T1B

WASHINGTON COUNTY - A star from the reality television series 'Little People, Big World,' which is filmed locally, faces DUII charges.

Matthew Roloff, 45, was cited for DUII, refusing a breath test and failure to drive within a lane for an incident that happened just before midnight on June 19.

According to the Washington County Sheriff's Office, a deputy saw a white van failing to stay in its travel lane as it was headed westbound on Northwest West Union Road near Cornelius Pass Road.

After being pulled over, police say Roloff failed a field sobriety test and they arrested him. He was taken to the Washington County Jail where he was cited and then released.

The Roloff family, which is made up of little and average-sized people, has gained much media attention as the stars of 'Little People, Big World,' which documents their lives. The family runs a farm north of Hillsboro.

First off, I'm quite familiar with the area he was pulled over in, and you've really got to work at it to get pulled over there. Patrols are few and far between, and the patrolling officers know they need to fry the biggest fish -- IE the ones that just can't keep it in their lane.


And I'd love to see the video of a freaking drunk midget trying to do field sobriety tests.

What a dumbass. If you're going to refuse the breath test, then you sure the hell need to refuse the field tests. You're losing your license anyway, why give them more evidence to charge you with a crime? A crime they can't prove, but our county has quite the precedent for "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to railroading alleged DUIIs to make some bucks.

Him and my buddy, who is Roloff's neighbor out in the close-in-sticks should figure out a way to carpool, since there isn't a store for a few miles in any direction out in Helvetia, and since my buddy is also currently sans license, for about the same reason (although his attorney seems to think the appeal is a slam-dunk).


Whole buncha drunk driving goes on out in the agland outside of town.

I thought this was a Moving Sale/MtLR thead...


Just forget I even posted this. My bad.

Martyred wrote:I thought this was a Moving Sale/MtLR thead...

Oh, I realized the pile-on/wytching opportunities before I clicked the "New Topic" button... trust me on that one.

That midget is half crippled, what were the field tests? He hasn't walked a straight line in his life. I hope the show was taping during this, I can't wait.

Short people, got no reason to live.


They got little baby legs, that stand so low......

you got to pick em up, just to say hello.

I laffed when I saw his grille on the TV this morning. The only thing better would him to have resisted arrest and got his ass kicked. I would have loved to hear the Nextel conversations from the deputy on the way in.

They all have "personal" use nextels so they can communicate with each other to keep anything they say off the tapes at the Dispatch Center....or so I have heard.

Yoyoyo Car 54.. I got a drunk fucking midget I am bring in to book..

No fucking way dude....

Yeah its that fucking cripple midget from up in Helvatia.. dude is fucking wasted..I took his crutches away and the little bastard couldn't walk the line....so I ripped his ass....

Sweet.. is he resisting?? We have a welcoming committee ( thug jailers who greet disruptive custody's with physical restraint) ready for his sorry ass...

apparently we've run out of thread topics.

I know you did years ago.


Go fuck yourself.

WolverineSteve wrote:That midget is half crippled, what were the field tests?

One foot on the sidewalk, one on the street. Count backwards from 4'6" Look up at the cops belt buckle and touch his nose with his finger.

We used to use midget gooks for AR-15 target practice. In 'nam. Get tuned in on hitting them little fuckers and then the regular sized gooks are a breeze to cap.

sig

Barflie

I have some experience with the DUI but I've never heard of the DUII?

Is that DUI #2? Is he not tall enough to play with the big boys a la D-IAA/D-II schools?

TenTallBen wrote:I have some experience with the DUI but I've never heard of the DUII?

Is that DUI #2? Is he not tall enough to play with the big boys a la D-IAA/D-II schools?

In the State of Oregon, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) is a Class A misdemeanor or a Class C felony. Misdemeanor DUII is punishable by a maximum sentence of one (1) year in jail and a fine up to $6,250. If a minor is in the vehicle, the fine may increase to $10,000. Felony DUII is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $125,000. Upon conviction of misdemeanor DUII, the offender’s Oregon driving privileges are suspended for one or three years or revoked for the offender's lifetime, depending on the driving record. Upon conviction of felony DUII, the offender’s driving privileges are revoked for the offender’s lifetime.

Ya, I didn't know either...

Can't we just come up with a nationwide standard...

