Originally posted by Sooner_Nation
I said, watch your mouth.
i'm typing.
I said, watch your mouth.
i'm typing.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
I don't need to prove it, I know what the law says, I work in the fucking industry you moron.
so you claim, which means nothing. and can you imagine your response if someone tried this on you? you would be a puddle of impotent rage. frankly, this is about the least convincing whiteflag you've ever flown.
Originally posted by sjmay
Glad you found the relevant law though you probably have no idea what it fucking means.
i'm fairly certain that reading law is closer to my industry than yours. plus, it's very straightforward -- you should go ahead and give it a read. it doesn't at all support your claim, of course, but that's the unfortunate byproduct of you never really knowing what you're talking about.
I don't need to prove it, I know what the law says, I work in the fucking industry you moron.
so you claim, which means nothing. and can you imagine your response if someone tried this on you? you would be a puddle of impotent rage. frankly, this is about the least convincing whiteflag you've ever flown.
Originally posted by sjmay
Glad you found the relevant law though you probably have no idea what it fucking means.
i'm fairly certain that reading law is closer to my industry than yours. plus, it's very straightforward -- you should go ahead and give it a read. it doesn't at all support your claim, of course, but that's the unfortunate byproduct of you never really knowing what you're talking about.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
Cat,
Try reading this one, but I doubt you will find it useful,
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
wow.
that's the same law i ALREADY POSTED. you know, the one you ALREADY REPLIED to. you know, the one i ALREADY READ. you know, that doesn't support your claim.
ffs, you are such a dishonest person.
Cat,
Try reading this one, but I doubt you will find it useful,
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
wow.
that's the same law i ALREADY POSTED. you know, the one you ALREADY REPLIED to. you know, the one i ALREADY READ. you know, that doesn't support your claim.
ffs, you are such a dishonest person.
Catullus16
offline
offline
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=1#49627435 <--- me posting the law
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=1#49627440 <--- sjmay replying to my post
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=2#49627618 <--- sjmay posting the exact same law
always p handy when the person arguing with you cites again the proof against them.
it's almost like a confession.
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=1#49627440 <--- sjmay replying to my post
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=2#49627618 <--- sjmay posting the exact same law
always p handy when the person arguing with you cites again the proof against them.
it's almost like a confession.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
Here's another one you moron,
https://www.in.gov/spd/files/DOT_CDL_Post_Accident.pdf
i already saw that, but didn't think it was worth posting -- because it isn't.
it's not better than the other two links i posted, especially since it suffers from the same problem:
"i see language in there where tests performed by law enforcement can serve as the tests required by the employer, but i see nothing about a driver needing to comply with tests by law enforcement (only their employer). moreover, i see nothing about consent, especially in the case of a driver who can't give any."
since you're doing the sooner thing of doubling down on your errors instead of the smart thing of just walking away, i'm more than happy to start quoting the actual regulation to prove how you're misunderstanding it. how strange that the two of you act so much alike, both claiming to be a part of a profession in order to make wild claims about it that you can't defend.
Here's another one you moron,
https://www.in.gov/spd/files/DOT_CDL_Post_Accident.pdf
i already saw that, but didn't think it was worth posting -- because it isn't.
it's not better than the other two links i posted, especially since it suffers from the same problem:
"i see language in there where tests performed by law enforcement can serve as the tests required by the employer, but i see nothing about a driver needing to comply with tests by law enforcement (only their employer). moreover, i see nothing about consent, especially in the case of a driver who can't give any."
since you're doing the sooner thing of doubling down on your errors instead of the smart thing of just walking away, i'm more than happy to start quoting the actual regulation to prove how you're misunderstanding it. how strange that the two of you act so much alike, both claiming to be a part of a profession in order to make wild claims about it that you can't defend.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
If I am understanding it correctly, both of you are right.
we can't both be right, considering our stances are diametrically opposed. the only thing i'm questioning is sjmay's claim that there are "two laws contradicting each other in this case". i see no contradiction and he refuses to prove it.
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=1#49627298
Originally posted by Cowpoker
I think Cat's point was that the employer bears the responsibility of collecting the test
that was just one of many points, not my overall argument. but yes, i think the source of sjmay's confusion is that he thinks the requirement on employers is a requirement on employees that transcends consent. but maybe that sort of nuance is something only a bespectacled pseudo-intellectual with no attachment to the real world would care about.
If I am understanding it correctly, both of you are right.
we can't both be right, considering our stances are diametrically opposed. the only thing i'm questioning is sjmay's claim that there are "two laws contradicting each other in this case". i see no contradiction and he refuses to prove it.
