Man driving 103 MPH arrested for child abuse

[trumad]

A West Palm Beach father has been charged with child abuse for allegedly speeding.

Robert Butler, 38, was arrested around 3 a.m. Monday after he was clocked at 103 mph on Interstate 95 while his 13-year-old son was sleeping in the passenger seat, said Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Tim Frith.

It is the first time in the state, and among the first cases in the country, in which a driver was charged with child abuse simply for reckless driving, troopers and prosecutors said.

Butler was speeding through a 55-mph construction zone with workers present, had a suspended driver license and alternately cussed and apologized to the arresting trooper, Cpl. Kevin Strickland's arrest report said.

Strickland said both the father and son smelled of alcohol. However, the father did not appear to be drunk and was not given a field sobriety test, Frith said. The boy fell asleep several times during the traffic stop, Frith said. He was wearing a seat belt.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/11/15/m1a_SPEED_DAD_1115.html

I mean what the fuck...the Dad and the kid smelled like Alcohol but they didn't give the dad a field sobriety test? Am I missing something here?

Now I'm going to admit something here. I've hit a 100 MPH in a car with my 13 year old kid. It was a lonely stretch of a major highway and it was in my Turbo C70 Volvo. The car is one of the fastest cars on the road and 100 feels like 60. I hit 100 and then backed it down to regular driving speed. BUT damn--- I won't be doing that again if I can get busted for child abuse. BTW: My kid loved it.

[SmokingJacket]

1. It might be child endangerment, but not abuse, IMHO. nt

[sweetheart]

2. They need a special state for children

Then people with children can move there and be ruled by these invasive laws, whilst the
rest of uz can not live there and not be abused by the banal stupidity that drives
child abuse for speeders, child abuse for drugs users, child abuse for spanking,
drugs wars to make unregulated drugs available for children, and other ineptitudes.

They can call the children's state, "pelican bay", a perfect republican utopia in progress.

[ixion]

21. you said it!

I'm really tired of having to tip-toe around all these folks raising kids. There really should be somewhere special they can go. :applause:

[Pithlet]

30. I agree.

And then all of the stupid idiots who had kids can look back and see all the intelligent old people dying alone in agony in their beds in 50 years or so because there was no one around to take care of them. Then we can all go back, clear out the bodies and rebuild, mourning what must surely have been a blissful Utopia. :applause:

I mean, while we're extrapolating ridiculous fantasies based on one story of a stupid charge that likely won't stick, might as well go whole hog. What other groups of people can we blame and malign based on one story on the internet?

[sarcasmo]

68. For some of us being alone without others screaming kids is UTOPIA.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. That's it! Supermax City.

A world on permanent lockdown in case anything should happen to one of its precious babies.

[sarcasmo]

67. This is my favorite thread of ALL-TIME.

Kick and Nom.

[trotsky]

3. My dad would hit 100 with us kids in the car, too.

Only our car was a 1973 Plymouth Fury III land barge. He did it to "clean out the carbon." :) We enjoyed it too. But of course we didn't wear seatbelts back then, and even though it was also on a lone straight stretch of paved country road, one little patch of loose gravel or a deer darting out could have done us all in. Scary to think back on it now - and I would NEVER do the same with my kids today, even with seatbelts and carseats and side curtain airbags.

[Mugu]

70. I can clearly remember my dad racing trains in western Kansas during the mid-50s.

Believe me, those old trains in open country could really roll. The 1950 Oldsmobile that we owned had a flathead engine and could only keep up for about 20 miles before overheating. When he got the new 55 Oldsmobile it had overhead valves and could run over 100mph forever. We made good time going to see grandma.

Regards,

Mugu

[shanti]

75. we had a fury too

all three of us kids in the back. dad often drove on the freeway after family parties (read: lots of booze) with mom saying, G*, slow down! :scared:

[Lithos]

4. Couple of thoughts

Usually the police only charge these types of things out if they think you were not only being extremely reckless, but also being an ass to the officer. He basically pissed the officer off and he threw the book at him. Driving 103 in a construction zone with workers present is not the same as pushing the limit on a lonely back stretch of road.

The charges won't stick against the Father for child abuse unless there are elements to this charge which are not detailed in the story, but it also means the father will probably have to take the full force of the other charges which I think is very appropriate. Basically he will have to pay big bucks to a lawyer and spend time in front of a judge and possibly community service.

L-

[Gold Metal Flake]

44. The alcohol allegation stinks.

If the cop could have added a DUI charge as well as a charge of providing alcohol to a minor, I think he would have. I suggest that the alcohol allegation was just hyperbole on the officer's part. As for the child falling asleep, he was probably tired and bored.

[Binka]

5. The boy fell asleep several times during the traffic stop...WTF?

Smelled of booze and falling asleep at 13 means the kid was PASSING OUT. WTF is wrong with this picture?

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Maybe dad was rushing him to a hospital?

[bleedingheart]

6. It is against the law to speed.

that is the first law he broke....

Fines are doubled and penalties are worse if you do it in a construction zone.

He was also driving on a suspended license...another broken law.

The guy sounds like a jerk.

It is stupid to speed with your kids in the car, it may be "fun" but if you hit something at 100 miles per hour or if you lose control of your car...then it won't be so "fun".

My brother worked for PennDOT years ago. There was once an accident with another road crew when a speeding woman hit a road worker and it literally knocked one of his legs off and he bled to death on the side of the road....I guess where she was going was so important that she couldn't slow down.

My brother told me that the state troopers who saw that accident had a hard time talking about it.

[seabeyond]

12. so when speed limits were 55 would be stupid to go 70 with a kid in car

and now that it is legally sanctioned to go 70 it isnt stupid anymore

right

[bleedingheart]

17. Well it is against the law to go 75 miles per hour in a 70 mph zone

so...you still can get a ticket..

As for child endangerment...my sister's friend was driving home for the holidays about 15 years ago when she pulled her son out of his car seat to feed him a bottle....Her husband hit ice...she and the baby were thrown out of the car and the baby was killed. She survived. Her husband was charged with endangerment and worse....and he was going the speed limit...but pulling that kid out of that seat was the big no no in the state they were driving through.

Apparently in this state...people can be charged for endangerment when they speed (not sure of how that is defined) , if they don't like the law it can be changed.

If the father was providing alcohol to a 13 year old...that is also a big no no as well.

[seabeyond]

20. the statement is stupid to speed... you totally ignored point

yes it is a law and punishment is speeding ticket. there was no quibble from me with the man getting a speeding ticket. to say stupid to speed with child in car.... 55 then speed limit went to 70. stupid to go 70 when it was 55.... not stupid to go 70 when it is 70

that is stupid

[zreosumgame]

59. sorry, but your point of not a good one

yep when the limit was 55 it was and STILL IS illegal to go 70 in a 55 zone. As to the changing of speed limits. Well when that happens then ALL the traffic on that road normally goes faster, so if you are the one still going 55 YOU are the danger and it is very reckless.

[seabeyond]

61. you didnt get the point,.....

i didnt say it wasnt against the law. unless you are suggesting stupid is to imply it is stupid to break the law. ok. whatever.

the stupid was in speeding with a child in the car. that is stupid. suggesting if we went faster we are putting the child in harms way. if the speed is 55 one day, 70 the next day.... a faster speed must not be putting kid in harms way. because surely the govt wouldnt conspiring to harm our children.

[bleedingheart]

19. Let me also add that from the article...this father is no gem...

"Butler got out of jail Tuesday on supervised release. He could not be reached for comment. A New York native, he had three prior arrests in Florida since 2001: drug possession, disorderly intoxication and domestic assault."

In addition the article does state the reasoning for the endangerment charge....it was the excessive speed that was considered reckless and thus an endangerment...

[seabeyond]

22. it doesnt matter if the man was a gem or not. i have no attachment

to the man. i dont care diddly about the man. i dont like the kkk either but i stand up for their right to speak out. right/wrong. this is about a speeding ticket, not endangering child

[bleedingheart]

29. he placed his son in a harmful situation by going well in excess

of the speed limits.

The article states that this is the reason for the endangerment charge.

Personally I think it is a valid argument.

[Toots]

7. Some state if you get busted for DWI and have a passenger in the car you also

get charged with reckless endangerment. I think that charge would be more suitable than "child abuse" Still the child's life is endangered in such a situation and that fact should be recognized in some manner...

[mmonk]

8. Glad he has met with some punishment for endangering his son's life.

[MrPrax]

9. Dangerous...

Basically, "if you smoke pot/owe taxes/unpaid parking tickets/anything and you know it's illegal, then why would any 'good' parent take actions that could result in harm coming to their children. Ergo abuse"

With this rationale, you can suggest the breach of any law that might affect a guardian would indirectly 'affect' the children under their charge.

So if you you place yourself in conflict with the Law in anyway, the reasoning that since your children will be affected by your inevitable 'incarceration' could be in and of itself an rationale for 'abuse' through absenteeism.

[seabeyond]

10. i dont buy they smelled alcohol if no test with 13 yr old. speeding ticket

period...

and why is there a work crew at 3 a.m.

i call bullshit on this story

[MindPilot]

14. Here in my end of the world most work on the freeways is done at night

between 10 pm and 5 am so traffic is not affected so much. Driving fast through those areas is dumb if for no other reason than the huge work lights the crews use mess up your night vision something fierce.

[seabeyond]

23. i agree..... doesnt happen in my end of the world though. lol

they have no qualm holding up traffic. thanks for info

[bloom]

15. In some places the road construction is done at night instead of in the day.

What I think is BS - are the people defending this father. It doesn't sound like he deserves it to me.

[bleedingheart]

18. I think the father is a first class jerkoff and yet people are defending

him??? I also don't get it...

[seabeyond]

25. because a person is a jerk off doesnt mean we abuse the

system to get him. i have watched our cops first abuse the rights of the criminal. we were ok with that because after all they were jerk offs and we were afraid of them and willing to allow abuse because we want to feel safe. then cops started abusing just the poor. then works up to middle class

as much as we may not like the jerk offs or criminals we have to keep boundaries, for all of us as a nation

[seabeyond]

24. i am not defending the father. i am defending all of our rights

someone murders someone we do not defend the man, but the system.... it is not about the man.

[bloom]

26. You mean our "right" to drive 103 mph in a construction zone on a suspended license

probably after having a few drinks? with your son in the car? Cussing out cops?

What "rights"exactly are you defending?

[seabeyond]

28. probably after having a few drinks? are you really buying that.

the guy was an asshole. no "gem". he mouthed off to cops. suspended license. over 100 in construction. all things that piss off cops and you are telling me they smelled alcohol on both him and the kid and didnt immediately give him a test? and this is reason for you to say he was probably drinking. it is amazing to allow ourselves to be trusting and naive when it goes along with our agenda. the tough thing is to call out truth when it does NOT go with agenda. frstly

secondly there are laws for speeding in construction, speeding and suspended license. he gets ticket or arrested for those things. but not a made up law

none of this seem tough to me

[bloom]

34. I still don't know what rights you think you are defending

for this guy.

[seabeyond]

36. to be charged with child abuse for speeding. is it on the law books

while al of us get speeding tickets are we also being charged with child abuse. is this where we want to go. there were plenty of laws broken and i am all for throwing the book at him for the laws broken. i would prefer for child abuse to stay a little more focused, to keep it strong

[bloom]

40. OK

I could see where someone might say that abuse should mean that some damage had occurred. I can totally see child endangerment, though, regardless.

I suppose actual definitions could vary state by state - and it's possible that under whatever state this law is - that this could be considered abuse.

