You can’t just go down the road eating a hamburger.

 

Apparently, some LEO in Georgia thinks it's now illegal for you go down the road eating a hamburger these days. http://is.gd/18nvhU

The next thing I expect is for someone to get a ticket for carrying on a conversation with a passenger or listening to a radio. "You just can't go down the road talking and listening these days. You just gotta pay attention to the road and not do anything else."

Maybe driverless vehicles will be necessary so we will be able to exercise reasonable judgment in a vehicle again.

Unbelievable.

--
Garmin nüvi 3597LMTHD, 3760 LMT, & 255LMT, - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman
<<Page 2>>

Show Due Care

Just what was he doing to that hamburger if he wasn't showing it due care?

LOL

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

a bit more information

I did what research I could do without full access to Georgia case law sources. What I found is summarized below. (I am not a lawyer and do not live in Georgia.) You may (or may not) want to download and read the full legislative review found at: http://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol27/iss1/9

Georgia Code Section 40-6-241 is clearly and primarily concerned with addressing the issue of texting while operating a motor vehicle, paticularly when done by minors or when texting results in an accident. The law and issues related to its enforcement was intended to be more educational than punitive.

Georgia also has a Reckless Driving Act, codified in Section 40-6-390, which is clearly more punitive in nature. (The driver in the case under discussion could have been charged under that Code Section had he been observed to engaged in any specific act the officer deemed to be "in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property".

There were concerns expressed by legislators related to the issue of enforcement of this law whereby it might be abused to "harass minorities — particularly immigrants and African Americans. These concerns over enforcement were thoroughly discussed and generally considered valid. Nonetheless, many lawmakers took the position that, even without rigorous enforcement, merely having such a law on the books would effectively deter texting while driving, which outweighs any of the Acts’ potentially detrimental effects. In essence, the Acts seek a high degree of voluntary compliance."

There were also remarks by legislators in the process of enactment that the law could possibly be used to cite a driver that "fails to maintain his lane or drives in a similarly dangerous manner while distracted, including while putting on make-up, disciplining children, or texting". (To me these paricular acts, and eating a hamburger, would be more appropriate under the Reckless Driving Code Section where the officer must also observe any such act of the driver resulting in some action [weaving, speeding, DUI, etc.] that is "in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property".)

Note: all quotes are from the review linked above.

--
Garmin nüvi 3597LMTHD, 3760 LMT, & 255LMT, - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman

Texting

On my morning commute I see drivers distracted by texting EVERY DAY, and this LEO is stopping someone for eating?? Things are really off the rail here. The texters are easy to spot: head up and down, one hand driving, speed is 30, up to 45 down again to 25, over the center lane and back, bumping along the shoulder kicking up all the dust AND THE BEST ONE: The light turns green and they just sit there OBLIVIOUS for 15 seconds. Well the cops can make the town rich: just hang around the local Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks and clean up! No problem writing hundreds of tickets for every driver taking a sip of coffee while rolling along. They'll put the RLC's out of business!

--
"Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic

It's just another...

example of TOO MUCH government control.

--
Garmin Nuvi 765T, Garmin Drive 60LM

Trial By Jury

This case has to go before a jury. There is no way a guilty verdict can come out of a jury.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

I highly doubt it will go that far

The judge or adjudicator will toss this like a salad.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

I drive for a living...

and see many drivers driving and not paying attention to the road. It really doesn't matter what you're doing does it? Eating, talking on the phone or to someone in the car, texting. In plain English, if your eyes are not on the road, both hands on the wheel you are to some level practicing unsafe driving or distracted driving.
Kinda like speeding. 3 to 5 over will probably not get you pulled over but at 10 over you're probably gonna get a ticket.
In my experience depending on my location 30% to 50% of drivers are guilty and could use a driver refresher course.

what it truly comes down to

Frside007 wrote:

and see many drivers driving and not paying attention to the road. It really doesn't matter what you're doing does it? Eating, talking on the phone or to someone in the car, texting. In plain English, if your eyes are not on the road, both hands on the wheel you are to some level practicing unsafe driving or distracted driving.
Kinda like speeding. 3 to 5 over will probably not get you pulled over but at 10 over you're probably gonna get a ticket.
In my experience depending on my location 30% to 50% of drivers are guilty and could use a driver refresher course.

is if the driver cited by the LEO violated the provisions of the Georgia statute. It doesn't matter what he was doing, it comes down to was he distracted and therefore guilty of violating the statute as written. That's the question the judge will be required to evaluate and answer.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

An Official Has Spoken

Check out this article:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/official-cobb-burger-case-will-...

Not sure I like that other chargeable offenses may not be listed on the citation. If the car was being operated in an unsafe manner, that should be the charge. Trying to make the connection from say swerving to distraction has to be a stretch. Why not just charge the driver with swerving instead of distraction?

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

unbelievable

unbelievable

--
Garmin DriveLuxe 51 LTM-S

Can't Legislate Everything

dagarmin wrote:

I can't tell you whether the cop had legal justification for this ticket, and maybe he could have warned instead of ticketed, but eating while driving is associated with an 80% increase in accident risk according to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.drive-safely.net/eating-while-driving.html

Read up on the history of how GA put this law into effect. An interesting comment was that by just by having the law on the books would be a deterrent. There was much concern and controversy during the development of this statute, even including the fear of abuse of using the statute for discrimination against minorities. But the thought that the mere existence of the law on the books would be a deterrent is absurd. There are thousands and thousands of statutes on the books and the general public has no idea what is on the books. Most lawyers probably have no idea of all the statutes that are on the books.

Trying to charge someone with distraction is consistent with the Thought Police trying to legislate their versions of morality and stupidity. Being distracted is not always bad, it happens a significant amount of the time. It is not enforceable. Swerving is chargeable, regardless of the reason. If someone did something dangerous as a result of distraction, charge them with the dangerous thing they did. Let's stop trying to be Thought Police.

Remember, Prohibition was repealed. Consumption of alcohol is not bad. Being drunk is. Consuming alcohol is not chargeable, being drunk is.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Close...

diesel wrote:

Remember, Prohibition was repealed. Consumption of alcohol is not bad. Being drunk is. Consuming alcohol is not chargeable, being drunk is.

Consuming alcohol in public is chargeable, being drunk in your own home is not (if not adversely affecting others).

More legislation required?

Being devil's advocate, not supporting either side.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

Stick to the Topic

camerabob wrote:
diesel wrote:

Remember, Prohibition was repealed. Consumption of alcohol is not bad. Being drunk is. Consuming alcohol is not chargeable, being drunk is.

Consuming alcohol in public is chargeable, being drunk in your own home is not (if not adversely affecting others).

More legislation required?

Being devil's advocate, not supporting either side.

You can only be a Devil's advocate if you are in on the same conversation.

I never said anything about consuming alcohol in public. But since you brought it up...

Prohibition was about banning alcohol, wherever, whenever. With the exception of medicinal purposes. Prohibition was about imposing the mores of a specific group on the whole.

Consumption of alcohol, in public or in a home, is not bad. Illegal is another issue.

BTW, it is legal to consume alcohol in public, out in the open, walking on the streets, in New Orleans. wink And other places as long as it is concealed in something like a brown paper bag.

The legal limit for BAC is what it is, regardless of where it is.

The Thought Police do not like that people can do things in their own home beyond the control of the Thought Police. That just drives narcissists nuts!!! Narcissism at its finest.

Prohibition proved that morality can not be legislated. But stupidity continues to legislate.

A law on distraction is attempting to know what a person was thinking. Thought Police at it again.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

There are limits

I saw one lady with a book against the steering wheel, and a ketchup packet held with that thumb. The other hand was going between eating fries and drinking the large coke.

This was in very heavy traffic during rush hour.

--
d

Eating a hamburger in a vehicle is not illegal

GA Code, Section 16-11-41. Public drunkenness

(a) A person who shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition in any public place or within the curtilage of any private residence not his own other than by invitation of the owner or lawful occupant, which condition is made manifest by boisterousness, by indecent condition or act, or by vulgar, profane, loud, or unbecoming language, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Although I am not a lawyer, it is clear to me that drinking alcohol in public, by itself, is not sufficient to prove "Public Drunkenness". Likewise, eating a hamburger in a vehicle is not proof of "distracted driving" or of a failure "to exercise due care".

Something more is required. Drinking alcohol in a public place is only drinking. Eating a hamburger in a vehicle is only eating. Neither act in and of itself is unlawful unless the condition is "made manifest".

To be guilty of a failure "to exercise due care" (GA Code Section 40-6-241), as in the case under discussion, there must be some additional evidence (swerving, speeding, etc.???) to show that the individual is not just eating in a vehicle, but, that in doing so, he also manifests simultaneous behavior which demonstrates that such driver is in fact distracted from the safe operation of such vehicle.

Because the GA legislature intentionally did not set out any particular behaviors to evidence distraction** and left enforcement as a matter of discretion, we don't know the specific behaviors necessary to be made manifest. We do know, however, that eating while driving, in and of itself, is insufficent grounds for a charge to be upheld under the relevant Code Section.

If I were the prosecutor, I would end the embarassment and dismiss the case. We will have to wait and watch to see what action the prosecutor takes and/or what the judge may rule in the case. (No jury is likely if this matter goes to trial; although there could be a jury trial in the event an appeal, if necessary.)

**Edit: The relevant code section does go on to set out certain actions related to the "writing, sending, or reading text based communication while operating motor vehicle" that would constitute prima facie evidence of a failure "to exercise due care". No other specific acts are set out that would not require supporting acts to make manifest the condition of a failure "to exercise due care".

--
Garmin nüvi 3597LMTHD, 3760 LMT, & 255LMT, - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman

Prove It

Is there a direct and irrefutable link between the burger and conclusive distraction? Was there conclusive distraction? If the car was swerving, was it exclusively caused by the burger? That State has to prove that connection. Could the swerving also have been caused by a charlie horse, heart palpitation, something in the driver’s eye, laughing, a wasp, or many other things? If someone is eating a burger while driving and the car swerves, it can be asserted that cause was distraction by the burger. It is another to conclusively prove that eating was the cause of the swerving. It is not conclusive that distraction by burger was the cause of the swerving, if the swerving happened. And it has been reported that the LEO acknowledged that there was no unsafe vehicle operation. That was from a statement from the accused. So if there was no unsafe operation, the State needs to prove distraction with no reason or evidence. Clearly the car was being operated safely, and the driver was eating a burger while doing so.

So in the time it takes to conduct the motor vehicle stop citation, did the LEO really collect all evidence to conclusively and irrefutably conclude distracted driving? What evidence would that be?

In this case, the charge is distracted driving and it appears to be by reason of burger. The State needs to prove distraction. Prove that the driver was distracted. Now there is another problem here, and I am not a lawyer, but it is called estoppel. The charge is distracted driving. If the evidence of distracted driving is something like the car was swerving, etc., then that itself is a chargeable offense. To then use a previously undisclosed chargeable offense in evidence against a vague and broad statute is very dubious indeed, and perhaps estoppel issues can be raised to put an end to this abuse of the distraction statute. And if something like swerving is to be used as evidence in a distraction charge, the swerving must also be proven as fact. Just because it is brought up as evidence does not mean it is automatically irrefutable. If the charge was swerving the State would have to prove the car was indeed swerving. But if swerving is used as evidence against a distraction charge, it to must be ratified as true. Very dangerous, and why estoppel needs to be invoked to prevent other potential chargeable offenses from being used as evidence in a distraction charge.

In my area, we have motor vehicle traffic court that is officiated by a magistrate. The accused also has the option of a trial by jury. I hope that this goes to trial by a jury, no way this will ever get a guilty verdict by a jury. The accused needs to let it be known he wants a trial by jury, and that should be enough to get the State to drop the charge immediately. This needs to be exposed and made a spectacle.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Check This Out

Here's some interesting coverage, check out the video of Mr. Turner:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/20/che...

So if you watched that video, the accused states he was not driving deviantly. So that leaves pure distraction by eating that the State has to prove conclusively, irrefutably, and beyond reasonable doubt. I think some sort of brain electrodes would have been needed. I think it is necessary to know what the driver was thinking in order to evaluate his state of attentiveness.

I guess the Thought Police will have all that evidence and all those answers.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Money grab

It looks to me like that Georgia cop is either a bad cop, an idiot, or he has a ticket quota to fulfill. Think about it: He's a Georgia cop, and he sees an out-of-state driver eating a hamburger (eating a hamburger!) in his car. Talk about easy pickings. Most out-of-state drivers will just mail in the waiver fine, bitch a little, and get on with their lives. Easy money for the ticketing state. Am I cynical? You bet I am. And I'm glad that in this instance, the ticketed driver at least tried to embarrass the cop, although embarrassing a cop is like trying to embarrass a politician.

Phil

--
"No misfortune is so bad that whining about it won't make it worse."

Two straws are better than one!

bwarden wrote:
KenSny wrote:

Maybe fast food containers & bags should come with a warning label. "Do not eat while driving".

In Louisiana, the drive-through daiquiri stands have to give you your straw separately. They can't put it in the drink for you.

The really good stands give you two straws. One to use in the traditional way and one to show the officer who pulled you over. Since it is still in the paper overwrap, the daiquiri is not in an "open" container.

I love NOLA!

Citation

The citation lists the law violated was 40-6-241, which is the statute against distracted driving. It's here:

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/...

The description of what the driver was doing that caused the distraction was eating while driving.

The case will certainly hinge on the officer's description of the defendant's driving and if the judge is convinced that the defendant was driving in an unsafe manner.

Need details

We need the details of what kind of unsafe driving resulted from eating the burger. Was he weaving from lane to lane? Following too close because he was looking at his Big Mac instead of the driver in front of him? Did he blow a stop sign? I will occasionally eat when I drive, and I'm fully prepared to keep on going if I spill something. I will not start grabbing napkins, or try to pick the food up, or whatever. If you keep food wrapped it's possible to eat a bite at a time with no chance of spills. I would not try to eat a slice of pizza while I drive.

But Officer...

Really, I wasn't speeding...

diesel wrote:

So if you watched that video, the accused states he was not driving deviantly.

What do you expect the guy to say?

--
The Moose Is Loose! nuvi 760

No Expectations

Moose135 wrote:

Really, I wasn't speeding...

diesel wrote:

So if you watched that video, the accused states he was not driving deviantly.

What do you expect the guy to say?

I didn't expect that at all. But then, I would never expect someone to be charged with eating while driving when the car was being operated safely. But apparently the LEO and accused discussed the manner the car was being operated and it was not a problem. Looks like the State will probably have a much different or larger story when this goes to Court.

Just remember, the charge is distraction by eating. The State has to prove distraction with what is on the citation.

I know that there are many sides to stories. I also investigated a police dept. and studied the records. The statistics on traffic citations was shocking.

Let's say a LEO cites a driver for unsafe operation, such as swerving. They go to court and the State has to prove swerving took place and to a degree that it was unsafe. So unsafe vehicle operation is the issue and argument.

Now in this case, the charge is distraction by eating. That has many challenges, and most importantly how safety was compromised. But what bothers me is that something else may be brought up in court by the LEO, such as swerving or some other unsafe vehicle operation, that itself could be a chargeable offense. As such, those other chargeable offenses would also need to be argued and proven to be irrefutable facts. When offered in support as evidence against this distraction charge, these other chargeable offenses are already assumed to be facts, not allegations. This is very dangerous.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Can't Get Enough

This story is still getting reported.

Through reporting like this, law enforcement and legislation get fine tuned. Hopefully.

Can't wait for February 3 when this is scheduled for a court date.

I hope the court is mobbed with media.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

KFC Go Cups

This could raise legal issues about the KFC Go Cup, which was specifically designed to fit in a car's cup holder:

http://www.kfc.com/food/chicken/gocups.asp

Its easy to judge when

Its easy to judge when you're only info is coming from the media who in most cases don't know all the facts. I, like the rest of us know very little about the actual circumstances. I am going to assume based on the reported facts, that the officer followed the driver for a pretty long time and the stop was based on his erratic driving and the ticket was issued because he couldn't keep his car straight on the road while eating that burger. Just my opinion, but I've seen some pretty sketchy driving on the roads from people doing all kinds of things instead of paying attention to the job at hand.....Driving.

Interesting

GARYLAP wrote:

Its easy to judge when you're only info is coming from the media who in most cases don't know all the facts. I, like the rest of us know very little about the actual circumstances. I am going to assume based on the reported facts, that the officer followed the driver for a pretty long time and the stop was based on his erratic driving and the ticket was issued because he couldn't keep his car straight on the road while eating that burger. Just my opinion, but I've seen some pretty sketchy driving on the roads from people doing all kinds of things instead of paying attention to the job at hand.....Driving.

Why didn't the LEO cite the driver for erratic driving?

And if the driving was erratic, following a car being driven erratically sort o proves that the driving wasn't that bad at all. If the driving was bad, the driver should have been pulled over immediately.

And how did the LEO see the accused eat the burger for two miles? Just where was the LEO to be able to see this for two miles?

How does the LEO know that the assumed erratic driving was caused by the burger?

Distracted driving is very weak.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Ummmm.. er... uh... well...now...

I find it interesting so many think it's up to the state to prove this or that.

In most states, driving is a "PRIVILEGE" not a "RIGHT."

So I'm of the mind that says the state doesn't really need to prove jack.. In fact, in this particular case, it certainly appears its a "SUBJECTIVE" call on the part of the LEO.

It's not like a speeding ticket, running a red light, a hollywood stop, throwing something out the window or even impaired driving.

Its one of those nebulous areas where the CoP has all kinds of discretion... and to that end, it's likely to be one of those he-said he-said kinds of scenarios... and I'll be more than surprised if in the end the courts don't side with the cop.... without regard to how silly the initial citation was... distracted because of eating a hamburger.. The cop could have just as easily written a citation for distracted driving if the poor sap was driving chewing bubble-gum and blowing bubbles!

I suspect at the end of the day, the score is going to be

COP - 1
Driver - 0

Now, I would suspect we might have an interesting conversation discussing the merits of sending the cop to school so he might truly have a better vision about what truly distracted driving is.

Now, if the driver, (poor soul), had dropped the burger on his shirt, then down on his pants and he crossed the lane markers and other silly things... then I'd likely side with the cop... but in this case, it certainly seems, at least on the surface, the cops discretion filter is a wee bit faulty.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it! smile

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Depends on Who Does the Deciding

If this goes before a Magistrate, like a dedicated traffic court, it is a simple word vs word, and the LEO wins. If this goes before a jury, no way this results in a guilty verdict. There is no way a jury would convict, so it will end up as hung or not guilty.

I hope the accused has filed intent to go before a jury. Or it could be more interesting if he goes to traffic court, takes the guilty verdict, and then goes to trial before a jury and reverses the earlier ruling.

But if all that has been reported and published about this case is true, then even if it goes before a Magistrate, it should be interesting. It has been reported that the LEO and accused discussed the driving of the accused and there was no problem. It was purely and exclusively about eating while driving. So if the driving was observed and was not problematic such that a citation for dangerous driving was not issued issued because it was unsubstantiated, the State has to prove distraction by burger. If the accused pleads "Not Guilty", the State has to prove the accused is guilty. If not, what's the point of the subject statute? We can't have a Police State convicting people simply on their say-so, that wouldn't be right now, would it?

BarneyBadass wrote:

I find it interesting so many think it's up to the state to prove this or that.

In most states, driving is a "PRIVILEGE" not a "RIGHT."

So I'm of the mind that says the state doesn't really need to prove jack.. In fact, in this particular case, it certainly appears its a "SUBJECTIVE" call on the part of the LEO.

It's not like a speeding ticket, running a red light, a hollywood stop, throwing something out the window or even impaired driving.

Its one of those nebulous areas where the CoP has all kinds of discretion... and to that end, it's likely to be one of those he-said he-said kinds of scenarios... and I'll be more than surprised if in the end the courts don't side with the cop.... without regard to how silly the initial citation was... distracted because of eating a hamburger.. The cop could have just as easily written a citation for distracted driving if the poor sap was driving chewing bubble-gum and blowing bubbles!

I suspect at the end of the day, the score is going to be

COP - 1
Driver - 0

Now, I would suspect we might have an interesting conversation discussing the merits of sending the cop to school so he might truly have a better vision about what truly distracted driving is.

Now, if the driver, (poor soul), had dropped the burger on his shirt, then down on his pants and he crossed the lane markers and other silly things... then I'd likely side with the cop... but in this case, it certainly seems, at least on the surface, the cops discretion filter is a wee bit faulty.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it! smile

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

May not be worth it

diesel wrote:

....
I hope the accused has filed intent to go before a jury. Or it could be more interesting if he goes to traffic court, takes the guilty verdict, and then goes to trial before a jury and reverses the earlier ruling.

There's always the potential of the defendant thinking a day off of work and lawyer expense might not be worth it just to win a ticket. The system stinks that way.

Court Date Coming Up

Last I saw, this was to go to court on Feb.3, so mark your calendars.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

See

diesel wrote:

Last I saw, this was to go to court on Feb.3, so mark your calendars.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202716462384/Driver-Cit...

