hmmm
Is it just me or would this be the basis for a good pinball machine?
A 43-year-old man from San Rafael, Califonia, was charged on Tuesday with "driving while intoxicated and causing injuries, reckless driving, and hit-and-run with injuries" after ramming three other vehicles and slightly injuring two people, while under the influence of a veritable pharmacy of narcotics, the Marin Independent …
Low marks for craziness. Not a very creative psycho. Could have come up with better stories, and let's face it, he just wasn't on enough different kinds of drugs to be a 'veritable pharmacy' (or pharmacopia?) I really hope the next time he wigs out, he's better prepared. There will be a quiz.
Yep!
Just like the story (stories) in the papers about Mr X doing something crazy after downing 10 pints of extra-strength lager and having 2 tokes on a joint- its all obviously the fault of EVIL CANNABIS!
It's not as though weed makes you relaxed, passive, giggly and somewhat hungry....
"It's not as though weed makes you relaxed, passive, giggly and somewhat hungry..."
... paranoid, irritating to those around you, generally antisocial...
Oh wait, the guy drove whilst intoxicated, with no thought for anyone's safety, hit three cars, then claimed Area 51 was involved?
Not able to say which drug caused the biggest problem for this astronaut, but I'm 99% certain that the guy's a dick.
And that's the real reason drugs are illegal. Nothing to do with health or tax, it's purely that weed turns you into a whiney dick, cocaine turns you into an irritating dick and heroine turns you into a Glaswegian. I've seen Trainspotting.
Trainspotting was set in Edinburgh...
it's spelt "Heroin" rather than "Heroine" which is the feminine version of Hero
Also, alcohol and tobacco (or lack of the latter after the addiction has set in, anyway) have always seemed to me to be pretty bad for making people dickish.
But yeah, I have to agree that the guy's a dick for driving while intoxicated. And not having a decent cover story.
<quote> ""told the [arresting] officer that the vehicle could fly if he went fast enough"
True, if it is a DeLorean and the speed is 88mph in an electric storm.
Poor sod probably just took the wrong car by mistake
Paris - because I'd like her to come over and regenerate my flux capacitor
btw - the Hans up the top of the page wasn't me.
Has my Reg identity been stolen?
Dammit . . . and I told El Reg not to put that unencrypted CD in the post
( there's your IT angle. Happy now?)
"3 years
only ?"
"The charge of DUI with injury carries much more serious consequences than simple DUI. If the prosecutor charges it as a misdemeanor, the defendant faces up to a year in jail (plus the other standard DUI penalties). If the prosecutor charges it as felony DUI, the defendant faces up to 3 years state prison (plus an additional year for each additional person who is injured).
Worse still, if any of the injured parties is seriously hurt, the DUI defendant may be charged with a "great bodily injury" enhancement. This adds up to three additional years of state prison. Moreover, the "great bodily injury" enhancement makes the DUI offense a strike under California's Three Strikes law."
they could aslo charge him with assault which would be a second strike and he would be looking at 15 years.
"Assault With Deadly Weapon: Motor Vehicle
13351.5. (a) Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of any court showing that a person has been convicted of a felony for a violation of Section 245 of the Penal Code and that a vehicle was found by the court to constitute the deadly weapon or instrument used to commit that offense, the department immediately shall revoke the privilege of that person to drive a motor vehicle.
(b) The department shall not reinstate a privilege revoked under subdivision (a) under any circumstances.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the department shall terminate any revocation order issued under this section on or after January 1, 1995, for a misdemeanor conviction of violating Section 245 of the Penal Code.
Added Ch. 1221, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.
Amended Sec. 15, Ch. 606, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999. "
Its odd that if i'm just charged with a DUI and I hurt some , six months I can drive. If i;m charged with assault and a car was used, I lose it for life.
Give the guy a break... He got nabbed on Sunday evening... He was probably on his way to work and left early so he could get there in time Monday morning... That Highway 101 commute in San Rafael is H*LL.
Seriously though, hope he has an enjoyable stay at the iron bar hotel...
/getting my coat and heading for work in San Rafael
Stephen. I refer you to this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/bootnotes_advice/
Moreover, it's a goddamn flying-car story, only it doesn't actually have a flying car, like most flying-car stories - so it could serve as a *comment* on flying-car stories.
Is there anyone else who hasn't figured out by now that this IT website has a non-IT section? Like, for light relief? Y'know? Kinda?
No, really, your point is?
I'll reiterate my previous comment:
"guess one day the editors might decide to focus on QUALITY not quantity"
Because even if you keep on posting non IT related 'stories' they should at least be up to a certain standard...if a few paragraphs about some bloke mashed up to high heaven is supposed to be a standard then I guess El Reg must be in dire straights?
I take my hat off to Joshua: "Waste of an article, waste of a click." and I'll add "waste of bandwidth"...perhaps I should report you to Tiscalli?* They may wish to start charging...
*Now you have an IT angle.
Well, with all due respect, what did you think a story titled 'Area 51 drug test victim crashes flying car' was going to be about?
My point is that it should be pretty clear to any IT professional which stories are for light relief and which are sober and serious. If it isn't, then boy, I wouldn't want you tinkering with my malware-stricken machine.
Also, I am duty bound to inform you that it is 'straits', not 'straights'.