/dev/null Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/artic...1cc4c002e0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/artic...1cc4c002e0.html Sorry dude she gets no from me. She drives a stolen truck, not a car a TRUCK, blind drunk is let out on bail and is found again with a stolen vehicle in a ditch drunk again. A person like that should be locked up for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Sorry dude she gets no from me. She drives a stolen truck, not a car a TRUCK, blind drunk is let out on bail and is found again with a stolen vehicle in a ditch drunk again. A person like that should be locked up for life. If she wants to live being locked up is where she belongs. Hard to believe that she is not dead and has not killed others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 She needs to move to New Mexico. We all but canonize drunk drivers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 She needs to move to New Mexico. We all but canonize drunk drivers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Photo: http://www.kevn.com/Woman-with-possible-re...l-pleads-guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Photo: http://www.kevn.com/Woman-with-possible-re...l-pleads-guilty that stings my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 They recalled the sample and retested and it was .53, "but nothing higher." WTF kinda error was that? Granted still outrageously a high number... But come on, off by tenths. What does that say about accuracy when they (the DA or who ever) are splitting hairs at the hundredths... Seems that things are grossly inaccurate with the way they do measuring. With this story coming to light, do the numbers really mean anything when they are down around the limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/artic...1cc4c002e0.html That's pretty close to the point where they start calling it an alcohol-blood content, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 They recalled the sample and retested and it was .53, "but nothing higher." WTF kinda error was that? Granted still outrageously a high number... But come on, off by tenths. What does that say about accuracy when they (the DA or who ever) are splitting hairs at the hundredths... Seems that things are grossly inaccurate with the way they do measuring. With this story coming to light, do the numbers really mean anything when they are down around the limit? That does make ya think. They were off by approx. 33% Where did you hear that? I don't see it in the article. BTW, is anyone else having a problem viewing the image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I'm not buying a .708. Someone needs to go back to 'how to use a Breathalyzer' class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts