# Catch 22



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

My felon friend Now faces a classic catch 22. 

One of the terms of his probation is that he must attend sexual offender classes
He doesn’t have any sexual offenses on his record but he was once accused of a sexual offense and the charges were later dropped. 
The instructor will not allow him in the class without admitting his guilt to the charges.
That would be admitting guilt to a felony which would send him directly back to prison first time with an even bigger sentence. 
But he doesn’t attend the class even though he can’t because the instructor won’t let him he will be sent back to prison.

Ever wonder why so many felons fail the probation?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If the sexual assault charges were dropped, why is he required to attend a sex offender class?

I'll make the next comment a stickie for posts 5, 9 and 17.
He needs to hire an attorney.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> If the sexual assault charges were dropped, why is he required to attend a sex offender class?
> 
> I'll make the next comment a stickie for posts 5, 9 and 17.
> He needs to hire an attorney.


Can his probation officer not intercede?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Can his probation officer not intercede?


The probation officer can only do what the judge writes up in his orders. He would have to go back to court. I had a friend who went through this and he wasn't a felon.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ever since he entered the prison system they have been trying to get him to admit to the sex crime. 
His probation officer is one of the people pressuring him to do so


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> He needs to hire an attorney.


Very true however his live in girlfriend has taken all his stuff so he can’t even sell anything to obtain money. 
He is disabled and would probably have qualify for Social Security income years back but preferred To work the odd jobs that he could instead of that.
Now his probation makes it very difficult to do that .
If he can’t find another Sexual offender class in the next week he will have violated the terms of his probation and be sent back to prison. 
At that point after serving his full term of this situation will become a revolving door. 
With him getting out violating his parole after not getting in the class being sent back to prison and awaiting the next Parole board hearing and doing it all over again


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> If the sexual assault charges were dropped, why is he required to attend a sex offender class?.


 In Illinois anything on your record can be used as part of a requirement for probation. 
Even charges that were dropped


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Is there a legal aid organization nearby?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The child sexual abuse charge was made by a correctional officer now married to one of the felons former lovers. 
Those kind of charges must be investigated in this state and after investigation they were dropped. 
But since charge Remains on his record so it can be incorporated into his parole requirements


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Is there a legal aid organization nearby?


I don’t know it’s a very rule area I don’t know anything at all about obtaining legal aid


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Expungement.
That is what the attorney is for.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Can you expunge a charge? I thought that was only for convictions


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

*Expungement* (also called "expunction") is a court-ordered process in which the legal record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is "sealed," or erased in the eyes of the law. When a conviction is *expunged*, the process may also be referred to as "setting aside a criminal conviction."

In Illinois I would expect the Judge would need to be paid first. Rates may vary by area.


----------



## Grafton County Couple (Sep 20, 2018)

ACLU?


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

Your friend should go to the class as instructed by the court and if the instructor will not allow him in the class, ask the instructor for a statement in writing and signed saying that: 1.Your friend came to the class. 2. State the reason the instrutor refused entry to the class. That statement should be sent to the judge. Do the same thing for each required meeting.

Frankly, something seems to be missing in the account you have provided.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Try this: https://www.lsc.gov/. You can search for legal aid in the zip code your friend is in. I would definitely get him to give them a call. That is crazy that he is basically being convicted of something that was dropped. He really does need an attorney.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

If he shows up at the class and leaves, he should ask, in front of the class, why he HAS to leave. Make sure he gets names of all the other classmates. EVERY time.

Mon


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tobster said:


> Your friend should go to the class as instructed by the court and if the instructor will not allow him in the class, ask the instructor for a statement in writing and signed saying that: 1.Your friend came to the class. 2. State the reason the instrutor refused entry to the class. That statement should be sent to the judge. Do the same thing for each required meeting.
> 
> Frankly, something seems to be missing in the account you have provided.


 Well there isn’t a judge involved in his probation Illinois uses probation boards


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

hiddensprings said:


> Try this: https://www.lsc.gov/. You can search for legal aid in the zip code your friend is in. I would definitely get him to give them a call. That is crazy that he is basically being convicted of something that was dropped. He really does need an attorney.


 Thank you I don’t know why I couldn’t find that on my own.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Well there isn’t a judge involved in his probation Illinois uses probation boards


Send it to the probation board. I would use certified mail. 

Hopefully, you are able to find someone who can help your friend navigate the waters.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Send what ?


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

TripleD said:


> The probation officer can only do what the judge writes up in his orders. He would have to go back to court. I had a friend who went through this and he wasn't a felon.


who exactly is a felon. never heard a definition of the word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> He doesn’t have any sexual offenses on his record but he was once accused of a sexual offense and the charges were later dropped.
> The instructor will not allow him in the class without admitting his guilt to the charges.





AmericanStand said:


> In Illinois anything on your record can be used as part of a requirement for probation.
> Even charges that were dropped


I don't think that's true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

goodatit said:


> *who exactly is a felon*. never heard a definition of the word.


Some convicted of a felony.
*Generally,* a "felony" is a crime punishable by a sentence of more than 2 years.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

goodatit said:


> who exactly is a felon. never heard a definition of the word.


 Someone convicted of a crime of more than one year and a day In Illinois.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/

"Illinois Compiled Statutes (730 ILCS 152/115 (a) and (b)) mandate that the Illinois State Police ("ISP") establish and maintain a statewide Sex Offender Database, accessible on the Internet, *identifying persons who have been convicted* of certain sex offenses and/or crimes against children and must register as a Sex Offender.

Persons required to register as Sex Offenders are persons who have been charged of an offense listed in Illinois Compiled Statutes 730 ILCS 150/2(B) and 730 ILCS 150/2(C) when such charge results in one of the following:

(a) A conviction for the commission of the offense or attempt to commit the offense,

(b) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity of committing the offense or attempting to commit the offense, or

(c) A finding not resulting in an acquittal at a hearing for the alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense.

The Sex Offender Registry was created in response to the Illinois Legislature's determination to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of sex offenses.

ISP has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion on this Registry and has made no determination that any individual included in the Registry is currently dangerous.

Individuals included on the Registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois state law.

The primary purpose of providing this information is to make the information easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individuals."



AmericanStand said:


> One of the terms of his *probation* is that he must attend sexual offender classes


You can't be put on "probation" without a conviction of some sort.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> ...
> The instructor will not allow him in the class without admitting his guilt to the charges.
> That would be admitting guilt to a felony which would send him directly back to prison first time with an even bigger sentence...


So Illinois has the one legal system in the entire US where saying something out loud, in public, foregoes the entire due-process, and you can actually be checked into jail, do not pass go, without a trial or even an appearance before a judge?

Or are you just making stuff up for the outrage-effect?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Sigh. Who is picking fights, now?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> My felon friend Now faces a classic catch 22.
> 
> One of the terms of his probation is that he must attend sexual offender classes
> He doesn’t have any sexual offenses on his record but he was once accused of a sexual offense and the charges were later dropped.
> ...





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So Illinois has the one legal system in the entire US where saying something out loud, in public, foregoes the entire due-process, and you can actually be checked into jail, do not pass go, without a trial or even an appearance before a judge?
> 
> Or are you just making stuff up for the outrage-effect?


Nope.
They can do it in all 50 and many of them do.
The key point you're overlooking is he's on parole/probation........not a a free man yet, but still under a sentence.
That means you technically *don't* have the protection of your constitutional rights.
It's not necessarily guaranteed they WILL lock him back up.........and no guarantee that they won't.
He's smart to be cautious............."Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't coming after you........"



But this is the sticky part he needs to get clarified - *in writing.*
Maybe someone from legal aid can help him with it......


> The instructor will not allow him in the class without admitting his guilt to the charges.
> That would be admitting guilt to a felony which would send him directly back to prison first time with an even bigger sentence.
> But he doesn’t attend the class even though he can’t because the instructor won’t let him he will be sent back to prison.


You (AmericanStand) revealed the big clue about why he is going to have problems with this class and instructor. Being married to one of his ex's should be a red flag that EVERYONE can see.

The first question I'd ask is, "Are conversations in this counseling class *confidential?*"
They _should be_, but I'd get that in writing first. Then he can decide if anything he says can be used to prosecute him later.
Unfortunately he IS in a catch 22 because if he fails to comply with going to the class, he's going back to jail anyway.
He needs to act quickly.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So Illinois has the one legal system in the entire US where saying something out loud, in public, foregoes the entire due-process, and you can actually be checked into jail, do not pass go, without a trial or even an appearance before a judge?
> 
> Or are you just making stuff up for the outrage-effect?


 I don’t think Illinois is Unique. 
Don’t most states. Put a felon on probation back in prizion if he commits or Is convicted of another crime while on probation ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The key point you're overlooking is he's on parole/probation........not a a free man yet, but still under a sentence.


Probation requires a conviction.
Supposedly the "sex crime" was dismissed.
The story isn't adding up.



AmericanStand said:


> He *doesn’t have any sexual offenses on his record* but he was once accused of a sexual offense and *the charges were later dropped*.
> 
> The instructor will not allow him in the class without admitting his guilt to *the charges*.


There are no current "charges" to admit to. 

https://legalbeagle.com/6615662-probation-rules-illinois.html



AmericanStand said:


> The child sexual abuse charge was made by a correctional officer now married to one of the felons former lovers.


That should have no bearing at all if the charges were dropped as you stated.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You (AmericanStand) revealed the big clue about why he is going to have problems with this class and instructor. Being married to one of his ex's should be a red flag that *EVERYONE can see*.


The ex has no relationship with the instructor.



AmericanStand said:


> The child sexual abuse charge was made by *a correctional officer* now married to one of the felons former lovers.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think Illinois is Unique.
> Don’t most states. Put a felon on probation back in prizion if he commits or Is convicted of another crime while on probation ?


Don't you have to go before a judge for parole violations? In Canada, violating conditions of rprobation can result in a return to prison but the duration of that term and any other factors are presented before a judge and they decide if the violations are significant enough to warrant more time served. 

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there is much more to this story than we're aware so it's almost impossible to offer much in the way of a suggestion, other than the man needs a lawyer badly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AmericanStand said: ↑
> I don’t think Illinois is Unique.
> Don’t most states. Put a felon on *probation* back in prizion if he commits or Is convicted of another crime while on probation ?


Probation is what you get *instead of* going to prison.

You can't get "probation" without being convicted of a crime and it takes a judge to do the sentencing, not some "probation board".

Until you use the proper words, most of what you say is meaningless.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

If you violate the terms of your probation, such as not completed required classes/counseling, you can definitely end up back in jail.
http://www.icjia.org/cjreform2015/pdf/probation road map[3].pdf


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think Illinois is Unique.
> Don’t most states. Put a felon on probation back in prizion if he commits or Is convicted of another crime while on probation ?


If he commits, no. 
If he is convicted, yes. 

No one can get thrown in prison, or back in prison, parolee or not, just for saying something outside of a formal step of due-process. If he admits committing a crime, in front of a judge, as part of a criminal proceeding, then he can be thrown back in jail, but not just because it is said in public. 

