Sherlock Holmes Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 28 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah, I know all about how Kraft got away with a handy in a massage parlor. Again the point is that what appears to be a slam dunk case (illegal activity caught on camera) turns out not to be...in this case because of overzealous law enforcement. Why didn't they challenge the stop? Huh? They didn't have to challenge a thing. Because Oliver was innocent from the start. And they knew it. No need to challenge anything, no need to complain about the stop, no need to sweat...just wait for the facts to come out. Again if Oliver had some Adderall in his system, his lawyer could have attacked the lack of a reckless driving charge, i.e. if it wasn't documented, it didn't happen and say there was no grounds to claim impairment. And yeah, doctors routinely prescribe opioids for ADHD/focus issues. Good one. 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: One more time: The Palm Beach cops and the DA blew the case because of really stupid (that's different from what you are thinking of as "overzealous" in Oliver's case) procedural mistakes. Evidence was (except for a you) predictably at risk, challenged and tossed. So, yes, WE all KNEW the answer a week after the arrest. You are still grappling with how on earth (!!) this all fell apart for you on the Kraft Handie Caper. A shocking turn of events!! I do like how you keep giving "me" credit for that defense though--it's still worth a chuckle. Put me down for "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" as well. You can credit me later. No one has challenged the Oliver stop. Certainly neither he or his lawyer did, so why do you even mention it?. They didn't see him swerving nor did they claim to, and didn't charge him for that. You have no point there. They pulled him over, he told them he was taking a drug that is on the state's DUI list so they brought him in for a blood test. See? All very simple. And as for your theory that his function is improved under the influence of adderall, the law in Texas doesn't not allow for that. No doubt people on prescription narcotics would like to make that same claim--that their oxy's allow them to function normally. Same with medical marijuana users. The law would not care, or else it would have been written to allow for these exceptions. You two are so cute... menage a trois?!?!?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 41 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: No Bath Salts were legal until 2012... Meth is still legal as the pharmaceutical Desoxyn. Gotcha. 32 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: You two are so cute... menage a trois?!?!?! You offering-up your wife? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc said: Yeah, I know all about how Kraft got away with a handy in a massage parlor. Again the point is that what appears to be a slam dunk case (illegal activity caught on camera) turns out not to be...in this case because of overzealous law enforcement. Why didn't they challenge the stop? Huh? They didn't have to challenge a thing. Because Oliver was innocent from the start. And they knew it. No need to challenge anything, no need to complain about the stop, no need to sweat...just wait for the facts to come out. Again if Oliver had some Adderall in his system, his lawyer could have attacked the lack of a reckless driving charge, i.e. if it wasn't documented, it didn't happen and say there was no grounds to claim impairment. And yeah, doctors routinely prescribe opioids for ADHD/focus issues. Good one. Again, the Palm Springs keystone cops were not "overzealous"--they were ignorant of the law regarding videotaping and traffic stops. They could have easily nailed Public Enemy Number One had they used competent evidence gathering. It had nothing to do with their "zeal". They were just dumb. Cops aren't compelled to charge for "reckless driving" when they are charging for DWI compounding a weapons charge. "Attacking" the "lack" of more charges isn't usually something a defendant pays his lawyer to do. And a judge would laugh at your pretzel logic argument, counselor. So we do agree that the Oliver stop was not an act of overzealous cops. That's hopeful, doc. Obviously I didn't claim that doctors (who actually prescribe medications for patients they are treating to preserve functional status) prescribe narcotics for ADHD, Straw Man George Patton. You understood my comparison of one prescription drug in a driver for another, yet you made that bizarre comment anyway----as if you did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Again, the Palm Springs keystone cops were not "overzealous"--they were ignorant of the law regarding videotaping and traffic stops. They could have easily nailed Public Enemy Number One had they used competent evidence gathering. It had nothing to do with their "zeal". They were just dumb. Cops aren't compelled to charge for "reckless driving" when they are charging for DWI compounding a weapons charge. "Attacking" the "lack" of more charges isn't usually something a defendant pays his lawyer to do. And a judge would laugh at your pretzel logic argument, counselor. So we do agree that the Oliver stop was not an act of overzealous cops. That's hopeful, doc. Obviously I didn't claim that doctors (who actually prescribe medications for patients they are treating to preserve functional status) prescribe narcotics for ADHD, Straw Man George Patton. You understood my comparison of one prescription drug in a driver for another, yet you made that bizarre comment anyway----as if you did not. Doesn't matter what they're compelled to do. If they don't charge him for it, or at least produce evidence like dash cam footage of impaired driving...there's reasonable doubt he was truly impaired by anything. And judging by the fact that this "DUI expert" got it wrong, there's probably more footage of the same officer making a mistake or three, which calls into question his credibility. So yes being overzealous to charge him with something because they got a call and he "seemed impaired" is still in play. They're all things Oliver's lawyer can bring up to say "drop the charges or see you in court." And don't blame me for your use of opioids as an example. The reason I'm discussing Adderall is because it is prescribed to improve focus, whereas DUI is an issue of lack of focus. If he had been on opioids for a long time, I wouldn't even bother to mount a defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doc said: Doesn't matter what they're compelled to do. If they don't charge him for it, or at least produce evidence like dash cam footage of impaired driving...there's reasonable doubt he was truly impaired by anything. And judging by the fact that this "DUI expert" got it wrong, there's probably more footage of the same officer making a mistake or three, which calls into question his credibility. So yes being overzealous to charge him with something because they got a call and he "seemed impaired" is still in play. They're all things Oliver's lawyer can bring up to say "drop the charges or see you in court." And don't blame me for your use of opioids as an example. The reason I'm discussing Adderall is because it is prescribed to improve focus, whereas DUI is an issue of lack of focus. If he had been on opioids for a long time, I wouldn't even