DWI
DUI
OWI
DWII

I'm sure there are more out there but those are all I've seen (but not been technically convicted of) so far.

Why?

It's a state issue. States can call it whatever the fuck they want, and the fed has no business poking their nose in it.


Call me conservative like that.

People can get busted for drinking and driving in multiple states. I just figured it might be easier on the legal system to prosecute across state lines if there was some sort of standard.

TenTallBen wrote:Can't we just come up with a nationwide standard...

DWI
DUI
OWI
DWII

I'm sure there are more out there but those are all I've seen (but not been technically convicted of) so far.

In the U & L it's called DLED Driving Like Everyone else Does.

Fat Bones wrote:

In the State of Oregon, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) is a Class A misdemeanor or a Class C felony. Misdemeanor DUII is punishable by a maximum sentence of one (1) year in jail and a fine up to $6,250. If a minor is in the vehicle, the fine may increase to $10,000. Felony DUII is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $125,000. Upon conviction of misdemeanor DUII, the offender’s Oregon driving privileges are suspended for one or three years or revoked for the offender's lifetime, depending on the driving record. Upon conviction of felony DUII, the offender’s driving privileges are revoked for the offender’s lifetime.

Ya, I didn't know either...

That last is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Everybody makes mistakes. Revoking a driver's license for a lifetime is cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, driving is a privilege, but some places you can't get there from here without a car because public transportation is shitty. People should be given the chance to show they've changed, they can be rehabilitated.

Worst of all, revoking for a lifetime is not going to stop anyone from getting behind the wheel. What is the real purpose of that, besides being able to drop more charges on people?

Also, if somebody moves, does that 'lifetime ban' follow them from state to state?

Risa wrote:That last is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Try reading your own posts.

Risa wrote:Everybody makes mistakes

Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is not a "mistake." It's a frigging choice, and a stupid and utterly selfish one at that.

Someone who gets a FELONY DUII has multiple DUII's in their past and has made SEVERAL of the same bad choice and gotten caught several times. If they've been caught several times, that probably means that they've been tooling around in that condition a hell of a lot more times WITHOUT getting caught.

And before you try the "people in glass houses" horseshit, no, I have never in my life driven under the influence of any intoxicants. Ever. If I drink, I don't drive. Period. Yes, I know that some of the mental trainwrecks here will scream "Bullcrap!," but just because those idiots have self-control issues doesn't mean that we ALL do.

Risa wrote:Revoking a driver's license for a lifetime is cruel and unusual punishment.

If someone gets convicted of felony DUII, losing their license for life is getting off easy, IMNSHO. Any prick who drinks and drives deserves to be beaten AND lose their license.

Risa wrote:Yes, driving is a privilege, but some places you can't get there from here without a car because public transportation is shitty.

Tough shit. The selfish asshole who drives drunk repeatedly should have thought of that before they decided to get shitfaced and get behind the wheel.

Choices have consequences. Choosing to do the incredibly selfish, dangerous act of DUII deserves a big negative consequence.

Risa wrote:People should be given the chance to show they've changed, they can be rehabilitated.

Not on multiple DUII's they don't.

Risa wrote:Worst of all, revoking for a lifetime is not going to stop anyone from getting behind the wheel. What is the real purpose of that, besides being able to drop more charges on people?

It should make it harder to get behind the wheel, and fixes it so that WHEN (not "if") the selfish bastard who got the lifetime loss of license gets busted for DUII yet again, they get to go to jail. Assholes who can't maintain the self-control or societal expectation to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others should be locked up.

Drunk driving is not a frigging "oopsie," you sack of crap. It's a crime.

Risa wrote:Everybody makes mistakes. Revoking a driver's license for a lifetime is cruel and unusual punishment.

The felony thing is new, but I believe it only comes into play if you get like 4 in 10 years. At which point, you're a menace to society.

One is a "mistake." Several is a "pattern."

I am human and I need to be drunk,
Just...

Mister Bushice wrote:Like Everyone else Does.

Dinsdale wrote: And I'd love to see the video of a freaking drunk midget trying to do field sobriety tests.

So would Moorese, I'm guessing

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:It should make it harder to get behind the wheel, and fixes it so that WHEN (not "if") the selfish bastard who got the lifetime loss of license gets busted for DUII yet again, they get to go to jail. Assholes who can't maintain the self-control or societal expectation to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others should be locked up.

Drunk driving is not a frigging "oopsie," you sack of crap. It's a crime.

So you're saying that someone who commits multiple gun crimes should have their "lifetime gun privilege" revoked so that if they ever shot someone in the future then they would actually have to go to jail? Same arguement, bro. An automobile is just as deadly, if not worse, than a gun. You can revoke somebody's driving privilege all you want but, if they are still walking the street, criminals likely don't obey the law. Just as the gun control laws have little to no effect on drug dealers, gang bangers, rappers, etc....

Dinsdale wrote:Why?

It's a state issue. States can call it whatever the fuck they want, and the fed has no business poking their nose in it.


Call me conservative like that.

Rack this.

Btw, I love how in some states, based on scientific evidence, of course, one is considered legally drunk with a BAC of .08 and in others, based on scientific evidence, it's .10.

Also, in Oklahoma, they're still teaching the mantra of how 1 beer = 1 glass of wine = 1 shot of liquor. That's interesting as well, considering the vast majority of beer sold in this state is 3.2 percent alcohol or less. In fact, one can NOT buy domestic (Budweiser, Miller, Coors, etc.) "strong" (4~4.7 percent alcohol) beer anywhere in this state.

I guess that means that near beer is the same as real beer. Silly me, I always thought they were different, but the politicians and the no-life, paranoid, public awareness, just-out-to-protect me Jesus crowd must be right.

The combination of politicians, science and "public awareness" campaigns are always good for a laugh.

TenTallBen wrote:So you're saying that someone who commits multiple gun crimes should have their "lifetime gun privilege" revoked so that if they ever shot someone in the future then they would actually have to go to jail? Same arguement, bro.

Someone who has proven themselves incapable of behaving like a civilized adult by abusing their rights/privileges in a way that makes them a danger to others should have those rights/privileges revoked. I'm a libertarian and even I agree that your rights only extend as far as the limit in which they infringe on the rights of others. Drunk drivers sure as hell infringe on everyone else's rights to safety, so they've proven they can't be trusted with the privilege of driving.

TenTallBen wrote:An automobile is just as deadly, if not worse, than a gun. You can revoke somebody's driving privilege all you want but, if they are still walking the street, criminals likely don't obey the law. Just as the gun control laws have little to no effect on drug dealers, gang bangers, rappers, etc....

I realize that my statement strikes close to home with you, but I don't frigging care.

Driving drunk is not a "mistake."

It is a stupid, selfish, dangerous thing to do.

Doing it repeatedly is inexcusable and the license should be revoked for felony DUII/DWI.

Why the fuck should a multiple DUII/DWI be allowed to have a license? Why? Just so it won't be MORE illegal when they get busted again?

Any asshole stupid and selfish enough to lose their license in that way WILL drive anyway, and WILL do it drunk again, but at least when they get caught again, the penalty will be even harsher than the "stop...or I'll say stop again" mollycoddling horseshit that DWI offenders have been getting away with.

Drunk drivers are scumbags and should be treated as such. No sympathy from this corner at all.

Rack Mozdale.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Driving drunk is not a "mistake."


Drunk drivers are scumbags and should be treated as such.

Sounds good coming from the pulpit...

BUT...

Get real.

I'll bet if you took a poll on this board, and assuming people answered honestly, I'll bet you'd find the vast majority have done it at one time or another.

Well, OK -- maybe this board isn't the best example.

The President of the USA rang up a Dewey. Still got elected. Your opinion must be in the vast minority.

"RadioFan
Btw, I love how in some states, based on scientific evidence, of course, one is considered legally drunk with a BAC of .08 and in others, based on scientific evidence, it's .10.

That is unless like me you hold a Class A CDL in Oregon, then its .04 at any time, not just while driving commercially. They figure your Class A CDL is your living, so it does make the majority of them behave..but then there's the dudes who have figured out how to beat the piss test for chronic...or so I have heard.

BTW, just got back from the gym and saw on the news that the midget been ripped at least 2 times before for DUI..or in his case it should be DWS, Driving while short.

Derron wrote:but then there's the dudes who have figured out how to beat the piss test for chronic...or so I have heard.

It's not a test for weed... it's a test for stupid. If you can't figure out how to get around one, you're too stupid to operate a big rig.

Dinsdale wrote:I'll bet if you took a poll on this board, and assuming people answered honestly, .

I "manned up"....after that....


...tumbleweeds.

Take your hat off
When you're talking to me
And be there when I feed the tree.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Drunk drivers sure as hell infringe on everyone else's rights to safety, so they've proven they can't be trusted with the privilege of driving.

There is nothing wrong with DUI. DUI and crashing is a different matter.

R-Jack wrote:Driven Drunk? Check. Just as 90% of this board.

My personal issue isn't that 'everybody' (or nearly everybody) does it -- because they don't. That 90% is high.

My issue with 'permanent suspension' is that it doesn't resolve the problem. A drunk will just drive without a license. All it does is add another charge for when (or if) they're picked up again; but it doesn't resolve the issue of getting drunk drivers off the road in the first place so that they don't cause an accident, so that they don't cause harm in that same first place.

It's counterproductive. 4 DUIs in 10 years is 4 DUIs too many.. but it still doesn't keep a drunk off the road. I'd rather see more ignition bypasses. Put one on every car in the household. That way, it touches everybody just how big a deal driving while intoxicated is. No 'sucks for you, man'. No 'ok, borrow my car'. You're not married? So fucking what. Everybody in the household gets to feel the pain. And that way, someone else is less likely to feel the real pain of a death or dismemberment caused by a drunk driver.

And if a drunk gets in an accident or is picked up in someone else's car, driving while intoxicated, there needs to be a strict punishment for the fool who let them drive the car -- unless they're going to press charges that the car was stolen. No domestic violence excuse bullshit either.

Risa... are you SURE you want to go down that slippery slope of punishing people who have been convicted of nothing, to prevent crimes that haven't even been contemplated yet, much less committed?

Before you answer, bear in mind that you're a nog, so think really long and hard about it.

Dinsdale wrote:Risa... are you SURE you want to go down that slippery slope of punishing people who have been convicted of nothing, to prevent crimes that haven't even been contemplated yet, much less committed?

Before you answer, bear in mind that you're a nog, so think really long and hard about it.

People are already punished for the actions of others. It's called the War on Drugs.
You should know that better than anyone... or do you only claim to screw women, and not deal with the consequences of the rest of their lives. Mamas, grandmamas, clean kids and boyfriends, and neighbors the police enter mistakenly are all punished for the actions of the doped up.

If a drunk has permanent access to a vehicle, then all vehicles need to have that bypass on them. It's like a diet; nobody can succeed on a diet unless everybody in the household goes on the diet as well. No sabotage, everybody pitches in. A drunk is not being helped with folks in the household saying 'you can drive drunk in my car instead'. If there's a drunk in the house, all vehicles the drunk has permanent access to need the bypass, period. What is the penalty for tampering with the bypass? whatever it is, it should be more.

The goal is public safety and saving lives -- including the drunks. Lifetime suspension of a driver's license doesn't do that. It's tough talk with no bite. You've already talked about the fools you know who are still driving with suspended licences.

Risa wrote:It's like a diet; nobody can succeed on a diet unless everybody in the household goes on the diet as well.

You're using a lack of a court order to justify your obesity?

How noglike of you.

If there's a drunk in the house, all vehicles the drunk has permanent access to need the bypass, period.

First off, you ignorant tard, it's called an "ignition interlock." :bigshocker: you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Second, I have a right to live with whoever I please. And if the cops come and tamper with my property, I'll become a martyr over that one. Bullet to the head. End of discussion.

Again -- nogs commit crime at a rate several times that of whites. But I'm sure you'd be screaming from the mountaintops keyboard if they started putting ankle bracelets on every African American at birth, as a preventative measure.

What is the penalty for tampering with the bypass?

I assume you're meaning "interlock"?

The "penalty" for tampering with one is a running vehicle.

The goal is public safety and saving lives -- including the drunks.

Then we should definitely proceed with tagging and electronically monitoring all blacks in this country. After all, they commit WAY more crime than drunk white people.

I mean, it's all about public safety, right?

You've already talked about the fools you know who are still driving with suspended licences.

Wanna go ahead and link that one up for me?

Take your time, by all means.

And the hits keep coming...

PROVO, Utah (AP) - Former child star Gary Coleman was cited for disorderly conduct after witnesses said they saw him in a heated argument with a woman in a parking lot.