Feb. 10 Is The New Court Date

jgermann wrote:
diesel wrote:

Last I saw, this was to go to court on Feb.3, so mark your calendars.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202716462384/Driver-Cited-for-Eating-Burger-Orders-Up-a-Lawyer?slreturn=20150030121609

Lawyers up! This will be interesting.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

If coffee is more dangerous ...

I wonder how likely a LEO would be to ticket someone for drinking a cup of joe while driving.

Next time ...

Next time I drive thru GA, I'm ordering McNuggets with no sauce ... just in case. wink

--
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 51LMT-S, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra, Bosch Nyon

Come on, eat healthy and

Come on, eat healthy and order a tossed salad instead. You can toss it while you drive.

Next they'll be telling me I

Next they'll be telling me I can't drive my car on the sidewalk anymore.

LOL

computerperson wrote:

Next they'll be telling me I can't drive my car on the sidewalk anymore.

LOL, damn, I hope so! Last summer somebody gunned it and drove up on the sidewalk (no curb there) to get around a car and driver signaling for a left turn and would have hit me and my dog on the sidewalk if I hadn't pulled her and moved out of the way. Took a year off my life. Where's an LEO when you need one??

--
JMoo On

the LEO WAS

dagarmin wrote:
computerperson wrote:

Next they'll be telling me I can't drive my car on the sidewalk anymore.

LOL, damn, I hope so! Last summer somebody gunned it and drove up on the sidewalk (no curb there) to get around a car and driver signaling for a left turn and would have hit me and my dog on the sidewalk if I hadn't pulled her and moved out of the way. Took a year off my life. Where's an LEO when you need one??

Busy eating a doughnut smile

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Driving the car.

Last time someone came up on the sidewalk where I was standing, it was a marked cop car. He was playing on his computer and just missed about 10 of us waiting for a walk signal.

--
d

Dumbass alert

dmauray wrote:

Last time someone came up on the sidewalk where I was standing, it was a marked cop car. He was playing on his computer and just missed about 10 of us waiting for a walk signal.

Yeahhhhhhhhh, if that one hadn't turned out as it did, it might have gotten mentioned on the evening news.

--
JMoo On

Anticipation

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Really?

Oh my, did he really say citizens have common sense?

--
I never get lost, but I do explore new territory every now and then.

so

What's the final score...

Cops - 1
Dude - 0 ?

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Feb 10, 2015

Latest published court date that I've seen is Feb. 10, 2015.

I'm not sure about the judicial system down there. Up here we have traffic court for motor vehicle cases, presided by a magistrate. The accused has the option of a trial by jury.

I hope this goes in front of a jury. I would guess less than 3 minutes of deliberation and a not guilty verdict for a jury.

If it goes to a traffic court situation, probably a guilty or nolle ending. Then I hope it goes to a jury trial to overturn and show how silly the law and traffic courts are.

Interestingly, this story is still getting press, it is being watched.

BarneyBadass wrote:

What's the final score...

Cops - 1
Dude - 0 ?

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED

As reported:

“Given the facts and circumstances investigated by this office, the State does not believe it has the evidence necessary to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard required,” The Cobb County Solicitor General’s Office announced Friday.

Just do a search, plenty of sources.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Charges Dropped

This should take you to many releases regarding the charges being dropped:

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.ajc.com/ne...

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

dropped

Drat!!!!!

I was looking forward to hearing a good ol fashioned Perry Mason law case!

I figured if it got to trial, the judge might sit there eating a cheeseburger while the proesussion presented it's case.

Nutz

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

This Will take care of this!

selfruler wrote:

Apparently, some LEO in Georgia thinks it's now illegal for you go down the road eating a hamburger these days. http://is.gd/18nvhU

The next thing I expect is for someone to get a ticket for carrying on a conversation with a passenger or listening to a radio. "You just can't go down the road talking and listening these days. You just gotta pay attention to the road and not do anything else."

Maybe driverless vehicles will be necessary so we will be able to exercise reasonable judgment in a vehicle again.

Unbelievable.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driverless-cars-4-cities-...

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Glad to see justice served.

As I noted on Jan. 22,

selfruler wrote:

(E)ating a hamburger in a vehicle is not proof of "distracted driving" or of a failure "to exercise due care"...Something more is required...If I were the prosecutor, I would end the embarassment and dismiss the case.

@diesel, thanks for all of your efforts in following this case and keeping us posted on events as they happened!

--
Garmin nüvi 3597LMTHD, 3760 LMT, & 255LMT, - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman
<<Page 2>>