0.025 BrAC on Wonder Bread.ASF

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - DAGeier, before I reply to your post, you obviously work for the DA office in some state, which state?

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 9, 2008 - DAGeier, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what state releases a person "suspected" of DUI/DWI in 2.5 hours. I want to have my buddy in the insurance business sell that state a multi-million dollar insurance policy to limit that states liability exposure, and Ill be sure to let MADD know that your state might be releasing people that are still legally impaired.

bacbob Says:

Dec 12, 2008 - There many reasons this "experiment" is bogus. Any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread and the chewing simply releases it into the breath. Any idiot who knows anything about breath alcohol testing knows this is a bogus test simply because there is no pre-test deprivation period. Operational checklists never order (allow) the arresting officer to shove slices of bread into the suspect's mouth prior to the test. Slope detectors are not perfect. Lawyers are really stupid. So are their "experts".

bacbob Says:

Dec 12, 2008 - Part 2: IR spectrophotometers ARE specific for what they are designed to detect. For a substance to escape detection as an "interferent"; it has to satisfy several criteria that are rarely, if ever, coincident in nature: they have to be a gas at body temperature (98.6F), they have to absorb IR light at the specific frequencies used by the instrument AND at the proper ratio of absorption, they have to be volatile and present in measurable amounts in breath for long periods after exposure.

bacbob Says:

Dec 12, 2008 - Part 3: Law enforcement agencies routinely "book and release" DWI offenders without requiring lock up and/or bond. It is not unusual for DWI offenders to be out of jail inside of 1-2 hours after arrest. Finally: if DWI trial lawyers have PROOF that breath alcohol testing devices don't work, why not hit NHTSA and every State that uses them with a class action lawsuit on behalf of the MILLIONS who have been tested on them? Put up or shut up. This is the best that law schools can produce? Sad.

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Bacbob, your obtuse comment, any idiot knows there is alcohol in bread shows not only your ignorance to basic chemistry but your inability to remain neutral, which discredits your expert witness testimony because of extreme bias and prejudice for the prosecution. What happens to the alcohol in the bread dough? Bread = Yeast + milk or water, sugar and flour and warmth. Yeast plants require moisture, food, and warmth for growth. When growth requirements are satisfied; part I

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Part 2. (milk or water, sugar and flour, and warmth) yeast plants grow, producing carbon dioxide gas and alcohol. The yeast coverts the sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide which is then broken down further into pyruvate, which is the carboxylate anion of Pyruvic acid (CH3COCO2H) which is the simplest alpha-keto acid. Pyruvate plays an important role in biochemical processes. The pyruvate then enters the mitochondrion and since the mitochondrion requires oxygen, the pyruvate, see part 3

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Part 3. can't be broken down completely in the mitochondrion. Pyruvate builds up in the cell, but now there's a problem because large amounts of pyruvate inhibit the enzymes that break sugar down to pyruvate. If the yeast can't get rid of the pyruvate, the whole chain of reaction grinds to a halt and the cell deosnt get any more energy from food molecules. What happens to the pyruvate? An alternative pathway starts up, in which the three carbon pyruvate is broken down to a two; see part 4

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Part 4. carbon alcohol (ethanol) and a one carbon CO2 molecule. The alcohol is secreted from the cell as a waste product. So, the carbon dioxide makes the dough rise and since alcohol has a very low boiling point and evaporation temperature threshold, or in moron lingo, the alcohol evaporates during the baking process. bacbob, I suggest you re-read this out loud 2 or 3 xs and when reading it, put your left hand over your left ear; See part 5.

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Part 5. this might be helpful in modifying your behavioral conditioning that currently prohibits your from integrating information and apprehending the truth of facts through logical reasoning, or in other words allowing something intelligent to stay put in your overdrawn bank account of knowledge. And as far as the comment, lawyers are stupid and so are their experts, exposes your inability to have intelligent discourse on complex subjects. see part 6

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Part 6: When a person resorts to name calling its always a sign of fatal shortcomings in scholarly discourse and extreme mental weaknesses in debate skills, something you will never see in a true GLADIATOR for justice. Another obtuse statement of yours, "slope detectors are not perfect".... so, tell me again, "Why is it that Intoxilyzer is used to collect evidentiary evidence and any results from that "machine" are supposed to be "scientifically reliable when the slope detector is...???" Enjoy

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - Your comment, "This is the best that law school can produce" is another glimpse into your simple mindedness. The comment, "if lawyers have proof that alcohol testing devices don't work..." is another reason the scales of justice are tipped in the states favor. How does one expect the scales of lady justice to be even when CMI, Inc only sells the Intoxilyzer to "law enforcement agencies"? If the machines are so accurate why not sell to the defense so we can do independent test? see part 2

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 14, 2008 - #2:If the Intoxilyzers are so accurate, why won't CMI,Inc turn over the source codes? Why does Toby Hall, president of CMI, Inc. disregard a subpoena in AZ and not show up? Every defense attorney in every state that uses this piece of junk is slowly chipping away at the legal concrete wall that has been afforded the state. The FBI thought its bullet fragment science that was used to convict hundreds was "state of the art" only to find out it was really junk science, just like the Intoxilyzer.

DAGeier Says:

Dec 16, 2008 - The state is Illinois. You are going to run and tell MADD? What are you, 10 years old? Nothing in Illinois law prohibits us from releasing an individual who has posted bond to family or friend, as I have previously stated. The vehicle is impounded for no fewer than 12 hours, so they won't be driving, again. Now, I can't continue to beat my head against the wall with you, and as unreasonable as your arguments are, I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 17, 2008 - DAGeier, I hope you do not try cases like you reply to post, you not only can't remember what you posted, but you lack the forethought to go back and read what you posted so as to not expose a weakness of your discourse preparation. Please tell me again where your previously stated that, "The vehicle is impounded no fewer than 12 hrs, so they would be driving again." What happens when someone blows a 0.140, you release them in 2.5 hrs @(0.095), what stops them from driving a different vehicle?

AverageJoe121 Says:

Dec 17, 2008 - DAGeier, your statement, "The state of Illinois, what are you going to run and tell MADD?" Nooooo!!!!!!!!! I don't have to, you already did.

fr33d0m999 Says:

Jan 6, 2009 - Shows this thing is a piece of JUNK and CMI is ripping off the Tax payers

PCAZCANUCK Says:

Mar 21, 2009 - A waste of tasty bread. The instrument detects and accurately measures ethanol. Seemed to work well. But good advice "our stance would be that you really shouldn't drink and drive at all" Perfect. Keep Blowin.

AverageJoe121 Says:

Jun 4, 2009 - PCAZCANUCK, you must have brain freeze, ehhh. Either that are you are blinded by your bias and lack of "hands on experience" with this piece of junk. The Intoxilyzer is NOT ethanol specific as this video demonstrates, of course a simple minded person such as yourself cannot comprehend that obvious "fact." I now nominate you for the village idiot of Canada.

wangerstein Says:

Jun 16, 2009 - so Charles didn't imbibe any of the alcohol sitting next to the 8000? or anything else before the wonder bread?? Maybe if you could do this in a lab in front of a justice committee and not in your kitchen you could get better results in your arguement.

dave07144 Says:

Jul 11, 2009 - Thats why there is a 20 minute wait period, and nothing goes into the subjects mouth for 20. Present the facts

AverageJoe121 Says:

Jul 11, 2009 - dave07144, Present the facts? FACT: You are either an idiot or you simply lack the necessary critical thinking skills needed to overcome the drunken stupor you are under from drinking the "State KoolAid" all LEO are required to drink. I will type this slow so it sinks in to the void in that brain of yours. This demonstration has nothing to do with the 20 min. wait period. It just demonstrates that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not ethyl-alcohol specific. Of course anyone with 1/2 a brain...

dave07144 Says:

Jul 11, 2009 - Mr. AverageJoe121 did you watch the video. The guy directing the old guy told him to stop blowing before it showed invalid. Complete the whole test. The pharmacological reasons this happens is way over your head, so I will not even try to explain.The fact is there are safety procedures to stop things like this from happening, ie:20 minte wait period. If this is so shocking,eat some bread, wait 20 minutes,then produce a full breath sample. Joe 121 20 minutes is counting all your fingers and toes

AverageJoe121 Says:

Jul 12, 2009 - dave07144, watch the video? I made it. You are way in over your head on this one, stop before you show your ass and quit drinking the state KoolAid. Not only do you expose the defecientcies in your critical thinking skills and biased logic, but you show your inability to comprehend what you see. When I told Charles to stop, the breath volume was 1.214 and the BrAC was 0.025. The minimum breath sample required for a "scientifically reliable sample 1.1 liter. This was a valid test.

AverageJoe121 Says:

Jul 15, 2009 - dave07144, Your attempt to use BIG words/phrases is a common mistake made by inferior intellect like yours. Where did you get that one? Out of the back of a state training manual for canned answers used to confuse the jurors or support an invalid argument? Your reply was another classic feeble attempt by a state employee to blur the truth and bolster your credibility. Keep it simple- stupid, otherwise you might as well be bent over when trying to make a point or talking to a jury.