Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested

Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 8:57:27 AM)
msnnews.com His second hit and run kills one injures 14 while he is out on bail. Why did he still have a license.

Tkman117 -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 9:10:36 AM)
His SECOND hit and run? O.o, I agree, why the hell was he allowed to have a license after the first?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 9:15:06 AM)
Not to put too fine a point on it (and I didn't read the article because I don't do "depressing", these days) but if he was out on bail for the first hit-and-run, he probably hasn't gone to trial for it, yet. So ... innocent until proven guilty and all of that. The license suspension is not automatic, after the charge, it's a result of adjudication. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD msnnews.com His second hit and run kills one injures 14 while he is out on bail. Why did he still have a license. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

BamaD -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 9:26:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 His SECOND hit and run? O.o, I agree, why the hell was he allowed to have a license after the first? And he was a convicted drug dealer.

BamaD -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 9:32:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Not to put too fine a point on it (and I didn't read the article because I don't do "depressing", these days) but if he was out on bail for the first hit-and-run, he probably hasn't gone to trial for it, yet. So ... innocent until proven guilty and all of that. The license suspension is not automatic, after the charge, it's a result of adjudication. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD msnnews.com His second hit and run kills one injures 14 while he is out on bail. Why did he still have a license. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? The other hit and run was in December.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 9:38:39 AM)
I've seen people delay DUI trials for a year. I knew a guy that lost his license for his third DUI, was doing weekends as part of the sentence and got his fourth and fifth DUI in the same week. All I can tell you for sure is that "he's out on bail for the first incident" infers (to me) that he hasn't gone to trial/been judged or punished for it, yet. I want to add: I'm not saying it's "right", per se. I don't know that it's wrong, either. We have a system in this country. Emotionally, a driver who is obviously under the influence, in my opinion, should not be allowed to drive, while they're waiting for trial. Intellectually, we have a constitution. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The other hit and run was in December. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Musicmystery -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 11:54:31 AM)
And there's the assumption that he has a license. He wouldn't be the first to reason, "Since I don't have a license, they can't take it away . . . "

Musicmystery -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 11:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Emotionally, a driver who is obviously under the influence, in my opinion, should not be allowed to drive, while they're waiting for trial. They aren't allowed to drive home under the influence. But in the morning, they're (presumably) sober and still innocent until proven guilty.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 3:50:29 PM)
Yeah, I gave the wrong impression, there. It should have been more like: " ... who is obviously under the influence, when they are charged ..." quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery They aren't allowed to drive home under the influence. But in the morning, they're (presumably) sober and still innocent until proven guilty. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Musicmystery -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 3:59:09 PM)
There's still that pesky Constitution. For example -- technically, it's the officer's say-so. That's why, when arrested, a different officer gives the test, and different officers investigate the car. Then it's evidence, not "Well, I thought obviously .... " etc. And there's room for error -- legit medication that makes one appear intoxicated. One night, in my 20s, I was sober, but the officer was convinced I was intoxicated, but really I was stone tired (probably shouldn't have been driving, granted). He wrote me up for speeding at 70, when really I was going 65, and had simply changed lanes more quickly than he'd have liked at 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning. But not under the influence. He was bummed out when he couldn't get the field test to register any BAC. A smarter officer, another night when I was just very tired and didn't come to a complete stop (out in the middle of the country), leaned in close, couldn't smell any alcohol (I haven't had a drink in years), and wrote me up for a bullshit equipment failure (license plate light bulb was out). But they can't just say "Obviously . ..."

DaddySatyr -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 4:08:17 PM)
I agree and that's why I also mentioned it. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery There's still that pesky Constitution. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

FullCircle -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 4:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why did he still have a license. Primary function of a car is to travel from A to B, it's harmless in that respect. We can't expect people to need licenses just because some people don't know how to drive. Do you need a license to ride a horse? Probably somebody wrote in a historic document that everyone had the right to ride a horse, technology has moved on since and now we have automated horses.

BamaD -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 7:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And there's the assumption that he has a license. He wouldn't be the first to reason, "Since I don't have a license, they can't take it away . . . " Of course you are correct about the "reasoning of some people, however several articles have stated that he still had a license.

BamaD -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/11/2014 7:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why did he still have a license. Primary function of a car is to travel from A to B, it's harmless in that respect. We can't expect people to need licenses just because some people don't know how to drive. Do you need a license to ride a horse? Probably somebody wrote in a historic document that everyone had the right to ride a horse, technology has moved on since and now we have automated horses. Nice try at derailing but driving is a privilege, not mentioned in that irrelevant old document you referred to.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/15/2014 2:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Nice try at derailing but driving is a privilege, not mentioned in that irrelevant old document you referred to. Not so fast. Freedom of movement is, in fact, a constitutionally protected right. It is just that, LIKE EVERY OTHER RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION, it is subject to restrictions if there is sufficient governmental interest. The drivers' license, just like any other restriction on any other right, exists because the judiciary decided it was an important enough governmental interest to have it. ANY right in the Constitution can, in fact, be restricted if there is a strong enough governmental interest. It is all in how one chooses to define "governmental interest". Freedom of movement, which is what driving is, is not a "privilege" as you seem to think. From Wiki: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4]

thishereboi -> RE: Driver responsible for Winter Park car/daycare accident arrested (4/15/2014 8:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Nice try at derailing but driving is a privilege, not mentioned in that irrelevant old document you referred to. Not so fast. Freedom of movement is, in fact, a constitutionally protected right. It is just that, LIKE EVERY OTHER RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION, it is subject to restrictions if there is sufficient governmental interest. The drivers' license, just like any other restriction on any other right, exists because the judiciary decided it was an important enough governmental interest to have it. ANY right in the Constitution can, in fact, be restricted if there is a strong enough governmental interest. It is all in how one chooses to define "governmental interest". Freedom of movement, which is what driving is, is not a "privilege" as you seem to think. From Wiki: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4] No one is saying he can't move around, as long as they don't throw him in jail he is free to go anywhere wants, he just won't be able to drive a car to do it.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875