Police log for Flagstaff Az

[Grandpa Shooter]

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/5d5260bf-2a17-596e-8b59-aaea40da5a25.html

I posted this just for the fun of it.   Enjoy!




Guns stolen

A Flagstaff man reported two guns stolen from him back in the 1980s.

According to Flagstaff police reports, the man, who lived on North Center Street, told police that somebody had stolen the guns sometime between 1986 and 1989. The victim was reporting the guns stolen so late because his attorney had advised him to do so because of liability reasons.

The missing guns were described as:

-- Silver and black Smith & Wesson .357-caliber handgun;

-- Llama .380-caliber semi-automatic handgun.

The guns will be listed as stolen.

Burglary thwarted

A Flagstaff woman walked into her home while somebody was burglarizing the place Saturday night.

According to Flagstaff police reports, the victim, who lives on the 2100 block of North Third Street, arrived home at about 9 p.m. to find a red bicycle not belonging to her family in the back yard. The dog was also hesitant to enter the home. In the house, the victim came upon the burglar in a bedroom. The burglar rushed out of the house, dropping a pillow case on the way. The victim gave police a description of the suspect.

The apparent items of interest for the burglar were women's clothing and panties. The case is under investigation.

Charged with DUI

-- John A. Lavin, 47, of Queen Creek, was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with super extreme DUI at 2:13 a.m. Saturday.

-- Jeffrey J. Chabot, 53, 7101 N. Hwy. 89, No. 6, was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with DUI at 2:18 a.m. Saturday.

-- Michaela R. McShane, 21, 4040 E. Spring Meadows Circle, was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with super extreme DUI at 2:35 a.m. Saturday.

-- Laceia J. Leviticus, 22, 2808 N. Peak View St., was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with DUI at 2:37 a.m. Saturday.

-- Sally Lin, 44, 507 W. Cherry Ave., was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with extreme DUI at 8:14 p.m. Saturday.

-- Alan D. Prince II, 42, 2652 E. Route 66, No. F-107, was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with super extreme DUI at 12:01 a.m. Sunday.

-- Michelle A. Del Frate, 37, of Prescott Valley, was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with DUI at 12:23 a.m. Sunday.

-- Tommy A. Hernandez, 35, 4350 N. Hamblin St., was arrested by Flagstaff police and charged with extreme DUI at 2:10 a.m. Sunday.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Super... extreme..... dui???



Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i like the idea of differentiating between levels of intoxication. there should be a difference in punishment for a guy with 2 beers and folks that drank like i did

[zxcvbob]

Is it different levels of intoxication, or different levels of driving?   

[RaspberrySurprise]

IT'S X-TREME!

[sanman]

Pretty busy 20-25 minutes there on Saturday morning between 2:13 and 2:35 AM or so.

Do they just set up in one place and pull the max they can handle coming out of a bar then go home?

[Jocassee]

Pretty busy 20-25 minutes there on Saturday morning between 2:13 and 2:35 AM or so.

Do they just set up in one place and pull the max they can handle coming out of a bar then go home?

That's what HP does around here.

[MechAg94]

i like the idea of differentiating between levels of intoxication. there should be a difference in punishment for a guy with 2 beers and folks that drank like i did

I have always wondered why this wasn't tried.  It sucks that a level of 0.08 is lumped in with 0.20 levels. 

[MechAg94]

Is it different levels of intoxication, or different levels of driving?   

I don't know.  I would swear I drive better drunk than some people drive sober.  If you are going to ticket bad driving, the drinking part is just a side show.

[Tallpine]

The sheriff's report in our county is a hoot.  I like to read it for the entertainment value. 

[Monkeyleg]

Here in Decatur, Al the crime reports in the newspaper are very tame compared to Milwaukee. They publish a photo of each offender, even though most of the crimes are relatively minor, such as writing bad checks. In Milwaukee you had to kill at least three people to get your picture in the newspaper.

Also, I don't think I ever saw a story about someone writing bad checks. Either crooks don't do that in Milwaukee, or they do it so often that reports would fill an entire section of the paper each day.

[Tallpine]

Most common thing in our county is barking dogs and cows out on the highway 

Then there is the crazy lady in town who is always being "raped."  One time somebody broke in and stole the parts out of her TV and replaced them with parts that don't work. 

[Nitrogen]

Super Extreme DUI in AZ:

http://www.azduiatty.com/superextremedui.html

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Super Extreme DUI in AZ:

http://www.azduiatty.com/superextremedui.html

That guy has an awesome 'stache.

[AmbulanceDriver]

No....

It's a super extreme mustache....

[230RN]

I don't know.  Somehow the concept of making laws against "A" because if you do "A," "B" might happen, grates on me.

I've never been able to resolve that in my own head except on a purely statistical basis.

Should we make laws against opening a can of beer because you might get drunk, and you might beat someone up?

Should we pursue that back further and make laws against buying that beer in the first place?

Oh, wait, we tried that already, didn't we?

Terry, 230RN

[MillCreek]

I note that the super extreme DUI requires a BAC of .200 or more.  In cranking in the data on the handy online BAC calculator, I see that my 200 pound carcass would have to drink 11 beers in 1 hour to achieve that level of BAC.  The problem is that I would be asleep after the third beer.

[Balog]

Terry: so if I park a carbomb next to a federal building but don't detonate it, that's fine right? And if I fire shots randomly on a crowded city street, it's only a crime if I actually hit someone, yes? What if I goto the top of the high rise I work at and fling chunks of concrete off: only a crime if I hit someone, right? Can't have those damn prior restraint laws...

[vaskidmark]

Terry: so if I park a carbomb next to a federal building but don't detonate it, that's fine right? And if I fire shots randomly on a crowded city street, it's only a crime if I actually hit someone, yes? What if I goto the top of the high rise I work at and fling chunks of concrete off: only a crime if I hit someone, right? Can't have those damn prior restraint laws...

I forget what the technical terms are for your attempts at argument, but they will not fly - except maybe for the car bomb example.  Heck, I do that several times a week when I go downtown for lunch.  (Yes, my vehicle, just like yours, is a rolling car bomb.)  In my mind, there is a need to prove intent before we get all high and mighty about a book of matches and two cans of spray paint in the back seat being a car bomb - even if those items will suffice to blow the thing up.  Or maybe I'm just asking for a better definition of a "car bomb".

We (society) have pretty much agreed that shooting randomly on a crowded street is reckless behavior, whether or not you hit anyone.  Just like driving 115 mph down Main Street at 0230 is reckless even if the only other soul out at that hour was the cop who chased and caught you.  Or chucking concrete off the rooftop.

None of these are examples of prior restraint.

I see "extreme DUI" and "super extreme DUI" as bad word choice to describe levels of recklessness.  As such, there is some sense in a sliding scale of punishment depending on how much reckless you were.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

I forget what the technical terms are for your attempts at argument, but they will not fly - except maybe for the car bomb example.  Heck, I do that several times a week when I go downtown for lunch.  (Yes, my vehicle, just like yours, is a rolling car bomb.)  In my mind, there is a need to prove intent before we get all high and mighty about a book of matches and two cans of spray paint in the back seat being a car bomb - even if those items will suffice to blow the thing up.  Or maybe I'm just asking for a better definition of a "car bomb".

Personally, to be a bomb would require 3 things:

1.  Explosive.  '2 cans of spray paint' wouldn't really count.
2.  Detonator
3.  Trigger

Morover, I'd require at least an attempt to assemble* a device that would explode when the trigger is activated.  'Some assembly still required' could still be a violation, but if you're still looking at mixing the ammonia nitrate with the diesel, cutting wires to size, mixing up a detonator cap, etc...  I'm thinking more 'push detonator/trigger assembly into explosive, remove safety cable, set timer'.

*Call it 'attempted bomb making' because you get incidents where the bomb won't blow up because they screwed up the build.

I see "extreme DUI" and "super extreme DUI" as bad word choice to describe levels of recklessness.  As such, there is some sense in a sliding scale of punishment depending on how much reckless you were.

This looks wierdly worded to me, but I think I agree with you.
1:  'Extreme' and 'Super Extreme' don't sound like proper legal terms to me.  More normally I'd expect to see words like 'aggreviated'
2:  On the other hand, making proper distinction between .08, .14, and .20 levels of probably recklessness is a good thing.

Perhaps they wanted to save 'aggreviated' DUI for when there's an actual accident/injury or something?  Then you'd get something like 'Aggreviated super extreme DUI' - which sounds like the dude needs to do 5 years in prison and have a 40 year license revocation.   

[Grandpa Shooter]

If I started a thread about popcorn, would you folks have an argument about which brand was better?  Sheeez!

[vaskidmark]

If I started a thread about popcorn, would you folks have an argument about which brand was better?  Sheeez!

Only if you posted a picture of Orville.  He sort of creeps me out more than that Frank Perdue guy.

stay safe.

[Balog]

I forget what the technical terms are for your attempts at argument, but they will not fly - except maybe for the car bomb example.  Heck, I do that several times a week when I go downtown for lunch.  (Yes, my vehicle, just like yours, is a rolling car bomb.)  In my mind, there is a need to prove intent before we get all high and mighty about a book of matches and two cans of spray paint in the back seat being a car bomb - even if those items will suffice to blow the thing up.  Or maybe I'm just asking for a better definition of a "car bomb".

We (society) have pretty much agreed that shooting randomly on a crowded street is reckless behavior, whether or not you hit anyone.  Just like driving 115 mph down Main Street at 0230 is reckless even if the only other soul out at that hour was the cop who chased and caught you.  Or chucking concrete off the rooftop.

None of these are examples of prior restraint.

I see "extreme DUI" and "super extreme DUI" as bad word choice to describe levels of recklessness.  As such, there is some sense in a sliding scale of punishment depending on how much reckless you were.

stay safe.

That was kind of my point va. 230rn is arguing that drunk driving laws constitute prior restraint, I was pointing out that they are not.