|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
TameThaTane 
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,3:26 pm |
|
   |
22-year-old woman convicted for hitting man with mini-van
By MIA SIMPSON/mia.simpson@austindailyherald.com
The 22-year-old Austin woman convicted of injuring a 57-year-old man with her mini-van has been sentenced to probation and community work service.
Bobbie Jo Schlichter was charged with single counts of felony criminal vehicular operation and misdemeanor driving after cancellation after a hit-and-run incident Nov. 18, 2006, when, witnesses say, she struck a man crossing Second Avenue Southeast and drove away, according to the complaint.
Though a plea agreement, her felony charge was reduced to a gross misdemeanor.
She was sentenced in Mower County District Court Thursday to five years probation, 60 hours of community work service and a $1,000 fine, $950 of which was stayed.
Restitution has not been resolved, according to court documents.
The complaint said the man she hit suffered a depressed skull fracture and inter-crannial bleeding. Schlichter allegedly said she fled the scene because her license was invalid.
Depressed skull fracture, inter-crannial bleeding, invalid license, runs and gets 60 hours community service and a $50 fine?
I'd say this is far more serious than smoking pot.
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
White Pride
weißer Stolz
Group: Members
Posts: 897
Joined: Jul. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,5:16 pm |
|
 |
Maybe she was high on pot when she hit the guy...
--------------
Dr. Pride here
I'm an ENGLISH speaking white GERMAN-AMERICAN, and DAMN PROUD OF IT!
What bothers people more... the fact others disagree w/them, or that the others just might be right after all?
If you're being stupid, acting stupid, or just plain stupid, I will not hesitate to let u know!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
TameThaTane
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,5:30 pm |
|
|
No, no she wasn't. Now is it OK?
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,6:08 pm |
|
|
QUOTE 169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION. Subdivision 1. Implied consent; conditions; election of test. (a) Any person who drives, operates, or is in physical control of a motor vehicle within this state or on any boundary water of this state consents, subject to the provisions of sections 169A.50 to 169A.53 (implied consent law), and section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), to a chemical test of that person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance or its metabolite, or a hazardous substance. The test must be administered at the direction of a peace officer. (b) The test may be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), and one of the following conditions exist: (1) the person has been lawfully placed under arrest for violation of section 169A.20 or an ordinance in conformity with it; (2) the person has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property
damage, personal injury, or death;(3) the person has refused to take the screening test provided for by section 169A.41 (preliminary screening test); or (4) the screening test was administered and indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. © The test may also be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle with the presence of any alcohol. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169A.51
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
White Pride
weißer Stolz
Group: Members
Posts: 897
Joined: Jul. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,6:27 pm |
|
|
(Liberal @ Feb. 22 2008,6:08 pm)
QUOTE QUOTE 169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION. Subdivision 1. Implied consent; conditions; election of test. (a) Any person who drives, operates, or is in physical control of a motor vehicle within this state or on any boundary water of this state consents, subject to the provisions of sections 169A.50 to 169A.53 (implied consent law), and section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), to a chemical test of that person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance or its metabolite, or a hazardous substance. The test must be administered at the direction of a peace officer. (b) The test may be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), and one of the following conditions exist: (1) the person has been lawfully placed under arrest for violation of section 169A.20 or an ordinance in conformity with it; (2) the person has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property
damage, personal injury, or death;(3) the person has refused to take the screening test provided for by section 169A.41 (preliminary screening test); or (4) the screening test was administered and indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. © The test may also be required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle with the presence of any alcohol. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169A.51
....and your point is?
I'm assuming that you posted that in response to my question to 3T about his direct involvement with the crime in question... I was being sarcastic to his idiocracy. There was no mention of any results of said test, so for 3T to insinuate that the driver was sober without question is presumpuous.
Perhaps a better rebuttal would have been to provide the results of testing on this individual instead. That would have been a proper, more responsible and lucid response.
--------------
Dr. Pride here
I'm an ENGLISH speaking white GERMAN-AMERICAN, and DAMN PROUD OF IT!
What bothers people more... the fact others disagree w/them, or that the others just might be right after all?
If you're being stupid, acting stupid, or just plain stupid, I will not hesitate to let u know!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2008,7:00 pm |
|
|
At the risk of sounding irresponsible... Anytime there is an accident involving injury the police are going to get the driver's blood, and the driver doesn't have a choice in the matter.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
You see and hear stories like that from time to time it seems.
