Child Welfare called in on Father who gave Son a Gun

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I forgot to add that she called me a couple of days after--when I routinely picked up my son at school, a teacher (not his teacher) was staring at me. Yes, the taxpayers paid for CPS to go to my son's school, interrogate him and his teacher, do a bunch of paperwork, then phone me and get a promise that I wouldn't have him play alone at the City playground again.

Stuff like this can then be used in a divorce (fortunately, mine had just finished up--it takes months) or anything else against you (my brother did so in a deposition when we disputed our inheritance after our parents died). You might think it's trivial but it can snowball.

Well, that's a bit much. If they continued to interrogate the dad/family in this case, then it's over the line.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, really? I mean, really? You expect a 2-year old to figure out when he/she is sun burnt? Really? If you truly believe that, I will no longer post here.

As I suggested, I'm sure the (ex) wife raised a big stink about it. But how about a little common sense? I mean, really. I mean, who doesn't know that's far too long for his kid to be out in the son unprotected? I don't think the guy should get into any trouble, but the dad is clearly a moron and a bit ignorant/irresponsible. Simple as that.

For RR7:

http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2008/06/charges-dropped-in-child-sunburn-case.html

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Let go. As he should have been.

 

[RR7]

Harassment.

received a tip, came to the house, sounds like the wife was cordial, invited them in, they asked about the guns, she couldn't open the safe, so she calls him. He's been drinking with a friend, shows up mad at the cops, kicks them out. They leave. End of story. Where was the harassment, exactly?

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

received a tip, came to the house, sounds like the wife was cordial, invited them in, they asked about the guns, she couldn't open the safe, so she calls him. He's been drinking with a friend, shows up mad at the cops, kicks them out. They leave. End of story. Where was the harassment, exactly?

It was hidden. Read between the lines.

 

[RR7]

implied harssment?

 

[donkiez]

Here is the baby bong picture I mentioned earlier and a link to the article

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20013878-504083.html

CPS was called, baby was drug tested came back negative. Mom got minor drug charges.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Do you ever google stuff before you call BS? This took me like 5 seconds to find.


How much do you have to drink (BAC*) for a DUI in Oregon?
Under 21
.00% (zero tolerance)

21 or older
.08%

Commercial
.04%


http://dui.drivinglaws.org/oregon.php

I can name the two individuals, it is not an urban legend.

Not sure what site that is, but rather than do a five second search, how about we talk about what the actual statute says:

ORS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty (Oregon Revised Statutes (2011 Edition)):

(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person:

(a) Has 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150;

(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or

(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.

(2) A person may not be convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants on the basis of being under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant unless the fact that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant is pleaded in the accusatory instrument and is either proved at trial or is admitted by the person through a guilty plea.

(3) A person convicted of the offense described in this section is subject to ORS 813.020 in addition to this section.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the offense described in this section, driving while under the influence of intoxicants, is a Class A misdemeanor and is applicable upon any premises open to the public.

(5)(a) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a Class C felony if the current offense was committed in a motor vehicle and the person has, at least three times in the 10 years prior to the date of the current offense, been convicted of, or been found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for an act that if committed by an adult would be, any of the following offenses in any combination:

(A) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of:

( i ) This section; or

(ii) The statutory counterpart to this section in another jurisdiction.

(B) A driving under the influence of intoxicants offense in another jurisdiction that involved the impaired driving or operation of a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat due to the use of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, an inhalant or any combination thereof.

(C) A driving offense in another jurisdiction that involved operating a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat while having a blood alcohol content above that jurisdiction’s permissible blood alcohol content.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a conviction or adjudication for a driving offense in another jurisdiction based solely on a person under 21 years of age having a blood alcohol content that is lower than the permissible blood alcohol content in that jurisdiction for a person 21 years of age or older does not constitute a prior conviction or adjudication.

(6) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, the court shall impose one or more of the following fines on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as follows:

(a) For a person’s first conviction, a minimum of $1,000.

(b) For a person’s second conviction, a minimum of $1,500.

(c) For a person’s third or subsequent conviction, a minimum of $2,000 if the person is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

(d) For a person who drives a vehicle while the person has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $2,000.

(7) Notwithstanding ORS 161.635, $10,000 is the maximum fine that a court may impose on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if:

(a) The current offense was committed in a motor vehicle; and

(b) There was a passenger in the motor vehicle who was under 18 years of age and was at least three years younger than the person driving the motor vehicle. [1983 c.338 §587; 1985 c.16 §293; 1987 c.138 §5; 1991 c.835 §7; 1999 c.619 §3; 1999 c.1049 §1; 2003 c.14 §495; 2003 c.445 §1; 2007 c.879 §3; 2009 c.525 §1; 2009 c.613 §1][/I]

OK I showed you mine, you show me yours.

I believe your friends told you this, but I don't believe it happened the way they told you. Maybe the law has changed since the 90's but I don't think so.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yeah, donkiez is right on this one, ToB. I've witnessed similar situations in HS, but I just assumed it was common sence (hence, the age-21 drinking law).

Wow, sounds like this is a prevailing thought out there. I just pulled up the statute for Driving Under the Influence. Is there another statue out there that I am missing?

 

[donkiez]

Not sure what site that is, but rather than do a five second search, how about we talk about what the actual statute says:

ORS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty (Oregon Revised Statutes (2011 Edition)):

OK I showed you mine, you show me yours.

I believe your friends told you this, but I don't believe it happened the way they told you. Maybe the law has changed since the 90's but I don't think so.

Ok Matlock, here is a more reputable web site for you, its the Oregon DMV site

http://www.dmv.org/or-oregon/automotive-law/dui.php

"Motorists will fail a DUII field test if their blood alcohol reading is 0.08 percent or higher. For drivers under 21 years of age, any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream constitutes a failure of the sobriety test"

Forgive me if I don't take your word for anything ever, but I'm not a lawyer so Ill go by what one tells me or what I read on the DMV web site, or base things on my experience. Believe whatever you want but that doesn't make you right, in this case you are just plain wrong and your blind insistance to the contrary is somewhere between annoying and laughable. By all means keep on keeping on though, and since your so sure of yourself put your money where your mouth is and give your teenager (when you have one) a beer and put him on the road, see what happens.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Ok Matlock, here is a more reputable web site for you, its the Oregon DMV site

http://www.dmv.org/or-oregon/automotive-law/dui.php

"Motorists will fail a DUII field test if their blood alcohol reading is 0.08 percent or higher. For drivers under 21 years of age, any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream constitutes a failure of the sobriety test"

Forgive me if I don't take your word for anything ever, but I'm not a lawyer so Ill go by what one tells me or what I read on the DMV web site, or base things on my experience. Believe whatever you want but that doesn't make you right, in this case you are just plain wrong and your blind insistance to the contrary is somewhere between annoying and laughable. By all means keep on keeping on though, and since your so sure of yourself put your money where your mouth is and give your teenager (when you have one) a beer and put him on the road, see what happens.

I know what I'm talking about. Sorry you don't believe me. Always willing to put my money where my mouth is . . .

BTW- DMV deals with your license when it comes to DUI alcohol levels, they don't charge people with DUI

 

[donkiez]

Man I was trying to discuss the situation rationale. But if you want to go here fine.

How this big boy: I will put my money where my mouth is if you do the same. $1,000 says I'm right. Give the money to neutral party and then I will pay up front for a lawyer we both agree to for the official answer. Loser ends up paying for the lawyer.

"The is no zero tolerance for people under 21 for the crime of Driving Under the Influence"

Laughing now asshole!

I don't appreciate being called an asshole. Ive made no personal attacks. You've made a few that Ive overlooked to this point. Im sorry if your ego can't take being wrong but grow up.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't appreciate being called an asshole. Ive made no personal attacks. You've made a few that Ive overlooked to this point. Im sorry if your ego can't take being wrong but grow up.

OK, I'll go back and edit. Seems like you are coming hard and insulting at me when I'm just trying to show you what the law is in this area.

I do know what I'm talking about, sorry I rubbed you the wrong way.

We can agree to disagree, lol (even though in this case there is an exact answer)

 

[oldguy]

My now-tubby ex-wife patrols dating sites. Last night she told me that her new interest is an old guy who is a volunteer for the police, calling in cars who park in handicap spots. He does this for free.

Years ago when I had long hair, my little boy and I got into our car in a grocery store. I noticed a policeman giving us a dirty look. Next day, a younger cop knocks at my door. Seems an anonymous citizen thought that I looked like someone who was wanted. The young cop compared me to a picture and left.

My point is that "anonymous citizen complaints" are neither anonymous nor random. Besides actual police being the informants, the police organize groups of informants.

This is the problem.

If the police want to investigate someone, they have the cop at the next desk call them with an 'anonymous' complaint. Then they go investigate into someone's life that hasn't done a thing to deserve it.

It is not against the law for the Dad to give is son a gun. There was no reason to invade their privacy looking into perfectly legal practices.


