5 ms·

> she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. She is doing no such thing. She's just saying that without a positive drug test, she has no groun

> she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. She is doing no such thing. She's just saying that without a positive drug test, she has no ground to prosecute. That's an awfully big step. > My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!") Agreed. Although they did take two blood tests, and sent them out for screening. The penalties for DUI are exponentially worse than the penalties for reckless driving, and it looks better for the DA and all prosecution parties involved if they can get a DUI instead of a lesser charge.

basseq 10y ago
She is doing no such thing. She's just saying that without a positive drug test, she has no ground to prosecute. That's an awfully big step. It's a really nebulous statement: "Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive..." This can be interpreted two different, but equally semantically valid ways. The pessimist in me thinks this "double-speak" is intentional. Your interpretation is: "We don't have a test that shows the presence of any drug that impairs the defendant's ability to drive." My alternate (but semantically valid) read was: "There was a drug in the defendant's system, we just don't know which one because nothing we tried tested positive." Combine that with the valid but underhanded: "... prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt". Again: "We don't have a case" vs. "this guy is guilty but we just can't prove it legally". The direct, unequivocal re-write would be: "We do not have a confirmatory test of any drug in the defendant's system that would impair his ability to drive. As such, we do not believe there is a valid case on this charge."
EdHominem 10y ago
Nor any evidence whatsoever that there was intoxication. The DA should be saying "There's no evidence of that", not "There isn't enough to prosecute". She's lying by implying that there's a body of evidence that is just not quite sufficient to convict, as opposed to the FACT that all evidence points to not-guilty. Not insufficient, but directly contradicting the charges.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > The DA should be saying "There's no evidence of that" They're also prosecuting him for reckless driving. Reckless driving witnessed by an officer is also (some) evidence of driving while impaired. > FACT that all evidence points to not-guilty. Not insufficient, but directly contradicting the charges. You can be impaired while on legal substances that don't show up on drug tests. The officer's testimony makes the DA's statement perfectly valid. And the evidence aside from the chemical test tends to bolster the state's case.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > You can be impaired while on legal substances that don't show up on drug tests. Right, but they aren't just a lack of evidence for coked-up-driving, they're actually evidence FOR clean driving. > They're also prosecuting him for reckless driving. Well, they're using the reckless driving charge as a license to fish, falling back to it only when they've exhausted other avenues. > "Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” The DA is taking for granted that he was on something and is blaming the tests for failing to show that, not using that as evidence that she might be mistaken. They go on to say "not believe we can prove the charge beyond" when they should be saying "believe there is no evidence whatsoever for this charge." The tone of the article is that this man is guilty and the system is simply unable to prove it.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > Right, but they aren't just a lack of evidence for coked-up-driving, they're actually evidence FOR clean driving. You stated that there was no evidence for impaired driving. Based on reported observed behavior it was. > Well, they're using the reckless driving charge as a license to fish, falling back to it only when they've exhausted other avenues. That's a huge assumption to make. What are they "fishing" for? They already have an officer making a statement that he was driving erratically. That's pretty much him dead to rights. > they should be saying "believe there is no evidence whatsoever for this charge." There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. > system is simply unable to prove it. The system is very able to "prove" that he was driving poorly and he will be punished accordingly.

basseq 10y ago

She is doing no such thing. She's just saying that without a positive drug test, she has no ground to prosecute. That's an awfully big step. It's a really nebulous statement: "Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive..." This can be interpreted two different, but equally semantically valid ways. The pessimist in me thinks this "double-speak" is intentional. Your interpretation is: "We don't have a test that shows the presence of any drug that impairs the defendant's ability to drive." My alternate (but semantically valid) read was: "There was a drug in the defendant's system, we just don't know which one because nothing we tried tested positive." Combine that with the valid but underhanded: "... prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt". Again: "We don't have a case" vs. "this guy is guilty but we just can't prove it legally". The direct, unequivocal re-write would be: "We do not have a confirmatory test of any drug in the defendant's system that would impair his ability to drive. As such, we do not believe there is a valid case on this charge."

EdHominem 10y ago

Nor any evidence whatsoever that there was intoxication. The DA should be saying "There's no evidence of that", not "There isn't enough to prosecute". She's lying by implying that there's a body of evidence that is just not quite sufficient to convict, as opposed to the FACT that all evidence points to not-guilty. Not insufficient, but directly contradicting the charges.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> The DA should be saying "There's no evidence of that" They're also prosecuting him for reckless driving. Reckless driving witnessed by an officer is also (some) evidence of driving while impaired. > FACT that all evidence points to not-guilty. Not insufficient, but directly contradicting the charges. You can be impaired while on legal substances that don't show up on drug tests. The officer's testimony makes the DA's statement perfectly valid. And the evidence aside from the chemical test tends to bolster the state's case.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > You can be impaired while on legal substances that don't show up on drug tests. Right, but they aren't just a lack of evidence for coked-up-driving, they're actually evidence FOR clean driving. > They're also prosecuting him for reckless driving. Well, they're using the reckless driving charge as a license to fish, falling back to it only when they've exhausted other avenues. > "Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” The DA is taking for granted that he was on something and is blaming the tests for failing to show that, not using that as evidence that she might be mistaken. They go on to say "not believe we can prove the charge beyond" when they should be saying "believe there is no evidence whatsoever for this charge." The tone of the article is that this man is guilty and the system is simply unable to prove it.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > Right, but they aren't just a lack of evidence for coked-up-driving, they're actually evidence FOR clean driving. You stated that there was no evidence for impaired driving. Based on reported observed behavior it was. > Well, they're using the reckless driving charge as a license to fish, falling back to it only when they've exhausted other avenues. That's a huge assumption to make. What are they "fishing" for? They already have an officer making a statement that he was driving erratically. That's pretty much him dead to rights. > they should be saying "believe there is no evidence whatsoever for this charge." There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. > system is simply unable to prove it. The system is very able to "prove" that he was driving poorly and he will be punished accordingly.