April 24, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
One thing that seems to have been overlooked in the slamming of Branson---and I have no opinion of him one way or the other---is that even if you think a person is guilty of a certain crime, if you don't have the evidence to convict, it may be the sensible thing to not press charges or to plea bargain rather than spend time and money on a trial that will probably fail to convict.
Also, what you think the law should be doesn't have anything to do with what the law is or how it is interpreted.
Since we don't have the full transcript here of what Branson said, we don't know that this incident was the only one he mentioned or why he choose this particular one if it was the only one. It has received more publicity than many others.
Whatever the back story, I support much more stringent laws regarding drunk driving. Of course, the drunk person usually doesn't set out to kill or injure someone, but the person is still just as dead or injured as if they did.
In this particular case, my understanding of the law is that the driver who rear-ends another car, even in a case where the car should probably not be stopped, is still the guilty party. If that is the case, I would think that would be cause for liability---any law authority have an opinion on that?
One of the biggest points that always get overlooked is tolerance to alcohol. I remember a study involving police officers that showed a female office only had a 20 decrease in reaction time at three time the legal limit, everyone is NOT the same.
Everyone gets lost in semantics from time to time. The word reckless.
Well yes it is, stupid, and absolutely reckless to drive while intoxicated.
But proving someone was "being reckless" is a much different concept.
Was the person who obviously cannot control their motor skills due to alcohol still able to think completely clearly? I see many postings above talking about "he made a choice" or he "decided" to drive drunk. Not that I disagree, I hate drunk drivers. Just the fact that the person was driving drunk is evidence to the argument that he/she was not "being reckless" in a court setting. "If i was sober, i would not have driven drunk." First, one must be proven to be in control of their thoughts to then be proven reckless.
I have no opinion on the issue other than it is just seems to me that changing DUI laws is like a go to thing for conservatives to win over the middle. Sort of like making you favorite move in a sport. The conservatives know that DUI are not popular so they do it to get moderates to support them.
What you have to watch is whether they attach something else to it at the last minute.
The guy that had a couple of drinks had no intension of taking a human life, but it is just fine for that woman to walk into an abortion clinic and have her baby killed.... go figure.
What if the person under the influence doesn't cause the accident? Why is it implied that because they are under the influence they caused the accident?
How 'bout it? That would suck if you were the driver, however there are too many what ifs in this hypothetical you have presented. Are you trying to suggest that the fellow who needs new legs should also be charged.? Shame on you...Gandalf you and your tounge remind me of the white hand, not a true white wizard!
How about if a drunk pedestrian walks in front of a car, causing it to swerve, wreck and injure the driver? Reckless endangerment?
Branson appears to be bent on job security and legal bullying. The more the Prosecution can charge, the tougher they look and more they appear to work.
Alcohol is simply a poster child for revenue and punishiment.
A mistake in judgement is a mistake in judgement. Regardless if someone was scratched, maimed or killed. Distracted driving in ANY form; phone, kids, domestic conversation is no different! Elderly that are past competent vision and reaction levels are worse since theirs is not a temporary or spontaneous condition. Will any of these ever be addressed? NO.
Just because a victim, survivor, prosecutor or any other party has an axe to grind does not change the fact, there was no intent! "Presumed intent" is just legal B.S."
Laws dont need to be tougher, people need to make better decisions and be more forgiving. People make mistakes. Live life. Just because some people try to hide in rubber rooms does not mean others should be subjected to concrete rooms.
The press on the story of misconduct was limitied I am not sure why? Not just mine everyone who has an interest in this story.
I think he wants to take the focus off of his ADA who has been accused of misconduct and the LJW won't let us comment on it. So here is a piece of political grandstanding so Charlie B can look tough. Even though he's not. Hernandez was charged with a misdemeanor DWI for killing that cyclist and only spent six months in jail. If Charlie had a pair (of socks) he would charge this guy with everything he could, three times the legal limit and the officers smelled burnt pot on the kid, multiple accidents and previous offenses...once again weak...
While I'm ALL behind stiffer charges for drunk driving there are things that aren't discussed.
1.) The car Liston was entering was illegally in the lane stopped so he could get in.
2.) Liston had also been drinking.
3.) His father is or was a policeman down in the Wichita area - why did Branson decide to do something when it's a policeman's child instead of any person? What about the women in the accident on Maine street - did Branson include that accident in his testimony. That guy had been arrested how many times for OUI - at least three? One woman was in the hospital a long time and is still going through physical therapy.
Why do repeat offenders keep getting slapped on the hand until they kill someone - then they can be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Let's get some punishment that makes an impact!
I agree ol boy should be charged with more, but Mr DA your record speaks for itself. You trend toward the low end of the sentencing spectrum.
“We are able to charge a DUI driver with manslaughter if they kill someone but if they merely injure someone, the simple DUI charge is all that is available to prosecutors, creating an absurd and unjust result,” Why didn't you charge Hernandez then? Because you are a weak DA at best who has gotten soft since no one with a law degree has run against you since before the last blue moon.
Why do Douglas County prosecutors play dishonest games by multiplying charges or counts against a defendant who in the true order of things may be the real victim and plaintiff( especially on behalf of the KU's white-collar criminal administration)? For example, initially for political reasons and the careerist self-interest of a prosecutor KU might dishonestly railroad one false charge against a disgruntled former worker into the criminal court system and then suddenly as a trial looms closer without presenting any legal argument they will multiply the charges to ten or something.
It's a complete game and just shows how crooked is the State of Kansas . After completely bedeviling for months someone who refuses to accept a diversion for accusations they are innocent of, the State will finally drop the charges but refuse to acknowledge they are actually the lying ones who deserve to be prosecuted. In fact, they usually demand silence as a condition when charges are dropped-- upon threat of further harassment by the criminal injustice system.
Behavior like this suggests the State abuses the options they already have to charge defendants and do not deserve any more.
Driving intoxicated at three times the legal limit as well as slamming into the guy with nary a skid mark sounds like pretty decent evidence of recklessness to me. Branson is too vain to have simply tried it, with the outside chance he may have lost the serious charge.
Now he is just making excuses for his cowardice.
Why Branson? You'll plea bargain it down anyway.
how about irans finger removal machine>>??
just an idea, but it would be difficult to thumb a ride home
"However, Branson's office could only file drunken driving charges against Kuszmaul because of a Kansas Supreme Court rule requiring additional evidence of reckless behavior in order to file battery charges."
I don't understand why the fact that they injured someone doesn't qualify of evidence of reckless driving. What more evidence do you need?
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Cosmos Indian Store & Cafe
· Blend of spinach cooked with tomatoes, coriander, ginger ...
Jayhawker signature sandwich, $7.95-$9.95.
· All Jayhawker specials are prepared from fresh ingredients ...
Wayne & Larry's Sports Bar & Grill
Italian Beef Sandwich
· Juicy, thin-sliced Vienna Italian beef topped with seasoned ...
Wheat State Pizza
Buy any size pizza at regular price and get a 2nd for 1/2 price!
· Every day: get a 10" 1-Topping Pizza and ...
Bird Dog Bar
Chef’s choice lunch special, $7.95-$9.95
· All Bird Dog specials are prepared from fresh ...
Jja Jang Myeon (Korean Black Bean Spaghetti)
· Pork, black bean purée, potatos, onions, carrots, with ...
Famous Dave's Bar-B-Que
Soup, salad, and potato combos from $7.49
· Mix and match by choosing two options: Famous ...
16" large 2-topping pizza
· with 2 toppings & 2 drinks. Everyday special: ...
Henry T's Bar & Grill
Chicken parmesan sandwich with one side.
· Our new menu is almost entirely gluten-free!
23rd Street Brewery
Crown’s southern fried chicken salad or all signature wraps
Baby Back Thursday!
· Dine in or carry out Full Slab ala ...