When Seinfeld and real life merge.
Read More...“It sounds kind of small-minded, but I would think they probably have the legal right to do that, especially if they let people know in advance that that’s the rule,” said Paul Bender, a professor of law at Arizona State.
“I hate to say that. I don’t like them doing that. And it’s conceivable if it’s treated as a city, state or county stadium that the rule would be different. But with what kind of clothes people wear, usually people who run the ...
Login to Join (2 members)
{/exp:tag:subscribed}Page rendered in 0.5679 seconds, 100 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) posted on January 31, 2013 at 02:39 PM # hit 0 | hit 0Is he gunning for most DUIs in a decade?
Guessing here (I don't know AZ law, just CA law) -
1. DUI with suspended license.
2. DUI without court-ordered interlock device.
3. DUI second / third / etc. offense within prescribed period.
4. DUI with "endangerment" (maybe he had a kid in the car? In CA this is a DUI enhancement, but might be an independent charge in AZ)
That's all I got.
I suspect that, although you could be convicted of all four based on one incident, you could only be punished for one - because you only did one criminal act. For example, ordinary everyday non-Mark-Grace DUIs are typically charged as both being "under the influence" and "over .08 BAC." But even if convicted of both, you can only be sentenced for one, because the act (drinking + driving) was identical.
Criminal law is weird sometimes.
And if you're going to fight them, you have to be ready to fight all of them.
Welcome to my life.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.