Comment history

Civil suit hits Collins for $75K

One more time, folks...She does not have the option of "filing" criminal charges. Only the D.A.'s office can do that. And just because the D.A. hasn't pressed charges yet doesn't mean he won't. It's pretty normal for an investigation to go on for this long or longer before charges are made. The state has to get all its ducks in a row before it goes to court or it loses. There aren't do-overs after an acquittal. Some of those "ducks" involve a lot of waiting...sent a DNA sample to the KBI lately to have it analyzed? Probably not. There are a lot of steps that go into a criminal case that most people don't know about because those things aren't fodder for crime-tv shows. So why did she go the civil route? As someone pointed out earlier, the statute of limitations was about to run for a civil battery suit. Maybe she was worried the D.A. wouldn't press charges and she'd have no options for recourse. I don't know. But I'm betting if she were a "gold-digger" she wouldn't have waited this long to file a petition. If the D.A. doesn't decide to press charges, it could by for myriad reasons. Whoever said earlier that it's a he-said she-said situation is right, in regards to many sexual assault cases. And if the composition of the jury is anything like the composition of this bulletin board, you can imagine why the prosecutor might not want to bet on the "she-saids" winning.

June 16, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Police investigate report that illegal touching occurred between a 31-year-old man and 9-year-old girl

Shout-out to GaDuGi SafeCenter for providing "Wednesdays at Liberty Hall!" They do programming (activities, food, prizes, etc.) every Wednesday afternoon from 2-4 so the kids have something constructive to do.

May 15, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Leaders warn of mail scam

Has anyone here received on of these letters, and if so, can you tell me what name was on the return address? I just got a letter delivered to my house but addressed to my landlords, which never happens. If this is what it is, then I won't have to bother sending it to them.

May 14, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wage trap

I'd just like to address one of mr. reynolds' assumptions: "Your income will increase if the results of your work improve their profitability and or sales revenue." I've not seen that happen in any of the minimum-wage jobs that I've worked. I'm talking about the $2.15 minimum wage. In my years as a server, I never heard of any of my colleagues getting a raise, even ones who had worked in the same restaurant for years. Here's an example from one restaurant. I definitely improved its profitability through my hard work. The restaurant was able to reduce the number of servers on the floor by at least half (if not send everyone else home) because they knew I could and would handle all of the remaining work. Certainly they were saving money by paying me and not five more people. How was I rewarded? Not with a raise. Not with a promotion. What the restaurant did do was, I think, more indicative of the environment in which minimum-wage earners are working. At the end of one busy 12-hour shift, I sat down in the breakroom to roll silverware (a 30-45 minute project). My manager informed me that "corporate" had learned of a study suggesting they might reduce the number of hours paid by not allowing servers to sit to roll silverware. (If they're standing, tired, and their feet hurt, after all, it would go a little faster and we could pay for 30 minutes instead of $2.15 an hour, mind you.)

May 12, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Enduring cancer without coverage

but even if she had followed your lead and saved up for that student insurance, it wouldn't have done much for her. it's a joke. and whoever was implying that students could afford insurance if they didn't spend so much of their loans on booze obviously hasn't been to school in quite some time. the maximum direct loan amount is capped at $20,500/year (as it has been for 30 years). my tuition and fees alone this year were around $14,000 (i'm a first year at ku law with tracie.) above that, you can take out federal "plus" loans, which have interest higher than some cards. even then, you can only take up to your "cost of attendance," which is supposed to reflect your cost of living and tuition/fees/books. my cost of attendance for the year is around $28,000. the moral of the story being that when you are expected to live on $14,000/year, $90/month for an insurance plan that doesn't cover anything seems like less and less of a reasonable (or even possible) idea. (and to those who want to talk about working through school: trust me, law school is different. i worked multiple jobs during undergrad and didn't believe them when they told me i wouldn't be able to swing it my first year of law school.)

May 5, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill approved that would test drivers after accidents

Buggie7:Did you read before you posted? This bill wouldn't allow for drivers to be tested if an officer suspect them - the current law already does that. This bill would mandate it for every driver after every accident. There is no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion requirement, as there is in current law. That's what this whole debate is about.That's why a lot of people, not just "the pot smokers and after work or lunchtime boozers," are upset. We're talking about a search in the absence of suspicion here, so anyone who thinks our constitutional right against unreasonable searches is a good thing should, at the least, be paying attention.