Go Blazers

 

[RR7]

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/oregon.php

Under 21
.00% (zero tolerance)

http://www.alcohollaws.org/oregonalcohollaws.html

‘Zero tolerance laws’ discourage drivers under the age of 21 from drinking by enforcing DUI penalties if they chemically test positive for any percentage of BAC.

http://www.duiprocess.com/state/OR/duilaws.php

Oregon DUI Under 21 Years of Age
Oregon has a "zero tolerance" policy regarding under age drinking and driving, meaning that if you are under the age of 21 and are stopped by a police officer and found to have any amount of alcohol in your system you will be arrested for violating Oregon's zero tolerance law.

And finally:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/813.html

813.130 Rights of and consequences for person asked to take test. This section establishes the requirements for information about rights and consequences for purposes of ORS 813.100 and 813.410. The following apply to the information about rights and consequences:
(1) The information about rights and consequences shall be substantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation. The department may establish any form it determines appropriate and convenient.
(2) The information about rights and consequences shall be substantially as follows:
(a) Driving under the influence of intoxicants is a crime in Oregon, and the person is subject to criminal penalties if a test under ORS 813.100 shows that the person is under the influence of intoxicants. If the person refuses a test or fails, evidence of the refusal or failure may also be offered against the person.
(b) The person will fail a test under ORS 813.100 for purposes of criminal penalties if the test discloses a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more by weight. The person will fail a test for purposes of the Motorist Implied Consent Law if the test discloses a blood alcohol content of:
(A) 0.08 percent or more by weight if the person was not driving a commercial motor vehicle;
(B) 0.04 percent or more by weight if the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle; or
(C) Any amount if the person was under 21 years of age.

Zero tolerance. I'd be happy to take your thousand dollars, and for you to realize you're wrong and shouldn't act like an ass to people when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/oregon.php



http://www.alcohollaws.org/oregonalcohollaws.html



http://www.duiprocess.com/state/OR/duilaws.php




And finally:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/813.html



Zero tolerance. I'd be happy to take your thousand dollars, and for you to realize you're wrong and shouldn't act like an ass to people when you don't know what you're talking about.

OK, I'm sorry I'm coming across as an ass. Here is what is going on with the motor implied consent law (which is about suspending a license)

If you are stopped by a police officer and they have probable cause to arrest for DUII, they will offer the intoxilyzer test.

If you are above 21 and blow below .08-no consequences
If you are above 21 and blow above .08-lose your license for 3 months
If you refuse to blow-you lose your license for a year (3 yrs if you have a commercial driver's license)
If you are under 21 and blow anything but a .00 you lose your license for 3 moths
If you are above 21 and have a commercial drivers license and blow .04 or above you lose your license for 3 moths

But none of what you are talking about amounts to the crime of DUII. the only zero tolerance under 21 is with regard to a license suspension.

I really do know what I'm talking about. I tried to just show the law and not make a big deal out of it. But when confronted with links that do not say what you all think they say, what am I suppose to do.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

the only zero tolerance under 21 is with regard to a license suspension.

So this is a lie?

‘Zero tolerance laws’ discourage drivers under the age of 21 from drinking by enforcing DUI penalties if they chemically test positive for any percentage of BAC.

 

[RR7]

all of the options you list show a suspended license. So nothing gets a DUII?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So this is a lie?

That is correct, DMV implements a "zero tolerance law" to discourage drivers under the age of 21 from drinking by enforcing penalties if they chemically test positive for any percentage of BAC . . . by suspending your license. Not by automatically charging you with the Crime of DUI. If someone under the age of 21 blows a .01, they will lose their license but not be charged with DUI by the police officer (unless they suspect controlled substances are involved)

 

[The_Lillard_King]

all of the options you list show a suspended license. So nothing gets a DUII?

The law for DUII is either the drivers is affected by the alcohol OR their blog alcohol is above .08 (no different standard for those under 21)

That is the part I posted 813.010 DUII

You posted 813.130 which deals with license suspension when taking the intoxilyzer test.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

This is the problem.

If the police want to investigate someone, they have the cop at the next desk call them with an 'anonymous' complaint. Then they go investigate into someone's life that hasn't done a thing to deserve it.

It is not against the law for the Dad to give is son a gun. There was no reason to invade their privacy looking into perfectly legal practices.


Go Blazers

Finally some fucking reason!

 

[RR7]

Finally some fucking reason!

LOL if that's what qualifies as reason for you. They left when they were asked to. They did nothing wrong.

