dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Probably because he never saw your face.I got pulled over for DWHUA once, but I was not arrested and no charges were filed...
Probably because he never saw your face.I got pulled over for DWHUA once, but I was not arrested and no charges were filed...
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..the difference is, if someone gets pulled over while driving, the cop saw with his own eyes that this person was driving with symptoms of being drunk. In this case, the cop does not have that.
Couple points.Well, this morning I flew a Cherokee. A 200kt "speed limit" may exist, but I'm not sure how it impacts most GA pilots; if the Cherokee ever sees that speed, it's not going to end well. It would be roughly equivalent to a 150mph "speed limit" on a US interstate, where most of the cars would never be able to achieve that speed anyway.
My point, though, is that pilots are expected to operate at speeds that are safe and appropriate for their aircraft, capabilities, and conditions.
If the same people who set highway speed limits ran the FAA, the approach pattern limit would be 54 knots, so that it would match the slowest traffic.Couple points.
1) GA also covers the thousands of fast twins, turboprops and jets.
2) More importantly, the speed limits are, at least in part, to make it less dangerous for the fast planes and slow planes to operate in the same environment by slowing down the fast planes. Just like highways demand that the Porsche that's capable of running at 150mph only go 65mph. So the "impact" to GA is that we don't have 747's flying their downwind at 400mph as they bleed off speed for landing.
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
Do you practice law in Mayberry?That makes it pretty easy, in part because Judges and jurys tend to give officers a lot of credibility (right or wrong) and most officers aren't going to lie on the witness stand.
Do you practice law in Mayberry?
Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.How you figure?
I was referring to jurors believing cops. You wouldn't have to do much of anything to get many jurors around here to mistrust a cop on the stand.I assume you're referring to the "most officers aren't going to lie" portion. There is certainly a meaningful contingent of law enforcement that will 100% lie through their teeth at any opportunity. But I don't believe that most will do that. In any event, in the era of body cams and dash cams, it's harder for even the dirty cops to get away with lying.
Lol!!! I think you may be referring to me.Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
well. First off no one’s life is over.Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
Speeding accidents are going to have a high fatality rate if for no reason other than the amount of impact when you hit something that hits back. But I suspect most speeding accidents are about other things. Distraction, incompetence, etc.
I've always though that.Someone going much slower than the prevaling traffic also causes accidents.
Which is, honestly, somewhat reasonable. Not because most cops are liars, but because all cops are human and whether wearing a badge or not, humans are pretty unreliable even if they are doing their level best to be truthful and accurate.I was referring to jurors believing cops. You wouldn't have to do much of anything to get many jurors around here to mistrust a cop on the stand.
IIRC, people driving more the 15 MPH faster OR SLOWER than the prevailing traffic speed cause a significantly greater portion of the accidents.I've always though that.
Over the holiday weekend, I saw a cop get run onto the shoulder of the freeway because he came zipping up at probably 30mph faster than the prevailing traffic, and somebody changed lanes just as he was approaching.IIRC, people driving more the 15 MPH faster OR SLOWER than the prevailing traffic speed cause a significantly greater portion of the accidents.
yes, witnesses who said he was driving erratically. Doesn't mean he was drunk while driving, could just be an awful driverThere were witnesses who can be called to testify.
Yah, you need hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison for murderhmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
Yup…and since he refused BAC tests, the law presumes that the awful driving is due to being drunk.yes, witnesses who said he was driving erratically. Doesn't mean he was drunk while driving, could just be an awful driver
ummm - you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all convictions in our court system - DUI included. Not sure what other versions of proof in a court of law you are talking about. . .. or is this just a conspiracy theory on something else you believe in not based on reality ?Yah, you need hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison for murder
Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?ummm - you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all convictions in our court system - DUI included. Not sure what other versions of proof in a court of law you are talking about. . .. or is this just a conspiracy theory on something else you believe in not based on reality ?
Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?
the info we have is “I decided to go get a few drinks. I planned to only have ~2. Unfortunately, 2 turned into about 4-5 over the course of a few hours. Anyway, I believed I was okay to drive as I drank some water and waited a hour before driving. I drove for approximately 2 miles before realizing I was not okay to drive.”Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?
Any good lawyer will obviously argue that OP had every right to refuse a breathalyzer. It’s perfectly within his right to do so because HE WAS NOT DRIVING. He was a pedestrian.he was seen driving erratically. he was walking - police probably identified drunk. His car got from one place to somewhere where it wasnt supposed to be or was allowed to park there. Pretty beyond reasonable. They just dont know to what amount because he refused. So since you aren't allowed to refuse - just throw the entire book at him on suspended license, etc etc. Same outcome either way.
lol the information we have is obviously not the same information the judge will have. I assume op is smart enough to not tell the judge everythingthe info we have is “I decided to go get a few drinks. I planned to only have ~2. Unfortunately, 2 turned into about 4-5 over the course of a few hours. Anyway, I believed I was okay to drive as I drank some water and waited a hour before driving. I drove for approximately 2 miles before realizing I was not okay to drive.”
doesn’t seem to be a reasonable doubt there.
I assume op is smart....
When I read these weekly posts about alcohol and driving problems I am reminded that the best thing I did for myself was to quit. It's a huge relief to not having that worry at every outside meal or event.
I'm flying for people now who might only give a few hours notice, that was the main reason.
Let’s not forget that the criminal case could be dismissed and it would have no impact on the FAA.Any good lawyer will obviously argue that OP had every right to refuse a breathalyzer. It’s perfectly within his right to do so because HE WAS NOT DRIVING. He was a pedestrian.
Ultimately, it will depend on what op argues. He will need to explain to the judge why he was driving erratically, why he abandoned it, and why he started walking.
My point still stands tho, because the police officer did not directly see him driving drunk, he still has a fighting chance.
Exactly correctLet’s not forget that the criminal case could be dismissed and it would have no impact on the FAA.
Like most of the OPs story you mean? 4-5 drinks over “a few hours” and then waiting an hour before driving, you’d be fine. I’m guessing it was more like double that and he didn’t wait and got in the car and realized he was bombed and then parked the car on the sidewalk. These stories are always told to favor the teller.I would not be surprised at all to learn the rest was made up.
There are usually at least three sides to every story ...These stories are always told to favor the teller.
I've never managed to figure out the advantage to doing that when the teller is posting anonymously....These stories are always told to favor the teller.
My point still stands tho, because the police officer did not directly see him driving drunk, he still has a fighting chance.
I think he proved he was below 0.15 by stopping and choosing to walk. He wasn’t so far gone that he couldn’t fix the problem.
Since we like to speculate here: The “witness” was an angry ex who spiked his/her drink, the atm video pointed a different direction, the gas station video overwrites its recordings every week and are unavailable, the govt plate readers were too far apart to determine who else was driving in the area, the other witness saw a ford not a Chevy, it was dark out so no tag number or view of the driver, etc.
I guess I’ll recognize my own bias. I find an accused drunk driver posting anonymously as more credible than your average police officer.Like most of the OPs story you mean? 4-5 drinks over “a few hours” and then waiting an hour before driving, you’d be fine. I’m guessing it was more like double that and he didn’t wait and got in the car and realized he was bombed and then parked the car on the sidewalk. These stories are always told to favor the teller.
I doubt the cops wanted to harass him. Once a call was made to the PD about possible drunk driver, they have no choice but to pursue it to the end. Arrest etc.It just irritates me that police would harass somebody that was clearly trying to do the right thing and basically destroy their life over it.
It's one reason I don't even drink occasionally anymore when I'll be driving. I didn't usually have more than one drink anyway, but even that's not worth the risk these days. It's easy for me though as I don't really enjoy drinking or being drunk. I can make an ass of myself while perfectly sober, thank you.
Police officer aside, every drunk driving story as told by the driver is told to favor the driver.I guess I’ll recognize my own bias. I find an accused drunk driver posting anonymously as more credible than your average police officer.