So, everyone is disappointed in Alan now, eh?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2011 18:42
VIEWED: 20599
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:23 AM (P)

Oh boy, he broke a RULE.
Gosh knows that Firefly & Serenity were never about disregarding or breaking RULES, right?
Am I making a point here, or is this the wrong crowd?

The INDEPENDENT Chrisisall

WISHIMAY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:36 AM (P)

There's a big difference in breaking a rule that has the potential for just hurting yourself, and in breaking a rule that could MAIM OTHER PEOPLE...

Firefly was just good fantasy, this is our unfortunate reality-living with other people and what not...

Quite frankly, I'm supprised it didn't happen to one of 'em sooner.

I'm already mostly over it, we all have bad days...But like hubby says, "Stupidity should hurt!"

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:00 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
There's a big difference in breaking a rule that has the potential for just hurting yourself, and in breaking a rule that could MAIM OTHER PEOPLE...

Firefly was just good fantasy

Yeah, so just screw it then.
Stay with Trek & Space Above & Beyond.
Whatever.
Rules are more important than the flawed individuals that created them, or the individual differences in us that enable us to rise above or sink below them.
We must be a homogeneous society.
We must control.
Soon we will outlaw driving by human hands to keep everyone safe.
But ABOVE ALL, we need to COLLECT FEES!

Can you say "Purplebelly"?

I knew that you couldn't.

The laughing Chrisisall

TVCHICK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:03 AM (P)

It's not about breaking a rule. It's about if he broke a rule/law that is there to protect others.

Last I'd heard, we still didn't know the result of his blood tests, which means we don't know ANYTHING. And THAT means I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

DOCTOROSSI

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:13 AM (P)

Yeah, sorry but there's simply no excuse for drunk driving. I'm the first to attack unnecessary laws or those that are arbitrary or unfair in purpose or application, but this will never be one of my targets. Take a look at the statistics about the involvement of drivers-under-the-influence in road accidents some time.

You can talk about body weights and types and maybe I'll go with you that there ought to be a more precise measure than a simple number for everyone. In the grand scheme, though, I think that's really just splitting hairs and weakening the message. No one has any reason to be behind the wheel with too much intoxicant in them and if we're going to err, we should err on the side of safety.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by TVChick:

Last I'd heard, we still didn't know the result of his blood tests, which means we don't know ANYTHING. And THAT means I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Doctorossi:
Yeah, sorry but there's simply no excuse for drunk driving.

'Drunk'?
Was he DRUNK? Or technically drunk? And is that the same thing?

Are we black & white here? I mean, are we CARING here?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:48 AM (P)

Okay Beat. That's reasonable.
I'm just like, don't jump on the dude for being a dope momentarily- as if we're all clean & squeaky.
And there are so many levels of 'dope'.
I mean, was he pulled over for driving like a fool?
Just speeding, which we ALL do when sober, from time to time.

Peace. Out.

The laughing Chrisisall

ECGORDON

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:58 AM (P)

Give it up, Chris. You're dead wrong on this and you're taking your Browncoat/Alliance analogy too far on this subject. I've read that thread and at most what people were saying was if Alan was driving under the influence he was breaking a rule that is there for the protection of all of us. Puzzle me this...why did he refuse the breathalyzer? I know that does not prove guilt but it is suspicious.

And please be consistent. I expect you to create a thread to defend every other actor who is accused of the same offense.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:13 AM (P)

EC, how many peeps have driven with the Flu, or on pain medication that clearly states "Do not operate a motor vehicle"?
If Alan was sh**faced, then okay, fine him up the exhaust port.
But if he was just nominally buzzed, it seems like standard overkill to produce State profit from 'technical' transgression.

We'll see...

The laughing Chrisisall

WISHIMAY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:22 AM (P)

Something tells me that IF-repeat if- he was drunk or buzzed, and let's say hypothetically had taken out a carload of kiddies, I'd hope you wouldn't rush to defend sucha person...on any planet. We're all entitled to a bad day, we are not entitled to inflict our bad day on others and get away with it, hopefully in any society. Cops or not, government or not...

For what it's worth, I hope he wasn't buzzed. And I'm glad everyone got home safe. I used to work at a gas station next to a bar, and have seen several people die and kill others and I say ON THIS ISSUE it's better to play it safe, especially since he "performed badly on the field sobriety test" he probably should NOT have been driving anyhow...no matter the reason!

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:30 AM (P)

Wow, Chris. Just can't let this one go, can ya?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Something tells me that IF-repeat if- he was drunk or buzzed, and let's say hypothetically had taken out a carload of kiddies, I'd hope you wouldn't rush to defend sucha person...on any planet.

In that case, it'd be lock-him-away time, IMO.

Quote:
We're all entitled to a bad day, we are not entitled to inflict our bad day on others and get away with it, hopefully in any society. Cops or not, government or not...

Of course. I'm just sayin' that he might have been relatively okay to drive (better than your average really old dude with a valid license)& that our society needs to look to the real a**holes to blame, & not the occasional low-level offenders.
Ever wonder why our jails are FILLED with non-violent perps?
'Cause it makes money for the "Rehabilitation" Industrial Complex.
And now Alan can pay $$$ into the system like the rest of them.

Quote:

For what it's worth, I hope he wasn't buzzed.

I hope he WAS!!! Much better than being full-on effed-up!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:58 AM (P)

Sorry.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:34 AM (P)

I think almost everyone here is in agreement, driving under the influence is a bad idea and can be quite dangerous. The blood alcohol level chosen may seem arbitrary, but they had to pick a concrete amount, so it would be a quantifiable thing. If they went by how drunk someone seemed or didn't seem then it would be subjective to individual opinion, which can very widely. So they pick a blood alcohol number and follow that standard when measuring.