 

[donkiez]

That is correct, DMV implements a "zero tolerance law" to discourage drivers under the age of 21 from drinking by enforcing penalties if they chemically test positive for any percentage of BAC . . . by suspending your license. Not by automatically charging you with the Crime of DUI. If someone under the age of 21 blows a .01, they will lose their license but not be charged with DUI by the police officer (unless they suspect controlled substances are involved)

So in relation to my story wouldn't the admission of guilt, which was coerced by the officer acting "buddy buddy", be enough along with a +.00 BAL to get an offical DUI? That seems more reasonable than your assertion that it was an urban myth. And wouldn't that be cause for the officer to try and get some sort of confession any way he could so he could get the charge to stick?

Ill fully admit Im not a lawyer and I wasn't in the car with them, and it was 20 years ago so the details might be a bit fuzzy, but the story is truth and I know both individuals very well. While they might embelish some things they couldn't have lied about the incident, we grew up in a small town and things like that don't go unnoticed by anyone.

I appreciate the apology and the clearer explanation of your view point. However I do feel that you were trying to bait me, and win the argument along with $1000 based on semantics and nuances of the law while disreguarding the over all message.

I will apologize also, as my Matlock comment might have been a little provoking but it was meat to be more funny.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So in relation to my story wouldn't the admission of guilt, which was coerced by the officer acting "buddy buddy", be enough along with a +.00 BAL to get an offical DUI? That seems more reasonable than your assertion that it was an urban myth. And wouldn't that be cause for the officer to try and get some sort of confession any way he could so he could get the charge to stick?

Ill fully admit Im not a lawyer and I wasn't in the car with them, and it was 20 years ago so the details might be a bit fuzzy, but the story is truth and I know both individuals very well. While they might embelish some things they couldn't have lied about the incident, we grew up in a small town and things like that don't go unnoticed by anyone.

I appreciate the apology and the clearer explanation of your view point. However I do feel that you were trying to bait me, and win the argument along with $1000 based on semantics and nuances of the law while disreguarding the over all message.

I will apologize also, as my Matlock comment might have been a little provoking but it was meat to be more funny.

Good let's get past this. Wasn't trying to bait you for $1000 as it looks like i could have got that fro RR7. It was a knee jerk reaction because you mocked me and asked me to put my money where my mouth is and let my kids drink and drive.

It's really not a matter of semantics. A minimal blow by anyone will not lead to a DUI charge but could lead to a 3 month license suspension if you are under 21. The urban myth is the law for the crime of DUI in Oregon for those under 21 is zero tolerance. It's just not true.

But I am so tired of this topic as you and RRZ seem to call me out as being an ass for something I know what I'm talking about. So let's just get past this topic.

I'm out

 

[donkiez]

Good let's get past this. Wasn't trying to bait you for $1000 as it looks like i could have got that fro RR7. It was a knee jerk reaction because you mocked me and asked me to put my money where my mouth is and let my kids drink and drive.

It's really not a matter of semantics. A minimal blow by anyone will not lead to a DUI charge but could lead to a 3 month license suspension if you are under 21. The urban myth is the law for the crime of DUI in Oregon for those under 21 is zero tolerance. It's just not true.

But I am so tired of this topic as you and RRZ seem to call me out as being an ass for something I know what I'm talking about. So let's just get past this topic.

I'm out

Actually I have not called you an ass...... yet, at least not publicly. Also RR7 said you were acting like an ass which is very different than calling you an ass.

Peace out though, nice talking with ya.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

LOL if that's what qualifies as reason for you. They left when they were asked to. They did nothing wrong.

It's the principle of the thing. They shouldn't have shown up at this man's house.

 

[RR7]

It's the principle of the thing. They shouldn't have shown up at this man's house.

which complaints do you want them to answer, then? They just pick and choose?

 

[MickZagger]

Who cares? March Madness is going on!!!

 

[jlprk]

It's really not a matter of semantics. A minimal blow by anyone will not lead to a DUI charge but could lead to a 3 month license suspension if you are under 21. The urban myth is the law for the crime of DUI in Oregon for those under 21 is zero tolerance. It's just not true.

What's the difference between zero tolerance and what you say inevitably happens--a penalty of license suspension, with no right of trial to appeal it and try to get off? So because you are forced to skip the trial and go straight to the punishment, that is supposed to be tolerance?

 

[jlprk]

Some people here think that it's not harrassment if armed police scare the hell out of you for no reason. As long as they don't shoot you when you're innocent, they can humiliate you all they want, right?