Pretty stupid, it seems.
Hollywood no-talent Amanda Byrnes (Don't feel bad if you don't know who she is. I've never heard of her, either.) got popped for a DUI after sideswiping a police car recently in Los Angeles. So what does she do? She tweets Barack Obama, denies driving drunk (even though she refused the breath test that would have cleared her) and demands that he personally fire the police officer who arrested her.
Amanda Bynes Charged with DUI, Asks Obama to Fire Arresting Officer
Apparently this ditz doesn't even comprehend the fact that police officers are local government employees and that the federal government does not have, has never had, and is not supposed to ever have the authority to dictate to them or interfere with their employment.
Stupid. So stupid. Who reminds these idiots to breathe every day? Is it any wonder that she and her Hollywood pals fawn over Obama so? And sadly, her vote counts as much as mine or yours.
I thought refusing the alcohol/drug test was automatic license suspension in Kalifornia?
ReplyDeleteGuess I'll have to look that up on the DMV website...
Turns out Kalifornia has an "Implied Consent" law.
ReplyDeleteFrom one of those legal advice sites:
In California, the penalties for refusing to take a blood, breath, or urine test begin with a one-year suspension of your license. You could lose your license for two years if this is your second refusal or if you already had a reckless-driving or DUI conviction within the last ten years. The penalty jumps to a three-year suspension for your third refusal or if you have had more than one reckless-driving or DUI conviction within ten years. The fine is the same – $125 – whether this is your first, second, or third refusal.
The penalties for refusing to submit to a chemical test are found in the California Vehicle Code Sections 13353 and 14905/
We have the same implied consent law here. I don't know her and glad I don't.
ReplyDeleteSigh... Idiots!
"In other news today, Obama directed Attorney General Eric "the 'I can't remember' idiot" Holder to investigate a California police officer's violation of a Hollywood celebrity's drinking while driving rights."
ReplyDeleteDann in Ohio
Not to engage in tinfoil hattery, but are you saying that all that free fedgov surplus they give to local PD's doesn't come with any strings attached?
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time believing that.
As for Ms. Bynes, I'm with you - never heard of her or her stupid TV show. I would like to see the dashcam on that stop!
As a former LEO, did you have problems discerning extreme ditz from DUI? I would think that would be kind of hard!
If there's a silver lining, it might be that she's too stupid to vote.
ReplyDelete@ Scott: as to ditzes v. DUIs..no, it's pretty obvious right off which is which, even if some are both.
ReplyDelete