Did Alan really do it? I don't know. Will it drastically alter my opinion of him? Probably not, I don't really consider celebrities to be better than the average person, sure they and their movie making comrades produce entertainment that I love, but they are merely human too and they screw up just like anyone else. Its not a cool thing to do but if he gets in trouble then he should pay the fine or whatever any "normal" person would have to do.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:10 PM (P)

Disappointed in Alan? No way. If I let scandals, politics, or bad behavior influence my entertainment choices, there wouldn't be much for me to ever see or hear. I do cut actors and actresses some extra slack, especially those that I'm very fond of like Alan.

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:58 PM (P)

Pretty sure that pain medication and things that say "don't operate heavy machinery" also fall in the "under the influence" bucket.

Alan's specific situation is made worse that there was another potential driver in the car who was apparently totally sober and able to drive after Alan was found to be impaired. Alan made a bad decision and it wasn't just a bad decision for himself it was a bad decisions that could have consequences for others. That's the big big big part of it. If he did something stupid to himself like trying to make his own bungie jump apparatus and ended up breaking his legs or something silly like that. Sure it's a dumb mistake but I wouldn't care cause it only put him at risk. Putting others at risk without their consent is never going to be ok.

OLDGUY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:04 PM (P)

hey...c'mon.. I mean..they stabbed him...they stabbed him with a ...giant wooden harpoon...right through the heart !!

not to mention his early demise as a lizard people..person...thingy...

who wouldn't need a drink?

seriously.. I'm dead set against DUI...lifelong friend lost her younger brother to a DUI driver.
Hopefully there was plenty of personal responsibility on hand that evening for Alan...that's really what Firefly was all about..defying unjust law, but accepting the price to be paid for free skies.
nothing to do with DUI.

TWO

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:29 PM (P)

Alan Tudyk has been bound by law, as the saying goes. For two examples from Bushwhacked and Serenity:

(Bushwhacked) HARKEN: You and your crew are bound by law. Formal charges will be transmitted to Central Authority.
MAL:Commander, I'm not what you need to be concerned with right now. Things go the way they are, there's going to be blood.

(Serenity, page 73 of 190) He works the console, brings up a still of Mal (as Mal carries River out), then a police photograph.
JUDE: I wouldn't wonder. Malcolm Reynolds. Bound by Law five times, never imprisoned... hardly the type to harbor infamous fugitives with no money --
ENSIGN: Maybe Tam did have some money squared away --

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

PENNAUSAMIKE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:50 PM (P)

Just to throw out more fodder for the discussion mill:
Ya'll do realize that DUI is a victimless crime, right?
A DUI arrest is made based on what you MIGHT do.
At the point in which a DUI pullover is made, no one has actually been hurt.

I thought the two-tiered penalty article I posted about made sense because it addressed the offense in proportion to the risk/danger/damage.
The greater the risk the DUI offender posed
(and we are still talking potential, not realized, threat)
the greater the penalty incurred.

The idea* was attacked as "rewarding" less risky DUI offenders.
Our system already does that.
Manslaughter receives less penalty than premeditated murder;
but a person is still dead, right?
Armed robbery receives a greater penalty than simple break-in;
but a theft still occurred, right?

What I find amazing is the pendulum always swings from one side to the other.
on one hand, the justice system will allow recidivist violent criminals to offend over and over, but then the offered solution is zero-tolerance, which gives pot-smokers prison sentences that match murderers'.

I guess that I'm surprised at how many "Browncoats" support Alliance style government involvement in real life.
Yes, "Firefly" is just fantasy and I know it's not likely for a lovable band of armed criminals to do crime without hurting innocent folks.
But, I guess I would expect people to choose entertainment that mirrors their real-life views.
I'm not in favor of
socialized medicine
gun control
cradle-to-grave welfare
intrusive police rights
etc.

I just want my government to
defend our shores
build our roads
make crime more difficult for violent offenders,
help the unemployed between jobs,
and maybe explore space a little bit.

My only real bow to social engineering is that I don't think government should empower shipping our industrial/economic base overseas.
If nobody has a decent job,
who's gonna pay for all the crap we import?

I'll concede that if government clamps down on all irresponsible behavior,
we'll live in a safer society.
it's a fact, evidenced by the world around us, that societies that allow governments to run everything are stifling places to live.

"We tell them what to do and what to think, don't run don't walk we're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right."

*

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:

Years ago Road & Track magazine did an article proposing a two-tiered penalty system for impaired driving.
They proposed that the person who realized they had too much to drink, drove slowly and as close to carefully as they could, and weren't belligerent if pulled over; shouldn't be penalized the same as the the belligerent loud-mouth going 70 miles an hour while loudly proclaiming that he/she drives BETTER when drunk.

The benefits of such a system would be three fold.
First, you separate out the occasional, mistaken impaired driver from the habitual, personality disorder drunk driver.
Second, you offer an incentive for those who choose to drive impaired to do so with the least risk.
Three, you don't destroy the lives of those connected to the one-time offender who was unlucky enough to be caught. Nothing like the system taking a month or two of a family's earnings to send a ripple effect of destruction from a single bad decision.
Hopefully reason two, (impaired drivers would slow it down to minimze risk and penalty), reduces danger to others on the road.

Obviously, a repeat offender moves into the higher risk category at some point, regardless of how meek the impaired driving style.