May 5, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill approved that would test drivers after accidents

Sigmund: "As for railroad accidents, I would bet that far more people are injured or killed annually in automobile accidents Kansas than accidents that involve trains nationwide."That is true, but it seems kind of like comparing apples and oranges. A single car accident would generally involve a few people, maybe more in the instance of a multi-car pile-up. A single trainwreck could injure or kill hundreds of people. In coming down on the side of the special interest in public safety, the court weighed heavily on this factor, emphasizing the deterrent value of letting engineers know that they would be tested immediately after an accident regardless of culpability or suspicion. I don't find the deterrent argument for individual drivers so compelling. As has been discussed at length above, drugs that were taken weeks or months beforehand can show up in a test, and I don't imagine this law will deter many people who smoked pot one week from driving the next. The current law provides sufficient deterrence for driving under the influence. Whether the current law is being used to its potential is a different question. If it is being underenforced, that is, if officers are not testing when they should, there are remedies more appropriate than mandating testing of everyone involved in every accident."Although engineers consent to the testing as a condition of employment, drivers also consent to testing as a condition of using Kansas roads."Again, apples and oranges. Drivers in Kansas consent to testing that can only occur when there is reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence. Engineers consent to random testing as a condition of employment. They know that they can be tested for drugs by their employers at any time, without suspicion, and therefore have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that regard. People who do not choose to enter one of the many fields of employment which require random testing, however, do have a reasonable expectation that their breath, blood, and urine will not be tested at random and without reasonable suspicion.(I've appreciated the good back and forth today - usually I don't get involved in discussions on this board because they're not often worth it.)

May 4, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill approved that would test drivers after accidents

Sigmund:You raise very good points. I guess I should clarify my earlier statement. While I firmly believe drug tests of drivers without reasonable suspicion are unreasonable searches and therefore unconstitutional, I highly doubt the current Supreme Court will agree. Just last month, they upheld admission of evidence found in a search pursuant to an arrest, even though the offense (driving on a suspended license) was not an arrestable one in that state. Still, though, they would have to balance the privacy intrusion with the interest being served. In the case to which you referred, there were different considerations on both sides of that balance than are present here. The railroad employees had a lower expectation of privacy than do ordinary drivers because they consented to work in an industry where they were routinely subject to drug tests - not so with the average driver. In explaining the state's special interest (needed to outweigh the requirement of individualized suspicion), the court emphasized the great loss of human life that could result from one trainwreck. I'm absolutely not suggesting that the loss of one human life is not great, but it is certainly distinguishable from the loss of a train full of passengers. Normal law enforcement is not a special interest, capable of outweighing constitutional requirements. The court distinguished the safety regulation of railroad engineers from "normal law enforcement" in holding it was a special interest. I would argue that determining whether there is reasonable suspicion that a driver involved in an accident was under the influence is "normal law enforcement." But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not placing any bets on whether the current Supreme Court would agree.

May 4, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill approved that would test drivers after accidents

The portion of the statute quoted above must be considered in context. The next section of the statute lists situations in which officers can request a person submit to testing. (Consent is presumed, in these situations, in the section quoted above.) Officers can request when TWO conditions are present:1. Reasonable grounds to believe the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 2. There's an arrest or an accident involving injury or property damage. This bill removes the first requirement. - reasonable suspicion. That's the difference and in constitutional terms, it's a big one.Keep in mind that reasonable grounds (or reasonable suspicion) is a much lower standard than probable cause and is very easy to show. Anything more than a mere hunch will usually amount to reasonable suspicion, so it is not as if the current language is preventing officers from testing drivers they suspect are under the influence. The officer in this case could have tested the driver if he had any reason to believe the driver was under the influence and he chose not to. The constitution protects our personal privacy by forbidding unreasonable searches of our persons. This bill would require testing in the absence of reasonable suspicion and such a search can hardly be reasonable.

May 4, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interactive Miles Davis Song Title Game

The Pan Piper! Great track from Sketches of Spain...which I highly suggest for background music while writing papers, etc. R it is...

April 27, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )