SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Patty's 2008 charge is
That's a little worse than a speeding ticket...
Utterly disappointing
Patty's 2008 charge is
That's a little worse than a speeding ticket...
Utterly disappointing
Exactly what do you find disappointing?
Someone who takes the advice of their attorney; lawyers always tell people to refuse the test. Something about the Fifth Amendment.Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?
Someone who feels that they are being pushed around by someone who really has no authority or reason to be there. Not saying that this is why she declined, but she deserves the benefit of the doubt.Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?
Way harsh without knowing what happened!Patty Wagstaff is a waste of life to me now, a disgrace to every pilot in this country. I hope that she loses not only her driver's license, but her priviledge to fly airplanes as well.
Someone who takes the advice of their attorney; lawyers always tell people to refuse the test. Something about the Fifth Amendment.
Someone who feels that they are being pushed around by someone who really has no authority or reason to be there. Not saying that this is why she declined, but she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Way harsh without knowing what happened!
Way harsh without knowing what happened!
Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?
Patty Wagstaff is a waste of life to me now, a disgrace to every pilot in this country. I hope that she loses not only her driver's license, but her priviledge to fly airplanes as well.
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!Implied consent laws would lead me to believe that regardless of the reason, if you're driving, and a police officer asks you, you should take the sobriety test.
Driving's not a right either, and when she got her DL, she consented to sobriety tests when asked.
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!
Agreed. Let's see what pans out in the fact. IF she does turn out to be guilty of a DUI, then just punishment is deserved as well as certificate action by the FAA. If not, send her on her merry way.I'll wait for the facts to be presented before making an assessment.
I know that it is not uncommon to make false accusations. I also know that law enforcement personnel are not above provoking people.
If that is what happened, I'll gladly take back my comments. Can't imagine someone being charged with refusing to take the test if they were walking though...
Quite frankly I've seen police go bonkers if you point out simple facts to them. Once their "authority" has been challenged they go into the "I'm in charge" here mode and accusations follow. Unfortunately there is frequently no one around to rein them in and the accusations get promoted to charges. I've lived through it and it isn't much fun.
I suspect they have a slam dunk case, which is why Ms. Wagstaff is saying what she is saying in public, and I expect a plea bargain relatively soon.I suspect the DA is going to have a difficult case and furthermore I predict the charges will be dropped.
Which right would that be?
I am not familiar with that legal term, exactly what is probably cause?There is always the issue of probably cause...
You do realize you're arguing with a cop? One of several current and former LEOs.
There's implied consent and there's reasonable suspicion. You do understand that there are more issues here than your simple claim don't you?
Well, think back to his comment on a difference and level of experience. I tend to agree.What's your point? Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean his opinion is correct.
If that is what happened, I'll gladly take back my comments. Can't imagine someone being charged with refusing to take the test if they were walking though...
What's your point? Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean his opinion is correct.
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!
And, for the record, I would NOT consent to:
- Alcohol test
- Drug test
- Searching my car
- Searching my house
If some cop asked me for it. And I have nothing to hide.
Why then do some of us choose to assume the opposite for someone who is our fellow pilot, and can out fly anyone on this board, when we do not have nearly enough info to concretely state otherwise?
Ted,
Some states (such as Pennsylvania) have "Implied consent" laws.
If you choose to refuse a sobriety test, you can be treated as if you failed it (car impounded, lose your license, etc)
Personally, I just don't see enough information there to make any kind of a judgment one way or the other... If she was driving a car, oh yeah, then throw the book at her. Driving a golf cart? Ehhh... C'mon. But regardless, we don't know what happened, and any absolute pronouncements are premature at best.
Someone who takes the advice of their attorney; lawyers always tell people to refuse the test. Something about the Fifth Amendment.
That'd be even further down the continuum.How about just sitting on the golf cart with the keys in it? That's all that's required for the OUI.
IIRC WI has an implied consent law. Unfortunately it has been so long since I took any driver's course I can't remember the details.
Google pulled up this on the WI laws.
http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/wi.asp
Indeed. One of the things I took away from my pistol carry permit class is that the cops are never your friend when they think they're investigating a crime. They can and do lie to you with impunity. The only thing that's prudent to say to an officer who's asking you questions in relation to a crime he thinks you've committed is "I need to speak to my attorney and I do not consent to any search."And, for the record, I would NOT consent to:
- Alcohol test
- Drug test
- Searching my car
- Searching my house
If some cop asked me for it. And I have nothing to hide.
Indeed. One of the things I took away from my pistol carry permit class is that the cops are never your friend when they think they're investigating a crime. They can and do lie to you with impunity. The only thing that's prudent to say to an officer who's asking you questions in relation to a crime he thinks you've committed is "I need to speak to my attorney and I do not consent to any search."
And no, I don't hate cops. I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS, working hand in hand with the police. Most cops are upstanding folks who are trying to do a tough job that needs doing. However, their job is to get evidence that can be used to convict you, not to get the truth of the matter. There's a crucial difference there.