The Glade 4.0

Since the underlined portion is pretty much total bullshit, we can disregard everything else. You cannot prosecute someone for lying because they accuse you of lying.

The part where he claims they charge you with lying for contesting their version of the interview.

As for being a known and respected civil liberties lawyer, that makes him A) not a neutral or unbiased party and B) party to a particularly scummy type of law. Civil liberties groups, like human rights groups on the international scene, are built on taking outrage at legitimate violations, and using it to fuel suspicion so that any accusation of violating civil liberties is taken at face value, no matter how outrageous. It's no different than "sex offender".

This guy is lying because he's a civil liberties lawyer and its in his interest to call any FBI interview into question. All he's doing is well-poisoning.

And all you're doing is ad hom. Your response seems to be limited to "he's a dirty lawyer." He's a leading individual in his field, well qualified to offer substantive opinions on this matter.

He explains how they can snag you with contesting their version in the article. He does it in detail.

I'm looking forward to hearing your retort to his article that has an equal level of explanatory depth as his, at which point I'll be excited to weigh both sides.

Point is, you haven't really given evidence to support your take on it.

This guy knows exactly what to say and what not to say to make himself look like a hero and the FBI look bad. He's a turd, looking for a big payout from a big lawsuit.

So, DE's retort is: to ad hom and declare by fiat while appealing to your own authority yet rejecting the original author's authority.

Got it. Further, you've engaged in your own well poison (while declaring the same of the OP author) and then attacked me for asking questions.

Fascinating.

Actually, he's neither an ambulance chaser nor an individual looking for a lawsuit. While I'm sure he makes solid money representing individuals as a defense attorney, the idea that you're implying is that all defense attorney are bad.

If that perception is correct, that's wholly ridiculous. If incorrect, you should look to be more substantive and less accusatory.

As to phone recording: I can't speak to that, but it seems like a reasonable counterpoint. I wonder, without re-reading his article, whether he is speaking about getting the recording from the cell company itself.

Tougher drunken driving threshold recommended

By JOAN LOWY
— May. 14 4:34 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) — States should cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half— from .08 blood alcohol level to .05_matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries, a federal safety board recommended Tuesday. That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds, two for a 160-pound man.

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the staff of the National Transportation Safety Board. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said.

NTSB officials said it wasn't their intention to prevent drivers from having a glass of wine with dinner, but they acknowledged that under a threshold as low as .05 the safest thing for people who have only one or two drinks is not to drive at all.

A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol in most studies.

Alcohol concentration levels as low as .01 have been associated with driving-related performance impairment, and levels as low as .05 have been associated with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes, the board said.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of about a third of the more than 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways — a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

An alcohol concentration threshold of .05 is likely to meet strong resistance from states, said Jonathan Adkins, an official with the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices.

"It was very difficult to get .08 in most states so lowering it again won't be popular," Adkins said. "The focus in the states is on high (blood alcohol content) offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08."

Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB's call for a .05 threshold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board's recommendation.

"NHTSA is always interested in reviewing new approaches that could reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, and will work with any state that chooses to implement a .05 BAC law to gather further information on that approach," the safety administration said in a statement.

The board recommended NHTSA established "incentive grants" designed to encourage states to adopt the lower threshold.

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that 7,082 deaths would have been prevented in 2010 if all drivers on the road had blood alcohol content below .08 percent.

The lower threshold was one of nearly 20 recommendations made by the board, including that states adopt measures to ensure more widespread use of use of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Those require a driver to breathe into a tube, much like the breathalyzers police ask suspected drunken drivers to use.

The board has previously recommended states require all convicted drunken drivers install the interlock devices in their vehicles as a condition to resume driving. Currently, 17 states and two California counties require all convicted drivers use the devices.

However, only about a quarter of drivers ordered to use the devices actually end up doing so, the board said. Drivers use a variety of ways to evade using the devices, including claiming they won't drive at all or don't own a vehicle and therefore don't need the devices, the board said.

The board recommended the safety administration develop a program to encourage states to ensure all convicted drivers actually use the devices. The board also recommended that all suspected drunken drivers whose licenses are confiscated by police be required to install interlocks as a condition of getting their licenses reinstated even though they haven't yet been convicted of a crime.

Courts usually require drivers to pay for the devices, which cost about $50 to $100 to buy plus a $50 a month fee to operate, staff said.

The board has previously called on the safety administration and the auto industry to step up their research into technology for use in all vehicles that can detect whether a driver has elevated blood alcohol without the driver breathing into a tube or taking any other action. Drivers with elevated levels would be unable to start their cars.

But the technology is still years away.

Studies show more than 4 million people a year in the U.S. drive while intoxicated, but about half of the intoxicated drivers stopped by police escape detection, the NTSB report said. The board also recommended expanded use of passive alcohol devices by police. The devices are often contained in real flash lights or shaped to look like a cellphone that officers wear on their shirt pockets or belts. If an officer points the flashlight at a driver or the cellphone-like device comes in close proximity to an intoxicated driver, the devices will alert police who may not have any other reason to suspect drunken driving.

The use of the devices currently is very limited, the report said.

Dramatic progress was made in the 1980s through the mid-1990s after the minimum drinking age was raised to 21 and the legally-allowable maximum level of drivers' blood alcohol content was lowered to .08, the report said. Today, drunken driving claims nearly 10,000 lives a year, down from 21,000 in 1982. At that time, alcohol-related fatalities accounted for 48 percent of highway deaths.

The board made its recommendations on the 25th anniversary of one of the nation's deadliest drunken driving accidents in Carrollton, Ky. A drunk driver drove his pickup on the wrong side of a highway, collided with a bus and killed 27 people, 24 of them children. The children were part of a church youth group on their way home after spending the day at an amusement park.

DUI laws ceased to be about public safety a long time ago. Now they're just about demonizing alcohol use in general.

DUI laws ceased to be about public safety a long time ago. Now they're just about demonizing alcohol use in general.

All that reducing the legal limit is going to accomplish is hassle sober drivers with additional sobriety check points.

Texting while driving is a greater menace at that point.

Texting while driving is also illegal here.

There's got to be a line, though. "Distracted driving," I believe they call it. Does having two screaming toddlers in the back seat count? It does a hell of a lot more to distract the driver than talking on a mobile phone, and yet the latter is illegal here, the former is not. How much legislation do we really need?

It should be noted that when the in-car radio was invented, it was protested as being distracting and dangerous.

Stage plays Dime store paperbacks comic books movies television violent video games are bad for children.

And should be taxed more, apparently (according to the Rev. Franklin Graham and VP Biden.

All that reducing the legal limit is going to accomplish is hassle sober drivers with additional sobriety check points.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin