Matt is nothing more than a system beater. Matt had the ability, thanks to his paycheck from TLC, to hire some high dollar lawyer to get the rules bent just for him. I've watched my last episode. I'm beyond disappointed and you've certainly taught your children a fine lesson. Nice job, Matt.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
I don't think you watched the watched the same show I did. Matt was treated unfairly by the officer who only went by a single eye test. He was not given any ABC or 123 speaking test which he was denied by the officer as any other tests that Matt asked for. Matt had every right to ask if another officer to give a breath test to him. The officer admitted that he did not give another kind of standard dui test that Matt could have taken. The officer flat would not allow Matt to explain anything about the pedals being to long for his legs or any thing else for that matter. At that point I wouldn't have trusted the officer either. Matt clearly he would take a breath test at the station or by another officer. What would make an officer behave that way. There was simply reasonable dought here. You can not go by a simple eye test to see if somebody is impaired. The judge ruled that Matt was not guilty on dui charge. Any so called high priced attorney that was paid for as you claimed would have known that.
jbird... It's my understanding that Matt failed more than just one test. Also, Matt refused to take a breathalyzer test. He didn't ask to be taken to the hospital for an indenpendent test, nor did he ask for someone else to give him a breathalyzer test. He simply refused to be tested by anyone. His reason for refusing to be tested was his belief that the tests were inaccurate.
The reason there was reasonable doubt at all was the fact that they didn't have proof in the form of a breathalyzer test to prove his guilt... or perhaps his innocense. Had he taken the breathalyzer test in the first place, and found to be sober, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Originally posted by coralsea: jbird... It's my understanding that Matt failed more than just one test. Also, Matt refused to take a breathalyzer test. He didn't ask to be taken to the hospital for an indenpendent test, nor did he ask for someone else to give him a breathalyzer test. He simply refused to be tested by anyone. His reason for refusing to be tested was his belief that the tests were inaccurate.
The reason there was reasonable doubt at all was the fact that they didn't have proof in the form of a breathalyzer test to prove his guilt... or perhaps his innocense. Had he taken the breathalyzer test in the first place, and found to be sober, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
That clearly shows that you don't have all the facts, or an understanding of the law.
I do not understand why a sober person wouldn't take a breathalizer. Also, if he can't drive with his wife's car then he shouldn't be driving it AT ALL..sober or not. Plus he was found not guilty of the DUI because he asked the judge to decide because the jury did something they were not suppose to do (looking things up on the internet)so instead of a mistrial he just had the judge decide. and beings there wasn't a breathalizer they had reasonable doubt, but he still lost his license for 3 years, partly, for not taking that test. Again...why would a SOBER man refuse? BUT this is also not even his first DUI. Yes, I know that doesn't prove he was driving drunk this time, but sure would make it seem more likely.
My opinion, the most telling thing about the whole situation was when he made the statement that he was going to "re-examine his relationship with alcohol". Someone who doesn't have some sort of a problem has nothing to re-examine. Apparently the alcohol diversion program he had to attend after the first time didn't do what it was supposed to do.
If everyone did what Matt did and refuse the breathalyzer test and no one could be convicted of DUI, no one would be safe to drive on the nations roads.
I believe he refused the breath test (and all others) because he feared their results.
However, to be fair, I also believe his saying "I'm going to re-evaluate my relationship with alcohol" was not the entire remark he made about it....to assess it, one would have to have it in proper context. jmo..on the topic.
Gap... please tell me what facts I have wrong, or what I don't understand about the law.
Aurora... I agree. Why would Matt make the comment that he needs to reevaluate his relationship with alcohol unless there is a problem? That's not a statement that just comes out for no reason.
I also believe in this case, Matt's dwarfism helped him. Only because Matt could not perform the typical roadside tests. So, without those tests, and the results of a breathalyzer test, the courts were left without substantial proof. It was just the officer's word against Matt's. I still wonder why the officer's patrol car didn't have a video camera with audio like most do these days. If that were available, that would have answered many questions.
If you are a sober person and do not have a problem with alcohol, why would you have to reevaluate it in any shape or form? Unless..maybe..you have a PROBLEM with it and KNOW it? No matter how he said it, he still stated he needed to reevaluate it.
I believe he refused the test(s)not because he thought they were inaccurate for a LP, but because of feared results, and forfeited his license for three years instead. Quoting just part of someone's comment-no matter the subject; however, dilutes the credibility of the partial quote considerably.
Quoting just part of someone's comment-no matter the subject; however, dilutes the credibility of the partial quote considerably.
In my humble opion, how can you dilute "reevaluate my relationship with alcohol."?
It says what it says and no matter what he said before it or after it , it means the same. If anyone has the WHOLE quote that makes it otherwise about his "reevaluation" why not share it all so we ALL can see it? I would LOVE to see it myself...
I haven't any intention of looking up the whole quote, re-watching any segment of this show, etc. to satisfy this. I simply remember that he said more than the phrase 're-evalute my relationship with alcohol'. You seem to be confused by my opinion that quoting only part of someone's words (about ANYTHING) is unfair to them. It has nothing to do with the fact that I believe MR had been drinking that night and refused the test for that reason..and has everything to do with being fair. If that's not clear enuff.....my apologies.
However, to be fair, I also believe his saying "I'm going to re-evaluate my relationship with alcohol" was not the entire remark he made about it....to assess it, one would have to have it in proper context. jmo..on the topic.
Are you privy to the entire remark he made? If so, please don't hesitate to share it so we can all assess it and have it in the proper context. jmo..on the topic.
I just thought imho, beings you said that it's not fair to quote a partial quote that you knew the whole quote. In some instances I think that is correct. In this one NO..I do not see how it means somethign else but beings you did I thought you KNEW the whole quote and had some undertanding that others did not. I do not believe anyone on here is being unfair in thinking that it means what he said and that is it. Plus maybe beings you do not know the whole quote maybe it was just that ONE line also. I mean it may have been the complete quote.(the one and only line about it) If we do not have the rest of a quote, if there is one, then we can only go by what we do know he said. If that is not clear, then my apologies also.
In my humble opinion, how can you dilute "reevaluate my relationship with alcohol."?
It says what it says, and no matter what he said before it or after it , it means the same. If anyone has the WHOLE quote that makes it otherwise about his "reevaluation" why not share it all so we ALL can see it? I would LOVE to see it myself...
I agree. Kind of difficult to change the meaning of the statement he is going to re-evaluate his relationship with alcohol. jmo..on the topic
I doubt there was ever an iota of confusion as to the object of your response. Anyone who watched the show was 'privy' to his remarks. If you find it fair to quote only a piece of what anyone says, by all means soldier on with that. jmo...on the subject.
Originally posted by mintjulep_ageless: Anyone who watched the show was 'privy' to his remarks. If you find it fair to quote only a piece of what anyone says, by all means soldier on with that. jmo...on the subject.
I really don't need or want your permission, but thank you for your kindness in granting it. jmo..on the subject.
In this particular quote, yes I do think it is fair, especially beings no one has shown anyone otherwise or quoted him otherwise, to even prove there was even more of a quote to begin with on the subject of his "reevaluation." And, yes, I have seen the show. Jmho on the topic.
Usually when someone states, "I need to reevaluate my relationship with alcohol," I don't believe they are saying they need to drink more. So, it could only mean that they are saying they need to drink less.
I also believe Matt was afraid of the results of the breathalyzer test and simply stated that he didn't trust the test just as an excuse.
I saw the episode more than once and his conversation was about learning a lot from his trial and how he needed to reevaluate his relationship with alcohol. There really isn't anything there to analyze. It is what it is and no one needs to reevaluate their relationship with anything unless they suspect they have a problem with it. Pretty simple stuff in my opinion.
I am sure I am asking for it but I like a good debate...
Ok, before we start picketing the farm lets evaluate something. How many people went to see Iron Man? If your on that list and you said you’re not going to watch the show anymore your being ridiculous. From my recollection on Robert Downey Jr. he has had his share of run-ins with the law for issues mind you he didn't get out of but, you all still went to see Iron Man anyways. Moving on to others. let's talk about who I like to call "hit and run lady" Halle Berry. Now this woman was not even drunk, hit someone and kept on going, but I am sure some of you went to see her movies after.
Not that I am saying Mr. Roloff is right but, my point is, this happens all the time. If you really want to talk logically about this story write the courts for a transcript and debate facts word for word not your interpretation of what was said, it make for nothing more than meaningless debate and propaganda.
Great debate would be interesting, but I'm afraid you won't see it here. Never saw Iron man, nor ever heard of it, which must be deflating for Mr. Downey. Haven't turned LPBW off because of the DUI either, but the truth about why MR refused the breath test won't be in the transcript. It's not an interesting enuff case for me to read the transcript frankly, and you are right, DUIs happen all the time..but he's unlicensed at this time, and judgment has been rendered in the case.
Originally posted by NightOwlTech: I am sure I am asking for it but I like a good debate...
Ok, before we start picketing the farm lets evaluate something. How many people went to see Iron Man? If your on that list and you said you’re not going to watch the show anymore your being ridiculous. From my recollection on Robert Downey Jr. he has had his share of run-ins with the law for issues mind you he didn't get out of but, you all still went to see Iron Man anyways. Moving on to others. let's talk about who I like to call "hit and run lady" Halle Berry. Now this woman was not even drunk, hit someone and kept on going, but I am sure some of you went to see her movies after.
Not that I am saying Mr. Roloff is right but, my point is, this happens all the time. If you really want to talk logically about this story write the courts for a transcript and debate facts word for word not your interpretation of what was said, it make for nothing more than meaningless debate and propaganda.
First: In your first topic paragraph you are trying to compare "apples with oranges." Matt Roloff is not a professional actor/actress performing in scripted screen movies. Yes, RDowney and HBerry, along with a host of others, have had their share of troubles. Yes, we all still watch their movies. And, yes, we all have something to say about them from time to time. Matt Roloff is on TLC and not performing on scripted screen movies. He is performing real life adventures related to his life and thus his actions are closely monitored by the audience that he has allowed to follow him day in and day out. Big difference.
Second paragraph: You are right, absolutely right, and I agree 100%. Obtain the transcript from the court and debate the facts.
In the meantime, we have been allowed to be the judge and jury of what we heard and we also have the great privelege of excercising our opionions of the "what if's" and "what else."
Haven't turned LPBW off because of the DUI either, but the truth about why MR refused the breath test won't be in the transcript. It's not an interesting enuff case for me to read the transcript frankly, and you are right, DUIs happen all the time..but he's unlicensed at this time, and judgment has been rendered in the case.