Since there is no one set of laws for the country - or definitions - it's hard to say when such cases come up in the news.

[Pithlet]

42. Actual physical damage does not have to occur

in order for child abuse charges to stick. People who leave small children unattended in their home or car can easily be charged, even if no harm came to the child. I'm sure you probably understand that, but I'm already going head to head with the person you're responding to. At any rate, I do think child endangerment probably fits better, but I don't think charging with abuse instead is such a huge difference that it merits the outrage some seem to be feeling in this thread. I'm just not seeing huge miscarriage of justice, here.

[bloom]

43. "I'm just not seeing huge miscarriage of justice, here."

Yeah - I agree.

What gets me is all the people with their "nanny state" accusations.

I consider that to be a Republican appeal to sexism - I hate to see Democrats falling for it.

[Pithlet]

45. Yep. Me, too.

I alway wonder how they'll react when they're the ones who are a victim of someone else's negligence; I wonder if they'll still feel the same way about the laws that allow them redress, or hold the perpetrator responsible for their actions.

[seabeyond]

46. respectfully bloom, cause i like you lots, maybe you two sit in the

nanny mentality hence why you just cannot understand or see it. maybe i am not buying into something... maybe it is real. maybe you cant recognize it cause you have the nanny mentality and just see it as something that is right and good to take care of the country as a whole. after all, if they are going to be stupid, then we must be the rational, level headed ones to direct and guide them to living the right way.

just a thought.

lots of maybes

and always (to you) resectfully

[Pithlet]

47. And respectfully to you, seabeyond,

You may be in a Libertarian free for all anything goes, laws are for suckers mentality. Who knows?

Or, it could be that two people simply have a different opinion. Crazy, I know. I just know I don't enjoy being smeared as a nanny statist when I don't agree with a viewpoint. Respectful disagreement I got no problem with. But people who just spew rhetoric about a viewpoint that differs from their own are contributing nothing respectfully.

[seabeyond]

48. oh my

respectfully, that was to bloom since i enjoy her so and wanted her to know this was merely opinion on my part but good of you to take it and "jab" it back at me

spew,
anything goes
smear
contribute nothing

i dont know. not thinking you are serious on respectfully. but i was. i clearly wnated bloom to know, i do respect her tons. not so much you, wink

[Pithlet]

49. Well, you did say "You two"

so I assumed you were talking about both of us, since I was also taking part in the exchange. ETA particularly since the post you were responding to was a post responding to mine. So, "you two" looked like you meant me, too. I feel justified in thinking I was included in the nanny state smear.

I have no idea why you've chosen me to attack. And I'm not sure how taking snippets out of my post out of context to make it look like I was attack you helps with respectful discourse. You obviously have some beef with me. I don't know where it came from. If it makes you feel better to unleash on me, more power to you.

[bloom]

51. It could also have to do with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x246262#246291


It's a long post - but it gets into this sort of thing. Basically - some people are more concerned with the public good (which I associate with Liberals) and some people are more concerned with private rights (the more Libertarin POV).

I think that people who are more concerned with private rights and who see laws of this type as an infringment (which has gotten to be more the Republican platform) are the people who have been taught to yell "nanny state, nanny state" (by Limbaugh or I don't know who all) - when other people bring up issues of the public good.



P.S. Of course - the sexist part - is trying demean the idea of the public good by equating it with women/child rearing.

[seabeyond]

60. i dont agree. i dont think this is what we are talking. i think we can

protect community and individual rights at the same time. does this sound familiar? the right says give up individual rights to keep us safe from terrorists. we say no way, we can do both. you are suggesting giving up rights for good of community. i am saying, we can do both.

it is not listening to rush. i have never listened to the man but what people print here, and to suggest it is a mere brain wash dismisses anything i say

i have had people suggest if a parent smokes in a car or home with children they should be taken away. i was on the spanking thread. and now this. child abuse if you speed. you may not like or approve of something, but i have a lot of things i dont like or approve of. and still i am required to live amongst those citizens. they are not my choice to make

i am looking for balance. it is one side telling me how i must be spiritually and the other side telling me my decision parentally. because many of the things i say is none of your business, does not mean i am standing up for my right to do it. i am standing up for someones right to do it. i think all kinds of not very good things about abortion. not a thing i like about it, but it HAS to be the individuals choice. we cannot as a group law our people to safety from every possible perception of danger. we will not stop all of the pains and hurt of the world. we will not discipline all people to walk life one way.

