This decision is wrong at the very core. How could 5 men in good conscious deliver such a heinous ruling. It is not even up for interpretation that a man need not assert their rights. The right was asserted 200 years ago.
|
||||||
|
Any prosecutor that rests upon B.A.C. as incontrovertible proof of his case is stomping all over the very constitution that he swore an oath to defend. Obviously he is bought and paid for. Any judge that would allow this charade in his court is overseeing a kangaroo court of the highest circus degree, and is also stomping on the very constitution he swore an oath to uphold. Shame on both of them. “In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in “alcohol-related” collisions, representing 40 percent of total traffic deaths in the US. Over 500,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents in the US in 2003. NHTSA defines fatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if they believe the driver, a passenger, or an occupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present. NHTSA specifically notes that “alcohol-related” does not necessarily mean a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol. On average, about 60 percent of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information. Drivers with a BAC of 0.10 are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury then drivers with no alcohol.” |
||||||
|
Boundless Enterprise ™ © 2012 No Last Call - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