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5280750&page=1#49627298
Originally posted by Cowpoker
I think Cat's point was that the employer bears the responsibility of collecting the test
that was just one of many points, not my overall argument. but yes, i think the source of sjmay's confusion is that he thinks the requirement on employers is a requirement on employees that transcends consent. but maybe that sort of nuance is something only a bespectacled pseudo-intellectual with no attachment to the real world would care about.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
If I am understanding the story, the nurse did the right thing and the detective was uninformed. The driver could not give consent because of his condition which is an exemption and in order to obtain the test without the drivers consent or a copy of what I have to imagine is standard where the driver gives prior consent to this type of testing, law enforcement absolutely needs a warrant and I wouldn't imagine it is difficult to obtain. My assumption is that most accidents in this case, would be enough probable cause for a judge to quickly issue that warrant but maybe there have been cases where LE has had these warrants challenged in court and judges are a little more touchy about signing off on it.
agreed. and i think everyone else does, too. i have yet to see anyone claim that there is any law supporting the officer's actions (well, except for sjmay, of course, but he quickly backpedaled).
If I am understanding the story, the nurse did the right thing and the detective was uninformed. The driver could not give consent because of his condition which is an exemption and in order to obtain the test without the drivers consent or a copy of what I have to imagine is standard where the driver gives prior consent to this type of testing, law enforcement absolutely needs a warrant and I wouldn't imagine it is difficult to obtain. My assumption is that most accidents in this case, would be enough probable cause for a judge to quickly issue that warrant but maybe there have been cases where LE has had these warrants challenged in court and judges are a little more touchy about signing off on it.
agreed. and i think everyone else does, too. i have yet to see anyone claim that there is any law supporting the officer's actions (well, except for sjmay, of course, but he quickly backpedaled).
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Unless I am misunderstanding the actual law, with probable cause, LE can ask for the test without the accident and in my opinion, an accident, even a no fault or limited fault (depending on the state) accident for me is probable cause but I am not an attorney or a judge or an investigator and it is possible that the punishment is as simple as a loss of your CDL.
Before we get all wound up, this is not a counter argument to anyone, just my understanding of how the law works.
As far as this case is concerned, who is the carrier or is the person in question a sole proprietor? It doesn't necessarily change the actual law but if you are both owner and driver, you are responsible for the test being taken but there is an exemption that he can claim where his medical condition didn't allow for the test to happen within the window of time that it is required by law. If it is a trucking firm, I would be shocked if they don't have the ability to consent on his behalf through mountains of pre-signed documents granting them that right in these circumstances but that is on the carrier and not personally on the driver.
Before we get all wound up, this is not a counter argument to anyone, just my understanding of how the law works.
As far as this case is concerned, who is the carrier or is the person in question a sole proprietor? It doesn't necessarily change the actual law but if you are both owner and driver, you are responsible for the test being taken but there is an exemption that he can claim where his medical condition didn't allow for the test to happen within the window of time that it is required by law. If it is a trucking firm, I would be shocked if they don't have the ability to consent on his behalf through mountains of pre-signed documents granting them that right in these circumstances but that is on the carrier and not personally on the driver.
Edited by Cowpoker on Sep 2, 2017 12:33:49
sjmay
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cowpoker
Unless I am misunderstanding the actual law, with probable cause, LE can ask for the test without the accident and in my opinion, an accident, even a no fault or limited fault (depending on the state) accident for me is probable cause but I am not an attorney or a judge or an investigator and it is possible that the punishment is as simple as a loss of your CDL.
Before we get all wound up, this is not a counter argument to anyone, just my understanding of how the law works.
As far as this case is concerned, who is the carrier or is the person in question a sole proprietor? It doesn't necessarily change the actual law but if you are both owner and driver, you are responsible for the test being taken but there is an exemption that he can claim where his medical condition didn't allow for the test to happen within the window of time that it is required by law. If it is a trucking firm, I would be shocked if they don't have the ability to consent on his behalf through mountains of pre-signed documents granting them that right in these circumstances but that is on the carrier and not personally on the driver.
That's actually a good point, it depends on the "trucking company" Are you talking about Swift with thousands of trucks, or Joe Blow with 3 trucks, they are both trucking companies, both have to follow DOT and FMSCA rules etc, difference is Swift has a very thorough vetting process for the most part, and Joe Blow is more concerned with how the driver is going to treat his truck, affect his insurance, and interact with his customers,
As far as Cat goes, the guy knows fuck all about the industry, but is in here quoting law that he has no fucking idea what it means lol, it's comical.
Unless I am misunderstanding the actual law, with probable cause, LE can ask for the test without the accident and in my opinion, an accident, even a no fault or limited fault (depending on the state) accident for me is probable cause but I am not an attorney or a judge or an investigator and it is possible that the punishment is as simple as a loss of your CDL.
Before we get all wound up, this is not a counter argument to anyone, just my understanding of how the law works.
As far as this case is concerned, who is the carrier or is the person in question a sole proprietor? It doesn't necessarily change the actual law but if you are both owner and driver, you are responsible for the test being taken but there is an exemption that he can claim where his medical condition didn't allow for the test to happen within the window of time that it is required by law. If it is a trucking firm, I would be shocked if they don't have the ability to consent on his behalf through mountains of pre-signed documents granting them that right in these circumstances but that is on the carrier and not personally on the driver.