[mongo]

62. Niice try

at trying to paint anyone that is socially libertarian as a republican in disguise and a Limbaugh fan.

No Bloom, it's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative, it's a matter of authoritarian vs libertarian.

Authoritarians come in both left and right flavors and are equally as dangerous.

As far as the right authoritarians what would they do for the public good

Outlaw abortion?
Require chuch attendence?
Require religious instruction in public schools?
Outlaw homosexuality and any other non-traditional expression of sexuality?

I'm sure I can find loads of right wing authoritarians that would hold all the above in their idea of the public good.

I don't think being a liberal means intruding in people's private lives or infringing on their rights, and that doesn't make me a republican.

Just for the record, the guy should have been charged with child endangerment, because that is what he did.

[Pithlet]

71. I don't think that is what bloom was saying at all.

I'm sure he/she can weigh in also, and I don't presume to speak for him/her, but I think the whole point in this case isn't authoritarian vs. libertarian, but private right vs. public good. In the case of the OP, the father's private rights to drink alcohol and drive his vehicle at high speeds affects the private right of others to basically not get killed by him. His son is a factor in that the son has his own rights not to get killed by his father by drinking and driving at excessive speeds, which is where any child endangerment charges come in. So,how can the poster she's arguing with make the charge that the poor father was a victim of nanny state mentality, when what the father was doing was indeed infringing on the rights of others. The point being made was smearing people who disagree as nanny statists is a right wing and/or Libertarian tactic. And it is.

As with most things political, there is a continuum, and with any given law there will be people who fall on the private rights side, and those who'll say it's for the public good, or anywhere in between. And that can change, even amongst individuals. Sometimes I fall on the side of private rights outweighing the public good. My stance on the Confederate flag for example, which I stated in another thread recently. I think the right for a person to display it on private property outweighed any negative impact it may or may not have on the public good. I tend to give much weight to the 1st amendment and think that personal, private rights where that is concerned are too important to weaken for the public good. But, then, there are instances where I think public good outweigh the individual right. Everything from drunk driving laws, to child abuse laws, to noise ordinances, I've fallen on the public good side. Then there are issues I'm moderate on, and can see both sides of, and take on a case by case basis, such as smoking laws and gun laws.

In other words, bloom didn't post what he or she did to label seaybeyond, but to point out where seabeyond was making a mistake in the label SHE was using against bloom (and me). At least, that's how I saw it.

[bloom]

73. You have to dismiss people's interest in the public good....

because you are not interested - Libertarian that you are.

Here you are to prove my point.


Did you the read the post I linked to. What do you think?

[mongo]

74. Interesting post for sure

But I really hate to see the Puritans put on such a pedestal when they were so big on public punishment for the slighest infraction.

Here the civil law laid its hand upon the citizen in his business and social relations; it regulated his religious affairs, it dictated his dress, and even invaded the home circle and directed his family relations. One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of "slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back." The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his "lewed and unseemly behavior."

http://www.usahistory.info/NewEngland/Puritans.html

So, it seems to me that the cry "for the public good" has been used since Colonial times as a method for strict conformity to a social norm.

You have to dismiss people's interest in the public good....

Quite the contrary, actually. The difference between you and I -- I will lead a horse to water, where you will MAKE him drink.

[bloom]

76. And what becomes of global warming

from the "private rights' people who don't worry about the public good so much.

