Man spends 2 years in solitary after dwi (with no trial).

[jlwilliams]

My father got arrested for sleeping in his van years ago. Simliar deal; he's sleeping, a cop wakes him up and arrests him for being drunk in the vehicle. Don't know what the actual charge was. May have been 'intent' may have been public drunkenness. Whatever. The judge dismissed the case and told Officer Fief not to waste his time with this nonsense.

If you are sane enough to realise "I shouldn't drive now, I'll sleep it off" the police should let you sleep and be greatful you have the sense to not drive when you shouldn't.

I do know one guy who was sleeping in his car and was woke up by a cop who saw it that way. After talking to him for a minute and figuring out why the guy was slleping in a parking lot, the cop told him he's come back around to check on him before the end of his shift. In the morning he did indded come back, they talked for a few more minutes and both went about their day.

[L1A1Rocker]

That's the difference between a Law ENFORCEMENT Officer and a PEACE Officer.

[stevejobs]

Difference is after the F--k up Iran gives you a bullet and America gives you $22 million.

[atilliar]

I agree with the person that said DUI laws should be repealed. Maybe not for that same reasons he stated though. After all everything harmful you can do behind the wheel of a car while drunk is already a crime without the the need for a DUI clause. Get into a wreck and kill someone? That's a crime. Get into a wreck and cause property damage? Also a crime. So is anything else you can think of. All a DUI law does, other than make what is already a crime illegal, is make a behaviour a crime. It says that even if you can drink and hold your liquor and still function you are still guilty. Put into a different context it would be the same as if they made guns illegal because some people kill others with them (which of course we all are trying to fight against this). Not everyone who drinks and drives get into a wreck same as not every one who buys a scary gun wants to kill people with it. Getting into a wreck and hurting someone or damaging their property should have consequences. Without a doubt. But to arrest people because they MAY get into an wreck and hurt someone is stupid to me. After all, who is the victim if no crash occurs? Why should something that has no victim be a crime? Who is being hurt? And as I stated before, if someone does get hurt then the actual act of the damage is the crime.

[MV10]

I remember when this case hit the news earlier this year. The situation is bad enough, but the stonewalling by the responsible agency is worse -- and rather disturbing.

Having been there (to a much lesser degree, of course), I am one of those people who firmly believe DUI laws are 100% about revenue-generation, full-stop.

I was arrested for DUI a few years back. Note "arrested" only. $17,500 later (more if you count my increased insurance costs) it was "reduced" to reckless driving. Yes, there was a small amount of alcohol in my system. Note the so-called "legal limit" is only the limit at which they can automatically assume guilt, any detectable quantity is illegal. Most people don't understand this point, and if, like me, you try to be cooperative and end up taking a breathalyzer at the jail, that point can screw you hard. Without boring you with all the details, as near as I can tell the officer was chasing someone else (his report said he "heard" them speeding) and lost track of him and concluded I was the person he was chasing. His chase started on a road that was miles away from where I was that night. I failed the roadside tests because it was freezing cold and raining, and I was in a t-shirt (stayed late at a friend's house to help her install wood flooring), plus I have severe, painful nerve damage in one leg. The arresting officer has a reputation for "creative" reporting.

Fortunately a LEO friend referred me to the DUI attorney that the police use when they get caught...

Also, people who claim DUI is a cakewalk are full of s--t. First of all, jail sucks more than you think, especially when you know you're there for BS reasons. About $250 was stolen from my wallet by jail staff, and the fun was just beginning. My relatively simple case took 18 months to resolve, during that time I had no license, the DMV immediately administers a huge array of very expensive "administrative punishments" merely because you are accused of the crime, you are forced to participate in all sorts of goofy semi-Orwellian goodthink classes and so on, and in general there is no hint of presumption of innocence.

Meanwhile, the fat little clown who arrested me is still out there randomly fucking up people's lives.

If you still doubt DUI laws are about revenue, ask yourself why the new Nevada laws that permit self-driving cars have a special provision which specifically states that you can still get a DUI even in a self-driving car... you don't even have to be in the front seat.

[D9M9TR9S]

^^ That should be more than enough to sober anyone up

[mattbowen]

I agree with the person that said DUI laws should be repealed. Maybe not for that same reasons he stated though. After all everything harmful you can do behind the wheel of a car while drunk is already a crime without the the need for a DUI clause. Get into a wreck and kill someone? That's a crime. Get into a wreck and cause property damage? Also a crime. So is anything else you can think of. All a DUI law does, other than make what is already a crime illegal, is make a behaviour a crime. It says that even if you can drink and hold your liquor and still function you are still guilty. Put into a different context it would be the same as if they made guns illegal because some people kill others with them (which of course we all are trying to fight against this). Not everyone who drinks and drives get into a wreck same as not every one who buys a scary gun wants to kill people with it. Getting into a wreck and hurting someone or damaging their property should have consequences. Without a doubt. But to arrest people because they MAY get into an wreck and hurt someone is stupid to me. After all, who is the victim if no crash occurs? Why should something that has no victim be a crime? Who is being hurt? And as I stated before, if someone does get hurt then the actual act of the damage is the crime.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=75&p=786423#



I don't agree that the gentlemen stayed in jail without a trial and I believe that if in fact this happened then he should sue the department. With the above statement I fully disagree, I have been an LEO (Peace Officer) most of my adult life and I have had to work more DUI related accidents in that time then I care to think about, but the one that I will never forget happen back in the 1980s. My partner and I received a call about an accident (head on) with personal injury. When I arrived I saw a vehicle in the ditch on the east bound lane, when I approached the vehicle I saw one female on the ground and another hanging out the passenger side door behind the front seat (she was seated in the back seat). The third female was still behind the wheel all three were deceased and I didn't recognize any of them (at the time).

The second vehicle was a Ford pick-up truck and the driver of the truck was still alive and was air lifted out. after my partner and I were there for about 20 min. I saw a close friend standing on the side of the road by the first vehicle and she was being held up by another women and was crying uncontrollably. I asked my partner if she new the people in the vehicle and what he told me almost put me to my knees, The three people in the vehicle were her family, her sister, her daughter, and her granddaughter. It had been about 4 hours earlier my partner had stopped by the residence and I had been joking with the granddaughter (who was 12 years old).

I didn't recognize any of them because the damage to the bodies were so mangled. The driver of the truck went home the next day without any broken bones just three cuts and some bruises.

What we found out is that the driver of the pick-up truck had been at a party and was taken home and he decided that he wanted to go back to the party so he got into his pick-up and drove off and on the back he went over the center line and hit the other vehicle.

DUI laws are their to try to keep this from happening, let me tell you if more people saw these type of accidents I believe the opinions would drastically change. I will also say that if I ever were to goto an accident scene and found any of my family hurt or killed by a DUI, I can tell you he wouldn't make it to court.

[MV10]

DUI laws are their to try to keep this from happening

And if laws prevented crime, you'd be out of a job.

[mattbowen]

That is why I said try. It is just like using a lock on a door, the lock is just there to keep honest people honest. I don't believe anyone who hasn't had a family member or friend killed or injured by a person who is DUI or any type of a crime won't understand until it happens to them. Me personally I believe that the punishment needs to fit the crime, if a person kills another person due to the drinking then he or she should also be put to death (preferably with-in 30 days), If a person sexually assaults a child then that person should be tortured to death (long and slow).

I have found that as long as a person wants to break the law or to violate someone else then that is going to happen, there is NO law or person who is going to stop it. Unless a person sees the act happening you can't stop it and even then most likely the damage has already been done.

To be honest with you MV10 I truly wish you statement could be true, I wouldn't mind being out of a job for that reason.

[doubloon]

I had my keys in the front seat with me ... I was arrested on "intent to drive drunk"...

I do think driving drunk should be illegal, but I've heard of s--t like this before and I can't believe they can get away with prosecuting people for it.

"Intent" to drive drunk ...

They may try to argue it depends on when and where you were found parked.

If you are parked under a tree a few miles from a bar it could be argued you probably drove drunk to get there, especially if you were found parked under the tree an hour or so after you closed your considerable tab at said bar.

But as far as I'm concerned that's suspicion of DUI and not proof of DUI. There is no proof you weren't driven to the tree and left there by a sober underaged midget porn star. They should find that bitch and ticket her for driving without insurance or a license.

[mattbowen]

I had my keys in the front seat with me ... I was arrested on "intent to drive drunk"...

I do think driving drunk should be illegal, but I've heard of s--t like this before and I can't believe they can get away with prosecuting people for it.

"Intent" to drive drunk ...

They may try to argue it depends on when and where you were found parked.

If you are parked under a tree a few miles from a bar it could be argued you probably drove drunk to get there, especially if you were found parked under the tree an hour or so after you closed your considerable tab at said bar.

But as far as I'm concerned that's suspicion of DUI and not proof of DUI. There is no proof you weren't driven to the tree and left there by a sober underaged midget porn star. They should find that bitch and ticket her for driving without insurance or a license.

I am not going to say that it happens because I know it does but in a situation like that here in SC there is no such thing as "Intent to drive drunk", The most a person could be charged with Legally is "Public disorderly conduct". I have found several people in this type of condition and called someone to come to get them or have gotten them a motel room.

[atilliar]

DUI laws are their to try to keep this from happening, let me tell you if more people saw these type of accidents I believe the opinions would drastically change. I will also say that if I ever were to goto an accident scene and found any of my family hurt or killed by a DUI, I can tell you he wouldn't make it to court.

Let me get this straight. You are, or at least were, an LEO for some time. You say you disagree with my statement for some reason. Yet you say that if you found someone you know hurt by a DUI you insinuate that you would kill them. WOW. I have a question for you. What is the difference if they were in a identical accident as the one you suggest but instead of them being hurt by a DUI it was because of negligence of driver fatigue. Would your response be the same? What is the difference in your mind, if any, between a dui crash and a crash with identical results but due to fatigue or negligence for any other reason? In non of these instances does the driver have any intent to cause anyone harm. How do you justify your statement?

[mattbowen]

I didn't say a friend hurt, I said a family member killed (wife, Grand child ect.). The difference is that drinking and driving shows intent for the disregard for the safety of others. A person who goes out to "party" and is going out for the soul purpose of getting drunk (which most people do) then he or she has a willful disregard for others (unless they have someone else who is sober drive them or they pull off the road and sleep it off) that shows INTENT, "A Willful Disregard" . A person who is fatigued (maybe from working over time) may not know that he is that fatigued, he didn't go to work just to get fatigued (tired) so there is NO intent, that makes the difference.

I may be wrong in the way I feel, but until a person is in that situation They can't say what they will do. Just like the father in Shiner TX. who killed the man with his fist for sexually attacking his daughter last Sat..

Let me ask you, if you were to drive up on an accident scene and found you wife and your child mangled in their vehicle and some idiot who was the driver of the other vehicle sitting on the side of the road drunk you wouldn't get the same feelings. Let me say this, a person who has been an LEO for any length of time sees and has to deal with the depravity of man and he or she gets harden to the things they see until they get home and to their family then they get very (maybe overly) protective of them, or they go the other way and bring their work home and let it destroy them.

[atilliar]

Well as I said earlier, I was a LEO. So I have been there. As a LEO a person who got drunk and just wanted to get home or whatever reason he got behind the wheel (which is not intent to harm some one) and accidentally kills someone, regardless who it is, does not justify you turning into a murderer by actual intent. When a drunk gets behind the wheel he does not think he is doing that to go get into a wreck and cause harm. His intent was to get to where he wanted to go. (Is it smart to drive impaired? No. But neither is it smart to drive fatigued or distracted in other ways. But that doesn't make them crimes, nor should it.) However, saying that you would kill that person for harming/ killing your family in a crash IS intent and a completely different thing. As an LEO you should understand that and think it over. This says to me that to you, only other people should follow the laws and that you don't feel you need to follow them. Why is it okay for you to pass judgement on this fictitious person with out a trial but as an LEO you expect others to follow the law or you will take their freedom away or, if they resist sufficiently, you will kill them? It also doesn't seem you understand what intent really is. Being negligent and to have a disregard for others is not the same thing as having the intent to cause harm.

As a citizen why would I trust you to be a protector to society?

[mattbowen]

I didn't say that I wouldn't go to jail or that I had a right to be judge and jury. Apparently you haven't had any experience as being a victim. I saw the direction I was going in and I requested to be taken off the street (after 24 years) on the road. I still say that if a person who goes out to get drunk without arranging another way home (weather he believes he is going to have an accident or not) he still has intent to brake the law and if he kills some innocent person while he is driving drunk that intent to brake the law is (and should be) carried over. As I said before if I found a person who was parked off the road sleeping it off, I would call for someone to come pick that person up or get him a room

As an LEO you should know that the more that one consumes alcohol the more impaired that person gets and the grater the chance of an accident.

[doubloon]

...
They may try to argue ...

..., The most a person could be charged with Legally is "Public disorderly conduct". I have found several people in this type of condition and called someone to come to get them or have gotten them a motel room.

The way things should be.

[MV10]

that person should be tortured to death (long and slow).

I really, REALLY don't want (a) a government that is given the authority to do this to anyone (see original post in this thread), or (b) a government that has to hire people who want that job.

You're like the Grand Poobah of Slippery Slopes, my man. And with a badge. Kinda disturbing, frankly.

[mattbowen]

As for the original post I agree with you 100% As far as the quoted part I have one question, what about the torture that child went through at the hands of the person who sexually assaulted them? I believe that the punishment needs to fit the crime.

[atilliar]

As for the original post I agree with you 100% As far as the quoted part I have one question, what about the torture that child went through at the hands of the person who sexually assaulted them? I believe that the punishment needs to fit the crime.

If rule of law was set up under the Hammurabi (sp?) code then the "protectors" would be the same as the aggressors. It would be tyranny and not orderly freedom. Such a government should be overthrown if it was even allowed to get to that point. Under our current system we already have varying degrees of punishment to fit will greater or lesser crimes. But what you are talking about is far different then that.

[mattbowen]

I see you point, and in most cases I would agree, but I can't the justice in a person who has sexually assaulted a child and getting probation or two or three years when the child will have to deal with what happened to them for the rest of their lives. I know people will say that "The victims can get help", Well I have seen a lot of these children get that help and still have a lot of trouble in their adult lives and the subject just gets out just to do it again and get the same punishment. I just don't see how that punishment fits the crime.

[continuity]

mattbowen, atilliar... given your RL responsibilities, my suggestion is for both of you to relax. You never go off duty. What you have both articulated here is potential bite you in the ass type stuff.

IMHO, it would be wise to pick other topics/threads to post on.

[atilliar]

mattbowen, atilliar... given your RL responsibilities, my suggestion is for both of you to relax. You never go off duty. What you have both articulated here is potential bite you in the ass type stuff.

IMHO, it would be wise to pick other topics/threads to post on.

I'm not currently in that field, Continuity. Though you are right.

[mattbowen]

continuity;

I have to agree also, Thank you.

[continuity]

Love both you guys.

Peace

[TROOPER]

Well?

Its been three days... where are the pics of the make-up sex?



Bullshit, rip-off ending to potential homo-erotic thread if ever I saw one.