🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Weiser wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:23:26 -0500, Hackman
> <"hacker(nospam)"@jump.nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> >KatmanDu! wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29 Jun 1998 19:22:40 GMT, russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T.
> >> Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ahh, good old HGN... wave a pen in front of their eyes and say "you
> >> >failed".  The cops who dreamed that up must be laughing their ass off.
> >>
> >> You're showing your ignorance of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the
> >> physiological reasons behind how it works. But that's OK.
> >>
> >
> >
> >oh....
> >
> >   HGN:     This is the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, a relatively
> >recent development in DUI investigation.
> >            The officer attempts to estimate the angle at which the eye
> >begins to jerk ("nystagmus" is
> >            medical jargon for eye jerking); if this occurs sooner than
> >45 degrees, it theoretically indicates an
> >            excessive blood-alcohol concentration. The smoothness of the
> >eye's tracking the penlight (or
> >            finger or pencil) is also a factor, as is the jerking when
> >the eye is as far to the side as it can go.
> >            This field sobriety test has proven to be subject to a
> >number of different problems, not the least of
> >            which is the non-medically trained officer's ability to
> >recognize nystagmus and estimate the
> >            angle of onset. Because of this, and the fact that the test
> >is not accepted by the medical
> >            community, it is not admissible as evidence in many states;
> >it continues, however, to be widely
> >            used by law enforcement.
> >
> 
> It does require training to be able to properly recognize and evaluate
> HGN, but with training and experience it's a potent tool in the
> anti-DUI arsenal.  It's by no means the only tool, nor is it 100%
> definitive, but what is?  It's simply another method of evaluating
> intoxication.  People may have slurred speech and stagger because they
> are having an insulin reaction or a stroke, they may drive poorly
> because they are poor drivers, and it's the job of the police officer
> to use every tool at his command to carefully evaluate and distinguish
> intoxicated persons from those who simply drive badly.
> 

yet you think someone in insulin reaction would pass the HGN ?


> >Note...."the fact that the test is not accepted by the medical
> >community, it is not admissible as evidence in many states"
> 
> The "medical community" doesn't "accept" that cigarettes cause cancer
> either.

really ?  care to site that ?  The TOBACCO industry may try claiming
that, but not the medical industry...try once more, or supply proff.

>   HGN is a diagnostic tool in medicine for several ailments,
> intoxication being one of them, but not everyone uses it or sees it's
> value.

well, at least not the medical industry.....


>   And the fact that it is not admissible in some states is
> offset by the fact that it *is* admissible in others.  

thats conforting....

>  Many times
> it's a political issue, not a factual issue, that keeps HGN out of
> court through laws created by the legislature, not by court rulings
> based on credible evidence.
>

yet I would reverse that statement...after all if the medical industry
says it;s not valid, why would I then beleive a politician over a
research doctor ?

yet your statement above would have me beleive the politician and not
the doctor...strange....


> The evidence is, for those of us who have used it and had sufficient
> training and experience to properly evaluate it, that HGN is very
> accurate as  *screening procedure* for intoxication.  This evidence is
> backed up by hundreds or thousands of DUI arrests where HGN estimates
> have been confirmed as accurate by subsequent chemical tests.
> 

if it's so well regraded then it should be no problem having it approved
by the medical industry huh ?


> There's nothing like empirical evidence.
> 
> >yep...cops yet again wanting to be doctors......
> 
> No, just wanting to be cops and get deadly DUI's off the highways by
> using one of a number of tools to evaluate intoxication.
>

then use the tools that have been approved and proven to work and not
the polically modavated ones...or if that method is so great have it
approved.  simple.

 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott Weiser
> 
> ******
> "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
> friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
> ******
> http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
> 
> Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser
> 
> Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial
> e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly
> contracting with me in my professional capacity for a
> consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly
> agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such
> consultation within 10 days of my report to the original
> sending address.  You further expressly agree that all
> actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely
> to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have
> sole jurisdiction.