Biden Claims Drunk Driving Isn't A Felony

[Moonglow]

Yet you continue to deny you were misleading the first time just like Biden did, it all depends on factors which YOU and him didn't consider.

By the way you ignored post 7.

I never mislead, a plain old DUI is not a felony, sorry you have trouble digesting such material.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Joe Biden rendered VICE talkshow hosts speechless when he made a claim that Drunk-Driving wasn't a felony.

Tell that to all of the people who have family members killed by drunk drivers.

Good God.
And this clip is enough proof to show just to the level of bias and cover up the left media engage in.
Can you imagine whta the media response would be if Trump said this???????

2 years ago - and no one even seen this before!!

 

[mudwhistle]

It isn't a felony....end of discussion.

It is under specified conditions.....end of discussion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Good God.
And this clip is enough proof to show just to the level of bias and cover up the left media engage in.
Can you imagine whta the media response would be if Trump said this???????

2 years ago - and no one even seen this before!!

If you're a drunk driver and you grab a secret service agent by the clavicles....then you're committing a felony.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I never mislead, a plain old DUI is not a felony, sorry you have trouble digesting such material.

To which I replied at POST 30,

"Now you were more specific thus correct."

Sorry you have trouble reading my agreement with you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yet you continue to deny you were misleading the first time just like Biden did, it all depends on factors which YOU and him didn't consider.

By the way you ignored post 7.

In post 7 it says "in many states" but that doesn't mean all of them.

It also says "can lead to", meaning it may or may not be considered a felony, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, it depends on the circumstances which resulted in a DUI. And, being charged with a DUI doesn't necessarily mean that you will be booted out of the military. I remember a First Class who was convicted of a DUI while I was stationed with VFA-131 (had to do the paperwork on it as I was in Personnel) and he only ended up going to Captain's Mast, served 45 days restriction, with a suspended forfeiture of pay, suspended bust (both for 6 months) and was kept in. If he would have messed up and gotten another DUI, then he may have ended up getting booted, but as far as I know, that was his only conviction, and he served until he retired.

I'm sorry. When I was in the Army under Clinton if you had any drug or alcohol offenses on your record....they booted you out.....end of discussion. They even booted you out if it was decades old.
We've had alot of guys running the gates because they're drunk and trying to get back on post. They knew they couldn't get on without being busted.

 

[mudwhistle]

In post 7 it says "in many states" but that doesn't mean all of them.

It also says "can lead to", meaning it may or may not be considered a felony, it depends on the circumstances.

Murder has 3 categories....but it depends on the circumstances....it's still murder.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If you're a drunk driver and you grab a secret service agent by the clavicles....then you're committing a felony.

You're right, if you are a drunk driver and you grab a secret service agent by the clavicles, YES, you are committing a felony, but it's not for being DUI, it's for assaulting and obstructing a Secret Service agent, and it would be considered a felony even if you were stone cold sober. Nice to see you try to mix in other crap in a vain attempt to somehow "prove" your point that doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed.

1562. Obstruction Of The Secret Service -- 18 U.S.C. § 3056(d)

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Section 3056(d) of Title 18 prohibits knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting, or interfering with a Federal law enforcement agent who is engaged in protective functions. It is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 111 forcibly to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with Federal law enforcement officers, including Secret Service agents, in the performance of their duties. Unlike 18 U.S.C. § 111, 18 U.S.C. § 3056(d) appears to require proof of knowledge of the victim's official status. Compare the similar distinction drawn between 18 U.S.C. § 111 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212 in United States v. Rybicki, 403 F.2d 599 (6th Cir. 1968). In prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 3056, it is not necessary to show that the defendant used force against a Federal law enforcement agent. It would suffice to show that the defendant's willful action constituted an obstruction or resistance to or interference with, the performance of the protective duties of a Federal law enforcement agent. See S. Rep. No. 1252, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1970). This statute authorizes Secret Service agents to arrest persons who engage in activities which could nullify or reduce the effectiveness of security precautions taken by the Secret Service, without requiring proof that such interference was forcible or aggressive. Section 3056(d) applies only to those protective functions enumerated therein.

 

[Sunsettommy]

In post 7 it says "in many states" but that doesn't mean all of them.

It also says "can lead to", meaning it may or may not be considered a felony, it depends on the circumstances.

How come only YOU misunderstood my initial statement?

"Not quite it depends on the persons history and the laws of the states they are caught in:"

and,

"Again, while these are some of the most common situations that can lead to felony DUI, each state classifies DUI offenses differently. Depending on what state you're in, the definition of felony DUI might be more or less inclusive than the list discussed here."

Responded to this:

It isnt a felony in any state. It takes a few DUIs to be a felony.

Not necessarily what if the driver who was stopped by the police already had several previous DUI's then it is no longer a misdemeanor when he was arrested police who would look at his driving record to determine if it is a misdemeanor or felony arrest ticket.

That is what you and Harley missed completely

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm sorry. When I was in the Army under Clinton if you had any drug or alcohol offenses on your record....they booted you out.....end of discussion. They even booted you out if it was decades old.
We've had alot of guys running the gates because they're drunk and trying to get back on post. They knew they couldn't get on without being busted.

Guess things change when a Republican is in office, as the incident I was talking about happened in 1992, when Jr. was in office. And while there was a "one and done" policy for drugs, they didn't have the same thing when it came to alcohol offenses. How do I know this? Because I was in Personnel, and it was my job to know.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If you're a drunk driver and you grab a secret service agent by the clavicles....then you're committing a felony.

I saw a clip today where a lawyer was describing what this show trial is... she began with "well at this point they are literally making things up. In the real world, there is what is called evidentiary code. Legal parameters that evidence must adhere to, in order to enter evidence or testimony it must be something that is either first hand, or can be shown true by physical or photographic evidence. There is no such thing in this clown lineup.
A witness can literally say anything they want. Anything. No rules, no need to bother with it being true or not.
It is a joke. A farce.

 

[mudwhistle]

Guess things change when a Republican is in office, as the incident I was talking about happened in 1992, when Jr. was in office. And while there was a "one and done" policy for drugs, they didn't have the same thing when it came to alcohol offenses. How do I know this? Because I was in Personnel, and it was my job to know.

When I was in in the 90s Clinton wanted to get rid of alot of active-duty military....so he started bouncing people out for old drug and alcohol offences......then he switched to overweight and not making E7 by the time you hit 20 years.

 

[Dekster]

It is under specified conditions.....end of discussion.

No THEY are under "specified conditions"

IT is "never", inbred

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It wasn't wrong but it can be misleading which is the main focus for some people in the thread that being more specific would have prevented the misleading charge.

So basically it is just BDS

 

[Dekster]

Wow, yes you would.

Wow no I wouldn't

 

[mudwhistle]

I saw a clip today where a lawyer was describing what this show trial is... she began with "well at this point they are literally making things up. In the real world, there is what is called evidentiary code. Legal parameters that evidence must adhere to, in order to enter evidence or testimony it must be something that is either first hand, or can be shown true by physical or photographic evidence. There is no such thing in this clown lineup.
A witness can literally say anything they want. Anything. No rules, no need to bother with it being true or not.
It is a joke. A farce.

This shitshow is just a campaign ad for the Democrat Party.
Abortion is just a campaign ad for the Democrat Party.

They want us to ignore inflation and ignore their lousy POTUS and pay attention to their constant trashing of Trump.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When I was in in the 90s Clinton wanted to get rid of alot of active-duty military....so he started bouncing people out for old drug and alcohol offences......then he switched to overweight and not making E7 by the time you hit 20 years.

Pretty sure it was Congress that said the military needed to be smaller.

 

[mudwhistle]

No THEY are under "specified conditions"

IT is "never", inbred

It can be a felony as can murder be either intentional or by accident.

Everything is dependent upon the circumstances.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So basically it is just BDS

It is definitely overblown news.