quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.

I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.

I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?

As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.

I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?

As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.

You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
It’s interesting Lane that you make pronouncements about Hunter Biden, yet to find this man drunk, since he is a Republican, you demand absolute proof, whatever absolute proof is.

The Republican is owed the benefit of the doubt. The Democrat is already proven a reprobate by signing onto the Democratic platform.

I assume by absolute proof you are really talking about objective proof, ie the intoxilizer. First, when I used to defend DUII’s, if a bad blow was the issue, in jury selection, I would always ask, “If you had a $100,000 in cash would you deposit the money in a bank atm.” I am yet to have a person answer in the affirmative. Machines aren’t infallible,

If you appeared hypokalemic from GI disease would you prefer I just administer IV potassium and hope? Or, would you rather I measure your serum electrolytes on a machine for some objective data prior?


but more to the point as Mjines. Mitchell have tried to tell you, one has look at the totality of the evidence.
This drunkenness allegation is a big deal, at least politically. Don’t suspend your common sense (you consider yourself as we have been told by you many times, to be a pragmatic thinker). I submit, his failure to provide a contrary explanation in the face of this allegation of drunkedness, although circumstantial is as strong as evidence, coupled with his bizzaro behavior, as an any intoxilizee.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.

I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?

As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.

You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As a doctor, a manifestation is a symptom. Similar symptoms occur over a variety of of diseases. Symptoms are often “subjective” unless it can be measured like body temperature for a fever.

The “art” of being a good diagnostician is not getting too hung up on single “subjectives” and putting to together the larger puzzle.

Physiologic manifestations vary widely across individuals. The only clues in diagnosis that can be marked down as absolutes are “objective” measurements…ie: breathalyzer readings and blood alcohol concentrations.

When condemning a person…I will stick with the absolutes for my judgements.

I've noticed that your standard of proof for Republican misconduct is more strict than for Democrats.

You're insisting on an impossible standard of proof for this R speaker. A blood test? Really? When and how, when his handlers probably hustled him home to sober up.

I've seen a lot of drunks, and he sure looks drunk to me. Show me a negative blood test.

It's also very telling that the speaker has offered no other explanation. When a politician has a basis to deny an accusation, they take it.

Be honest now. Doesn't he look drunk to you?

As I stated above…he was definitely impaired.

You were not asked if he looks impaired. You think he possibly could be impaired do to a medical condition.

The question is does he look drunk to you? Yes or no?

It is a possibility for sure.

Funny you can tell how healthy a homeless person is just driving by him, but you cssnmot tell if someone is under the influence of intoxicants.

I do not believe a PNT test is even admissible in Texas, but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.

You nor any Juror get to decide the PDT is admissible. By law it is a mistrial for a PBT to even be mentioned to the Jury. You are not allowed to even hear about it.

You would be struck for cause. No one would even have to use a strike on you. For someone who claims to be around the Legal System as much as you, you could not pass a basic civics test.

Not all doubt is reasonable. The standard is not all doubt or a shadow of a doubt.


You as a juror have no say on what is admissible evidence. That video is.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
but that video and how he acts are proof.

Not if I was a juror.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, is the charge alcohol intoxication or is it driving under the influence of a substance?

If its driving under the influence, what the substance is is irrelevant, its if he is impaired. Folks are claiming he's drunk on alcohol. I don't know that... but I certainly see impairment.

Maybe its the scientific mindset... but you need to state the question correctly to get scientific types to agree.

Lane, is the speaker impaired?

That is as good an answer as you can get from a scientific type from that video.

Are the odds pretty good that it is alcohol? I would say so given the guy isn't usually that way, but that's a supposition, not a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, is the charge alcohol intoxication or is it driving under the influence of a substance?

If its driving under the influence, what the substance is is irrelevant, its if he is impaired. Folks are claiming he's drunk on alcohol. I don't know that... but I certainly see impairment.

Maybe its the scientific mindset... but you need to state the question correctly to get scientific types to agree.

Lane, is the speaker impaired?

That is as good an answer as you can get from a scientific type from that video.

Are the odds pretty good that it is alcohol? I would say so given the guy isn't usually that way, but that's a supposition, not a fact.

If he wasn't driving, he couldn't be charged with DUI.

The standard is what more is needed for impeachment--which is largely a political decision.

Unless he has a reasonable explanation for his condition as shown on the video, I would vote for impeachment.

quote:

My defense lawyer is DUI .

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The fellow was impaired. In a trial if he had a plausible explanation for impairment, I would accept it unless there was objective proof he was under the influence of alcohol.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Is there a reason to show up for a legislative session sober?

I'm not sure I e seen anything more useless that a 21st century legislature, why not tie on a good one in advance?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Is there a reason to show up for a legislative session sober?

I'm not sure I e seen anything more useless that a 21st century legislature, why not tie on a good one in advance?

The back story I'm seeing on this is; that it was a light-night session and it is a long tradition in the Texas House to booze during late-night sessions. They even have a bar in the legislative chamber.