Gibson avoids felony charges and extreme speeding is IGNORED!!!

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On 4 Aug 2006 06:59:43 -0700, "Larry Bud" >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >When was Mel convicted of doing 87 in a 45?
>
> Nobody said he was, you idiot. But the cops said they pulled him over
> for 87 in a 45 and then didn't charge him!! I wanna know why.

Because its a far less serious offense than the DWI. We've been through
this, troll.

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:16:54 GMT, Larry > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >In New York, for example, DWI, depending on the circumstances, could be
> >a misdemeanor or felony punishable by as little as a fine and as much as
> >7 years in jail. Speeding is not even a criminal offense.
>
> If that's how NY treats speeding (and i suspect you're lying) then NY
> is an idiot.

I'm not lying, and I don't care what you suspect. Instead of blindly
saying "THINK" with every post (oh, the irony), look it up yourself.


I'll get you started. DWI is Vehicle and Traffic Law sec. 1192. You;ll
have to find speeding yourself.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:31:12 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:27:38 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> wrote:
>

>>
>>People do things that are abviously dangerous all the time, you
>>numbskull. People are not rational, they are idiots. My ****ing gawd
>>- we got millions of americans who smoke and give themselves cancer
>>and millions who pig out on snickers bars and get diabetes and then
>>there's you faggots who give yourselves aids.
>>
>>HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID.???
>
>Risk is fun. Get over it.
>

You want to take risks then go out and climb mountains. But don't
drive crazy cause they you're endangering not just yourself but also
OTHERS!!

In article >,
Larry > wrote:
>In article > ,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Larry > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:12:35 GMT, Larry > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 3 Aug 2006 05:44:02 -0700, "morticide" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I'm not sure about CA, but in MO if the violation is tied to DUI, the
>> >> >> >DUI (being the more serious offense) is the one prosecuted. Penalties
>> >> >> >depend on whether it's a repeat offense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's pretty hard to believe. If they've got you for two crimes, why
>> >> >> would they drop one of them?
>> >> >
>> >> >It's very common. When someone commits a serious crime, there are
>> >> >usually several lesser crimes (and not necessarily lesser included
>> >> >crimes) that they're concurrently committing. But they're rarely
>> >> >charged with all of them, for both legal and tactical reasons.
>> >>
>> >> In my experience it's just the opposite.
>> >
>> >What is your experience?
>> >
>> >I am an Assistant District Attorney in one od the DA's offices in New
>> >York City. I make charging decisions like this on a daily basis.
>>
>> You're an Assistant District Attorney and you've never heard of the
>> practice of "shotgun prosecution"? That is, the practice of charging
>> people with anything you can thing of hoping at least one of the
>> charges will stick, or hoping you can force them to plead because they
>> don't have the resources to defend against them all?
>
>Never heard of it, never engaged in it, don't know any colleague of mine
>who did, and it sounds like an extreme waste of time to me.

Never heard of it? Looks like you're pulling a jaybird.

>Besides, the majority of defendants have public defenders, so getting
>into a battle of rensources isn't relevant.

Sure, because you've already won that battle.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> He was pulled over for doing 87 in a 45!! That's far more serious than
> the DUI but then, this is criminal coddler america. Mel should be
> locked up forever but he won't do a day.
>
>
> The Sheriff's Department said Gibson was stopped at 2:36 a.m. Friday
> after being seen speeding at 87 mph in a 45-mph zone. Authorities said
> his blood-alcohol level tested at 0.12 percent. A California driver is
> legally intoxicated at 0.08 percent.
>
> (snip)

First of all, he's not guilty because right there it says he was
STOPPED at 2:36 am.
Therefore case closed
If they try to pull the 87 mph stunt, well they would have to reference
it against something, which they are probably not prepared to do.
For instance, one could claim they where sitting still in the same spot
while the Earth was spinning ubder them at 87 mph.

Bottom line, not guilty.

Boycott the censorship at Google, Boycott Google.