I found it to be a common sense approach, but unlikely in today's "lawyered-up" society.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:12 PM (P)

I'm really wondering about the passenger here. His decision making may have been impaired, hers wasn't. Why did this even happen?

The soberness kind of bothers me more than the drunkenness. What's the story here? Does she have a condition that makes it so she can't drive? Was Alan ignoring her when she said to slow down? DID she tell him to slow down? Did she know he was drunk? Did she offer to drive?

Two people didn't take responsibility for themselves, and I can't say I fully understand it.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The blood alcohol level chosen may seem arbitrary, but they had to pick a concrete amount, so it would be a quantifiable thing.

Things can be adjusted to the individual. When it's the individual that needs to adjust, that smells to me like Fascism.
March to the beat, you little wooden soldier, you!
Unless you're in the ruling elite. Cops get to speed all day long. They don't have to signal. They can flash their lights to get through a red light they don't want to wait for. They can drive buzzed 'cause their friends would never bust them for it.

Anyway, kids inexperienced with alcohol & career drunks kill peeps, not the occasional buzzed average dude or dudette makin' it home after a dinner party.

There's a guy where I live, a real dirtbag, killed a kid on the road riding his bike, he was driving real drunk, and this WAS NOT HIS FIRST DRUNK DRIVING INCIDENT. Why was he allowed to have a license at ALL after his first accident?
Now that he's in jail & sober, he's suing the parents for letting their kid ride his bike after dark on a road. It's a real case, ya believe it?
See, it's not the alchohol, it's the a**hole.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm really wondering about the passenger here. His decision making may have been impaired, hers wasn't. Why did this even happen?

I can only assume that in her opinion, Alan seemed okay to drive.
She prolly didn't have a breathalyzer on her.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Things can be adjusted to the individual. When it's the individual that needs to adjust, that smells to me like Fascism.
March to the beat, you little wooden soldier, you!
Unless you're in the ruling elite. Cops get to speed all day long. They don't have to signal. They can flash their lights to get through a red light they don't want to wait for. They can drive buzzed 'cause their friends would never bust them for it.

So, you want every decision to be made on an individual basis, but you don't want elitism? Do you actually believe that would ever work?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:42 PM (P)

I could see that, but when your driver starts going 40 through a 25 mile an hour zone, as a passenger you probably should speak up a little. Speeding through a residential area, even at night when most people are at home can be dangerous.

I've been in a car with a bad driver before, though not a drunk driver, but it was just as dangerous. I didn't realize just how bad of a driver she was in advance, it was the first time I'd ever been in a car with her behind the wheel (but not her first time, I'm not sure how it's possible that she was that bad of a driver). She side-swiped a fire engine at one point (!) and I was suggesting she slow down or even pull over and let someone else in the car pool drive well before she failed to turn properly while getting on an interstate onramp and plowed the car into a concrete barrier. (I even did a little bit of a Mal here, before I was even familiar with the series or movie - *steadily growing alarm* "Could you turn? Maybe turn a little?" *crunch*)

She could have killed someone, she could have killed one of us, I was trying my damndest to be the responsible one to keep that from happening. No one ever listens to me IRL though, my name might as well be Cassandra.

I really hope that was happening here. If it wasn't, then seriously, what the hell.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

So, you want every decision to be made on an individual basis, but you don't want elitism? Do you actually believe that would ever work?

Yeah, it could work, but the system won't allow it.

How about this:
An optional test (you pay for)where you drink 1 beer for every 20 pounds of body weight, then take a driving obstacle course test a normally sober person is able to pass, and if you can pass it, you get a card. If you're pulled over for a tail light or what not, and the officer thinks you've been drinking, he does a breathalyzer test, a which point you present your card. It signifies that you present no extra public danger up to (whatever, 6-8 oz. of alcohol, whatever that reading might be on their doohickey), and then you get a ticket for being buzzed, kinda like a parking ticket.

OOooopps! That's never gonna happen! The municipalities LOVE the income from insane fines!
The insurance companies LOVE the higher premiums!

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:28 PM (P)

That wouldn't prevent your problem with paying money. If the test is optional then you'd have to pay for it and since most driving tests are done on the road this one would likely need an entire facility built and maintained where the test could be preformed without putting the public in danger. So, the fee would likely be huge. Which would then probably fall back on the rich elitist stuff. However, given all that I'd be fine with it. If you can prove that you're a capable driver under those conditions then it's acceptable. My guess is the test would be very strict, very expensive and not result in much of a difference for anyone.

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Disappointed in Alan? No way. If I let scandals, politics, or bad behavior influence my entertainment choices, there wouldn't be much for me to ever see or hear. I do cut actors and actresses some extra slack, especially those that I'm very fond of like Alan.

I personally don't give a flip about the lives of actors or actresses at all. All I care about is their work. If Alan did nothing wrong, good for him. If he did, he should face the consequences. Not slack for being famous.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
That wouldn't prevent your problem with paying money. If the test is optional then you'd have to pay for it and since most driving tests are done on the road this one would likely need an entire facility built and maintained where the test could be preformed without putting the public in danger. So, the fee would likely be huge.

Existing course, existing facility, same staff. I don't see the extras you list here.

Quote:
If you can prove that you're a capable driver under those conditions then it's acceptable. My guess is the test would be very strict, very expensive and not result in much of a difference for anyone.