The state’s process requiring someone to admit to something they didn’t do is wrong, and worthy of outrage. But, saying that they automatically get thrown back in jail for doing so is just sensationalist and dishonest.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I might be wrong because of a misunderstanding but that’s not being dishonest. 
And perhaps I am wrong but I do not believe in Illinois that he has to go before a judge to be sent back to prison. The parole officer has been very clear that if he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed he can take the young man back to prison Just because he feels as if he isnt trying. 
He was quite clear that he can pull in the driveway grab the young man at any moment and take him back to prison.
I’m sure there’s some paperwork to be done at some point. 
And I’m not sure if that’s different from other states or not. But that is exactly what the parole officer told myself my parents and the young man when he was putting the ankle bracelet on. 
As Farmer Brown pointed out in the parole officer explained he is technically still a prisoner it’s just that the state of Illinois has extended the area of his prison.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

In Texas being on parole means you are serving out the rest of your prison sentence outside of prison. You are still a prisoner and if you have two years of parole you will be a prisoner for two more years. You are not technically a civilian you are a trustee. 

Probation is much different because a judge determines your length and your punitive fines. You are not a prisoner but very close.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I may have been using the wrong word points he is a parolee. 
As others have said he is technically still a prisoner serving out the rest of his sentence outside of the prison


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I may have been using the wrong word points he is a parolee.
> As others have said he is technically still a prisoner serving out the rest of his sentence outside of the prison


That was my assumption but I want sure about the laws in your state. I assumed they were all pretty much the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If you violate the terms of your *probation*, such as not completed required classes/counseling, you can definitely end up *back in* jail.


If you're put on "probation", you weren't sent to prison in the first place. 
"Jail" isn't the same thing as "prison".

The very first line in the document you posted says:


> Probation or *non-prison* sentences





AmericanStand said:


> I may have been using the wrong word points *he is a* *parolee*.


Then he was convicted of a crime and not put on "probation" at all.
If they are demanding the "sex" classes, it was likely a sexual offense. 

I think you really don't know what is going on at all, and your "friend" is feeding you a bunch of BS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But that is exactly what the parole officer told myself my parents and the young man when he was putting the ankle bracelet on.


I think you misunderstood.

Why was he telling you and your parents anything at all unless it's your family and not really a "friend"?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> That was my assumption but I want sure about the laws in your state. I assumed they were all pretty much the same.


 I forgot that everyone may not have read the other thread about his time in prison and efforts to get out on parole. 
Sorry folks


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My step-niece had to leave the state where she was on parole. She was sent back to prison a couple of times for stupid things that her visiting officer didn't like. And since the officer could decide any little thing was a violation, she was unable to keep a job to pay for her parole officer visits or the lovely ankle bracelet they gave her as a parting gift. She was also required to pay for the monthly monitoring equipment and the costs of keeping her in jail when she was there. 

Some states are worse than others. The only way this young man is going to get any help with the convoluted legal system is to hire an attorney. My step-sister had to hire a lawyer to get her daughter out of the system and move her to another state where she could finish serving her term without the constant threat of being returned to jail without a hearing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> She was sent back to prison a couple of times for stupid things that her visiting officer didn't like. And since *the officer could decide any little thing was a violation*, she was unable to keep a job to pay for her parole officer visits or the lovely ankle bracelet they gave her as a parting gift.


They still have to follow the law, and no state that I've ever heard of will put someone back in prison without first going before a judge. 

Probation, parole and any violations thereof are all legal proceedings handled by the courts.

I suspect you're only hearing your niece's version of events. 

If she truly "had to" leave the state, it's quite likely she could have gotten permission, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

If you seriously care about this person and they have no $$, hire and pay for an attorney for them.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect you're only hearing your niece's version of events.
> 
> If she truly "had to" leave the state, it's quite likely she could have gotten permission, depending on the circumstances.


True, I never talked to her parole officer. And yes, she did have to get permission. Her mom paid for an attorney to handle the transfer. The parole officer can take you to jail and you stay there until your hearing, supposedly held within 48 hours in that state. And no, they don't really have to have a reason. A parolee can be arrested at the parole officers discretion. Not sure about other states but it is true where she was living.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

For those that never heard of going back without a court hearing by a judge, this is how Illinois law works.

https://www.chicagocriminallawyer.c...ces-between-probation-and-parole-in-illinois/



> If you are accused of violating your probation, you may face additional charges and have to go back to court. Like charges for drug crimes or theft crimes, you will have to present your case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Statutes are in the link.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Why is this so difficult?

A man was convicted of a nonsexual felony and government actors are trying to coerce him into confessing to a sexual offense he denies and they cannot prove.

As for mandating he attend classes. The "fun" thing about both parole and probation is that they can make up most any terms. They could prohibit you from drinking Coca Cola if they want. They can also require remediation that has nothing to do with the offense for which you were convicted. In this case, the requirement of entry to sex offender class is admitting the crime just like AA requires you to admit to being an alcoholic. In this case, it would stand as a confession to a crime that he could again be charged with.

Now, are we going to play stupid games splitting hairs or discuss the actual issue at hand?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> Why is this so difficult?
> 
> A man was convicted of a nonsexual felony and government actors are trying to coerce him into confessing to a sexual offense he denies and they cannot prove.
> 
> ...


We have a portion of a story so suggesting all the facts are in, is a bit short sighted but if there are no other details, then I would suggest, once again, the person needs a lawyer way more than armchair quarterbacks. 

If you're going share your outrage, I would suggest that most practicing lawyers know what they're defending before they start their defence. Since you seem keen on mounting a defence, perhaps you could let society know what he may have been conviced of, how remorseful he is and what risk is he to reoffend and what steps need to be taken to minimize his risk of offending. 

If I'm not mistaken, those are the things the parole board looks at and I don't believe that any of those questions have been answered nor do I expect that information to be shared in the near future, nor should they be.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> We have a portion of a story so suggesting all the facts are in, is a bit short sighted but if there are no other details, then I would suggest, once again, the person needs a lawyer way more than armchair quarterbacks.
> 
> If you're going share your outrage, I would suggest that most practicing lawyers know what they're defending before they start their defence. Since you seem keen on mounting a defence, perhaps you could let society know what he may have been conviced of, how remorseful he is and what risk is he to reoffend and what steps need to be taken to minimize his risk of offending.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, those are the things the parole board looks at and I don't believe that any of those questions have been answered nor do I expect that information to be shared in the near future, nor should they be.


Unless you are accusing American Stand of lying, we have established that the conviction was for a nonsexual offense. We also have it on his authority as a knowledgeable friend of the convict that he does not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer. I dont know how it is where you live, bit here public defenders tend to suffer from an acute lack of motivation. 

We have enough information to establish that the man has been given a requirement with a secondary requirement of confessing to a crime he denies. In a free republic, we call that a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Pretty much everything we have not been presented is completely irrelevant to the point at issue. I will also add that making an issue of mistakenly interchanging "probation" with "parole" is irrelevant to the point at issue.

The unfortunate truth is that there are some serious problems in our criminal justice system, largely caused by its morphing into a business enterprise, which are not being addressed because criminals are a subset of the population who (understandably) don't receive much sympathy from the general public with the caveat that most people cannot or will not see past the criminal to the matter of principle and consequently do not see that they themselves can be victimized if they allow the rule of constitutional law to be ignored.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/
> 
> "Illinois Compiled Statutes (730 ILCS 152/115 (a) and (b)) mandate that the Illinois State Police ("ISP") establish and maintain a statewide Sex Offender Database, accessible on the Internet, *identifying persons who have been convicted* of certain sex offenses and/or crimes against children and must register as a Sex Offender.
> 
> ...


(c) A finding not resulting in an acquittal at a hearing for the alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense.

This seems to leave the door wide open for exactly what American Stand described. Charges filed and withdrawn. No acquittal adjudicated. Accusation equals de facto guilt. Fifth Amendment ignored at will.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> (c) A finding not resulting in an acquittal at a hearing for the alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense.


You can't have a "finding" without a judge, and and you can't have probation nor parole without a conviction, which also requires a judge.

There were no convictions for any "sex offense" according to the story we've been told. There was no trial.



IndyDave said:


> Accusation equals de facto guilt.


No, it doesn't.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't have a "finding" without a judge, and and you can't have probation nor parole without a conviction, which also requires a judge.
> 
> There were no convictions for any "sex offense" according to the story we've been told. There was no trial.
> 
> ...


There was a conviction, just not of that class of crime, hence parole.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> There was a conviction, just not of that class of crime, hence *parole*.


For the first half of the thread he was calling it "probation".

If there's no conviction for a "sex crime", there's no obvious legal basis for requiring that class.
The statute you quoted only applies to those *charged* and tried for "sex crimes".

Details matter.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The young man went to prison for DUI. 
I think there is a strong chance that he will drink after full release. 
But I don’t think he committed a sex crime against children . He wasn’t even charged in court with that just accused and investigated .


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Some folks assume that the legal system is tidy. It isn't.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Some folks assume that the legal system is tidy. It isn't.


Well said. Most people who have never dealt with the system take it for granted that it works just like the brochure says, which often is not the case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Well said. Most people who have never dealt with the system take it for granted that it works just like the brochure says, which often is not the case.


It's also "often not the case" that it always works like convicts tell you it does.
We're only getting hearsay information from a dubious source.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Some folks assume that the legal system is tidy. It isn't.


Post of the century


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Well said. Most people who have never dealt with the system take it for granted that it works just like the brochure says, which often is not the case.


Post of 999 years !
Think about this for a moment over half of the convicts on death row are later proven to be wrongfully convicted. 
That means the average accused murderer is more trust worthy than the state legal system.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Think about this for a moment *over half* of the convicts on death row are later proven to be wrongfully convicted.


So *you *say.

Science says:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/


> Borrowing a statistical method often used to evaluate whether new medical therapies help patients survive, a team of researchers has concluded that about *4.1 percent *of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death are falsely convicted.


That's why hearsay is pretty much worthless.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is a place of discussion, sometimes. We ALWAYS answer posts from our own experience, whether life experience or researched data/statistics that we dug out after a Google search.

One of my goals here is to be kind to other posters. I don't succeed with every comment I make. Sometimes I choose the wrong word or phrase without consideration of how it impacts the reader.

Taking one sentence out of that study is disingenuous. Following are a few more sentences that make me doubt the efficacy of the study.

"Here’s how their analysis works. It says that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under this sentence indefinitely, as opposed to being taken off death row due to being resentenced to life in prison or their fate being artificially cut off by the study ending, then 4.1 percent of those prisoners would have otherwise been exonerated. (And being exonerated and freed by legal action here is used as the best proxy for innocence.)"

"The issue affects a significant number of people. Since 1973 144 death-sentenced defendants have been exonerated in the U.S. But Gross says that the analysis indicates that at least 340 people would have been put to death unjustly in that same time period."

"“*There are no other reliable estimates of the rate of false conviction in any context*,” the researchers wrote in the study, published online on April 28 in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_."

The study didn't examine the inmates' records, sentences, or trials. They used a MEDICAL analysis technique to make up "statistics" that will be quoted over and over again, especially out of context.

Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of *lies*: *lies*, *d****d lies, and statistics*."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Taking one sentence out of that study is disingenuous. Following are a few more sentences *that make me doubt the efficacy of the study*.


I think it's more accurate than anything else presented so far.
Even if the "4%" figure is off, the real numbers are far lower than "over half".

Simply making up numbers is also "disingenuous".


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Yes. 

Did you read the article? It’s really ridiculous.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> Unless you are accusing American Stand of lying, we have established that the conviction was for a nonsexual offense. We also have it on his authority as a knowledgeable friend of the convict that he does not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer. I dont know how it is where you live, bit here public defenders tend to suffer from an acute lack of motivation.
> 
> We have enough information to establish that the man has been given a requirement with a secondary requirement of confessing to a crime he denies. In a free republic, we call that a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Pretty much everything we have not been presented is completely irrelevant to the point at issue. I will also add that making an issue of mistakenly interchanging "probation" with "parole" is irrelevant to the point at issue.
> 
> The unfortunate truth is that there are some serious problems in our criminal justice system, largely caused by its morphing into a business enterprise, which are not being addressed because criminals are a subset of the population who (understandably) don't receive much sympathy from the general public with the caveat that most people cannot or will not see past the criminal to the matter of principle and consequently do not see that they themselves can be victimized if they allow the rule of constitutional law to be ignored.


I'm not calling anybody a liar but a layperson sees and hears things differently than parole boards and the justice system. As a friend, AS may not know of prior convictions or how those may influence decisions. AS friend may be sharing information that's been filtered and short on details because it's a lot easier to blame a parole board that it is to accept responsiblity for one's actions or to be judged by friends for past behavior. There is also a chance that he's being unfairly treated and in that case, he badly needs a lawyer.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> The young man went to prison for DUI.
> I think there is a strong chance that he will drink after full release.
> But I don’t think he committed a sex crime against children . He wasn’t even charged in court with that just accused and investigated .


We usually don't lock them up for DUI unless someone was killed or injured in an accident or they are repeat offenders.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Door number three, apparently.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Did you read the article? *It’s really ridiculous*.


No more ridiculous than saying more than half the convictions are wrong.



wr said:


> We usually don't lock them up for DUI unless someone was killed or injured in an accident or they are repeat offenders.


That's how it works here too.
DUI alone isn't a felony without other aggravating circumstances.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IndyDave said: ↑
> Unless you are accusing American Stand of lying, we have established that the conviction was for a nonsexual offense. We also have it *on his authority as a knowledgeable friend* of the convict that he does not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer. I dont know how it is where you live, bit here public defenders tend to suffer from an acute lack of motivation.


I don't believe we are getting the whole story and I think parts of what we have heard simply aren't true.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> We usually don't lock them up for DUI unless someone was killed or injured in an accident or they are repeat offenders.


1st offense, that's usually true. By the 3rd time, you're almost guaranteed to get jail time.
But as mentioned more than once in this thread, the justice system is far from just and rarely consistent, especially in deferent localities.
The same people that accuse others of false stories, hypocritically claim their own versions of life must be true, because that's all THEY know.

I've seen extremes in both directions, people who got incredibly harsh sentences and those that got a slap on the wrist for killing someone.
Just this week a guy was caught driving around with a human torso from someone he ran over and killed........he was out on bond the next day.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/tennessee-man-arrested-human-torso-car-police


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't believe we are getting the whole story and I think parts of what we have heard simply aren't true.


I understand your point, at least somewhat. Two significant points of difference is that I am willing to take AS at his word where you are not and that the story as told sound very much like the justice system I know and I generally accept what I have seen happen as truth rather than believing that things work as they are supposed to in theory.

Ok know that drunk driving will eventually put you behind bars. When I worked for the department of correction I had inmates who got there that way. I have also seen enough cases of parole and probation both coming with terms that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual offense that I know better than to consider the requirement of attending this class to prove that a sexual offense happened. Again based on past experience, I do not consider it the least bit implausible that a prosecutor whose political wellbeing comes from putting heads on pikes would use a tactic like this to extract a prosecutable confession for a crime he cannot otherwise prove. It is possible that he honestly believes that this crime happened and is trying to address it. It is also possible that he is just looking to carve another notch to his credit. In either case the point I find most distressing is that if we allow such shenanigans, the chance increases that we or those close to us could find themselves on the receiving end of similar unacceptable uses of the system. Beyond this, we also have to consider that probation, parole, home detention, and required programs have become a very profitable business enterprise. We cannot allow it to get any worse about manufacturing new clientele when faced with a shortage or a perceived need to expand.

I also have to take into account that you are older than me. Much of your worldview is based on conditions that were generally true when you were forming your views but less so today. Just as we are seeing an increase in the volume, severity, and flagrancy of malfeasance in Washington, the same is also happening on the local level, taking us increasingly farther from the point of things being done like they are "supposed" to be done.

All said and done, I feel no reason to doubt American Stand and his story is consistent with the nature of the system as I know it, leading me to believe that it is most likely correct both in the intent to be truthful and in factual correctness.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I would not want anyone to believe that the man Has no record. 
In fact I think I have been clear I think he will reOffend. He has A few drinking convictions. He also has two convictions for assaulting an officer one of when he attacked the officers knee with his face and another time when he attacked an officer shoot with his face.
Drinking is definitely an addiction and a weakness for him.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think standing back and letting the system do what it will is the best option. 

I have a dear friend whose sons are only marginally possibly redeemable. Everyone has tried. Everyone is stepping back.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I will also make clear that my comments about Over half of the
Prisoners in Illinois being wrongly convicted comes from the newspapers and a piece in 60 minutes.

Illinois is blessed with multiple colleges of law. Each of these tends to take one Capital case and study it in depth each year.
With the best and brightest of each year studying the cases in detail it comes out again and again that the inmate should not have been convicted.
At one point with national magazines local newspapers and 60 minutes doing exposes about the situation the Illinois governor was embarrassed into resending the death penalty and moving everyone from death row to life .
That’s where I got my statistics from those cold hard facts not some strange fictional analysis of what could or should be but what real life lawyers to be actually where finding.
By the way I’ve explained this before more than once


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think standing back and letting the system do what it will is the best option.
> 
> I have a dear friend whose sons are only marginally possibly redeemable. Everyone has tried. Everyone is stepping back.


I have to disagree. If we allow malfeasance like in this case a vehicle to force a confession outside the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment with even the most reprehensible of offenders, we have given tacit permission to have the same done to us at a later date.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I guess what I really meant is that one must choose his/her battles. If AmericanStand has the time, energy, funds, and fortitude, then he can go for it. 

My life is filled with good people. Some receive a helping hand. 

I have backed away from a couple of folks recently and felt better for it. 

Fight the fights you choose.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I guess what I really meant is that one must choose his/her battles. If AmericanStand has the time, energy, funds, and fortitude, then he can go for it.
> 
> My life is filled with good people. Some receive a helping hand.
> 
> ...


In that context I would agree. I was looking at the larger issue of accepting or not accepting such nonsense as a matter of principle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> All said and done, *I feel no reason to doubt American Stand* and his story is consistent with the nature of the system as I know it, leading me to believe that it is most likely correct both in the intent to be truthful and in factual correctness.


Yeah, you've said all that earlier.
I've heard his stories before.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

For those with no good advice and nothing but contention to add, may I suggest the 'ignore' button?
it's a wonderful invention for this forum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> For those with no good advice and *nothing but contention to add*, may I suggest the 'ignore' button?


My "good advice" is simply be honest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I will also make clear that my comments about Over half of the
> Prisoners in Illinois being wrongly convicted comes from the newspapers and a piece in 60 minutes.


Then it should be simple to *show* that documentation.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Not everyone wants to jump through hoops held up by others, and verbally harassing those persons for not performing is a waste of energy and time.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)




----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I was looking at the larger issue of accepting or not accepting such nonsense as a matter of principle.





Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not everyone wants to jump through hoops held up by others, and verbally harassing those persons for not performing is a waste of energy and time.


But ironically everyone seems to want things their way. 

"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Not everyone.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But ironically everyone seems to want things their way.
> 
> "It's deja vu all over again"
> Yogi Berra


Everyone wants thing their way? You say this as if the alternative is acceptable. Please dont tell me that you consider dishonesty, malice, and flagrant constitutional violations acceptable, or are you one of those people who doesn't care about government malfeasance as long as it is happening to someone else?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Please dont tell me that you consider *dishonesty*, malice, and flagrant constitutional violations acceptable


I don't consider dishonesty acceptable from *any* source.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't consider dishonesty acceptable from *any* source.


Then what is the point of contention on the issue of not accepting malfeasance from the criminal justice system?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Then what is the point of contention on the issue of not accepting malfeasance from the criminal justice system?


That's your rant.
It has nothing to do with me.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your rant.
> It has nothing to do with me.


You quoted my post, made a disparaging remark about what I said, yet have not disagreed with what i said. That doesn't make sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You quoted my post, made a disparaging remark about what I said, yet have not disagreed with what i said. *That doesn't make sense*.


Maybe not to you.
There's no point in repeating the explanations though.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Half the inmates in Illinois are wrongly convicted?....
My goodness.
One need only look at the number of people arrested for weapons violations/shootings in the Chicago area alone, who are released without bond to see the justice system in that state is fubar, and not skewed towards the wrongly convicted.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I never said that half the inmates in Illinois were wrongly convicted I said over half of those in Capital cases.
I believe the number of inmates wrongfully convicted is far higher than half.
I can’t prove it I just have a gut feeling that capital cases got more and better attention than the lesser crimes.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Our criminal justice system is contrived by and composed of human beings, and they have been know to be fallible. Seems to me we're doing the best we can. Sure, mistakes are made but how many of those "innocent" people were maliciously convicted? Anybody got any ideas for improvement?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Our criminal justice system is contrived by and composed of human beings, and they have been know to be fallible. Seems to me we're doing the best we can. Sure, mistakes are made but how many of those "innocent" people were maliciously convicted? Anybody got any ideas for improvement?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wr said:


> We usually don't lock them up for DUI unless someone was killed or injured in an accident or they are repeat offenders.


https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dui-or-dwi-punishments-penalties-30321.html

"In all states, first-offense DUI or DWI is classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail. That jail time may be increased under certain circumstances. For example, some states mandate more severe punishments for DUI or DUI offenders whose blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest was particularly high—for example, .15% or .20%, very high considering the legal limit of .08%.

Many states also require minimum jail sentences of at least several days on a first offense. Subsequent offenses often result in jail sentences of several months to a year."

Depends on the judge. As stated you can be required to serve 6 months in jail for a first offense DUI/DWI.

I knew someone who was convicted of assaulting an officer. He ran from the cops, tripped, got knocked unconscious, awoke in handcuffs in custody and ended up with a terrible public defender.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yeah it’s pretty harsh for a fake made up crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yeah it’s pretty harsh for a fake made up crime.


There's nothing "fake" about all those killed every day by drunk drivers.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Yeah it’s pretty harsh for a fake made up crime.


I’m not sure I understand your comment. 

Why do you feel DUI is a fake, made up charge?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cause it doesn’t hurt anybody. It causes no one any damage.

Worse yet what are the results of this prosecution of a fake crime ?

Madd claims that they have saved about 10,000 lives a year 
The national highway transportation Board claims that drunk driving arrests average one and a half million a year
Simple math tells me that 150 lives are ruined For every life claimed to be saved. 
Several sources claimed that approximately 25 to 30,000,000 people in the United States Dr. drunk each year. 
So we have a law that creates potential felons out of nearly 10% of the population each year for a crime that doesn’t hurt anybody.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *Cause it doesn’t hurt anybody*. It causes no one any damage.