That's actually a good point, it depends on the "trucking company" Are you talking about Swift with thousands of trucks, or Joe Blow with 3 trucks, they are both trucking companies, both have to follow DOT and FMSCA rules etc, difference is Swift has a very thorough vetting process for the most part, and Joe Blow is more concerned with how the driver is going to treat his truck, affect his insurance, and interact with his customers,
As far as Cat goes, the guy knows fuck all about the industry, but is in here quoting law that he has no fucking idea what it means lol, it's comical.
sjmay
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
i'm fairly certain that reading law is closer to my industry than yours. plus, it's very straightforward -- you should go ahead and give it a read. it doesn't at all support your claim, of course, but that's the unfortunate byproduct of you never really knowing what you're talking about.
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
i'm fairly certain that reading law is closer to my industry than yours. plus, it's very straightforward -- you should go ahead and give it a read. it doesn't at all support your claim, of course, but that's the unfortunate byproduct of you never really knowing what you're talking about.
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
glbisthewaytobe
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
show me where it does. dont just tell me Im a moron. please show me where and how it does. I want to trust your knowledge. this is your industry, break it down for me.
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
show me where it does. dont just tell me Im a moron. please show me where and how it does. I want to trust your knowledge. this is your industry, break it down for me.
Edited by glbisthewaytobe on Sep 2, 2017 13:17:49
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
It is "required" of the company to test those drivers and I use required loosely because there are exceptions like in this case, where his medical treatment takes priority. The company needs to file the report anyway and list the exact reason why they are not submitting the results of a post accident test within the time frame.
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
It's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
It is "required" of the company to test those drivers and I use required loosely because there are exceptions like in this case, where his medical treatment takes priority. The company needs to file the report anyway and list the exact reason why they are not submitting the results of a post accident test within the time frame.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
As far as Cat goes, the guy knows fuck all about the industry, but is in here quoting law that he has no fucking idea what it means lol, it's comical.
which is worse, the person who claims expertise but can't prove their claims, or the person who never claimed expertise and is still waiting for proof?
you can't troll your way out of this one, sjmay. put up or shut up.
As far as Cat goes, the guy knows fuck all about the industry, but is in here quoting law that he has no fucking idea what it means lol, it's comical.
which is worse, the person who claims expertise but can't prove their claims, or the person who never claimed expertise and is still waiting for proof?
you can't troll your way out of this one, sjmay. put up or shut up.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
then it should be easy for you to quote the relevant passage. yet you refuse. it's almost as if you won't because you can't.
Originally posted by sjmay
t's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
BY THEIR EMPLOYER, as i've already said multiple times. does the bolding and underlining and all caps help? i'm not trying to mock your reading disabilities, i'm honestly trying to help because you must be plumb tuckered out from moving the goalposts over and over and over.
let me remind you of your original claim (i.e. the only thing i questioned) -- "That's a very interesting case because you have two laws contradicting each other in this case, the guy's blood they wanted to draw, is a truck driver's, holding a valid CDL, by law any accident he is involved with, he has to provide blood to test."
your words, not mine. step two, prove the contradiction. prove that the driver has to provide blood to law enforcement regardless of consent. the law i posted (and you reposted) doesn't support that claim, even though you're pissing yourself with anger screeching that it does. settle down and quote some fucking text, you unbelievable coward.
If you think the law doesn't support my claim, you don't know how to read,
then it should be easy for you to quote the relevant passage. yet you refuse. it's almost as if you won't because you can't.
Originally posted by sjmay
t's pretty damn clear that surviving drivers are required to be tested after accidents.
BY THEIR EMPLOYER, as i've already said multiple times. does the bolding and underlining and all caps help? i'm not trying to mock your reading disabilities, i'm honestly trying to help because you must be plumb tuckered out from moving the goalposts over and over and over.
let me remind you of your original claim (i.e. the only thing i questioned) -- "That's a very interesting case because you have two laws contradicting each other in this case, the guy's blood they wanted to draw, is a truck driver's, holding a valid CDL, by law any accident he is involved with, he has to provide blood to test."
your words, not mine. step two, prove the contradiction. prove that the driver has to provide blood to law enforcement regardless of consent. the law i posted (and you reposted) doesn't support that claim, even though you're pissing yourself with anger screeching that it does. settle down and quote some fucking text, you unbelievable coward.
Edited by Catullus16 on Sep 2, 2017 15:23:56
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
show me where it does. dont just tell me Im a moron. please show me where and how it does. I want to trust your knowledge. this is your industry, break it down for me.
you'll wait forever, he's too much of a coward to give you an honest reply.
show me where it does. dont just tell me Im a moron. please show me where and how it does. I want to trust your knowledge. this is your industry, break it down for me.
you'll wait forever, he's too much of a coward to give you an honest reply.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