True story: Back when I was 19, a group of friends & I went to a race course set up for kids with those little motorized cars on a day when no one was there (it wasn't an official facility; it was set up in abandoned air field with thousands of old tires).
I had my friends drive me there after I guzzled a six pack of beer down in like, 30 minutes.
My friends successfully drove the course at 30 mph, then handed the car over to me. Estimating my reaction time was down a good deal, I drove accordingly, and successfully completed the course (it was real twisty for the tykes, remember). Then we upped it to 40mph, and again, I completed it successfully (but was REALLY concentrating). At 50mph, my friend had a little difficulty, but didn't lose it. At 50mph I slid into a wall of tires (didn't brake fast enough for the turn).
We dug my car out, replaced the wall as was, & came away with some valuable data.
Knowing the limitations of YOUR LIMITATIONS is a good thing.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Existing course, existing facility, same staff. I don't see the extras you list here.

Every driving test I've ever taken has been on the road. That would never fly as a testing grounds for these types of tests. There would have to be a closed course. Which is not something my local DMV has. That would mean purchasing some property. Building the course. Staffing the facility. Since the tests would basically be designed to fail at some level I'd assume there would be barriers or things getting destroyed on a regular basis. They would likely also need medical staff on the premises during every test as a safety precaution. I'd guess $1000 per test would not be unreasonable.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

Every driving test I've ever taken has been on the road. That would never fly as a testing grounds for these types of tests.

"he prepared to weave through a line of cones that had been laid out in the parking lot of Jacksonville Municipal Stadium."

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-07-31/story/youths_attempt_to_
navigate_driving_obstacle_course#ixzz1Da7CAeM4

Any big lot would do. Insurance waivers- you make it a lot more complicated than it has to be. Biggest expense would be sandbags, cones & staff, but if it's a test offered when only 50 applicants have signed up, you're talking twice a year or so (face it, MOST peeps could not begin to pass this test).

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I'd assume there would be barriers or things getting destroyed on a regular basis.

LOL, one rule, if you can't walk a straight line to your car, you can't proceed with the test. I conjure very little in the way of 'destruction'.

The laughing Chrisisall

OPPYH

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

I personally don't give a flip about the lives of actors or actresses at all. All I care about is their work. If Alan did nothing wrong, good for him. If he did, he should face the consequences. Not slack for being famous.

You should. What if he had a worse scrape and faced a few years prison time out of it. In that time Joss decides to re-ignite Firefly with all the remaining cast, and Alan isn't available.....Oh wait Wash is dead anyway. Nevermind.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

OPPYH

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by TVChick:
It's not about breaking a rule. It's about if he broke a rule/law that is there to protect others.

Casual drinkers know their limit. Raging drunks slam into other vehicles, and kill people.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:48 PM (P)

Byte has good points about personal responsability.

I can't walk a straight line anyway, good thing I can't drive. :)

But yeah, there has to be a standard by which to measure, or else it becomes subjective and people will "play favorites"

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

WISHIMAY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:08 PM (P)

Y'all need to read the news a little more often. My car was hit from behind by a "buzzed" driver comin home from MY birthday party 6 years ago. If it weren't for hubby's quick thinking, it really could have been serious as we were first in line at a stop light at a busy intersection...

You wanna regulate who can drive buzzed and who can't??? Good luck with that... I'm sure the idiot who hit US thought he was good to go too.

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

Every driving test I've ever taken has been on the road. That would never fly as a testing grounds for these types of tests.
"he prepared to weave through a line of cones that had been laid out in the parking lot of Jacksonville Municipal Stadium."

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-07-31/story/youths_attempt_to_
navigate_driving_obstacle_course#ixzz1Da7CAeM4

Any big lot would do. Insurance waivers- you make it a lot more complicated than it has to be. Biggest expense would be sandbags, cones & staff, but if it's a test offered when only 50 applicants have signed up, you're talking twice a year or so (face it, MOST peeps could not begin to pass this test).

The laughing Chrisisall

Driving tests have a tester in the car too. I doubt they'd be happy signing an insurance waiver. The DMV's insurance rates would go up based on the testing alone. Then there would probably be medical staff on hand for the tester mostly. Not all driving conditions can be replicated with cones anyway. How do you change lanes and check blind spots with cones? It would probably be better to have moving obstacles really.

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Casual drinkers know their limit.

And many times a drunk thinks they're just a casual drinker.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:49 PM (P)

2 by 2 hands of Blue...

Faggot cops rape drivers by public strip search and public cavity search during traffic stops
http://dragonaters.blogspot.com/2011/01/faggot-cops-rape-drivers-durin
g-traffic.html

Yes, Big Brother is always right...Romans 13 and Adolf Hitler said so.

Rules for Drivers during traffic stops:

1. Never confess to drinking even 1 sip of alcohol (sucker alert)
2. never admit to eating dinner at a restaurant that serves alcohol
3. never speak to cops since "odor of alcohol" does not exist
4. never volunteer for Field Sobriety Tests that have no passing score and there is no punishment for refusal (sucker alert)
5. never volunteer for breath alcohol tests where the failing score is 0.00% or above and such tests cannot even measure alcohol (scam alert). A person is already under arrest for DUI before an alcohol test is given (scam alert), and charges are never dismissed against innocent people for risk of being sued for false arrest (scam alert).

Alan Tudyk didn't read Rule #4, and probably Rules 1,2,3.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=7&t=47385

BTW there is no law against drinking and driving.

Quote:
"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
—Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/dlmain.htm

THE PROHIBITION TIMES
America's Secret History of the Current Prohibition of Alcohol
A Responsible Driver's Survival Guide
http://www.piratenews.org/theprohibitiontimes.html

"One of the major defects in many methods of blood-alcohol analysis is the failure to identify ethanol to the exclusion of all other chemical compounds. Thus a client with other compounds in his blood or breath may have a high 'blood-alcohol' reading with little or no ethanol in his body. If you look at the warranties - it is sort of interesting - none of the breath machine manufacturers warrant these things to actually test blood alcohol."
—Lawrence Taylor, attorney at law, DUICENTER.COM, Drunk Driving Defense, 5th Edition (2000)

"Nancy Benoit also had a blood alcohol reading of .184, although Sperry said the blood alcohol and drug levels could be affected by the decomposition of her body. 'These (blood alcohol) results are not reliable for interpretation because the amount of alcohol in her system could have all come from the decomposition.'"
—Cindy Morley, Fayette Daily News, GBI: Chris Benoit's son was full of Xanax, July 18, 2007

"The only reliable test for blood alcohol from a corpse is by drawing the blood directly from the interior chambers of the heart. Otherwise the blood can be contaminated with stomach and intestinal contents from ingested alcohol. This is especially true for crash victims."
—Dr Randall Pedigo MD, Knox County coroner, KPD firearms instructor and expert medical witness, shot 6 times by TBI during raid on his home searching for firearm used by towtrucking carthieves to kill a cop in Knoxville (actual shooter was "suicided" by police state death squad via "lead poisoning" and hanging), convicted of homosexual rape by injection of "vitamin" sedatives, conversation with Pirate News and The Prohibition Times

"Let me start with law enforcement contacts with respect to traffic stops, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incrimnate ourselves. The actual wording is, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights regardless of the laws of your state. First of all, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to 'probable ca

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

Driving tests have a tester in the car too. I doubt they'd be happy signing an insurance waiver.

WTF are you on about???? These are YOUR rules for EVERY different type & level of driving test, I take it- correct? 'Cause you know, in real life things can be different in different & parts of the country or on different levels of testing than you sometime imagine they can be. Just a FYI.

You ever play don't-hit-the-cone? You can make it REALLY difficult for a sober person, and impossible for anyone can't handle their Mudder's Milk.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

Driving tests have a tester in the car too. I doubt they'd be happy signing an insurance waiver.
WTF are you on about???? These are YOUR rules for EVERY different type & level of driving test, I take it- correct? 'Cause you know, in real life things can be different in different & parts of the country or on different levels of testing than you sometime imagine they can be. Just a FYI.

You ever play don't-hit-the-cone? You can make it REALLY difficult for a sober person, and impossible for anyone can't handle their Mudder's Milk.

The laughing Chrisisall

That's not what driving is though. Driving is mostly mundane and you need to still keep your focus on all the little things that could be going on. I assume that's why they driving tests I've done have been on the actual road where conditions are real. If this idea were implemented you can bet that lots of people would be up in arms and want intense scrutiny. Don't knock over the cone is not going to cut it.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:06 PM (P)

How about carboard-pop-up-kid-in-the-street?

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How about carboard-pop-up-kid-in-the-street?

The laughing Chrisisall

Deal

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

Deal

We 'ave an accord!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

TWO

Friday, February 11, 2011 10:17 PM (P)

Summer Glau talks about drinking and driving fast during an interview with Esquire Magazine. www.esquire.com/women/women-we-love/summer-glau-0311
In ten minutes she will be drinking whiskey at the bar. In an hour she will be heading home in her Trans Am. Does this remind anyone of Alan Tudyk?

“I like wine, but I'm really a whiskey drinker. I'm a Maker's Mark girl. It's funny, I grew up in a conservative family and my parents didn't drink at all, but my sisters and I can drink like fishes. We don't get drunk — I don't get out of control — but I'll have a nightly bourbon to unwind.”

“I have a 1979 model that I'm still restoring. My friends say I drive too fast. But I'm just trying to drive my muscle car in a muscle car way.”

The t-shirt says, below the word shirt: “Got caught doin' 155 mph”

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by two:

Summer Glau talks about drinking and driving fast during an interview with Esquire Magazine. www.esquire.com/women/women-we-love/summer-glau-0311

In ten minutes she will be drinking whiskey at the bar. In an hour she will be heading home in her Trans Am. Does this remind anyone of Alan Tudyk?

“I like wine, but I'm really a whiskey drinker. I'm a Maker's Mark girl. It's funny, I grew up in a conservative family and my parents didn't drink at all, but my sisters and I can drink like fishes. We don't get drunk — I don't get out of control — but I'll have a nightly bourbon to unwind.”

“I have a 1979 model that I'm still restoring. My friends say I drive too fast. But I'm just trying to drive my muscle car in a muscle car way.”

The t-shirt says, below the word shirt: “Got caught doin' 155 mph”

10-4 good buddy!

Except how do you get CAUGHT doin 155?

I do know a doctor caught doin 173. Too old to run. Got banned so he sold his 30 bikes and bought an airplane with no stinkin speed limit.

As for drinkin n drivin, back in the Day we'd just hand the cop a cold beer during a traffic stop. Good to go.

LILI

Saturday, February 12, 2011 8:30 AM (P)

Chris, please drop it. You've gone very far into "protesting too much" sort of territory.

Alan did something foolish. No one got hurt. Someone could have, someone other than Alan, but no one did, so that's good. If he's found guilty, he'll probably have to pay a fine or something. No one is going to nail him to a fucking tree over this, so please stop acting like that's what's going on here.

For the record, no, it isn't safe to drive on heavy painkillers or other narcotics, either. I have no idea if there are laws actually in place about it, but it definitely isn't safe. When I had dental surgery and they gave me some sort of generic percocet, I could barely walk down the stairs; I certainly couldn't have driven on that stuff. I probably couldn't even have gotten the key in the ignition. It's not safe to drive when you're very tired, either. Thing about both of those is that there isn't exactly a reliable test for tired, and there's no breathalyzer for pain killers. Also, prescriptions tend to get a pass where they maybe shouldn't, though not always.
Maybe there shouldn't be laws about any of it, and people should just not be stupid, but that could be asking a whole lot.
If someone wants to get hammered, whatever. If someone wants to get strung out on painkillers, whatever on that as well. If someone gets into a vehicle weighing a few tons and moving at high speed, they are endangering everyone in their vicinity. If there's no one in their vicinity, it's still whatever, but that doesn't really tend to happen. That would require being the only one in the vehicle and driving through the desert at about three in the morning. Even then, there's no guarantee, the odds are just the best there that no one else will get hurt. I doubt you're ever the only one on the road in a place like L.A. That does not a victimless crime make.

Facts are stubborn things.

BORIS

Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:26 AM (P)

We are all Human and make mistakes, and some rules are made to be broken but I agree with WishIMay. Alan didn't just break a rule, he put himself and others at risk. And he's an intelligent man so he should know better. Being disappointed in that particular bad choice does not mean I admire his acting talents any less or that i'm striking him of my fave actor's list but I do hope he's more careful in future. I'm a bit of a rule breaker myself but I only break the ones that are due to some control freak inflicting their authority on others, or rules that increase inefficiency etc or the ones that are just plain stupid. I don't drive because I am not allowed to due to the level of my Tourette's. despite the inconveneince this causes me and others I accept it as me on the road would have the same effect as putting someone who was drunk behind the wheel.
Oh and if we are going to elude to Firefly and rule/code breaking Jayne broke the rule/code re being loyal to the rest of the crew, therefore putting not only Simon and River at risk, but everyone on Serenity. he was severely punished as a result...but you'd expect that kind of behaviour from Jayne as he's a certified dumbass

Rose S

PERFECTPARADIGM

Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:28 PM (P)

I agree with others.

Don't drink and drive.

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:42 PM (P)

Alan Tudyk mugshot and strip search

Quote:
” Actor Alan Tudyk, whose film credits include “Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story” and the British comedy “Death at a Funeral,” was arrested early Sunday in Soquel on suspicion of driving under the influence, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Tudyk was pulled over about 1 a.m. on Soquel Drive near Robertson Road, just north of downtown Soquel, after officers observed him speeding in a silver Land Cruiser owned by a friend, the CHP reported. He was going 40 in a 25 mph zone, officer Sarah Jackson said.

Tudyk, who lives in Los Angeles and was visiting the area, told the arresting officer he had a few beers at 99 Bottles in Santa Cruz, officer Trevor Smith said.

Tudyk declined to take a breath test, but he failed a field sobriety test, Smith said. Results of his blood-alcohol test are pending.

Tudyk was arrested without incident, Jackson said.

A female passenger who was sober drove the Land Cruiser after the arrest, Smith said.

http://alantudykonline.co.uk/wordpress/

Lessons learned: NEVER tell a cop you dined at a restaurant that serves alcohol. NEVER tell a cop "how many beers you drank". NEVER volunteer for a field sobriety test (sucker test), which is not mandatory, not scientific and has no passing score. Not volunteering for the alcohol breath test was a smart move, since no machine can measure alcohol

I will only be disapponted in Alan if he don't get lawyered up and win this case at trial. But Alan did fuck up...by talking to a cop instead of exercising his constitutional right to STFU.

He can even do a reality TV show about winning in DUI court, like that little guy Matt Roloff.

Matt Roloff Not Guilty of DUI
TLC, Little People Big World
Before the Trial, Season 3, Episode 21/93, March 3, 2008
Matt on Trial, Season 3, Episode 22/94, March 3, 2008
The Verdict, Season 3, Episode 23/95, March 10, 2008
http://tlc.discovery.com/videos/little-people-big-world/
http://www.amazon.com/Before-the-Trial/dp/B001PO14TQ/ref=pd_vodsm_B001
PO14TQ
youtube.com/watch?v=KRaCW8LMYvY
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/little-people-big-world-star-matthe
w-roloff-found-not-guilty-of-dui-6375.php
http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/31/cops-little-star-had-a-tiny-bit-too-much
-to-drink/
http://www.kptv.com/news/13785931/detail.html
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.14413.55964.2
6915.33http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.14413.55964.26915.33
http://mattroloff.com/

Quote:
There is an epidemic plaguing our country. It is a tragedy that affects every scifi fan in our nation, even our globe. It is the reoccurring death of Alan Tudyk. Time after time the innocent Alan Tudyk is taken from us before his time.

Today we change our name to "Please Stop Arresting Alan Tudyk." Well, if people kept killing me, I'd drink too.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Please-Stop-Killing-Alan-Tudyk/200151533
260

And in related news 3 weeks prior...

Jaime Pressly mugshot

DUI charges for Jaime Pressly
http://www.topsocialite.com/dui-charges-for-jaime-pressly/

Quote:
Actress Jaime Pressly has spoken out for the first time about her recent double drama, insisting her DUI arrest and impending divorce are not connected. Pressly reportedly owes $637,149 in unpaid taxes. Pressly, who was reportedly almost three times over the legal blood alcohol limit, was released on $15,000 bail and subsequently charged with two counts of DUI. She entered her plea during a court hearing at a Los Angeles County courtroom on February 4 and is next due in court on March 18. If convicted, the actress faces up to six months in jail.

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2011/02/10/1723236
1-wenn-story.html

Jaime Pressly 'Parties' (Lives A Norm

WHOZIT

Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:22 PM (P)

I can forgive him, he hasn't been acting like Chuck Sheen or LiLo. Disappointed, a little, forgiven, yes.

GREENKA61

Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I can forgive him, he hasn't been acting like Chuck Sheen or LiLo. Disappointed, a little, forgiven, yes.

I second your opinion, Whozit.

It was a stupid thing to do, but I expect he'll have the grace enough to take his court appointed lumps and get on with it.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 13, 2011 2:19 AM (P)

He's a leaf on the wind.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIRATENEWS

Monday, February 14, 2011 7:56 AM (P)

Just exercise your right to the Ancient Groveling Response:

Note that many BAC machines are "adjusted" to NEVER read below 0.03%...

Federal Court Upholds DUI Jailing of Sober Man

The Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals on Tuesday saw no problem with jailing a man for eight hours after he blew .03 on a breathalyzer -- far below the legal limit. Santa Rosa County, Florida sheriff's deputies had arrested Roger A. Festa on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) on April 9, 2005. Since he had been entirely sober, Festa sued Deputy Adam Teichner and Deputy Douglas Burgett for unlawful arrest.

On the day in question, Burgett had received a 911 call describing a vehicle similar to Festa's swerving. Burgett noticed Festa's car and claimed he saw it make a sudden lane change in order to avoid a car that had made an unexpected turn. He also noted that Festa, while not speeding, was varying his velocity. Burgett initiated the stop.

Festa explained to the deputy that he and his wife were in an unfamiliar area looking for a place to eat. He admitted that he had a single drink earlier in the afternoon. Burgett claimed he smelled a "mild odor" of alcohol. Deputy Teichner performed the roadside sobriety tests and brought Festa to the station for a breath test that registered .03.

"Unfortunately, I couldn't just let you go," Burgett told Festa in a court deposition. "You were under arrest for DUI."

Festa, who could add to his arrest statistics for the month, then explained how plea bargains would take care of the inconvenience done to Festa.

"Basically, once you were arrested for DUI, I made a determination from the conversations that we had between there and the jail that I was going to have this pled down to a reckless driving and then the reckless driving to a [nolle prosequi] so you would suffer no monetary damages or a record," Burgett said.

Instead of cutting a deal, Festa pleaded not guilty to both charges. The state eventually dropped the DUI charge and a judge tossed the reckless driving charge nearly a year later. The three-judge federal appeals panel found that the deputies were entitled to immunity for their actions while on duty because they had done nothing unconstitutional.

"No decision from the United States Supreme Court, this court, nor the Florida Supreme Court has clearly established that continued detention after an arrestee registers a breath-alcohol level of 0.05 or less is unconstitutional," the per curiam decision stated. "Indeed, neither the United States Supreme Court, this court, nor the Florida Supreme Court has established within what time frame nor under what circumstances an officer has an affirmative duty to release an arrestee. We therefore cannot conclude that Deputies Teichner and Burgett had fair warning that their continued detention of Festa was unconstitutional."

Festa died on May 9, 2010 while waiting for the case to be resolved. Festa was a successful businessman who earned a silver and bronze star during his service in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. A copy of the unpublished decision is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.

Fed Court Opinion
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-sober.pdf

See also:

Quote:
D.C. Attorney General Drops Drunk Driving Cases

Wash. DC. Feb. 8 — The District’s attorney general has dropped dozens of drunken driving cases since Jan. 31 and hundreds of others could be dropped as the police department shuts down its troubled alcohol breath-test program. Problems dating back more than three years with the city’s breath analyzers were first revealed in February 2010, when it was discovered the machines’ results were inaccurate. Since then, the D.C. medical examiner’s office has refused to sign off on the accuracy tests of new analysis machines, officials said.

"The alcohol breath-analysis program? It doesn’t exist anymore," said Ilmar Paegle, who discovered problems with the Intoxilyzer 5000s soon after he took over the city’s br

TWO

Monday, February 14, 2011 1:37 PM (P)

PirateNews got me to thinking. That can't be good.

Try to imagine what Alan Tudyk saw before he drove into a speed trap. He has been driving miles at 40 mph. Suddenly the speed limit drops to 25 mph just before the first stop sign he's seen since Santa Cruz. The village of Soquel has been waiting for Alan, unfamiliar with the area, to approach that stop sign going faster than 25.

The street views are from Google Map -- http://bit.ly/fbWbtX Click to get a map. The location is according to www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17247676 - and - www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13935489

Coming from Santa Cruz, going East on Soquel Drive, Alan Tudyk would pass a traffic light at the intersection of Soguel Dr and 41st Ave. In the middle of the next block the speed limit changes from 40 to 25 mph.

Past the speed limit sign, the road surface is painted “Stop Ahead.” The stop sign is at Robertson St, near where Tudyk was arrested for going 40 in a 25 mph zone, according to www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17247676

Where was that police car? It wasn't hiding behind the wall on one side of Soguel Dr and not behind the earth bank on the other. The police cruiser was following Tudyk's expensive Landcruiser. Because Tudyk is watching his rear-view mirror, he doesn't tap his brakes before reaching the 25 mph sign. And then the patrol car lights start flashing.

Alternatively, the police are waiting at the stop sign for anyone to approach faster than 25 mph. Alan spends the night in the drunk tank. The town sign says Welcome Big City Slickers to Soquel ( pronounced 'Soak Hell'. I'm not joking! www.capitolamuseum.org/SoqHistTale.html )

Last traffic light on Soquel Drive.

Speed limit sign, which Alan Tudyk didn't see because he is looking in the rear-view mirror at the Patrol Car following.

Alan Tudyk is arrested just after passing this stop sign and entering the village of Soquel.

You are now in Soquel, Mr Tudyk, in a very expensive Landcruiser, which will be towed away at great expense by Buddy, the Mayor's nephew. Please empty your wallet of all valuables.

Nowadays Soquel is a town in trouble with declining population. Robbing rich strangers is the time honored way that small town America works hard to solve its tax problems.

Soquel's Population by Year
1900 - 2,987 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soquel,_California
1970 - 5,795
1980 - 6,212
1990 - 9,188 - Peak Population
2000 - 5,081
2007 - 4,967 - www.city-data.com/city/Soquel-California.html

Soquel is struggling to comeback from population decline and needs revenue from traffic fines and “court costs.” I know that the safety of little children going to school at midnight Sunday was not as paramount as the money.

Am I too cynical? I think not - this is California, where everyday is a perpetual government budget crisis. To see how much money this will cost Alan Tudyk, see Penalties & Punishments for DUI - www.kandblaw.com/penalty_chart.html

It is too bad that Buddy, the nephew of the Mayor of Soquel, could not have also made money by towing away the Landcruiser, but to Buddy's misfortune, Alan Tudyk had a passenger who drives.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:10 PM (P)

The speed limit sign in question would be in violation of federal law. You have to step down speed limits within a reasonable distance, and have to provide reasonable notice of the speed limit change.

Because there's no evidence because Alan didn't take the breath test, the case could probably be thrown out. None of us know how drunk he was or not. There's reasonable doubt, can't convict.

I'm starting to side with the "Alan did nothing wrong" argument here. The only thing I couldn't understand is why he was going so fast in what sounded like a residential zone (which otherwise would have suggested he was dangerously drunk), and this explains it completely.

Nice analysis, two.

STORYMARK

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:44 PM (P)

So, Chris.... how does it feel to be teamed up with the local loony tune, against everyone else?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:49 PM (P)

I'm the loony tune?

Okay. I guess I can't really DENY it or anything...

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, Chris.... how does it feel to be teamed up with the local loony tune, against everyone else?

Who?
pennausamike? two? bytemite?

Ohhh, I bet you mean PN.

Not everyone who thinks DUI in this country can be poorly administered to corruptly mismanaged is a looney tune.

I stand by my posts.
Mike

ZEEK

Monday, February 14, 2011 6:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The speed limit sign in question would be in violation of federal law. You have to step down speed limits within a reasonable distance, and have to provide reasonable notice of the speed limit change.

Because there's no evidence because Alan didn't take the breath test, the case could probably be thrown out. None of us know how drunk he was or not. There's reasonable doubt, can't convict.

I'm starting to side with the "Alan did nothing wrong" argument here. The only thing I couldn't understand is why he was going so fast in what sounded like a residential zone (which otherwise would have suggested he was dangerously drunk), and this explains it completely.

Nice analysis, two.

Wait what? Speeding -> refused breathalyzer (shady) -> failed field sobriety test -> innocent!

How'd you work through that logic?

TWO

Monday, February 14, 2011 6:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, Chris.... how does it feel to be teamed up with the local loony tune, against everyone else?

Who?
pennausamike? two? bytemite?

Ohhh, I bet you mean PN.

Not everyone who thinks DUI in this country can be poorly administered to corruptly mismanaged is a looney tune.

I stand by my posts.
Mike

I see myself more on the same side as Alan Tudyk's attorney than on PirateNews's side. A defense lawyer will use innuendo, dark conspiracy theories, and shady “expert” witnesses to convince the jury. If it is necessary to say rude things about the government of the village of Soquel, so be it. A dirty win is still a win for Alan Tudyk. That's why a good DUI lawyer is paid so well to defend the guilty -- it is to compensate for burning in Hell forever. Or bad karma in the next life.

Less controversially: The role of a defense lawyer is to vest lies with respect and depict them as reasonable statements to be subjectively considered by the jury along with the truth. In other words, the most creative storytelling allowed by the judge.

This is a national disgrace: we cannot allow an alcohol gap to persist.

My question to the resident constitutional scholars is this: Would it be legal for U.S.Congress to mandate a minimum level of alcohol consumption for every American, in order to remedy our shame? - www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/19374

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 14, 2011 6:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Wait what? Speeding -> refused breathalyzer (shady) -> failed field sobriety test -> innocent!

How'd you work through that logic?

The initial logic is to whether or not there's a court case.

We'll never know exactly what happened that night because we weren't there.

I find it unlikely that they would be able to convict Alan on the circumstantial evidence.

Now, I did make a leap in logic to say that I think he might only be convictable-guilty of speeding, but under such a scenario where the charge is against the spirit of the law.

I think it's entirely possible he would be vindicated in court, and under the current system, and owing to our inability to know all the details, a non-conviction is the best determination of innocence or non-innocence we have. Of course, that system isn't foolproof, Alan might very well have been DUI, but I'm not sure with the facts we have that we'll ever know.

Therefore, I'm starting to fall on the side of reasonable doubt and Alan may not have done anything wrong.

Under my most basic definition he'd already fulfilled that, in that he hadn't harmed or killed anyone, but this is under the legal perspective.