem believing is that you've actually read anything at all. Maybe the froggy that works the controls in your head was having a good day. Talking about WW2 is so relevant to the topic. At least you now seem to understand that America's entry into the war was caused by the attack on Pearl Harbour, nothing to do with 'saving asses.' It's quite impressive that you've actually managed to learn something new. Keep on going, at this rate a you might be up to tackling Go Dog Go, by 2015.

Roosevelt's decision to make a major troop commitment to Europe did nothing for the "salvation" of England, to which Germany could no longer present a credible threat. The most that could be said is that providing sufficient troops and materiel for a cross-channel invasion saved western Europe from Soviet occupation. The handwriting was already on the wall for the NSDAP and Germany. Bill's an idiot.

Bill is typical of the mindless swaggering types who go on about WW2 and the Battle Of New Orleans. Fortunately he's representative of a type, not Americans or America, although he can't see the difference, and likes to drape himself in the American flag every time he starts to lose an argument. That's why threads on drink driving, child pornography and atheism keep morphing into threads about WW2. Happy New Year Set by the way.

Happy new year to you too, Boss. We celebrated with the little dogs by going out for a pizza and some chicken wings. The guy at the store asked me if i would be going out to party later on, and i said that i don't take strong drink. He gave me a pitying look--probably one of Bill's extended family.

We clebrated by watching Jools Holland's annual Hootenanny, it's always good music regardless of genre. Last night Buddy Greco was on.


This is so much better that what we used to have to endure every Hogmanay.

Chilling . . .

There was something particularly disturbing about Scotland's grip on the New Year throughout the 60s up until the early 90s.

Last night we had dinner at our friend’s house just down the street. They had a few friends over and one was Eric a day bartender at Alibi.

Alibi is a large place, four bars, patio, and sports bar, video and back bar. Two bartenders at each bar. Eric told us the police have been there three times now and they know which bartender served Thom the drinks by his bar tab.

They’re waiting to see if charges will be brought up on him as well.

Unless he knew that Thom was intending to drive he's not done anything wrong. Anyway, it takes the onus off the criminal, it's not a criminal act to serve an adult a drink in a bar, it is a criminal act to drive a vehicle whilst intoxicated. I don't think the barman should face charges unless he actively encouraged him to drink and drive.

I hope the bar tenders are not talking to the police under those condtions.

Under Florida law, I don't think either the bar or the bartender would be held criminally responsible. I posted the relevant dram shop law earlier in this thread, and, unlike many other states, Florida is rather lax in holding the alcohol server responsible in cases like this.

I suspect the police are more interested in trying to establish Thom's degree of intoxication, and his demeanor before leaving the bar, based on circumstantial evidence. They need to know what he drank, and how rapidly he consumed the drinks over a particular period of time.

Because Thom did not remain at the scene of the accident, and did not have contact with police until some time afterward, there was some time lapse between the time of the accident and the time they tested his BAC. He might have consumed additional alcohol during that interval, so, they have to counter that possible defense claim by estimating his blood alcohol before he left the bar. They have to know exactly how much alcohol the bartender put into those drinks, as well as the time they were served, and who saw Thom consume them.

Since Thom didn't remain at the scene, the police also have to establish that he was, in fact, behind the wheel of the car when the cyclist was hit. His own statements to the police in that regard might not be admissible in court. Florida considers accident reports as privileged communications, to protect against self-incrimination. Unless he admitted to being the driver after he was given his Miranda rights, his statements might not be able to be used against him. They might have to find witnesses at the bar who saw him get into the bar, or witnesses to the accident itself. Of course, there is also the circumstantial evidence that he apparently left the bar alone, that his car was parked at the bar, and that he and his car both wound up at his home without any other driver being involved. But, they do, in this case, have to establish he was behind the wheel at the time the cyclist was hit because he left the scene of the accident.

I don't think the bartender who served Thom has anything to worry about in terms of criminal charges, but he is likely an important witness in this case.

I also believe that would be hard to prove. They can’t actually tell how much he drank by his bar tab but that's what they were after.

He might have bought drinks for people he was with.

I am sure that the owners of Alibi have an attorney to protect their interests and that this attorney is available to their employees to advise them of their rights and their obligations in this situation.

Since Florida does not have dram shop laws that hold the alcohol server responsible for the subsequent actions of another person, that attorney has likely told the bartenders to cooperate with the police investigation. If one is not a suspect in a criminal matter, one shouldn't risk a charge of interfering with a police investigation or obstruction of justice.

You think like a criminal--you are preoccupied with hiding evidence, not lawfully cooperating with the police, fears of being caught, and establishing excuses for violations of law--and this attitude has been evident in numerous threads. You seem to have a lot of experience in this regard. How many times have you been arrested, or questioned by the police regarding your involvement in criminal matters?

You have zero obligation to talk to the police if you might in any way be a target of an investigation and if I was them I would not do so unless my repeat my lawyer told me otherwise.

They could try to charge me with interfering with anything they would care to try to charge me with but there is the little matter of the 5 amendment that would stop them cold.

But the bartender might have that info also--he might have observed who was drinking what and who was served what. He might also be able to provide the police with the identity of the other people who were drinking with Thom, or who observed Thom drinking, and those people could be questioned and become witnesses as well.

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the police to establish an approximate BAC level of at least .08 at the time he left the bar--they have to do this all the time in hit and run situations. If anyone the police questioned saw him drink 4 Long Island Iced Teas, he was likely well over the .08 limit. Even two of them might put him over the limit, particularly if consumed within an hour or two of leaving the bar. We also don't know what Thom might have admitted to the police after they informed him of his rights. They might just be trying to corroborate Thom's own statements.

Because these are such serious charges, and a death is involved, I would imagine that the police investigation is going to be very thorough.

That's if you are guilty, or possibly guilty--the 5th Amendement protects against self-incrimination.

As I said, you think like a criminal.

Once more keep your month shut and they can not charge you with lying to them.

They had no power to force you to talk to them without a court order to do so and you still have the 5 amendment to fall back on.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court, though the witness may then exercise their Fifth Amendment rights if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves). If the person lied to protect a suspect (such as by providing a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from investigation their own activities (such as to hide his involvement in another crime), this may leave them liable to prosecution. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.

Obstruction can include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion.

Modern obstruction of justice:

In United States v. Binion, malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence.[1]

Dear the police can lied to you all day long but they can charge you if they even think that you had done the same to them.

They can not charge you with keeping your mouth shut however.

A number of cases came to mind where people was not convicted of any crime that the police was looking at but for the crime of lying to them instead.

The state have all the power and have a history of being willing to abused those powers so no I would not take a chance of talking to them if I was a bartend without a lawyer my lawyer being there.