Coleman, 39, and the woman were in his vehicle discussing their relationship Friday night when two people saw him hit the steering wheel with his hands, Capt. Cliff Argyle said.

"Mr. Coleman was very excited and loud. ... At one point he exited his vehicle, waving his arms, yelling and screaming," Argyle said. "Vehicles were unable to exit the parking lot because of Mr. Coleman's actions."

He cooperated with officers who were called to the scene, Argyle said.

The disorderly conduct citation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $750 fine.

"What the city attorney proceeds with, I don't know," Argyle said. "It could end up being an infraction" similar to a traffic violation.

A number for Coleman could not be found Tuesday.

Coleman moved to Santaquin, about 55 miles south of Salt Lake City, in 2005, around the time he starred in "Church Ball," a comedy based on basketball leagues formed by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Coleman once fought a bitter legal battle with his parents over whether he was fit to handle his own affairs. In 1999, he pleaded no contest to disturbing the peace after he punched an autograph-seeker he claimed insulted him.

He played Arnold on the sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes," which aired from 1978 to 1986

If both Coleman and Roloff are found guilty, the sentencing is obvious -- a celebrity cage match. Roloff gets to use his crutches and his trebutchet, Coleman gets to have Todd Bridges in his corner, and is allowed to show up for the fight under the influence of whatever he can find in Dana Plato's safe deposit box.


Last man standing gets a presidential pardon... if in fact it can be determined which one is actually standing.

I've never spent a nickel on pay per view, but, I'd give 50 bucks and a testicle to see that matchup.

Rack dins.

I think he'd have to leave the trebuchet home though or get it shrunk down to midget size. Full size trebuchets aren't very good for close combat, btu, they will sure as hell fukk your kid up. Just ask matt.

Dinsdale wrote:

You've already talked about the fools you know who are still driving with suspended licences.

Wanna go ahead and link that one up for me?

Take your time, by all means.

I'm Risa, not Rice, Senator Hart -- but ok.


1. Cingular, Sprint, or Verizon?
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:03 pm
Took california decades to get access of our freaking DMV records...but the water will be no problem, I'm sure. Although that deal where if you get your license suspended in Oregon, so you get one at your friend/relative's place in california was a prett sweet deal, while it lasted. Not that I ever did that or anything...but I know a few people who did.

2. Jellystone, here we come.
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:25 pm
But I'm too old and too concerned about my driving record these days to save a few hours(plus the Glory Days of childish warfare between the Oregon and California DMVs are behind us, which means we actually have to pay tickets and be accountable in our neighboring states... too bad. Gone are the days when you could get a license suspended in one state, and immediately send yourself some mail adressed to yourself at your buddies house in the other state, and walk into the DMV and get a new, valid license. Never utilized this loophole myself... but I know people who sure did.).

3. Little People, Big Trouble (page 1)
Him and my buddy, who is Roloff's neighbor out in the close-in-sticks should figure out a way to carpool, since there isn't a store for a few miles in any direction out in Helvetia, and since my buddy is also currently sans license, for about the same reason (although his attorney seems to think the appeal is a slam-dunk).


*Bonus (because it doesn't count):
[url=viewtopic.phpp=442168&highlight=
licence+license#442168]
Oregon's Pot-Head Mystique goes up another notch [/url]
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:26 pm

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
License suspention can be avoided if the defedant jumps through the hoops known as diversion, ie get evaluated by a drug specialis and follows up with any recommended treatment.

And in the end, you're better off taking the suspension, taking cabs everywhere, and ponying up for the SR22 after the suspension.

Probably the reason you can only do the diversion once, is that they don't get anyone to fall for that scam a second time.



Is this about keeping your stories straight, or just knee-jerking a denial to me?

OK -- you found a link where I stated people I know went to california to obtain valid licenses.

Did I ever mention them driving there?

Did I mention that they might have known their licenses were getting yanked, and maybe took care of the problem BEFORE the date they knew they were going to be without in Oregon?

Nope, I certainly didn't -- you just made that part up, as per usual.


And your other "evidence" was my buddy who lives up the road from the Roloff farm? Where did I claim he drives?

Matter of fact, dude lives in a double-wide out in the woods... on the property where he works. And in that "looking out for your own" deal, his friends and family make sure he gets to a grocery store every once in a while... go figure.


So... I called you out for a lie, and you verified that lie. Because that is how you roll. Way to go, tard.