Chris Brown gets no jail time. How shocking!

[BroomJockey]

Again, I'm just speaking about my state in particular.

Which state? Link to the law, please, if you're able. Because in a 10 minute search, I wasn't able to find anything about mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Peppergirl]

Ohio. I had texted my cousin, who is an attorney, who responded with what I posted earlier.

Here is the link from the DMV site for Ohio. Apparently the 3 days or a drinking/driving program is still on the books:

http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/driver_license/dui_law.htm

Use to be your could pay to go to the driver intervention thing, but if you couldnt afford it or chose not to, you served it out in the county jail. I'm embarassed to say I have personal experience with this. I may start a thread about it if I decide my skin is thick enough for the responses.


Here's a cut-and-paste from a second site, a lawyer's website:

Based on previous DUI offenses, fines range from $200 to $10,000. Jail time ranges from three days to one year. Fines and jail sentences are as follows:

First offense: Fine—$200 to $1,000; ALS for 90 days for .10% BAC or above; ALS for test refusal is one year license suspension; Jail—minimum of three consecutive days or three-day driver intervention program; Court license suspension is six months to three years.

[BroomJockey]

It says "or 3 day driver intervention program."

Doesn't seem very automatic if there's an option.

[Peppergirl]

It says "or 3 day driver intervention program."

Doesn't seem very automatic if there's an option.

Which is why I pointed that out in my second sentence.

And I also sited two locations that the 'driver intervention' program was still in effect.

So I was incorrect, yes.

[BroomJockey]

Which is why I pointed that out in my second sentence.
.

...

<_<
>_>

Sorry.

[Flyndaran]

Are you fucking kidding me with this??? What do you mean 'believe the woman'? In this case, she was beaten, choked, and had her head slammed against the window repeatedly. It was just her and him in the car, so what's your point? That there were no witnesses? Are you suggesting she beat herself up? How would you presume she got that way?

Of couirse you're rights. I forgot for a moment women never lie... Oh wait...
I haven't seen her injuries. Besides, there have been many cases in which the instigator of a fight was also the loser.
Again, this all falls back on the concept of a woman lying. I'm sorry you don't believe such things happen.

If you're referring to other juristictions or cases, yes - I know it's still backwards in many ways, but in this case, I'm referring to the two specific people mentioned. It was obvious Rihanna was beaten badly by Chris Brown. I truly don't understand your point about 'witnesses' in this case. This is the second post in which you've referred to lack of witnesses. I ignored the first one, but since you've said it a second time. I'd really like you to clarify.
....

I wondered if there were any witnesses in a previous post. Since no one mentioned any, I assumed that there weren't any. Since you say there were, then I'll gladly take back my assumption.

[Peppergirl]

Of couirse you're rights. I forgot for a moment women never lie... Oh wait...
I haven't seen her injuries. Besides, there have been many cases in which the instigator of a fight was also the loser.
Again, this all falls back on the concept of a woman lying. I'm sorry you don't believe such things happen.
.

Amazing how you chose to ignore my other posts that fully acknowledged that domestic violence works both ways, and that I'm just as appalled by women who beat men as the other way around.

Oh, and I also acknowledged that in many circumstances, that its unfortunate the cops do automatically believe the woman, but of course, you chose to quote only these specific sentences and twist my words around to suit your devils-advocate views, as usual.

And the sarcastic crack about women and lying? Not touching that one except to say 'classy'. Way to go, Flyn.

I wondered if there were any witnesses in a previous post. Since no one mentioned any, I assumed that there weren't any. Since you say there were, then I'll gladly take back my assumption.

Did I SAY there were any witnesses? No, I did not.

I simply asked you how, if two people were in a car and one of them emerged badly beaten, how you presume that that person got that way?

[BroomJockey]

Of couirse you're rights. I forgot for a moment women never lie... Oh wait...

And the sarcastic crack about women and lying? Not touching that one except to say 'classy'. Way to go, Flyn.