It kills 30 people every day.



AmericanStand said:


> Simple math tells me that 150 *lives are ruined* For every life claimed to be saved.


Whose fault is that?
The innocent people killed, or the drunks?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Cause it doesn’t hurt anybody. It causes no one any damage.
> 
> Worse yet what are the results of this prosecution of a fake crime ?
> 
> ...


The drunk had choices, they chose poorly so they pay a high price as it should be.

The family the drunk hit didn't get a choice. So no this isn't victimless.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’m sorry I didn’t realize that in your area it’s not a crime to hit and kill meme injure or create property damage .


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m sorry I didn’t realize that in your area it’s not a crime to hit and kill meme injure or create property damage .


It is. But just like I don't want my crane operator high on heroine or drunk out of his mind, I prefer the other drivers on the road aren't either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> The drunk had choices, they chose poorly so they pay a high price as it should be.
> 
> The family the drunk hit didn't get a choice. So no this isn't victimless.


Are you trying to say every fatal accident involving a drunk driver is caused by the impaired driver?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> It is. But just like I don't want my crane operator high on heroine or drunk out of his mind, I prefer the other drivers on the road aren't either.


 Interesting you’ve changed the dynamic of the question.
Note you said “drunk out of his mind”
But there is an important difference here ,you might not want your crane operator to be that but if you hire him you’re certainly within your rights to require that he live up to those standards.
Just like there’s no reason you can’t require him to wear a fluorescent glow-in-the-dark vest to check in every five minutes to scratch his left ear whenever the Star-Spangled Banner is played you can put lots of stupid requirements on an employee .
But citizens have certain rights and drinking alcohol is among them. It doesn’t seem right to punish someone for doing something that does no harm. This is in a country where we arrest people for what they might do. Except in the case of drunk driving. Also the standard for drunk driving is totally arbitrary .
So here we are ruining one and a half million lives a year with a totally arbitrary standard that has nothing to do with Performance of something that they may or may not do. 
As a male you carry certain equipment that would allow you to perform a rape. 
Should you be arrested for carrying that equipment in public?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you trying to say every fatal accident involving a drunk driver is caused by the impaired driver?


99.9% yes

I know you think driving impaired is peachy keen, so I have no intention of carrying on a discussion about it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Interesting you’ve changed the dynamic of the question.
> Note you said “drunk out of his mind”
> But there is an important difference here ,you might not want your crane operator to be that but if you hire him you’re certainly within your rights to require that he live up to those standards.
> Just like there’s no reason you can’t require him to wear a fluorescent glow-in-the-dark vest to check in every five minutes to scratch his left ear whenever the Star-Spangled Banner is played you can put lots of stupid requirements on an employee .
> ...



That's also why there is a DUI vs. DWI. One is greater and one is lesser. 

I'm an not trying to take anyone's right away to drink at all. Everyone is free to drink as much as they want to. Just don't get behind the wheel impaired.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol see changing the question again 
Everybody drives impaired 
Better yet everyone drives under the influence of alcohol. 
We just pick a arbitrary number and make exceeding it a crime.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Driving drunk hurts no one and the bad things that happen are already crimes. 

Get rid of drunk driving laws and 10 present of the crime arrests in 
The USA instantly go away.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But citizens have certain rights and drinking alcohol is among them.


They are free to drink all they want as long as they don't drive while doing it.



AmericanStand said:


> Lol see changing the question again
> Everybody drives impaired


Maybe you do.
You're the only one thinking it's ok.



AmericanStand said:


> *Driving drunk hurts no one* and the bad things that happen are already crimes.


That sounds like something an alcoholic would say.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol see changing the question again
> Everybody drives impaired
> Better yet everyone drives under the influence of alcohol.
> We just pick a arbitrary number and make exceeding it a crime.


How is that changing the question? Just because you don't like my answer?

Everyone drives under the influence of alcohol???


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> How is that changing the question? Just because you don't like my answer?
> 
> Everyone drives under the influence of alcohol???


You changed Question when you sad you didn’t want to take anybody’s right to drink away. 
Yes everyone has an amount of alcohol in their system all the time. it’s just a matter of what measurement do you want to arbitrarily decide is an impairment. 
You see the level that impairs people is different and people’s abilities are different so it’s all arbitrary because they’re not measuring what actually makes any difference. 
Do you really care how much alcohol is in someone system as long as they still drive well? 
In the same token are you OK with it if someone’s bad driveing kills your wife and family as long as they’re sober?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> 99.9% yes
> 
> I know you think driving impaired is peachy keen, so I have no intention of carrying on a discussion about it.


I like honesty and fairness. I've never said impaired driving is peachy keen. But if you think 99.9 percent of alcohol related fatalities are the fault of the impaired driver..... Who do you suppose causes all of those accidents in non alcohol related accidents? Do those people suddenly become better more attentive drivers when a drunk is stopped at a stop sign? Or driving the speed limit and runs a green lite?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

See what you’re trying to say


coolrunnin said:


> The drunk had choices, they chose poorly so they pay a high price as it should be.
> 
> The family the drunk hit didn't get a choice. So no this isn't victimless.


See what you’re trying to say or seem to believe is that being drunk means you’re going to cause an accident. 
Kind of like if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger I’m going to cause you injury. 
That’s not true most drunk driving does not cause an accident. 
a correlation so low it does not make sense to make it a crime. 
28 million people admit to driving drunk last year according to MADD
They probably drove more than once trip on the average if the average is only two drives per person we’re talking at least 58 million drunk drives last year
Yet only 10,000 people were killed according to madd.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like honesty and fairness. I've never said impaired driving is peachy keen. But if you think 99.9 percent of alcohol related fatalities are the fault of the impaired driver..... Who do you suppose causes all of those accidents in non alcohol related accidents? Do those people suddenly become better more attentive drivers when a drunk is stopped at a stop sign? Or driving the speed limit and runs a green lite?



No one wants to defend a drunk driver that kills someone but your point is still valid.
The hardest obstacle to overcome in proving the cause is the legalities used in these crashes.
http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

Someone can plow into you while stopped at a red light, but if you have a drop of alcohol in you and the other guy doesn't, you get the charge anyway.
That's crazy.
Check out the link and how they skew the stats on "drunk driving".
Counting passengers and even pedestrians who are drunk and get killed is the way the get the stats to look so bad.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The include it as an alcohol related accident if anyone in any vehicle is alcohol impaired 
So when a drunk does the right thing and has a sober person drive him home and there is an accident the accident still helps the statistics of MADD.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There are already laws relating to accidents why do we need to throw additional law on top of those ?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> I’m not sure I understand your comment.
> 
> Why do you feel DUI is a fake, made up charge?


This turns on the standard of requiring at least one harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred. The state of being drunk doesnt harm anyone save perhaps the drunk. On the other hand, injuring or killing people regardless of inebriation or lack thereof while doing so creates a harmed victim and should be punished accordingly.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> This turns on the standard of requiring at least one harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred. The state of being drunk doesnt harm anyone save perhaps the drunk. On the other hand, injuring or killing people regardless of inebriation or lack thereof while doing so creates a harmed victim and should be punished accordingly.


Is there some benefit to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and do you feel that those who have lost family members or had their lives altered by an impaired driver would agree there is no real harm in letting them drive?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

WR You’re missing the point a drunk driver driving does no harm. It is the Accident a drunk driver CAN be in that causes damage.
But because something can happen is not the same thing as it will happen.
Failure to properly control your vehicle is a crime so why create an artificial pre-crime?
The harm isn’t in the driving it’s in the accident which is already a crime.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Worse yet it appears that creating the crime of drunk driving has created more damage than the damage drunk drivers do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> do you feel that those who have lost family members or had their lives altered by an impaired driver would agree there is no real harm in letting them drive?


 Apparently there are 150 people whose lives are ruined for each person saved 
Does that seem reasonable or fair?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> WR You’re missing the point a drunk driver driving does no harm. It is the Accident a drunk driver CAN be in that causes damage.
> But because something can happen is not the same thing as it will happen.
> Failure to properly control your vehicle is a crime so why create an artificial pre-crime?
> The harm isn’t in the driving it’s in the accident which is already a crime.


Failure to control your vehicle is a infraction not a crime, even the first dui typically isn't a crime.

It isn't until you prove you can't control yourself that you get into trouble.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Apparently there are 150 people whose lives are ruined for each person saved
> Does that seem reasonable or fair?


Those 150 chose to ruin there lives no one else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The include it as an alcohol related accident if anyone in any vehicle is alcohol impaired


So you say.
Much of what you say isn't true.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> Is there some benefit to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and do you feel that those who have lost family members or had their lives altered by an impaired driver would agree there is no real harm in letting them drive?


Canadian law was originally based pretty much on French law as the British were aware it was in most regards equally restrictive with or more restrictive than English law and it was easier to allow people freshly absorbed into the empire to go by the law they knew. I have never had a reason to follow the evolution of Canadian law from that point forward.

American criminal law was based on English common law which requires a harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred. It does not allow for the type of arbitrary law that has become increasingly prevalent over the last century. My issue here is that laws which are simply arbitrary or illegalize what is thought to be a pre-crime are contrary to the foundation of our legal system and open an unacceptable situation in which we can be legislated into living according to the preferences of others which have no merit other than making someone else's tummy feel good.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Those 150 chose to ruin there lives no one else.


 Not true they probably had nothing to do with creating or enforcing this fake law. 
If they are alcoholics they have nothing to do with choosing to drink it’s not their choice. 
This law essentially makes it a crime to exist for alcoholics


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> The drunk had choices, they chose poorly so they pay a high price as it should be.
> 
> The family the drunk hit didn't get a choice. So no this isn't victimless.


What about the impaired driver that gets hit by a sober driver who wasn't paying attention?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing "fake" about all those killed every day by drunk drivers.


So someone caught driving under the influence should be charged with a fake sexual assault crime just to make sure they stay in jail? Pretty harsh, IMO. The neighbor in my story wasn't drunk. He wasn't even driving, just decided to run from the cops. I'm sure there was a reason he ran but it wasn't driving under the influence.

I am unable to find any scientific information about blood alcohol content of sober people. Only 2 sites mentioned anything except 0.00% BAC is sober, so if there is a normal blood alcohol content it is undetectable by the currently used system.

Alcoholics are allowed to exist. They just shouldn't drive after drinking. They can call a cab, phone a friend or drink at home. I am not going to browbeat alcoholics though. It runs in my family, I have known quite a few alcoholics. It never goes away, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. You can chose to either stop drinking totally or drink at home or let someone else do the driving.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What about the impaired driver that gets hit by a sober driver who wasn't paying attention?


That happens quite often, a lot more than the police want you to know. I think it's not right that the at-fault person gets a free pass when the innocent victim was impaired or had another issue like expired license or no insurance.

There was a woman driving on a suspended license that hit and killed a child just down the road from me. The child just stepped backwards onto the road right in front of the car (which was doing under the speed limit). If we still had vigilante justice the woman would have been hanged, even though she could not have avoided the child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> So someone caught driving under the influence should be charged with a fake sexual assault crime just to make sure they stay in jail? Pretty harsh, IMO.


Did I say anything even remotely resembling that?



> Yvonne's hubby said: ↑
> *What about* the impaired driver that gets hit by a sober driver who wasn't paying attention?


They are still guilty, whether they caused an accident or not.
The law doesn't say it's ok as long as you don't have a wreck.
It says no driving while under the influence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> *There was a woman driving on a suspended license* that hit and killed a child just down the road from me. The child just stepped backwards onto the road right in front of the car (which was doing under the speed limit). If we still had vigilante justice the woman would have been hanged, even though *she could not have avoided the child*.


Had she obeyed the law she wouldn't have been there at all.
She could have "avoided" the entire incident by not committing traffic violations to begin with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> WR *You’re missing the point* a drunk driver driving does no harm.


You're missing the point that the law makes it illegal whether you happen to think it "does no harm" or not.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ever wonder why the only impairment we focused on for years was alcohol?

I think it’s two things scale of involvement and ease of enforcement. 
I think that’s why texting is the new DUI


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A sober cop is a bigger danger to the public on the highway than a drunk driver and we’re not locking them up. 
A cop not in a emergency situation is seven times more likely to be an accident than the average driver.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Let's just be glad we don't live in AS's world where it is perfectly okay to get your load on and speed on down the road texting to your friends.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If you can properly drive why wouldn’t it be ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think it’s a shame to live in your world with the thought police and jail time for what might happen.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I think it’s a shame to live in your world with the thought police and jail time for what might happen.


Their going to jail for what they did, not what they might do.
Those would be added charges


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> If you can properly drive why wouldn’t it be ?


Many of those who feel they can read the mail and text while driving aren't as good at it as they may think. 

My son was in a properly placed pilot truck, ready to exit his vehicle, as soon as the truck coming up behind him stopped. The truck failed to stop, rear ended him at 110km/hr and my son was off work for close to a month with injuries sustained from the accident and another 2 weeks while his company got a new truck and had painted, decaled and properly fitted. 

The young man got out of his truck, clutching his cell phone and when asked if he was texting, proudly proclaimed himself to be a better driver when he was texting, because he gets bored when he focuses on the road. Somehow, his superior texting and driving skills missed all those flashing lights on a pilot truck and if he wouldn't have rear ended my son, he likely would have an OD load that would have killed him. 

Those victimless accidents aren't as victimless as you may think. His crew also had a young many ejected from his truck when he hit the back of one of their trailers. The memory of digging him out of the ditch, with some hope they could save him, has stayed with those men forever and so has the memory of the drunk who felt the best way to check out was driving straight into the nose of their pull truck and the texter that killed their coworker controlling traffic. 

I maintain that they aren't as harmless as you present.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Each of those things is a crime subject to their own punishment. 
I am a truck driver to 
While I don’t advocate driving drunk I recognize there are other reasons people can’t drive .


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did I say anything even remotely resembling that?


Referring back to the original post about the young man arrested for the DUI, then charged with the sexual assault. The assault charge was fake.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Had she obeyed the law she wouldn't have been there at all.
> She could have "avoided" the entire incident by not committing traffic violations to begin with.


True, but was it her fault a child chose to step in front of her car? Driving under suspension just gets you a slap on the wrist as long as you still have insurance. Stepping in front of a car gets you badly injured at best.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> Referring back to the original post about the young man arrested for the DUI, then charged with the sexual assault. The assault charge was fake.
> 
> I didn't get the impression the young man was charged with sexual assault at all. There is something in the parole conditions that requires him to attend a program for such and I'd hesistate to determine if the investigation for sexual assault was fake based on the bit of information we've received.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

WR, you are correct and that is exactly the problem. He was at some point investigated for a sex crime. The evidence was apparently not there. He is being required as a condition of parole for an alcohol crime to attend a remedial program for sex offenders. IT IS A CONDITION OF PARTICIPATION IN THAT PROGRAM THAT HE MUST CONFESS TO A CRIME HE MAINTAINS HE DID NOT COMMIT. Such a confession to those acting as agents of the criminal justice system could quickly result in his being convicted as a sex offender complete with a new prison sentence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Referring back to the original post about the young man arrested for the DUI, then charged with the sexual assault. The assault charge was fake.


None of that had anything to do with my comments.



Danaus29 said:


> True, but was it her fault a child chose to step in front of her car?


It was her fault she was there to hit the child.



Danaus29 said:


> Driving under suspension just gets you a slap on the wrist as long as you still have insurance.


That's irrelevant.
It's also possible insurance wouldn't cover you if you're driving illegally.




IndyDave said:


> IT IS A CONDITION OF PARTICIPATION IN THAT PROGRAM THAT HE MUST CONFESS TO A CRIME HE MAINTAINS HE DID NOT COMMIT. Such a confession to those acting as agents of the criminal justice system could quickly result in his being convicted as a sex offender complete with a new prison sentence.


So we've been told, but we really don't know if that's factual.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> ...Someone can plow into you while stopped at a red light, but if you have a drop of alcohol in you and the other guy doesn't, you get the charge anyway...


I’m throwing a flag on that play. 

That doesn’t even pass the sniff-check. You can’t really believe that. 

If you’re sitting at a red light, a few minutes after having a beer (approximately 7,092 “drops of alcohol”, or about 355 drops of actual, pure alcohol), and someone fails to stop, or otherwise break a traffic law and “plow into you”, they’re still getting a ticket. 

Reading the scene, the responding cop is going to know the other driver failed to heed the law. He’s not going to pause, mid-ticket, come over and check your BAL, and tear up the other guy’s ticket. 

At one beer, you probably wouldn’t even have been breaking any law. Heck, even if you were just over the legal limit, the cop hasn’t seen you do anything to indicate that you were drinking, and, unless he happened to smell it on you, wouldn’t even know to test you. 


If what you claimed was even remotely true, then it would have become a staple of every bad driver’s response to immediately tell the responding officer that you were drunk. If the cop found so much as “a drop of alcohol” in you, they’d get off Scot-free.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Each of those things is a crime subject to their own punishment.


So is driving drunk.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m throwing a flag on that play.
> 
> That doesn’t even pass the sniff-check. You can’t really believe that.
> 
> ...


OK.
Permission to revise and extend my remarks, please?


It'll vary by state as to how difficult it will be, but you're correct that it may not be _automatic_ that the other driver won't be found at fault and/or ticketed for the accident.
BUT................it is very likely that you WILL need a good attorney to prevent that from happening in most circumstances and you might need one anyway for the DUI you'll get, just for sitting at the light minding your own business after a few drinks.
drunk driver not at fault


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> you might need one anyway for the DUI you'll get, just for sitting at the light minding your own business* after a few drinks*.


You went from "one drop" to "a few drinks".
That still doesn't support the original claim.
If the driver gets a DUI, it's not for "sitting at the light, minding their own business".
It's still for driving drunk.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I had a friend in Alaska one time who got stuck in the middle of the road on his way home from the grocery store. He had a camper he just spent the first two nights just sitting on the camper waiting for someone to come along. On the third day he was sitting on the tailgate gate enjoying a beer and a state trooper came along and gave him a ticket for DUI. 
It eventually to a D-9 cat to pull him out so how much driving could he have been doing ?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> OK.
> Permission to revise and extend my remarks, please?
> 
> 
> ...


So did you get a 5 or 10 yard penalty?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> True, but was it her fault a child chose to step in front of her car? Driving under suspension just gets you a slap on the wrist as long as you still have insurance.


We need to present a valid driver's license to get insurance auto insurance. Do you not have to do the same in the US? 

Our insurance policies clearly state that if our license is suspended or revoked, our policy is void.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> ...It'll vary by state as to how difficult it will be, but you're correct that it may not be _automatic_ that the other driver won't be found at fault and/or ticketed for the accident.
> BUT................it is very likely that you WILL need a good attorney to prevent that from happening in most circumstances and you might need one anyway for the DUI you'll get, just for sitting at the light minding your own business after a few drinks.
> drunk driver not at fault


“_May_ not be automatic”?
No. 
It won’t be automatic. That’s the point. 

If, from the damage and position of the vehicles, it’s hard for the cop to determine who was at fault, and you are slurring your speech enough that he decides to check your BAL, then, sure, you being the one who was drinking may open you up to catching the fault. 

But... if it’s a scenario like your example, where the sober driver was clearly at fault, then they’re getting a ticket. Full stop. 

The part that _may_ or may not happen, is the driver who was not at fault, but had been drinking, getting a citation for that separate issue- and that’s likely to come down to how drunk they really were. It’s not SOP to just start breathalyzing everyone at the scene of an accident. 

Checking BAL is a search, just like a search of your pockets, trunk, or whatever. They have to have probable cause, or your permission of do it. If you’re not slurring your speech or acting doofy, and they can’t smell alcohol on you, they’re not going to have any reason to even check your BAL. 

If you are slurring your speech and acting doofy, you probably shouldn’t have been driving. 



By and large, if someone gets popped for DUI, it’s because they did something that brought attention to the fact that they’d been drinking. If people around you can tell you’ve been drinking, you’re likely well past the point where you should have decided against driving. There _may_ be exceptions to that, but they’re relatively rare.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> We need to present a valid driver's license to get insurance auto insurance. Do you not have to do the same in the US?
> 
> Our insurance policies clearly state that if our license is suspended or revoked, our policy is void.


 How do they insure a company car ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> “_May_ not be automatic”?
> No.
> It won’t be automatic. That’s the point.
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll make this clear like I do with Bearfoot.
I made a terrible mistake when I said that, please forgive me. I'll try to be perfect the rest of my life.
It was an obvious exaggeration that was taken literally and I'm truly sorry for disturbing the Force in the universe.
But if you think it's rare and an exception to the rule, all I can say is we all have different life experiences. And just because they are different, doesn't mean they aren't true.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> How do they insure a company car ?


Here in the US company policies require all drivers licenses to be submitted and okayed for all company vehicles. The first thing done with new employees in our company that will drive is adding them to the policy before they get in a vehicle.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> How do they insure a company car ?


Company vehicles are insured pretty much same way. New hires are added to the policy and the insurance company requires a valid license and a 3 - 5 abstract. Commerical policies still contain a clause that if a driver is operating a motor vehicle illegally or with an invalid license, the policy is void.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> How do they insure a company car ?


I mentioned earlier that one of my son's coworkers was killed by a drunk driver. The vehicle he was driving belonged to his girlfriend, he was driving while under suspension for impaired driving (DUI would be the term you would use), which voided the insurance policy. The estate of the woman he killed received no compensation and his girlfriend was left with a significant bill for repairs to her vehicle.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wr said:


> We need to present a valid driver's license to get insurance auto insurance. Do you not have to do the same in the US?
> 
> Our insurance policies clearly state that if our license is suspended or revoked, our policy is void.


Here in Ohio, not sure about other states, the owner is responsible for the vehicle and any and all accidents it is involved in. If the accident you described had happened here the owner of the car would have had to pay even though the driver was not licensed. Even if the owner of a car has a suspended license they are required to keep insurance on the vehicle in case someone else drives it.

Hubby was in mayor's court once and listened to other cases before him. Several were for driving on a suspended or expired license. As long as their insurance was current the mayor was handing out large fines and allowing the offender to drive home. Only one had no insurance proof and his car was impounded.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> Here in Ohio, not sure about other states, the owner is responsible for the vehicle and any and all accidents it is involved in. If the accident you described had happened here the owner of the car would have had to pay even though the driver was not licensed. Even if the owner of a car has a suspended license they are required to keep insurance on the vehicle in case someone else drives it.


We don't have to keep insurance on a car if it's not being used but do have the option of 'sitting insurance' which simply covers fire, theft and vandalism, although a financed vehicle will have a clause that requires a vehicle to be insured and what coverage is required. 

Certainly, the woman who owned the vehicle as well as the driver were sued but neither had any assets or income so the only recourse is our unsatisfied judgements fund, which is a very nominal payout. 

I do know of people in similar circumstances that have declared the vehicle stolen upon hearing that an unlicensed or impaired driver has been in an accident, because the policy is not voided in cases of theft but few are successful if the keys are in the ignition.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

We have garage insurance that covers "other than collision" too and Ohio has just started allowing you to have valid plates on a car if you have stated to your insurance company that you have the car licensed but it has been rendered inoperable. 

There is a stiff penalty for knowingly allowing an unlicensed driver to use your vehicle but most times people claim ignorance. "how was I supposed to know their license was suspended?" The car owner's insurance company still has to pay but those owners end up having to get high risk, extremely expensive insurance. I don't know how it works if the vehicle was stolen and involved in an accident. Thank God I didn't have to find out the time my vehicle was really stolen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How do they insure a company car ?


Each authorized driver would be listed on the policy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But if you think it's rare and an exception to the rule, all I can say is we all have different life experiences. And just because they are different, *doesn't mean they aren't true*.


With some it's *more* likely to be untrue, based on past observations and evidence.
You keep doubling down without ever having proven anything you've said.
Anyone who gets a DUI got it because they were drunk.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I had a friend in Alaska one time who got stuck in the middle of the road on his way home from the grocery store. He had a camper he just spent the first two nights just sitting on the camper waiting for someone to come along. On the third day he was sitting on the tailgate gate enjoying a beer and a state trooper came along and gave him a ticket for DUI. 
It eventually took a D-9 cat to pull him out so how much driving could he have been doing ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Here in the US company policies require all drivers licenses to be submitted and okayed for all company vehicles. The first thing done with new employees in our company that will drive is adding them to the policy before they get in a vehicle.


 Thank you for explaining how drivers are added to a policy . I think that’s pretty much how it works for a individual.

But that’s not really the question I asked is it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But that’s not really the question I asked is it?


Yes, it is.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Thank you for explaining how drivers are added to a policy . I think that’s pretty much how it works for a individual.
> 
> But that’s not really the question I asked is it?


I see where this is going. You are asking how, if a valid license is absolutely required, did the company get insurance in the first place when a company cannot receive a license. You got good answers to how people are added to that policy, but not how it originates. What it amounts to is the policy originates under the license of the company's official representative. Similarly, for a new trucking company to receive operating authority, its registered agent must hold a valid CDL.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> I see where this is going. You are asking how, if a valid license is absolutely required, did the company get insurance in the first place when a company cannot receive a license. You got good answers to how people are added to that policy, but not how it originates. What it amounts to is the policy originates under the license of the company's official representative. Similarly, for a new trucking company to receive operating authority, its registered agent must hold a valid CDL.


That is not entirely correct either. A new insurance policy needs to have all drivers who will be driving listed. It does not need to be the owner. There are some owners that don't drive. They just need to add the drivers who will.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But you had to have insurance in place to get your operating authority? Can you hire drivers before you get operating authority?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> But you had to have insurance in place to get your operating authority? Can you hire drivers before you get operating authority?


I believe you can. You are getting a policy that is more than just insurance on a vehicle. Liability, freight etc. Then you add in vehicles later and drivers as well.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> But you had to have insurance in place to get your operating authority? Can you hire drivers before you get operating authority?


Yes, you just can't put a truck on the road.



painterswife said:


> That is not entirely correct either. A new insurance policy needs to have all drivers who will be driving listed. It does not need to be the owner. There are some owners that don't drive. They just need to add the drivers who will.


Sorry for being ambiguous. You are correct that everyone who will be driving will be on it but it officially opens with one designated representative of the company even if you put everyone who will be driving on the policy at one sitting. In practice you are right, I am just splitting hairs for the sake of being as precise as possible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But you had to have insurance in place to get your operating authority? Can you hire drivers before you get operating authority?


Of course.
You just can't let them drive your vehicles and expect them to be covered.
But you know all that since you say you're a truck driver and run your own business.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course.
> You just can't let them drive your vehicles and expect them to be covered.
> But you know all that since you say you're a truck driver and run your own business.


You may want to review this statement. He can drive a truck owning his own business, and operate under someone else's authority. In that case, insurance would be the authority-holder's responsibility, not his. Further, most owner-operators with such an arrangement do not have employees.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, I'll make this clear like I do with Bearfoot.
> I made a terrible mistake when I said that, please forgive me. I'll try to be perfect the rest of my life.
> It was an obvious exaggeration that was taken literally and I'm truly sorry for disturbing the Force in the universe.
> But if you think it's rare and an exception to the rule, all I can say is we all have different life experiences. And just because they are different, doesn't mean they aren't true.


I wasn’t trying to play gotcha, or even nit-pick what you were saying. I got that the “one drop of alcohol” bit was an exaggeration, but the rest of the statement wasn’t even grounded in truth. 

An exaggeration is an untruth in magnitude only. They have another word for statements that aren’t true at all. Making up something like that, for the sake of outrage, just soils the conversation. 


I agree that DUI laws are imperfect, and unfair in some cases. You don’t need to make anything up to make that point.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> “_May_ not be automatic”?
> No.
> It won’t be automatic. That’s the point.
> 
> ...


As you say it’s a matter of degree. You seem to imply someone at the scene of the accident would have to be falling down drunk slurring her speech Incapable of walking etc.To be checked for BAC.
My experience has been the exact opposite.
Most companies require a drug and alcohol screening after any accident no matter whose fault.
from what I’ve seen at the scene of the accident the police in searching for good DUI statistics will test anybody with the slightest hint for BAC.
I once was part of four people that were tested for BAC even though we were not involved in the accident simply bystanders/witnesses.
So let me ask you something , who involved in a really big accident who doesn’t walk a little shaky ,hands don’t quiver ,upset mind, Disoriented , drowsy ,altered speech and speaks perfectly clearly?
Yep Yep there’s the reasonable suspicion


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> I once was part of four people that were tested for BAC even though we were not involved in the accident simply bystanders/witnesses.


I didn't think you could top the Alaska story.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Tobster said:


> I didn't think you could top the Alaska story.


The Alaska story isnt terribly different from my Nashville story. As it so happens there is a truck stop right by the stadium downtown that closes off part of the truck lot to rent game parking. One of the services that comes with this is that an employee will make a round of the lot ever so often. If this employee sees the keys in the ignition with the driver passed out the keys are taken and returned on request because the police WILL wander through and WILL write up the driver, passed out in a car which is not running, if the keys are in the car.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I love the smell of insurance on a hot summer day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You may want to review this statement. He can drive a truck owning his own business, and operate under someone else's authority. In that case, insurance would be the authority-holder's responsibility, not his. Further, most owner-operators with such an arrangement do not have employees.


Nope, no need to "review".
Nothing you said changes anything I said.
It really has no relation at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tobster said:


> I didn't think you could top the Alaska story.


Lol Alaska Is full of quirky stories and people. 
My ex used to say that I was the weirdest person she knew. But after we moved to Alaska in about three months she announced but I wasn’t even in the running anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> My experience has been the exact opposite.


You say that about most everything.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol Alaska Is full of quirky stories and people.
> My ex used to say that I was the weirdest person she knew. But after we moved to Alaska in about three months she announced but I wasn’t even in the running anymore.


My latest HVAC guy lived all his life except the last 5 in Alaska. He is a bit different. He's twice as boastful as a Texan I ever met.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> But you had to have insurance in place to get your operating authority? Can you hire drivers before you get operating authority?


Only the owner agent needs a cdl, there are services who do this.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> You may want to review this statement. He can drive a truck owning his own business, and operate under someone else's authority. In that case, insurance would be the authority-holder's responsibility, not his. Further, most owner-operators with such an arrangement do not have employees.


Under that arrangement he's a 1099 employee/contractor


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> You may want to review this statement. He can drive a truck owning his own business, and operate under someone else's authority. In that case, insurance would be the authority-holder's responsibility, not his. Further, most owner-operators with such an arrangement do not have employees.


If you're looking to split hairs and play gotcha, there is no assurance that an owner operator has no employees because they could have a co-driver but the laws are pretty much the same and if an owner operator is caught driving impaired, there will still be consequences and if you are operating under someone else's insurance, they are very likely required to add you to their policy by way of providing a copy of your driver's license as well as a current abstract. That insurance company may or may not approve coverage.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> As you say it’s a matter of degree. You seem to imply someone at the scene of the accident would have to be falling down drunk slurring her speech Incapable of walking etc.To be checked for BAC.
> My experience has been the exact opposite.
> Most companies require a drug and alcohol screening after any accident no matter whose fault.
> from what I’ve seen at the scene of the accident the police in searching for good DUI statistics will test anybody with the slightest hint for BAC.
> ...


I'm not sure why you're muddying the waters with discussion about employee required testing because you previously stated that if an employer has the right to require such from employees and in most cases, it's in place to provide proof, in case of an insurance claim. 

One of our employees had an incident yesterday and he was required to fill out in incident report and test for drugs and alcohol(he tested clean, as expected). I don't care for drug/alcohol testing but if we needed to file an insurance claim, we need to prove he was fit to drive.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is a standard question in traffic stops and accidents where officers attend for them to ask if you have been drinking no matter who they believe caused the accident.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tobster said:


> I didn't think you could top the Alaska story.


I can. A local chuckwagon racer had was under suspension for DUI and took his fastest team to town for quite a few beverages. He likely wouldn't have ended up in a moderate speed chase with RCMP, if he hadn't cut through a few back yards on a hot day. 

Chuckwagon horses are nothing more that retired race horses and it's been said that my great aunt's freshly laundered sheets spooked the horses, things elscalated as they tore up gardens and laundry off clothes lines and when they runaway came close to the school grounds, the RCMP seemed feel that TB's may respond well to lights and sirens. 

The town's second car was waiting when the horses Joe and his team came into the yard and he was also arrested for impaired driving. 

It's my understanding, his next beverage run involved his riding mower and while less chaotic, resulted in another impaired driving charge and it was only after he came to understand that he needed to stay off public roads that his beverage runs were more successful.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> If you're looking to split hairs and play gotcha, there is no assurance that an owner operator has no employees because they could have a co-driver but the laws are pretty much the same and if an owner operator is caught driving impaired, there will still be consequences and if you are operating under someone else's insurance, they are very likely required to add you to their policy by way of providing a copy of your driver's license as well as a current abstract. That insurance company may or may not approve coverage.


Really?

Your favorite hair-splitter says something way off base and I get this nonsense?

