Advertisement

mdfraz

Follow

Comment history

Convicted man in meth case making appeal

It's not quite that simple, somebody. There are certain crimes, specific intent crimes, where voluntary intoxication might be a defense. Specific intent crimes are when a person undertakes an action with the intent to achieve some specific crimal result. An example is burglary: entering into a location where you are not supposed to be with the specfic intent to commit a theft, sexual crime or other felony therein.

However, for general intent crimes, which constitute the vast majority of those in the criminal code, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. For instance, possessing a controlled substance is illegally possessing a drug, say, marijuana, but there is no further intent required. The mere possession is the illegal act, and intoxication is not a defense.

July 9, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Prosecutors dismiss DUI charge against former KU, pro football player

The fact that you have to ask whether he took a test or not demonstrates that you draw conclusions ("DA is just inept and worthless...") without knowing the facts. That's the best kind of comment to make; completely baseless and ignorant. Congrats.

June 29, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sheriff's officers suspect alcohol a factor in fatality accident north of Baldwin

Yes, since some people choose to abuse alcohol and make bad decisions, ban it for EVERYBODY. That makes perfect sense. Welcome to the nanny state.

Nevermind the fact that we tried it before and as others point out, it was basically a disaster with organized crime the only beneficiary. If something COULD be bad, ban it!

kawriver, the odor of non-consumed alcohol and consumed alcohol are usually distinguishable, and the "odor of alcohol" commonly referenced by police almost always refers to consumed alcohol. Of course this is all speculation because presumably none of us were there, but it's not hard to draw certain reasonable conclusions based on what's been reported.

And swagg, no one has really mocked the family. All that's been pointed out is that it appears the deceased made a bad decision, and three people paid a price (not to mention family/friends who are affected). He paid the ultimate price. It's just a fact, and this is a newspaper. To suggest they shouldn't run the story is utterly ridiculous.

June 27, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Police arrest two Illinois parents after surrounding vehicle in parking lot of westside Walmart

It was imperfectly done because one poster feels that the cops shouldn't have tased a resisting suspect more than once? The point of tasers is so that cops don't have to pepper spray, punch, kick, wrestle, use a nightstick, etc. and people are whining because they used what appears to be the lowest level of force that would have been effective. According to the report the suspect actively continued to resist. What would you have the officers do, give up? Ask pretty, pretty please stop resisting? It would be nice to live in la-la land where nothing bad ever happens....... I'm sure christiangirl has training in arresting resisting suspects to be able to give the opinion that one use of the taser was "clearly enough".

Unbelievable.

June 14, 2012 at 8:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Florida plane crash kills 6 from prominent Junction City family

Clearly a "pro" pilot would have been able to save the plane had the prop come apart like you've surmised? Ridiculous.

People fly prop planes all the time; some for work, some for pleasure. Perhaps flying his plane was a very enjoyable hobby for Mr. Bramlage and that was part of the fun of their trip(s). Point is, money or no, I would guess chartering a private jet would have been less enjoyable for them.

June 8, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Douglas County judge to hear disciplinary case against former Attorney General Phill Kline

Disciplinary actions in front of the Supreme Court (in fact, any actions in front of the Supreme Court) do not involve jurors.

June 5, 2012 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line

So few people remember that WE are the government and we get that which we deserve. We focus too much on the the rights we think we have (so many don't really recognize the rights we do have and claim rights that we don't) and ignore the responsibilities that are incumbent upon us as citizens.

Well done, sir/ma'am.

May 29, 2012 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, Lawrence joining forces to improve students' off-campus behavior

I knew this was coming......

I'm as much for the government staying out of my business as anyone, but exactly what "right to privacy" do you have in a public drinking establishment? And the face sheet of an arrest report is public, so this information has always been accessible (if you wanted to find it). What they are doing now is simply compliing that information.

Now, getting medical records of some sort, or prying into situations where people who may have been drinking at home or another private residence might be a different issue. However, it certainly seems that the thrust of this, and I would say experience would bear this out for most of us, is that binge drinking often occurs in bars or other public establishments.

Not to mention that for roughly half (maybe more) of KU undergrads, the mere fact that they may be drinking is a crime. Whether that's right or wrong is another issue, but as things stand, it is illegal.

May 11, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Federal charges unlikely for man whose truck was found with homemade explosives near Statehouse

"An officer saw suspicious objects inside, including an empty gun holster, and authorities called in the Topeka Police Department's bomb squad."

Do you really think that an empty holster was what prompted the officer to call the bomb squad???

I'm guessing (note I'm qualifying this because I wasn't there.....I'm also guessing you weren't either to qualify you to say there was no intent to harm) that the justification for searching/clearing the suspect vehicle had less to do with a search for evidence than it did making sure that people in that lot, the Docking building, the Judicial building and/or the Capitol weren't blown up. That it may now be used as evidence after the scene was made safe does not change the fact that police have the right, nay, the responsibility, to try to protect life. If there was reason to believe there was a chance at an explosion, you're damn right they had the authority to get into that vehicle and secure it. And an intent to harm or lack thereof has nothing to do with federal (or state) jurisdiction. It may determine whether, or what type of, a crime was committed, but not who has jurisdiction.

Had the police suspected bombs and did nothing and the vehicle exploded, would you have been complaining that the cops didn't do their job in that respect?

February 16, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man sues Kansas highway patrolman over Tasing incident

Absolutely correct. Why should a cop have to wrestle/punch/tackle a suspect, even if they are physically capable, and risk getting hurt? Cops face enough danger any time they put on the uniform; why would they voluntarily choose to engage in hand to hand combat when they have other tools at their disposal?

catfish, a handgun is the weapon of "last resort". The taser falls somewhere between simple physical control by laying on of hands and a firearm; similar to where pepper spray and batons fall (would you prefer getting you a** beat with a baton where you risk bruises, broken bones, concussions etc?). For the VAST majority of people on which tasers are employed there are no long term (or really short term) effects, and the taser is incredibly effective at gaining compliance and control. Of course there are instances where police step over the line and those are ones you hear about; however, what you don't hear about is the other 96, 97, 98 or 99% of the time where cops do their job and they do it fairly and appropriately.

Whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with the officer or not, they are to be obeyed. If you have a problem with what they do in a certain situation, take it up with their superiors, the city or county commission (or KHP), the media, or if you really truly think you've been wronged, try suing. But saying that use of tasers is "excessive force", especially without facts to back up that assertion, is ridiculous.

February 14, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )