search results matching tag: intoxicated

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (66)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (2)     Comments (202)   

Tesla driver loses control as car speeds down street

newtboy says...

“Police ruled out that the driver was intoxicated.” Sorry.

At best it’s “Tesla is so powerful that it’s own brakes….they do nothing!”

bobknight33 said:

Tesla has nothing to do with this.

Title should be Drunk driver loses control as car speeds down street

Texas Cop Vapes Confiscated Weed on Cruiser Camera

newtboy says...

21 cases of tampering with evidence in 6 months, theft, armed robbery, felony possession of controlled substances, felony driving under the influence of a controlled substance, lying on an official report, abuse of power, and intoxication on duty by a police officer and he got two years probation? After his force tried to hide what happened, delay, mitigate, minimize, etc.

In Texas, he should be getting life in prison for the marijuana alone and every penny he or his family has should go to repaying the hundreds of people he illegally arrested, including his pension….his department on the hook for the rest.

*promote exposing exactly who the absolute best in law enforcement really are. A rock star, dedicated, decorated super cop….their golden boy….more of a criminal than everyone he ever arrested combined. Typical.

Where are the good apples. I’ve never seen one. Just a few bad apples, and a few more, couple more, one more bushels, a few trucks full, and 17 train loads, and 4 super size cargo ships full…not a good one to be found in the bunch.

Congress requires new tech to detect and stop drunk drivers

newtboy says...

I hope they make it detect people on their phones too. That’s apparently more dangerous than drunk driving…..
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than intoxicated driving. The Transport Research Laboratory found that writing a text message slows driver reactions by 35 percent, while drinking alcohol up to the legal limit slows reactions by 12 percent. Another study stated that texting drivers react 23 percent slower than intoxicated drivers do.

How Police Protect And Serve

Robert Smalls Escapes Slavery in a Stolen Confederate Ship

BSR says...

*Promote because drunks always tell the truth.

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

Alcohol stifles reasoning skills and contemplating repercussions. As a result, people are more likely to tell the truth while intoxicated, offering up brutally honest, unfiltered opinions. And without the fear of consequences, alcohol can give people the courage to do or say things they ordinarily wouldn't entertain.

White supremacist Kenosha County Sheriff david beth

Mordhaus says...

I didn't buy anything. There are multiple videos that aren't being shown on most news sites.

Youtube is banning them as fast as they get posted.

Here is one: https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE

This is from Newsweek(https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-sef-defense-murder-protests-1528301) who had access to the videos:

How the Kenosha shootings unfolded
In the wake of the shootings, several videos appeared on social media showing the moments before, during and after the first shooting took place.

In one video, Rittenhouse is seen being chased into a parking lot by several people while still armed with his gun.

One man then fires a gun into the air from several feet away from the 17-year-old before several others shots are fired.

In another clip from a different angle, one man seen chasing Rittenhouse appears to lunge at the 17-year-old before the suspect fires at least four times.

A body, later identified as Rosenbaum, is then seen on the ground and is assisted by another male. Rittenhouse appears to make a call on a cellphone before fleeing.

It is unclear why the 17-year-old was being chased in the first place. The parking lot is reportedly around several blocks away from the area he previously claimed to be protecting with the other armed men.

Later on, Rittenhouse is filmed being chased by more people down a residential street. He is seen stumbling and falling to the ground.

One person appears to stomp on him on the ground, before the 17-year-old fires twice, hitting Huber in the stomach and another man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who was carrying a handgun, in the arm.

According to the criminal complaint, an eyewitness video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and throwing what was ultimately determined to be a plastic bag at the suspect, not an incendiary device.

"Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video," the document adds.

In response to Parkinson's tweet, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bosuie noted: "I have been seeing this everywhere on here. It is an explicit argument that if someone is trying to stop you after you killed someone, you can continue shooting and killing in 'self-defense.'

Parkinson added: "Why leave out during the 2nd shooting, after Rittenhouse trips, he was jumped by several men, including another armed protester, attacked by a skateboard—prior to firing more shots?"

The man holding the skateboard was Rittenberg's alleged second victim Huber, who died after being shot in the chest.

***You'll notice that even some of their videos were removed/banned***

I'm not saying the kid was in the right 100%. He definitely committed the crime of being under aged with a firearm. He shouldn't have listened to right wing calls to go defend property in a different state.

What we have is a kid who heard people shooting, got scared, a 'protester' threw what he thought was an incendiary device at him and he shot that person. He then tried to flee to the police line and you can read what else happened.

Here is the tweet that shows the survivor wishes he had just mag dumped his glock into the teen: https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563648

Gaige Grosskreutz, 26. Hes a member of the People’s Revolution Movement. He has numerous encounters with the police but I couldn't find a felony. This was his biggest charge: Go Armed with Firearm While Intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor, Wisconsin Statutes 941.20(1)(b).

Anthony Huber. https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html (for some reason it wont link, you can type his name in to see all, but here is one specific one https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2014CF000057&countyNo=39&index=0)
Online arrest records show Huber was arrested several times on battery, drugs and other charges. He also had a case from 2012 where he was convicted of domestic abuse strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, both felonies. Other charges – for second-degree recklessly endangering safety, battery, and disorderly conduct – were dismissed but read in.

Joseph Rosenbaum. https://twitter.com/musicandwhiskey/status/1298861484752035840/photo/1
https://www.rt.com/usa/499205-kenosha-shooting-victim-id/
https://www.bailbondshq.com/arizona/azdoc-inmate-JOSEPH/172556
https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556
Rosenbaum had an open criminal case on battery, disorderly conduct and domestic abuse charges, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court website. (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-kenosha-victims-identified-as-anthony-huber-joseph-rosenbaum-20200827-zvrsv7fpqfftlmjyrtjrmg5wwa-story.html
)

As far as right wing people showing up and pretending to be Antifa, I suppose anything is possible. But most of all these looting and rioting things have been going on since all this shit broke loose months ago. I doubt very much that all of these 'peaceful protestors' are RW loonies. Clearly the 3 that were shot in Kenosha weren't and they were all part of the groups rioting...I mean 'protesting.

There are more videos if you want to find them. Shoot me, N Rosenbaum is seen attacking and throwing something at Kyle. You can see a gun fired as well by someone else. Videos show them chasing a fleeing person, who at that point is being attacked by them. Skater boi was beating him prone with a skateboard. 'Medic' Grosskreutz was carrying a fully fucking loaded Glock 17 and grabbing Kyle's rifle.

You know I don't make up shit like Bob does. But I do look in multiple places to find out what I can before I say something. Like I said, the kid fucked up, but I 100% believe in his mind he was defending himself and trying to reach the police for help.

newtboy said:

Sorry, you seem to have bought the right wing antifa lie. Where did you get this explanation?

Most people caught shooting or committing arson were dressed as antifa but were in fact right wingers, largely boogaloos boys, who's plan is to commit crimes and blame antifa and BLM in hopes of sparking a civil (and race) war. Nearly 100% of shootings and fully 100% of attempted bombings fit that model.

Because someone wears a black facemask is no indication they support antifa. If they're armed, it's a near guarantee they are anti antifa.

1) the kid came from out of state with armed friends intent on confronting unarmed protesters with guns, you don't do this to protect a random gas station, you do this in hopes of shooting someone.
2) he sure didn't look like he had been sprayed as he ran from the murder he just committed, hands were on his weapon or above his head, not covering his face like a sprayed person.
3) white pedophile? Explain please....how would you know...because he had a 17 year old girlfriend?
4) white guy in a crowd of black men shouting "nigger"?! Doesn't sound right, and I haven't heard it in any videos, but are you saying that excuses the militia boy shooting him and others?
5) gunshot from Antifa?!? Now I know you're duped by right wing media. Antifa is pretty hard to identify unless you're dishonest and just call any black mask wearing person antifa. Also, what evidence is there of this single gunshot from the BLM crowd?
6) he was NOT running to police lines, he was running past them. He didn't stop at them and say "btw, I just shot at least 3 people and maybe more when I just shot into the crowd.", he just walked on by, still carrying the smoking gun.
7) again, where are you getting this info?

8 ) in short, a cowardly murderer who crossed state lines heavily armed who shouldn't have been there but went looking for trouble, started a fight, murdered another man, ran away armed pointing his gun at many uninvolved bystanders, shot and killed those trying to stop an armed murderer (should have emptied that glok if it existed) so he shot one, murdered another and fled the scene, the city, and the state without ever reporting that he had shot at least three people and killed at least two.

I hope he gets sentenced to life in prison, his dad too if they went together, he went heavily armed to a protest hoping to shoot some liberals, he did, now he wants to use the fact that some citizens tried to disarm and citizens arrest him after he shot someone in the head as an excuse for both murders and the other shootings?! And you buy it?!?

I'm so extremely disappointed you would buy such obvious self serving slant where the out of state multiple murderer who travelled armed looking for conflict is the victim.
That's totally asinine. I have much higher expectations for you.

Again, references for these claims please.

Sheriff, Illegal Alien, Drunks Will Run Over Your Children

Beyond The Crash - The Worst News Of Your Life

newtboy says...

For one, nightshift workers, especially night shift drivers. Things are dangerous enough for them as is without making them survive a nightly road purge.
For another, many drunk drivers already have kids, so wouldn't be wiped from the gene pool.

I liked the old German model where any detectable alcohol at all while driving is automatic suspension of your license. It's not perfect but I'm fairly certain they have way less dui's because there is no level of intoxicated that's legal so fewer people convince themselves they're not too drunk.

BSR said:

I see you and I raise you 10 power points if you find the exact flaw in the logic.

A Scary Time

Mordhaus says...

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

ChaosEngine said:

Regarding Perry and Counts: that was in 1991. Again it's terrible, but you can't really argue that we're suddenly "abandoning of proof and evidence".

Re Banks: That's undoubtedly terrible, but to me, that's far more of an indictment of the appalling state of the US justice system and the nightmare of the utterly broken plea bargain system (I think John Oliver did a report on it, and I'd also highly recommend listening to the current season of the Serial podcast). He chose to take the plea deal... he wasn't convicted.

I think it's also not a coincidence that all three victims are black. Juries are far more likely to convict black men... that's just a fact.

And again, these cases are notable because they're rare.

The point here is simple. Trump's "it's a scary time to be a man" line is complete and utter bullshit. There is no sudden epidemic of false rape allegations. Are people wrongly accused (and in some cases, even convicted) of rape? Undoubtedly.

But it's not a new problem and it's nowhere near as widespread as the right is making it out to be.

Meanwhile, in the USA someone is violated every 98 seconds, and the President mocked a sexual assault survivor.

One of these is a bigger problem than the other.

Kavanaugh: No More Nineties Reboots, Please | Full Frontal

Mordhaus says...

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

She says it took her six days of hard thinking and speaking to her attorney before she decided she believed that she was positive it was Kavanaugh. Again, no other witnesses are backing her up and the couple that did say they heard of some sort of incident involving a plastic penis and a party think they heard Kavanaugh's name mentioned but they weren't present at the party.

I have to say, there was far more credible information against Clarence Thomas and a panel led by Democrats voted to pass him on to the senate. It is worth investigation? Maybe, but how do you prove it? Both accusers admit they were heavily intoxicated at the time and both have no credible witnesses. If you do have an investigation and he is found innocent, would a Democratic senate even still consider him for SCOTUS? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Sadly, it looks like he may be fucked even if he isn't guilty.

ChaosEngine said:

@Mordhaus, btw, it looks like another woman has come forward.

Again, this isn't proof, but it certainly strengthens the case for investigation.

Crash leads to bee attack and hilarity ensues.

Is It Dangerous To Talk To A Camera While Driving?

MilkmanDan says...

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

Police Are Different In Norway

Police Are Different In Norway

Police Are Different In Norway



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists