Tag Archives: wrongly accused

Disabled Woman Beaten for Using Phone While Driving | Called 911 During Beat Down

Disabled woman beated for using cell phone while driving

Gosh, it sure is a good thing that the cops were there to make society safer! This woman could have totally gotten away with it and not been punished for her actions and just continued being a threat to society by talking on the cell phone in a parking lot in her car.

Yes, we definitely need more laws to make society safe. You can see by this example how much safer we all should feel because of laws. Laws protect and govern the subservient masses for their own good so that no one has to think, use good judgement, have discernment, or even common sense. Thank God for laws…

Also, what a great use of taxpayer money. We should definitely pay someone  to beat other people in the face when they misunderstand, and consequently disobey, police officers.

 

Disabled Woman Beaten for Using Phone While Driving | Called 911 During Beat Down

FEDERAL WAY, WA — Police witnessed Megan Graham parking her car in the lot at her apartment complex. She was allegedly committing the heinous crime of using a cell phone while driving (yes that is actually a crime in some police states).

Graham has cognitive and hearing disabilities and did not understand how things escalated out of hand so quickly. She apparently didn’t hear the officer commanding her to get back in her car and submit.

Graham did not respond to the commands and began walking her dog to a friend’s apartment 30 feet away. She invited the officer to walk with her. That’s when the officer began using physical force, grabbing her arms. Graham thought she was being attacked and pulled away. A beatdown ensued.

“I pulled my arm back, grabbed my phone and called 911 to call for help,” she said. I told the officer I had mental and hearing disabilities, and didn’t understand why he was trying to hurt me.”

The woman begged the 911 dispatcher to send help. The officer can be heard in the recording of the call barking at her to “stop resisting!” as he pounded her face with his fists.

All this for the stupid cell phone law.

Remember folks. Every time you support some Nanny State regulation, criminalizing some arbitrary behavior, you are inviting government agents to chase people down because of it, and beat the crap out of those who do not submit. EVERY LAW is backed by the threat of LETHAL FORCE.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/federal-way-woman-calls-9-1-1-during-own-arrest/nX8p3/

Facebooktwitterrss

Drivers Don’t Have to Be Impaired To be Convicted of DUI in 12 States and Pay Hefty Fines

DUI CONVICTION DOESN'T REQUIRE IMPAIRMENT

DUI / DWI laws were passed to criminalize the behavior of driving while under the “influence” of certain substances. This terminology seems to imply that it is directed toward a driver of a vehicle being currently under the influence of a substance that might intoxicate or otherwise impair judgment.

I’m not a genius or anything, but I do think that a different, separate charge would be more appropriate for people who are not currently being mentally impaired or influenced by an intoxicating substance, but, instead, were influenced or impaired by an intoxicating substance illegally at some time in the past.

After all, if you are not mentally impaired and your judgment is not currently altered at the time when you are driving then how can you be charged with driving while under the influence?

Having imbibed an illegal substance at some point in the past isn’t the same thing as being currently mentally impaired by it while concurrently driving an automobile.

Arizona drivers are going to jail, paying big fines and losing their licenses even after blood tests prove they were not high.

EJ Montini  March 11, 2013

What if you could get a DUI for having had a few drinks two weeks ago?

Crazy, right?

Except it’s happening. Not with alcohol, but with marijuana.

Drivers from Arizona and at least nine other states, including Utah, Iowa, Indiana, Delaware and Rhode Island, are going to jail, paying big fines and losing their licenses after having gotten driving-under-the-influence citations when blood tests prove they were not high.

“It makes no sense,” says attorney Michael Alarid III, who is representing a man charged in Arizona. “But this is how prosecutors and the courts are interpreting the law. And the legislature doesn’t appear to want to change it. So we’re hoping we can get the issue before the state Supreme Court.”

How could a person who is not high get busted for DUI? It happens when science meets politics.

Blood tests can detect two important chemical compounds that come from marijuana. One of them, THC, makes a person high and lasts for hours. The other inactive chemical, created as your body neutralizes THC, can linger in a person’s system for up to a month.

In Arizona, state law says if you have either of these compounds in your blood, you are guilty of a DUI.

“As things stand,” Alarid says, “a person from Arizona could go on a snowboarding trip to Colorado or Washington state, where marijuana is legal for recreational use, and then a month later he could be driving in Arizona, get stopped and be convicted of DUI.”

Not long ago, the state Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s law, which says if any “metabolite” of a drug like marijuana is found in a person’s blood he is guilty of DUI.

Alarid got a lower court to dismiss the original charges against his client after it was shown that the marijuana chemicals found in his client’s blood were inactive. The Court of Appeals overturned it. In its ruling in Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan,the court says, “We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not.”

Apparently, there is no statute in Arizona outlawing impaired logic. Not in Michigan or Illinois, either, where even the state Supreme Courts have upheld DUI convictions of people not under the influence of anything.

In Arizona, the case is being prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. I asked County Attorney Bill Montgomery whether he believed it was appropriate to convict people for DUI when the only marijuana metabolite in their blood did not cause impairment.

He responded, “The Court of Appeals decision is unremarkable in light of consistent case law on the issue of proscribing driving with a prohibited drug or its metabolite in a driver’s system.”

Because that didn’t answer my question I tried again, asking whether Montgomery would favor amending state law to differentiate between metabolites that cause impairment and those that do not.

He responded, “No. We do not want to create an incentive to ‘game’ how long it takes for any given metabolite to leave a driver’s system. Nice try, Ed.”

It isn’t a game. It’s chemistry.

Some states at least try to acknowledge the science. In Washington state, for example, a person is considered impaired if a blood test shows 5.0 nanograms of marijuana’s active ingredient. That level has been compared to a .08 limit for alcohol.

“An alcohol DUI in Arizona gets your license suspended for 90 days,” Alarid says. “After 30 days, you can drive to work and school. On the other hand, a drug-related DUI, like marijuana, gets you the same fines and jail time but revokes your license for a year. That means a person who wasn’t impaired could be punished more harshly than someone who was.”

Alarid is hoping the Arizona Supreme Court will take his case.

“In addition to the fairness issue, this doesn’t seem right in a state where citizens passed a medical marijuana law,” Alarid says. “It really puts an unfair burden on those patients.”

The risk of getting busted for a DUI charge when they are not impaired might cause some medical marijuana patients not to use the drug, no matter how much it helps them.

Of course, it’s probably just a coincidence that the politicians who could revise the DUI statute hate the medical marijuana law. As does the county attorney.

Coincidence. Yeah, that must be it.

EJ Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. The column originally appeared in The Republic.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/11/dui-drivers-marijuana/1979905/

Facebooktwitterrss

Toy Gun The Size of a Quarter Causes Disturbance On Palmer Elementary School Bus

calm yo tits

Has the whole world gone mad? Or is it just me?

How much damage can a toy Lego gun do?

Shouldn’t we just start arresting all children at the age of 6 and putting them in prison arbitrarily? I mean, they might as well get used to it, right? If this is what their life is going to be like.

Toy Gun The Size of a Quarter Causes Disturbance On Palmer Elementary School Bus

PALMER, Mass. (WGGB) — A plastic Lego sized gun caused a disturbance on a Old Mill Pond Elementary School bus Friday morning.

Mieke Crane is the mother of the six-year-old kindergarten student who brought the gun on the bus.

“I think they over-reacted totally. I totally do,” said Crane.

Another student on the bus saw the toy and yelled to the driver.

“She said he caused quite a disturbance on the bus and that the children were traumatized,” said Crane.

The school sent home a letter to parents of students who take the bus explaining what happened. It stressed no gun was on the bus and there was never any danger.

The letter also has photo of the toy showing it’s actual size, which is slightly larger than a quarter.

“I could see if it was you know, an air soft gun or some sort of pistol or live bullets or something. This is just a toy,” said Crane.

calm yo tits. a lego gun never shot no oneShe is upset with how her son is being disciplined. She says he had to write an apology letter to the driver, has detention on Tuesday and could be temporarily suspended from the bus.

The other student, who yelled about seeing the gun, also had to apologize.

Crane and that student’s mother, who did not go on camera, think this is sending the wrong message. The two agree speaking up is what the students are trained to do if they see something wrong like a gun.

Meantime, Crane says her son knows guns are bad and that they shouldn’t be in school.

“At six-years-old. I don’t really think he understood the zero tolerance policy and related it to this as the same,” said Crane.

We reached out to the Superintendent and Principal’s office by phone and email, but have not received a comment.

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!