8 ms·

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 ly

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.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. The only 'evidence' is the uncorroborated word of an officer. Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. And more and more we're having officer testimony proved to be a lie on the evening news. > That's a huge assumption to make. What are they "fishing" for? Charges that will stick. The same as when they say they see erratic driving and demand to search your car. Something that will justify the cop-rage that resulted in the guy being pulled over. > There is no chemical test evidence. Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. And all else being equal, a citizen who had a clean test is less likely to have been driving erratically than one who hasn't. It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence, and then use that weight to suggest that the negative evidence now doesn't apply. > The system is very able to "prove" that he was driving poorly and he will be punished accordingly. The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. The word prove doesn't apply in any way. And in fact in proper terminology the system merely "finds" him guilty, it doesn't claim to prove guilt.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? The word of an officer holds weight in court. Heck, the word of any eyewitness is evidence. > Something that will justify the cop-rage Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? > Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. > It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. > The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. I don't see why you're talking around that.

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.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > There is no chemical test evidence. There is plenty of behavioural evidence, evidence that warrants a reckless driving test. The only 'evidence' is the uncorroborated word of an officer. Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. And more and more we're having officer testimony proved to be a lie on the evening news. > That's a huge assumption to make. What are they "fishing" for? Charges that will stick. The same as when they say they see erratic driving and demand to search your car. Something that will justify the cop-rage that resulted in the guy being pulled over. > There is no chemical test evidence. Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. And all else being equal, a citizen who had a clean test is less likely to have been driving erratically than one who hasn't. It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence, and then use that weight to suggest that the negative evidence now doesn't apply. > The system is very able to "prove" that he was driving poorly and he will be punished accordingly. The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. The word prove doesn't apply in any way. And in fact in proper terminology the system merely "finds" him guilty, it doesn't claim to prove guilt.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > Yes, that counts, but no it's not evidence in any way. So it counts as evidence, but it's not really evidence? The word of an officer holds weight in court. Heck, the word of any eyewitness is evidence. > Something that will justify the cop-rage Instead of projecting feelings on the officer, how about the driver was driving so erratically that the officer felt as though the lives of bystanders were in danger? > Oh no, in fact there's plenty of test evidence that he wasn't intoxicated. No. There is no test you can take to prove that you weren't intoxicated. He was not intoxicated on any of the substances he was tested on. > It's a logic error to assign weight to the accusation in absence of any positive evidence The evidence in this case the the observation of the witness, an officer, which is evidence whether you see it that way or not. We're not talking about chemical tests here. > The system is able to punish him despite the lack of evidence. It seems like you're saying the word of an officer is somehow less than the word of a non-officer. If anybody gives eyewitness testimony to erratic driving, that's evidence. I don't see why you're talking around that.