Apologies if I'm reading this wrong, Flyn, and for speaking on your behalf, but it seems to me that the point you're making is that in some cases, when a woman accuses someone of domestic abuse, she may have instigated the incident that resulted in her injuries, then lied to the police about it in order to get the partner in to legal trouble. And the police are more likely to believe that story than anything the partner puts forward in defence, because it's perceived that a woman wouldn't lie about something like that? Do I basically have that correct?

I dunno, seems like a valid comment to me. Some people just are that manipulative. It's like any other dispute, the one who can cast themselves as victim first receives benefit of the doubt, usually.

[Peppergirl]

I dunno, seems like a valid comment to me. Some people just are that manipulative. It's like any other dispute, the one who can cast themselves as victim first receives benefit of the doubt, usually.

Yes, women AND men both lie, in various situations.

But why is the crack about women and lying considered valid in your opinion? Sure, both sexes do it, and I've also been very careful here to acknowledge that domestic abuse works BOTH ways, and that it's not just WOMEN who are on the receiving end of it.

But of course, those instances where I stated as such are ignored, as usual.

[Peppergirl]

she may have instigated the incident that resulted in her injuries, then lied to the police about it in order to get the partner in to legal trouble.

Can you clarify this? How does one 'instigate' a beating of that proportion?

[Flyndaran]

Apologies if I'm reading this wrong, Flyn, and for speaking on your behalf, but it seems to me that the point you're making is that in some cases, when a woman accuses someone of domestic abuse, she may have instigated the incident that resulted in her injuries, then lied to the police about it in order to get the partner in to legal trouble. And the police are more likely to believe that story than anything the partner puts forward in defence, because it's perceived that a woman wouldn't lie about something like that? Do I basically have that correct?
...

Yes, that's a more articulate version of what I meant.

[Flyndaran]

Yes, women AND men both lie, in various situations.

But why is the crack about women and lying considered valid in your opinion? Sure, both sexes do it, and I've also been very careful here to acknowledge that domestic abuse works BOTH ways, and that it's not just WOMEN who are on the receiving end of it.

But of course, those instances where I stated as such are ignored, as usual.

You acknowledge it, then go about implying that the one that gets more injured must be the victim.

[BroomJockey]

Yes, women AND men both lie, in various situations.

But why is the crack about women and lying considered valid in your opinion?

Because the police often dismiss cases of domestic abuse where the man is the one being abused. Because the police often do believe the woman, even when evidence points to them lying. And just because Mr. Brown randomly beat the crap out of her this time, doesn't mean that in another car, at another time, another assault won't be a case of self-defence when someone tries to pull something.

The police are still conditioned to be a fairly sexist organization, in that women can't beat up men unprovoked, women can't rape men, etc. They tend to believe women in these cases, thus a crack about 'women being seen not to lie' IS valid. After all, isn't it just as possible that, if there's no witnesses, a jealous woman tries to attack a man, and in fighting her off in such a closed space, if she won't stop, would result in injuries? And if she goes to the police first, claiming he just randomly beat her up, do you honestly think they'd not believe her?

Can you clarify this? How does one 'instigate' a beating of that proportion?

It's a car. Lunge at other person with intent to go for the throat. When shoved away, hit window, receive injury. Repeat until other person manages to get out of car.

[Peppergirl]

It's a car. Lunge at other person with intent to go for the throat. When shoved away, hit window, receive injury. Repeat until other person manages to get out of car.

Yeah, and bite marks too.

Unbelieveable.

[BroomJockey]

Yeah, and bite marks too.

Unbelieveable.

Did I say THIS specific case? No. I said "In another car, at some time, with no witnesses."

And just because Mr. Brown randomly beat the crap out of her this time, doesn't mean that in another car, at another time, another assault won't be a case of self-defence when someone tries to pull something.

Seems you're also taking specific lines out of context, as you've accused Flyn of.