XPost: rec.autos.driving, soc.support.fat-acceptance   
   From: no_need_to_spam@nobody.org   
      
   On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:03:16 -0600, Lady Veteran    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:37:38 -0600, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are   
   >MURDERERS"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Please Pass The Truffles  wrote in   
   >>news:Xns9CE8BA58BF713GBBFA@94.75.244.51:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Doesn't the guy feel at least a little disgusted that his addiction to   
   >>> food has made him unable to perform basic movement? The obese need to be   
   >>> encouraged to get help,   
   >>   
   >>Oh hell with that "get help" crap.  They need to lose weight and they can   
   >>do that by themselves anytime.   
   >   
   >230 pounds is not incapacitating by any means. This fool is playing   
   >the systems and it is easier to be ridiculed for being fat than having   
   >to live down a drunk-driving convictions.   
      
   The story is very unclear -- was there or wasn't there a breath/blood   
   alcohol test done also?  A field test may be fine to establish   
   probable cause to arrest/conduct further tests, but it certainly   
   shouldn't be allowed as the only evidence of impairment.  I can   
   imagine a number of physical/mental/balance states that would give me   
   trouble with some of the field tests (without impacting driving   
   ability).   
      
   Is the defendant arguing that the field test should be thrown out as   
   the *only* evidence?  If so, I agree with him.   
      
   Or is he arguing that it was invalid to administer in the first place,   
   thus there was no probable cause for a *real* BAC test that showed he   
   was above the legal limit, and hence that *real* test should be thrown   
   out?  If that's the case, then toss the book HARD at him.   
      
   Josh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)