Do you see the value of considering the public good for such purposes - even if it means a curtailment of your choices - or do you figure that everyone should do as they damn well please. And the earth can go to hell? (Like the earth is going to hell anyway - so why should anyone be put out about it? :shrug: )

(Of course the Republican private rights people deny global warming exists - and conveniently pretend that the scientists don't know what they are talking about).

______

As far as private rights in general - those individual rights can easily slip into sexism and racism - or at the very least a denial of any problems. To avoid sexism and racism you have to be able to see that there is a problem and acknowledge that society as a whole has an obligation to correct it. And we've seen the historical consequences of ignoring that.

You seem to get confused and assume that everyone nowadays who is concerned with the public good is concerned with people's bedrooms - but really I think that attitude comes more from the South than the North. Like the Southern Baptists. I think it's the likes of them that you are reacting to.

If you have a more Southern outlook - there may be nuances like that that you don't get. A lot of stuff you throw at me is not even close to being right.

I see your profession as public - where the public good is not considered. Just like industries that pollute - they may be providing a service - but they don't care to do so in a manner that cuts into their profits or infringes on what they see as their "rights". It's just about the profit and not the consequences.

_____

As far as solving things like global warming and whatever regulations should be involved - I am happy with the idea that whoever wants to participate in the process of coming up with solutions - do so. Having no solution/doing nothing is not an option. And my attitude about people who don't like people to care about the public good - is basically "too bad". People who don't care about the public good have no business in politics, AFAIC.

[mongo]

77. Now we're talking about global warming and my business?

Let's get back to the original thread, and why people balked about it.

It's the further and further intrusion of the law into our lives -- and "but think of the children" is one of the rallying cries.

The guy was speeding -- he broke the law and should get a ticket for that. Due to the excess speed )45mph over the speed limit) that for me drew the line into child endangerment also -- not child abuse, but reckless endangerment for sure. But what if someone is going 70 in a 65 zone with their kid in the car -- should they be charged with endangerment or child abuse?

So, maybe the folks balking at this are a bit over the top. But I can see how they react this way. Here in Ohio a few years back, a woman was charged with child abuse because her kid got lost in a department store. How crazy is that?

I see your profession as public - where the public good is not considered. Just like industries that pollute - they may be providing a service - but they don't care to do so in a manner that cuts into their profits or infringes on what they see as their "rights". It's just about the profit and not the consequences.

Once again, there is absolutely no proof you can offer here. It is a matter of BELIEF that adult entertaimnet is "harmful" in some way.

And global warming? Yeah, somebody better take some action. There are many, many issues I favor the "public good" over "private rights". But just like the clean air act, in the end, most of the actions will be symbolic and more responsibility put on individuals than corporations. We'll put emisions control on cars and make private citizens pay to prove their car isn't blowing smoke, but your local electric plant can continue to put out pollution equivalent to 50,000 cars every day.

Did you know that the air quality on the Ohio river is as bad as New York City?

[Pithlet]

66. Yes. That's where I'm coming from, too. Bottom line is:

Private rights end where those rights affect the rights of others. I don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't hurt others around you. That extends to children, because they have their own rights, too, and aren't chattel. That viewpoint gets labeled nanny state by many, including people on the right, but as you see, there are people even on DU that take that viewpoint. Laws are bad, because no one gets to tell them what to do, and to hell with the public good and other people's rights. Private rights above all else.

The funny thing is, I don't think they're even against *all* laws. They just feel they get to pick and choose which laws they think are okay, and then all the rest of them are bad. In a way, we all do that. The difference is the nanny state screamers just think that anyone who disagrees with the laws they think are bad must be evil oppressors out to get people, or something. Or, we want to wreck the party and make everyone look bad. And we're to blame for every single ridiculous, ill conceived proposal there ever was. It's easier to label the person who disagrees with your view, and then you don't have to work as hard at arguing why your viewpoint is the better one. Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve that has bugged me for the longest time.

[gollygee]

11. If the kid had been drinking as well

I think it is some kind of child endangerment or something for sure.

Also, speeding on a quiet stretch of road is different than speeding in a construction zone.

[MindPilot]

13. Usually I'm adamantly opposed to the idea of nanny-state mandated safety

"for the sake of the children" but in this case, can you say "asking for it"?

[EllenZ]

16. Reckless endangerment

I lived in Texas for years, and there, if you get caught running more than 20 mph over the posted speed limit, you also get charged with Reckless Endangerment. Speeding is only a misdemeanor, but Reckless Endangerment is a felony.

The kid,at 13, possibly being drunk is of more concern. I think it likely that the officer threw the book at the driver for that as much as anything. Willing to bet that the family gets investigated by Child Protective Services.

And my 745I BMW is quite capable of speeds well over 100, the 75 mph speed limit is fast enough for me.

[Pithlet]

31. More nanny state bullshit.

I mean, if you can't go cruising around at 103 miles per hour on a suspended license while boozing it up with your 13 year old, what is the point of freedom? :crazy:

[seabeyond]

32. you are right that is JUST the nanny state bullshit.

every logical conclusion would not support boozing it up, the nanny state is going to buy that story cause it supports there cause when there is no factual evidence, not even drinking and driving arrest to support the argument he was boozing it up. yet blatantly state he was boozing it up. exact nanny state bullshit

[Pithlet]

33. What?

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your post. Are you just automatically assuming that they're wrong about the booze, taking it as fact that they're wrong about it, then labeling anyone who might think it's possible that this guy was drinking with his son and will give the benefit of the doubt to the people who were actually there, as nanny staters? I'm assuming you're not, because that would be ridiculous, but your post was kind of hard to understand.

[seabeyond]

35. wrong

103 miles per hour on a suspended license while boozing it up with

you stated it as a fact

no where do i state it is a fact he was not boozing. i question the events and challenge authority. but i do NOT say he was NOT drinking.

so what? back atcha

[Pithlet]

41. I wasn't stating it as absolute fact.

I was stating what the story states the man was charged with. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing that that is what took place. I'm just stating that, if this man were indeed doing what he was charged with, then I don't think charging him, even if the initial charge may be overreaching, is evidence of a nanny state. I'm quite happy knowing that people can be charged with driving drunk with their kids in the car, and giving them alcohol to boot. If he's innocent of these charges, then I hope they are dropped. But I do not see the fact that these charges even exist is evidence of a nanny state.

And it's fine to challenge what the authorities are saying. I can understand thinking that they could be wrong. That is why we have courts, after all. Police aren't the arbiters of truth, for sure. But to claim that people like myself who do not think that charging such alleged behavior with something a little stiffer than a speeding ticket are nanny statists is absurd. That is my point. I could definitely see the argument that child abuse may be overcharging him, and I might even agree with it. But, I don't see it as the outrage that some here seem to. Drop it to child endangerment. But a mere speeding ticket, if the guy is guilty, doesn't go far enough.

[mongo]

64. Well, if they suspected he was "boozing it up"

why didn't they give him a sobriety test and/or charge him with DUI?

In tha absense of that it is just a baseless allegation to create more acceptance for the charge.

[ComerPerro]

37. There is no excuse for going 100mph in a construction zone

ESPECIALLY when workers are present.

The shithead is lucky he is only being charged with child abuse (which he will be able to fight easily).

He should have been buseted for DUI (if drunk), and in many areas would have been arrested and fined up the ass for going so fast in a zone with workers present.

[seabeyond]

38. many areas would have been arrested and fined up the ass

this is where i see the case. of course i disagree for the need to set precedent this is child abuse. but i would think arrest for going that speed and endangering hte workers was doable. i think texas has that kind of law. maybe florida doesnt. and drinking? 103? 3a.m.? why in the hell DIDNT they do a test.

[ComerPerro]

39. yeah, like I said, endangerment or abuse is irrelevant

he should be in jail.

[LeftishBrit]

50. Child abuse is not an appropriate charge, as the child wasn't actually injured, BUT

he certainly deserves to be 'done' on a dangerous-driving charge.

It's not only his son he was endangering; it's everyone else on the road.

[trumad]

53. I think the point is of all this is----

can they do this to anybody who speeds on the highway. I mention me going 100 with my kid in the car and I'm a law abiding citizen with a good drivers license. Can they pop me for child abuse if I went 103 or did they just go after this one guy?

[bloom]

54. Going 100 mph with a kid in the car is not what I think of as "'law abiding"

Most people don't think much of going 10 mph over. I don't know of any 90mph speed limits. So you're talking 30-45+ mph over.

As far as - should you be worried? I would say yes.

[trumad]

56. So that's child abuse?

come on.

[seabeyond]

58. and htis is what i am saying. can we all now expect charges of child abuse

if we are over the speed limit?

[LeftishBrit]

55. Well, over here you'd be breaking the law if you went over 100 mph, whether your kid was in the car

or not.

It may not be against the law where you live; I don't know the laws in different American states.

Personally, I strongly support anti-speeding laws, for everyone's safety. I'm not sure that the penalty should be different according to whether his child was in the car; because, even if he didn't have a child in the car, he's endangering OTHER people's children - and indeed other adults!

[seabeyond]

57. you understand speed are just arbitrarily picked. to have a speed

on the same road at one time 55 and another time at 75. the road didn't change. nothing made 75 more or less safe. nothing made 55 more or less safe. one moment it was 55, one moment it was 75.

and you are saying that if one choses to speed, that they are putting others life in danger.

the govt knows at what point is safe or not? who are you trusting? not your own abilities and experience but some sign, with numbers printed on them as the answer...

[LeftishBrit]

63. Yes, I think that if someone chooses to speed, they are potentially putting other people's lives in

danger.

There can be genuine reasons for making the speed limit higher in some places than others: e.g. it seems fair to have a higher speed limit on an inter-city highway than on a residential street. But obviously, there will always be something arbitrary about the speed limits, and if the speed limit in one area seems excessively high or low, then it should be challenged.

But do you seriously think that there should be no speed limit at all? Anywhere? Or that (even when drink is not an issue) everyone can make a realistic assessment of how fast they can safely drive - including taking into account the fact that even if they can drive at that speed when everything around them is going predictably, they may occasionally have to deal with unexpected events?

[seabeyond]

65. any time one gets in the car, following law or not there is potential

danger. that is the point. that is the reality. on moment of inattention is potential for loss of life. we take that risk, getting into the car. nowhere did i suggest there should be no speed limit. NOWHERE in any of my post. nowhere did i state this man did no wrong and shouldnt be punished. he should. there are three laws he broke.... that he should be sited for

my point on the same road, .... one day it is 55 and the next 75. they had all hwys at 55. then they changed the speed on the same hways, per state choice of speed. tx 70. colo and nm 75. one day those roads were 55 and that was the law. the next 75 and that is the law. at 55 people would argue faster causing potential danger. now we say on the same road going beyond 75 we create potential danger

personaly i always see the opportunity for danger when i get behid the wheel why i take it so seriously, at any speed

[LeftishBrit]

69. I was responding just to your post above, which did seem to imply that speeding isn't risking other

people's lives. Maybe I took it out of context.

FWIW, I do agree that 'child abuse' isn't an appropriate charge here.

[Porcupine]

72. It's not arbitrary. It's physics. 55 safer than 75 safer than 100 mph

Force = Mass x velocity(squared). Do the math.

There is an enormous difference in the ability of the car to absorb impact just from 55 to 75. At about 100 mph death of passengers in an auto accident is highly likely. Also at 100 mph at night the driver is driving past his lights in most vehicles. Very likely to end in a big loud smack.

The police were doing this guy a favor pulling him over. He's alive.

edit: spelling