Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Re: Popper arrested

[Joe and Cass Leone <leone@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 12:37 AM, EGS1217@xxxxxxx wrote
> ...but is this for real with the above?  Take this scenario:  I am  
> the registered owner of our best family vehicle...which is the one  
> most often taken on road trips.  My spouse opts to be the primary  
> driver, purely because he loves to drive.  By the above reasoning:   
> you are saying I can be held responsible for any infraction he  
> commits no matter HOW much I disagree with or protest his style or  
> method of driving on a particular day....or whether or not I'm even  
> awake at the time he might decide to speed up and violate a  
> particular area's posted speed limit?  I can be "cited"  according  
> to what you say. How does this make any sense under any State's law?

This would be the 'technicality'. Basically, the law feels that the  
owner is ALWAYS responsible. In your particular case there would be  
extenuating circumstances. These would be:
1... you are the wife and not expected to overpower the husband who  
is driving.
2... you are a woman and not expected to overpower a man who is driving.
3... it is very possible that you wouldn't be able to reason with  
either of these 2 beings.
4... this would be considered by the magistrate.
5... chances are that in your case, not only would you be found  
'Nolle Prosse' by the court, the police might not have given you the  
citation in the first place. I had many such cases and never arrested  
the woman.
6... if things were reversed and it was you who was driving, and a  
male is the owner, it is expected that he could stop you from  
speeding even if it meant having to use physical force (OR  
screaming). In this situation, the person using said force could make  
the defense (to assault) that only such force as was necessary to  
effect the compliance was used.

The law holds that any violation that is committed in an effort to  
stop a GREATER violation, safety issue, self defense, or averting a  
catastrophy, would be forgiven as a 'de minimus' case. If you were  
doing 111, a person would have the right to stop you in whatever way  
they could. They would be covered under the self defense rule. On the  
other hand, a woman has the same right and is allowed the same  
privilege EXCEPT a woman may not be able to achieve the task.
>  I've honestly never heard of such a thing.  I'm lucky in that in  
> many years of driving he did get only one speeding ticket since he  
> actually does usually listen to my built-in "6th sense" about when  
> road conditions don't feel right...and most often slows down when  
> asked ......but this one was HIS ticket, issued to him as the  
> driver...and I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.  Ironically, I  
> was sound asleep at the time, coming back from a long road trip. HE  
> is the one whose insurance went up, got points on his license...not  
> me.

And that's the way it should be. Now Johnny is a very big dude and  
also the leader of the band. I would think that he 'could' have used  
some leverage to stop the driver. My guess is that he was asleep.  
Johnny is a really nice kid and reminds me somewhat of Penn Gillette  
(Penn & Teller...the magicians). He IS a free spirit but I wouldn't  
consider him anything more than a Teddy Bear. He's much like Paul  
DeLay was. Just a real nice BIG guy.
> What makes this any different from John Popper and his friend  
> driving his car?  The laws should apply equally.

Intimidation. The laws DON't apply equally. Every case is different.  
People have a hard time getting a handle on that, but remember, the  
law is a guide. There are plenty of laws so that everything can be  
covered in one way or another. If a person is a hard case, I'm sure  
the police could have brought SEVERAL charges. So maybe most get  
thrown out. It STILL puts the defendant through the 'mill' (so to  
speak), teaches them some respect, and they ether learn their lesson  
or start down that long long road to trouble. Arrests are a learning  
experience. Some learn quick and some are hard heads.
> When some folks here start blaming  John Popper and dissing him  
> because someone else in his crew drives over the speed  
> limit...there's something wrong.

Well, we can only go by what we have right now. I'm sure that someone  
closer to the case, has it covered. I noticed that they were released  
on their own recognizance, and John wasn't cited (as owner).

>  When ANY gigging band travels via van or other 'big" vehicle,  
> usually the occupants take turns driving, while the others rest or  
> sleep until it's their turn to take over the wheel.  That's how it  
> works. A fact.

Yeah, that's the drill.

>   What's Popper supposed to do?  I mean really...what would people  
> have HIM do:  stay awake 24 hours a day despite perhaps being  
> completely       exhausted on his way to the next gig..JUST to  
> ensure that whoever was behind the wheel sticks to the speed limit?

Like I said, he is probably going to be ok on THAT item. I (for  
example) always  * suggest *  to Mama Cass when she goes up to Andrew  
Jacksonville (321 miles) "Don't speed, take your time, be careful,  
don't pick up hitch hikers". Maybe John never told the guys not to  
speed. I don't know.

>   Where is the guy behind the wheel's responsibility in all of  
> this?  In fact, it's ALL a driver's responsibility for his  
> decisions..not the other occupants, who are merely passengers of a  
> vehicle.

The driver caused  A L L  the trouble and I'm pretty sure that's the  
way it's going to go down, but John has the 'name' and that's what  
the news hit on.

>   This isn't a Bank robbery where accomplices can be charged  
> equally, as far as I know..so what am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. The above should shed some light. It's  
there in the books in CASE the law 'needs' it.
> Come on people...some of you are holding him to a far higher  
> standard than I'm sure you practice in your own daily lives.   
> There's something questionable about all this Popper bashing...

I didn't see any bashing. I think we're disappointed because one of  
our own let his guard down and BINGO, he gets bad press?
smo-joe  (I never played a lawyer on TV)    giggle
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
>
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's  
> free from AOL at AOL.com.
> !DSPAM:5614,45f24440216696324469739!