First, BFF called AS into question suggesting that if his professional claims were true he SHOULD know all about this. 
My point is that there are many independent operators with their own established business who never have to deal with the mechanics of this. For 25-30% of the revenue, someone else will do it for him.

As for employees, you are right, such a person *could* have one or more employees. In practice, this is the exception.

Of course the authority holder has to add the owner-operator to the policy. The only thing I addressed is that under such a lease arrangement the owner-operator does not have to do it himself or understand how it is done.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> Under that arrangement he's a 1099 employee/contractor


Not necessarily. Under my arrangement, the truck belongs to my personal corporation of which I am en employee and is leased to the family business which provides certain contributions including supplying the insurance without my needing to actively participate on the process or even being required to understand it.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> Not necessarily. Under my arrangement, the truck belongs to my personal corporation of which I am en employee and is leased to the family business which provides certain contributions including supplying the insurance without my needing to actively participate on the process or even being required to understand it.


If you wouldn't mind I'm curious how you handle settlements


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> If you wouldn't mind I'm curious how you handle settlements


My brother who keeps the books writes me a check once a week for my corp's share of the revenue and then I (as the corp's agent) pay myself (personally).

For 30% I have my overhead expenses other than fuel, maintenance, and tolls paid.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> My brother who keeps the books writes me a check once a week for my corp's share of the revenue and then I (as the corp's agent)  pay myself (personally).
> 
> For 30% I have my overhead expenses other than fuel, maintenance, and tolls paid.


Another point. Your brother's business is paying a corporation so no 1099. I expect that would be the next question they would ask.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Another point. Your brother's business is paying a corporation so no 1099. I expect that would be the next question they would ask.


No I saw that and it makes sense


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> My brother who keeps the books writes me a check once a week for my corp's share of the revenue and then I (as the corp's agent) pay myself (personally).
> 
> For 30% I have my overhead expenses other than fuel, maintenance, and tolls paid.


I've had some lease trucks off and on over the years, mostly this was just to help friends and family get a start. They where mostly sole proprietorships so 1099 time.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> I've had some lease trucks off and on over the years, mostly this was just to help friends and family get a start. They where mostly sole proprietorships so 1099 time.


I can see that. In my case, I wanted more separation in case something went sideways.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> I can see that. In my case, I wanted more separation in case something went sideways.


10four


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I wasn’t trying to play gotcha, or even nit-pick what you were saying. I got that the “one drop of alcohol” bit was an exaggeration, but the rest of the statement wasn’t even grounded in truth.
> 
> An exaggeration is an untruth in magnitude only. They have another word for statements that aren’t true at all. Making up something like that, for the sake of outrage, just soils the conversation.
> 
> ...


And I didn't take your response as a "gotcha" either, rather just a sincere doubt as to how that could possibly happen.
That's fair.
The way this thread began, was with a personal anecdote of someone we don't know and never met.
Some doubt all of it, part of it or maybe none of it but only a few people will ever know how true it is or can tell you the events that led to the present circumstances.

As far as what I said about tricky situations involving alcohol and accidents, I can give you a plausible scenario.......

The scene is a rear end collision at a light, with the driver who was hit having a detectable BAL.
Normal assumptions are when the cops arrive, the driver in the rear will be charged as usual, right?
But what if there are no witnesses this late at night other than passengers, maybe all of them are in the at fault car?
Strike one.

Most of us automatically assume everyone is going to be honest when they tell the cops what happened, right?
But now the group in the at fault driver's car comes to the aid of their buddy driving and says the light wasn't red......or the car was sitting there with no lights on.......or they were both stopped and the drunk puts in reverse when it turned green,........or both vehicles have moved to the side because there was little damage.
Now there isn't much to go on except He said/She said.

By this time the breathalyzer comes out and ........... oops....... who looks guilty now?


Does this happen a million times? I doubt it, maybe only a few.
So you're right, I never should have stated it as "automatic", that was my mistake.
The laws and times have changed since I was 16 and there are *definitely* more lawyers now to choose from, lol.

I've been corrected and accept that without protest, for my broad brush stroke.
But I think the correct point is, ya never know how things are gonna turn out when you think nothing can go wrong.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> With some it's *more* likely to be untrue, based on past observations and evidence.
> You keep doubling down without ever having proven anything you've said.


Proving things is a harder task depending on who it is that is asking for "proof".
In some cases it's nearly impossible.



> Anyone who gets a DUI got it because they were drunk.


And off we go........

https://baronedefensefirm.com/blog/...many-4000-wrongful-drunk-driving-convictions/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *Proving things is a harder task* depending on who it is that is asking for "proof".
> In some cases it's nearly impossible.


Not if real proof exists.



farmrbrown said:


> And off we go........
> 
> https://baronedefensefirm.com/blog/...many-4000-wrongful-drunk-driving-convictions/


Liars always change the normal outcome.
They mainly do it to get what they want.

You're once again using a lawyer as your source, and they are pretty much paid professional con men.

The fact the machines weren't checked legally isn't proof the people tested weren't drunk.
It could just have easily been reading too low since there's very little real information given in the sales pitch you posted. They weren't even sure how many times it happened.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Proving things is a harder task depending on who it is that is asking for "proof".
> In some cases it's nearly impossible.
> 
> 
> ...



Let's see if any more "proof" exhists..............

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



> "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.
> ...


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

farmrbrown said:


> The way this thread began, was with a personal anecdote of someone we don't know and never met.
> Some doubt all of it, part of it or maybe none of it but only a few people will ever know how true it is or can tell you the events that led to the present circumstances.


Excellent synopsis.

That said, it defies my understanding that someone who doubts the story would go to the trouble of repetitively attacking the credibility of the person who presented the story in a manner as persistent and irritating as a dripping faucet.

I would also add that the narrative is equally useful to the discussion regardless of whether it is a perfectly accurate description of events, a complete fabrication functioning as a parable, or somewhere in between. The matters of principle do not change.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

IndyDave said:


> Excellent synopsis.
> 
> That said, it defies my understanding that someone who doubts the story would go to the trouble of repetitively attacking the credibility of the person who presented the story in a manner as persistent and irritating as a dripping faucet.


I agree that it’s pointless to continually brow-beat someone over a minor detail.



IndyDave said:


> ...I would also add that the narrative is equally useful to the discussion regardless of whether it is a perfectly accurate description of events, a complete fabrication functioning as a parable, or somewhere in between. The matters of principle do not change.


But I definitely disagree with this part. Implausible or wholly untrue anecdotes don’t serve as a parable, they only steer the discussion into some muddy place where outcomes and conclusions come from feelings rather than facts. 

Plus it reminds me a little too much of this:


> There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I can. A local chuckwagon racer had was under suspension for DUI and took his fastest team to town for quite a few beverages. He likely wouldn't have ended up in a moderate speed chase with RCMP, if he hadn't cut through a few back yards on a hot day.
> 
> Chuckwagon horses are nothing more that retired race horses and it's been said that my great aunt's freshly laundered sheets spooked the horses, things elscalated as they tore up gardens and laundry off clothes lines and when they runaway came close to the school grounds, the RCMP seemed feel that TB's may respond well to lights and sirens.
> 
> ...


Great story but it doesn’t sound like going through people’s backyards was working out too well for him either so he had to learn stay off of the roads and back yards. 

Somebody needs to tell the man about Uber delivery


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Another point. Your brother's business is paying a corporation so no 1099. I expect that would be the next question they would ask.


One corporation doesn’t issue a 1099 to another?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> One corporation doesn’t issue a 1099 to another?


Only a LLC that acts like a corporation would get a 1099.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Isn’t a LLC a limited liability CORPORATION?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t a LLC a limited liability CORPORATION?


 LLC is generally known as a Limited Liability Company


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t a LLC a limited liability CORPORATION?


It's actually a type of proprietor company that limits the liability of the owners. They can take the assets of the LLC but not the owners. 

Unless there is a very good lawyer on the opposing side.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone who gets a DUI got it because they were *drunk.*





Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with alcohol, which was what your original statements were about.
> 
> All you have succeeded in proving this time is that what I said is true in that they had actually violated the law, "high" or not.
> 
> ...



https://www.eastbayexpress.com/Lega...-pot-are-absurd-arizona-supreme-court-affirms



> The Arizona Supreme Court slapped down a dumb law that criminalized driving while *sober* in the medical marijuana state.
> 
> Arizona state law had held that anyone who tested positive for trace marijuana metabolites — which can stay in one’s system for up to six weeks after last use — was automatically guilty of Driving Under the Influence. The problem is: pot’s effects wear off in 60 to 180 minutes. Arizona, as a result, was imprisoning* sober drivers. *The state’s Supreme Court said that's "absurd."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> LLC is generally known as a Limited Liability Company





painterswife said:


> Only a LLC that acts like a corporation would get a 1099.


 I see Is there a difference between a corporation and a company?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"What is an S corporation? After you create a corporation or LLC, you also have the opportunity to decide how you'd like your business to be taxed. Single owner LLCs can be taxed either as a sole proprietorship or a corporation. LLCs with more than one owner can be taxed either as a partnership or a corporation. Income from LLCs treated as sole proprietorships or partnerships is reported directly on the owner’s individual tax returns. New corporations, as well as LLCs considering corporate taxation can choose between filing taxes as a C corporation ("C corp") or an S corporation ("S corp"). An S corp is considered a "pass-through entity," which means the business itself isn't taxed. Instead, income is reported on the owners' personal tax returns. Businesses taxed as C corporations are not pass through entities. Income is taxed at the corporate level, and, if dividends are distributed, at the individual level as well."
Read more at: https://www.legalzoom.com/business/business-formation/compare.html
LegalZoom.com


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> https://www.eastbayexpress.com/Lega...-pot-are-absurd-arizona-supreme-court-affirms


Isn’t it odd that they did that for marijuana but not alcohol?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> "What is an S corporation? After you create a corporation or LLC, you also have the opportunity to decide how you'd like your business to be taxed. Single owner LLCs can be taxed either as a sole proprietorship or a corporation. LLCs with more than one owner can be taxed either as a partnership or a corporation. Income from LLCs treated as sole proprietorships or partnerships is reported directly on the owner’s individual tax returns. New corporations, as well as LLCs considering corporate taxation can choose between filing taxes as a C corporation ("C corp") or an S corporation ("S corp"). An S corp is considered a "pass-through entity," which means the business itself isn't taxed. Instead, income is reported on the owners' personal tax returns. Businesses taxed as C corporations are not pass through entities. Income is taxed at the corporate level, and, if dividends are distributed, at the individual level as well."
> Read more at: https://www.legalzoom.com/business/business-formation/compare.html
> LegalZoom.com


Thank you for the rather lengthy reply but you answer the question I didn’t ask.
The question I asked was is there a difference between a corporation and a company.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t it odd that they did that for marijuana but not alcohol?


Well, think about it.
A CDL holder can get hit at a BAL of over .03 when impairment supposedly is at .08, right?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A quick call to my states Corporation office revealed that when incorporating you must name it something that reveals to nature Of a corporation. 
According to that office company corporation and limited are all acceptable Notification to the public of the limited liability status.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, think about it.
> A CDL holder can get hit at a BAL of .02 when impairment supposedly is at .08, right?


I did not know that I don’t think it will make any difference to my behavior but it is good to know


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t a LLC a limited liability CORPORATION?


Both an LLC and an S corp serve as a pass-through which legally resides on your personal income taxes while giving limited liability for the most part. By contrast, a C corp is a true separate corporation, which so happens to be what i have.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Great story but it doesn’t sound like going through people’s backyards was working out too well for him either so he had to learn stay off of the roads and back yards.
> 
> Somebody needs to tell the man about Uber delivery


Uber didn't exist 25 years ago and it still doesn't exist in rural Alberta.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Good point. I’m surprised he didn’t t just ride a horse
Or a goat cart....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Both an LLC and an S corp serve as a pass-through which legally resides on your personal income taxes while giving limited liability for the most part. By contrast, a C corp is a true separate corporation, which so happens to be what i have.


The nit that I am picking here is that limited ,corporation and company all mean the same thing.
Limited liability company is somewhat redundant but it makes it clear that you’re dealing with an entity that has chosen to limit their liability.
The difference between a limited liability company or corporation and a normal corporation is the tax laws treat the limited liability slightly differently. 
People should be aware that a limited liability company does not ACT like a corporation it IS a corporation and even though you may think of it as Fred on the corner,Fred is not personally liable for anything the corporation does.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> The nit that I am picking here is that limited ,corporation and company all mean the same thing.
> Limited liability company is somewhat redundant but it makes it clear that you’re dealing with an entity that has chosen to limit their liability.
> The difference between a limited liability company or corporation and a normal corporation is the tax laws treat the limited liability slightly differently.
> People should be aware that a limited liability company does not ACT like a corporation it IS a corporation and even though you may think of it as Fred on the corner,Fred is not personally liable for anything the corporation does.


I understand your point. I wasn't really clear on the angle you were taking and for my part was following the money and tax forms.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

People know my stance on corporations but I want to admit I have finally found a reason for incorporation that does not involve stealing.
And that is Obscuring ownership so that someone that may not legally drive May own and insure a vehicle. 
Notice I didn’t say they could drive it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> The nit that I am picking here is that limited ,corporation and company all mean the same thing.
> Limited liability company is somewhat redundant but it makes it clear that you’re dealing with an entity that has chosen to limit their liability.
> The difference between a limited liability company or corporation and a normal corporation is the tax laws treat the limited liability slightly differently.
> People should be aware that a limited liability company does not ACT like a corporation it IS a corporation and even though you may think of it as Fred on the corner,Fred is not personally liable for anything the corporation does.


That is not the truth. An LLC is not a corporation. LLC is a state legal term. Incorporating a company is a separate thing. LLC's don't have stock and shareholder meetings minutes and such. If it acts as a corporation that is only in regards to tax law. That happens when they file forms with the IRS and also fill out their W9 in a certain way. It does not make them a corporation in regards to state law.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think you are wrong Lol Company corporation and limited are legal terms. 
They all mean the same thing a way to limit liability. 
That’s both immoral and unconstitutional. 
Doesn’t seem to stop them from being quite popular


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are wrong Lol Company corporation and limited are legal terms.
> They all mean the same thing a way to limit liability.
> That’s both immoral and unconstitutional.
> Doesn’t seem to stop them from being quite popular


I don't think you can provide proof of your assertions. Knowing the difference is very important in the job I do.

Corporation and LLC are legal terms in how a company is organized and is set by state law. Visit your Secretary of State website. It is all laid out.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol You just said it yourself they are terms of how a company is organized ,but they are both still companies.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What is the job that you do?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol You just said it yourself they are terms of how a company is organized ,but they are both still companies.


They are both companies. They are not both corporations.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Are they not incorporated ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Historically a company was a group of people banded together to do something generally an adventure, exploration , Prospecting, mining, trapping type of venture. 
The corporation was a way for a bunch of stockholders to hold a business.
But over the years modern usage has brought them both to mean the same thing and to be used interchangeably with the banding together for a common adventure becoming rare.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Are they not incorporated ?


A LLC is not a corporation. You can tell by their business name, one has an LLC, one has an INC. Like I said all you have to do is look at your Secretary of State website and the procedures and paperwork you need to file. They are legal ways of organizing a company and both different.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

PW after some study I must admit you are correct in your use of the words in their legal meanings. 

But I feel I must warn anyone reading that both forms Result in limited liability.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> https://www.eastbayexpress.com/Lega...-pot-are-absurd-arizona-supreme-court-affirms


They were "under the influence" according to the law's wording.
No one was charged that didn't have the substances in their bodies.



> Arizona state law had held that anyone who tested positive for trace marijuana metabolites — which can stay in one’s system for up to six weeks after last use — was automatically guilty of Driving Under the Influence.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were "under the influence" according to the law's wording.
> No one was charged that didn't have the substances in their bodies.


LOL.
Actually the court went to great lengths to explain that they WEREN'T under any influence, just positive for a trace of something that DOESN'T impair you.
But yes, they were found guilty in spite of the fact that they weren't guilty of DUI.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> Actually the court went to great lengths to explain that they WEREN'T under any influence, just positive for a trace of something that DOESN'T impair you.
> But yes, they were found guilty in spite of the fact that they weren't guilty of DUI.


Come on. You know he doesn't give a flip about truth. He is a straight up malum prohibitum guy who believes in the letter of the law the way most fundamentalists believe in their religion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

First cleanup.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

My boxers WERE clean, wr.

I was poking fun at absurd prosecutors, but ridiculous laws that cause harm when they are enforced IS a serious matter.


----------



## IowaLez (Mar 6, 2006)

An LLC has Articles of Incorporation and an Operating Agreement between the partners in it. They do in every state. Whether the owners choose to write it out as Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Corporation, there is NO difference.

An LLC has tax benefits with the IRS, in that the partners can choose to be taxed as an S Corporation or taxed as individuals, the profits and debts listed on their personal income tax forms. If taxed as an S Corporation, you pay taxes twice. The Corporation writes off the debts against the gross income and is taxed on net profit, and the partner/s get paid by the company, then declare that income on their personal income taxes and are taxed on that. They do not get to write off the debt that way.

The profits and debts/liabilities are usually divided according to the partners' percentage of ownership, but that is ultimately determined by what is specified in the Operating Agreement. An LLC may or may not have a Board of Directors or Officers, and may even consist of just one person/owner.

The Articles of Incorporation are filed with the State, the Operating Agreement is a private business document that is kept with the other company files, along with the partners Capital Accounts - the record of their initial investment in the startup company. The AoI specifies how the company is structured: Board and Officers or none, that one person can hold more than one or all Board and Officer positions at the same time, how many shares of stock were issued - yes there are shares, and who has how many shares. When a partner leaves the LLC or a new one joins it, the Articles and Operating Agreement have to be amended at a corporate board or partnership meeting, and the amendments filed with the State.

The purpose of an LLC is to limit corporate liability from being personal liability - to protect your assets, like your home, in case of litigation. The business is a separate "entity" from the owners. However, the "corporate veil" can be "pierced" in litigation and the owners held personally responsible for debts and liability if they don't conduct the business in accordance with the Articles and OA, such as holding partnership meetings that might be specified at a certain interval. Breach/violate them, and it can be pierced.

I'm facing litigation against a crooked business partner and his one-person LLC, and I've got a lawyer advising me. Once I get rid of him and the current general partnership, then I can proceed to form my own, new LLC. So I'm currently on top of this stuff.



painterswife said:


> A LLC is not a corporation. You can tell by their business name, one has an LLC, one has an INC. Like I said all you have to do is look at your Secretary of State website and the procedures and paperwork you need to file. They are legal ways of organizing a company and both different.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

IowaLez said:


> An LLC has Articles of Incorporation and an Operating Agreement between the partners in it. They do in every state. Whether the owners choose to write it out as Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Corporation, there is NO difference.
> 
> An LLC has tax benefits with the IRS, in that the partners can choose to be taxed as an S Corporation or taxed as individuals, the profits and debts listed on their personal income tax forms. If taxed as an S Corporation, you pay taxes twice. The Corporation writes off the debts against the gross income and is taxed on net profit, and the partner/s get paid by the company, then declare that income on their personal income taxes and are taxed on that. They do not get to write off the debt that way.
> 
> ...


An LLC is not a corporation. It does make a difference and is written into state laws.
Articles of orginization and articles of incorporation are two different things. I also am on top of this. The family I work for has incorporated 8 companies in the last 10 years and I have worked with the accountant every year on the taxes for those companies. I know what the lawyers require to set up each company. I know what documents must be filed every year and what happens when a corporation or LLC is sold.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Many of you are arguing over a distinction without a difference. An LLC and an S-corp are pass through entities (tax wise) designed to limit personal liability. Normally, LLC's are chosen for passive activities like real estate investing. While an S-corp is usually for active businesses. A C-corp pays taxes directly and are taxed twice if you take a dividend. They are all a forms of incorporation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Many of you are arguing over a distinction without a difference. An LLC and an S-corp are pass through entities (tax wise) designed to limit personal liability. Normally, LLC's are chosen for passive activities like real estate investing. While an S-corp is usually for active businesses. A C-corp pays taxes directly and are taxed twice if you take a dividend. They are all a forms of incorporation.


A LLC is not incorporated. It does not have articles of incorporation. If you can provide proof of that, I would love to see it. Yes it can be taxed like a corporation if you file paperwork with the IRS. It is still not a corporation.

Look at a W9 as well. They are all listed separately for a reason.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> A LLC is not incorporated. It does not have articles of incorporation. If you can provide proof of that, I would love to see it. Yes it can be taxed like a corporation if you file paperwork with the IRS. It is still not a corporation.
> 
> Look at a W9 as well. They are all listed separately for a reason.


*A distinction without a difference*, as I said. A partnership, a LLC and an S-corp all report on a K-1 for income tax. A partnership is not an LLC, a C-corp is not an S-corp. A LLC is not a PA. A LLC is a limited liability corporation. They have different W9 filings, but the same K-1 as an S-corp, a MLP, a partnership, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> *A distinction without a difference*, as I said. A partnership, a LLC and an S-corp all report on a K-1 for income tax. A partnership is not an LLC, a C-corp is not an S-corp. A LLC is not a PA. A LLC is a limited liability corporation. They have different W9 filings, but the same K-1 as an S-corp, a MLP, a partnership, etc.


An LLC is not a corporation. Telling people it is, is wrong. You can provide no proof that it is. I will leave it at that. People can easily find the truth with a few searches.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The nit that I am picking here is that limited ,corporation and company all mean the same thing.


Not in a legal sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> Actually the court *went to great lengths to explain* that they WEREN'T under any influence, just positive for a trace of something that DOESN'T impair you.
> But yes, they were found guilty in spite of the fact that they weren't guilty of DUI.


They were *under the wording of the law *at the time of the conviction.

You're "going to great lengths" to explain something that has *nothing* to do with your "one drop of *alcohol*" claim that started the whole dialog.
It's just the usual divert and distract routine.



IndyDave said:


> Come on. You know he *doesn't give a flip about truth*. He is a straight up malum prohibitum guy who believes in the letter of the law the way most fundamentalists believe in their religion.


You're the one who said outright the truth doesn't matter.

You think it's fine to allow drunks to drive too.
I don't need Latin to know that's not smart.
Most know it's far better to keep them off the roads.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Discussion exeeds GC limits.


----------