In article > ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Larry > wrote:
> >In article > ,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Larry > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:12:35 GMT, Larry > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 3 Aug 2006 05:44:02 -0700, "morticide" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I'm not sure about CA, but in MO if the violation is tied to DUI,
> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >DUI (being the more serious offense) is the one prosecuted.
> >> >> >> >Penalties
> >> >> >> >depend on whether it's a repeat offense.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's pretty hard to believe. If they've got you for two crimes,
> >> >> >> why
> >> >> >> would they drop one of them?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's very common. When someone commits a serious crime, there are
> >> >> >usually several lesser crimes (and not necessarily lesser included
> >> >> >crimes) that they're concurrently committing. But they're rarely
> >> >> >charged with all of them, for both legal and tactical reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my experience it's just the opposite.
> >> >
> >> >What is your experience?
> >> >
> >> >I am an Assistant District Attorney in one od the DA's offices in New
> >> >York City. I make charging decisions like this on a daily basis.
> >>
> >> You're an Assistant District Attorney and you've never heard of the
> >> practice of "shotgun prosecution"? That is, the practice of charging
> >> people with anything you can thing of hoping at least one of the
> >> charges will stick, or hoping you can force them to plead because they
> >> don't have the resources to defend against them all?
> >
> >Never heard of it, never engaged in it, don't know any colleague of mine
> >who did, and it sounds like an extreme waste of time to me.
>
> Never heard of it? Looks like you're pulling a jaybird.

I've never heard that phrase before. I - and everyone in my office -
have no interest in making charges stick for the sake of it. If the
person committed a crime they should be convicted of what they did, not
some other offense.

As for trying to "force" pleas, its actually the opposite. I like
trying cases, and look forward to trials. I'll offer a plea bargain if,
because of the circumstances, I think justice warrants it, but its no
skin off my back whatsoever if a defendant turns it down and takes a
case to trial.

My most recent case I offered the defendant a 6 month jail sentence. He
turned it down (not because he's innocent, as both he and his lawyer
admitted, but because his lawyer wanted me to offer a plea bargain
without jail). We went to trial, and he was convicted of the top count,
which has a minimum sentence of over 3 years. His loss, not mine. I
didn't force him to either accept or reject the plea bargain.

> >Besides, the majority of defendants have public defenders, so getting
> >into a battle of rensources isn't relevant.
>
> Sure, because you've already won that battle.

I strongly disagree. I've seen so many frivolous, time-wasting motions
from public defenders (most of whom admit they do this, precisely for
this reason), that anyone paying an attorney would be outraged to get
bills for these motions and filings.

Larry wrote:

> I strongly disagree. I've seen so many frivolous, time-wasting motions
> from public defenders (most of whom admit they do this, precisely for
> this reason), that anyone paying an attorney would be outraged to get
> bills for these motions and filings.

Ah. Much like the head of the service department at a used-car place my wife
bought a car from. Moron says he billed out five hours of work to change a
timing belt on that car; I believe it, because he's an unethical slug, but we
had to have him do the work, as it was under warranty.

Had he presented me with a bill that I had to pay, for five hours of labor to
change a timing belt, I would have told him where he could stick the bill.
Or, better yet, I'd have had him stick it there, and put my foot up his ass
to make sure it stayed there.

On an unrelated note, this is the same doofus who once told me they don't
charge for labor on non-warranty work, just parts. I walked out the door and
commented "well, they have guys they have to pay, so their parts must be
REALLY expensive if they're not charging for labor." :>

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2006 06:59:43 -0700, "Larry Bud" >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >When was Mel convicted of doing 87 in a 45?
>
> Nobody said he was, you idiot. But the cops said they pulled him over
> for 87 in a 45 and then didn't charge him!! I wanna know why.

1. It's none of your business.

2. Why do you think he didn't get a speeding ticket?

All the 3 charges are misdemeanors and thus criminal. Speeding, in
spite of what your fevered brain thinks, is not a criminal offense
(except in TX AFAIK). It is an infraction and thus does not get
charged in criminal courts. THINK

Harry K