bother to mount a defense. What "mistake"? There was report of erratic driving in a 911 call. They found the car fitting the 911 description and pulled him over. The call was grounds for the stop--that's been settled. So the case has nothing to do with what they "witnessed" other than the FST (your "seemed impaired") and his admission to be using a substance that Texas doesn't let you legally use while driving (doctor's note or not). You keep harping on the indications for adderall...but they are clearly irrelevant, just as the indications for a pain management specialist prescribing narcotics to allow a person in chronic pain to function in their activities of daily living are irrelevant to the legal operation of a car in that state. You can repeat it infinitely, but a judge knows what is on the list of prohibited meds/drugs/etc---and he/she knows amphetamines are on that list. He/she doesn't care what you told your doctor you needed them prescribed for. It's not, in and of itself, a valid defense. DA: "your defendant had adderall, a substance Texas DWI law prohibits in the legal operation of a car, in his system at the time he was pulled over, therefore he is charged with DUI" You: "he NEEDS that medicine to FOCUS on stuff! Ergo you must drop the charges or I'll see you in court!!" (exeunt). It would be that funny to everyone but Oliver, had he amphetamines in his tox screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: What "mistake"? There was report of erratic driving in a 911 call. They found the car fitting the 911 description and pulled him over. The call was grounds for the stop--that's been settled. So the case has nothing to do with what they "witnessed" other than the FST (your "seemed impaired") and his admission to be using a substance that Texas doesn't let you legally use while driving (doctor's note or not). You keep harping on the indications for adderall...but they are clearly irrelevant, just as the indications for a pain management specialist prescribing narcotics to allow a person in chronic pain to function in their activities of daily living are irrelevant to the legal operation of a car in that state. You can repeat it infinitely, but a judge knows what is on the list of prohibited meds/drugs/etc---and he/she knows amphetamines are on that list. He/she doesn't care what you told your doctor you needed them prescribed for. It's not, in and of itself, a valid defense. DA: "your defendant had adderall, a substance Texas DWI law prohibits in the legal operation of a car, in his system at the time he was pulled over, therefore he is charged with DUI" You: "he NEEDS that medicine to FOCUS on stuff! Ergo you must drop the charges or I'll see you in court!!" (exeunt). It would be that funny to everyone but Oliver, had he amphetamines in his tox screen. What mistake? The "DUI expert" claims that he seems impaired by something other than alcohol, the tox screen comes back negative...and "what mistake?"? You think that that's the first time that's happened to that officer? And yeah I keep harping because Adderall is used to help people focus and people manage to get off on=f alcohol DUI's all the time. Seems like the law would be pretty specific there as well, no? You see, fighting charges isn't reserved just for people with the Cheaters, WEO. Why you have this odd belief that Bills players should always just accept the charges levied against them is anyone's guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Doc said: What mistake? The "DUI expert" claims that he seems impaired by something other than alcohol, the tox screen comes back negative...and "what mistake?"? You think that that's the first time that's happened to that officer? And yeah I keep harping because Adderall is used to help people focus and people manage to get off on=f alcohol DUI's all the time. Seems like the law would be pretty specific there as well, no? You see, fighting charges isn't reserved just for people with the Cheaters, WEO. Why you have this odd belief that Bills players should always just accept the charges levied against them is anyone's guess? Did I say he "should accept the charges leveled"? He should have gotten on twitter on his way out of the station the next day and tell the world what happened to him. He didn't. Also, it should go without saying that had his tox screen come back positive, the "DUI expert"'s prior policing habits would be a fruitless avenue of doubt--unless they include evidence tampering. Another dead end, F doc Bailey.... The rest of you post is gibberish at this point. The law is very specific. Nowhere does it allow alcohol use while driving..."to help people focus". People get off by challenging the Breathalyzer, the blood test, the stop--whatever they can. They don't get off by suggesting that the laws banning drunk driving should allow for therapeutic exceptions. You're all over the place now. Edited August 13, 2020 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Did I say he "should accept the charges leveled"? He should have gotten on twitter on his way out of the station the next day and tell the world what happened to him. He didn't. Also, it should go without saying that had his tox screen come back positive, the "DUI expert"'s prior policing habits would be a fruitless avenue of doubt--unless they include evidence tampering. Another dead end, F doc Bailey.... The rest of you post is gibberish at this point. The law is very specific. Nowhere does it allow alcohol use while driving..."to help people focus". People get off by challenging the Breathalyzer, the blood test, the stop--whatever they can. They don't get off by suggesting that the laws banning drunk driving should allow for therapeutic exceptions. You're all over the place now. The only gibberish is the "he should have told the whole world what happened the next day" thing because that would have proven his innocence. Like you or anyone else would have believed him. Hell you have the tox screen in your face and you're still jabbering-on about how he was sweating this or that, as if he has/had no idea what and when he put something in his body. My advice to you is not to talk about Bills players' cases until they're settled. They rarely go the way you want. Edited August 13, 2020 by Doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Doc said: The only gibberish is the "he should have told the whole world what happened the next day" thing because that would have proven his innocence. Like you or anyone else would have believed him. Hell you have the tox screen in your face and you're still jabbering-on about how he was sweating this or that, as if he has/had no idea what and when he put something in his body. My advice to you is not to talk about Bills players' cases until they're settled. They rarely go the way you want. yikes Edited August 13, 2020 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Doc said: Gotcha. You offering-up your wife? No, myself silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistofFate Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 On 8/10/2020 at 11:54 AM, Doc said: Does this happen to white drivers as well? It happened to me and I'm white...funny thing is, it too, happened to me in Texas. It should be called DWIT, Driving While In Texas. I was pulled over doing absolutely nothing wrong, simply because I had an out of state plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts