I am a little upset. I feel that Texas is stepping on the rights of its citizens. (I am currently visiting some family here in the Lone Star State.) Last night I was watching the local TV news to find out that there have been sting operations in Texas where over 2800 people have been arrested inside of bars for being intoxicated in public. The excuse used to arrest these people under a law that does not allow public intoxication is that they MIGHT leave and drive drunk! My questions are this; Since when, in the USA has it been legal to use one law to arrest someone for to prevent them from potentially breaking another law? (No conspiracies here) Also, how can we be arrested for "public" intoxication in a privately owned establishment when the general public is not allowed to be there (minors, for example). I'm appalled that there is a law allowing someone to be arrested in this country in a privately owned establishment with the excuse that they are arrested to prevent them from possibly breaking another law!

Is this concept only scary to me?
:mad:

1. Since when, in the USA has it been legal to use one law to arrest someone for to prevent them from potentially breaking another law?
2. Also, how can we be arrested for "public" intoxication in a privately owned establishment when the general public is not allowed to be there
3. Is this concept only scary to me?1. "Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution", "Possession of Burglar's Tools", "Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance", "Possession of a Deadly Weapon", "Possession of a Radar Detector" (in some states)", "Possession of Drug Paraphernalia".
There may be others.

2. A commercial establishment is a public place. The only people not allowed in are specifically noted.

3. So far.

Yea, I read about this one. I think it's stupid. You're not allowed to get intoxicated in a bar?? Last time I checked, that was the reason people went to bars. I heard that some new cop was trying to make a name for themself by carrying out the law to the letter, with complete disregard for what the public wants.

btw, it's not because they might drive, it's because it is considered public intoxication; that law has nothing to do with the possibility of driving.

Fifteen years ago (or so) a newly engaged, local young couple stepped off the curb outside of the restaurant they'd just frequented, and into the path of a drunken woman who'd been drinking at a bar a few blocks down since 2 pm that afternoon.

She was driving with no headlights; her speed was estimated at close to 70 mph.

The young couple's body parts were scattered over a three block area.

The woman driver had three prior convictions for drunk driving. She was so unsteady as she left the bar that witnesses later said she had trouble opening her car door.
Yet she drove off anyway. No attempt was made by anyone to stop her.

I support the law as a good one. As the county coroner said ( the one who gets to go to the scene and see with his own eyes the carnage that these people left behind)--

"Let's call these drunks for what they are. Killers. Period."

Fifteen years ago (or so) a newly engaged, local young couple stepped off the curb outside of the restaurant they'd just frequented, and into the path of a drunken woman who'd been drinking at a bar a few blocks down since 2 pm that afternoon.

She was driving with no headlights; her speed was estimated at close to 70 mph.

The young couple's body parts were scattered over a three block area.

The woman driver had three prior convictions for drunk driving. She was so unsteady as she left the bar that witnesses later said she had trouble opening her car door.
Yet she drove off anyway. No attempt was made by anyone to stop her.

I support the law as a good one. As the county coroner said ( the one who gets to go to the scene and see with his own eyes the carnage that these people left behind)--

"Let's call these drunks for what they are. Killers. Period."

Thats a sad story. That woman should have known her limit, and those people should have stopped her from driving, or at least called the cops on her.

She is a killer, I will not defend that (though not a murderer), but just because a couple people do not / can not control themselves, does not mean that we should outlaw drinking. And I don't think that being extremely drunk in a bar should be considered the same as being extremely drunk out on the streets.

I understand, windwip, but I look at it like this--if patrons walked to a bar, then there'd be no problem.
(or not as big a problem as we have now.)

Frightening stats:

!7, 000 people a year are killed by drivers under the influence in this country. A year.

Annual cost --45 billion.

There are many scary laws around. Sometimes I wonder why they were passed in the first place.
At least where I live, the govt is finally getting around to repealing one of our silly laws. For many years it has been illegal to take your drink into the washrooms of a bar. Why? No-one remembers. Unfortunately, this has meant people have been forced to leave their drinks unattended while answering the calls of nature. In turn this has resulted in many of the drinks, especially those belonging to women, being tampered with. Date rape drugs being one of the favourites.

If they can arrest you inside a bar just because you might drive drunk, it’s only a matter of time before they can arrest you on your own property for God knows what.

Hmmmm……

A husband and wife are tucked comfortably in bed, and are making tender, passionate love:

Husband: “I love you, honey. Ooooh, this marital coitus sure feels good.”

Wife: “I love you too, darling. And yes, this straight, missionary-style vaginal intercourse is very pleasurable.”

Husband: “Your vagina is the best. Of all the vaginas I’ve ever known, yours is the greatest. Oh, oooh.”

Wife: “And I love your wiener as well. I’ve not been around that many wieners, but I sure am happy that I married the man that came attached to this one. Ah, aahh.”

Husband: “Ugnn.”

The bedroom door crashes open with a loud bang, and two uniformed police officers storm into the bedroom with guns drawn.
Cops: “FREEZE!!! Don’t move a muscle!!”

Husband and Wife: “AAaaaggh!!!”
The husband rolls off his wife, and the couple lies frozen with fear beneath the cover of the sheets and blankets.

Cop #1: “You were right, Frank.”

Cop #2: “Yep. I sure am glad that we busted in here when we did.”

Husband: “What are you talking about? Why did you come crashing in to our bedroom?”

Cop #1: “Sir, you are under arrest for Intent to Commit an act of Sodomy!”

Husband: “What??”

Wife: “What’s sodomy?”

Cop #2: “Well, technically, the term sodomy is used to refer to any deviant sexual act, often deemed so because such does not lead to procreation. That inclusive interpretation includes oral sex and bestiality, but the predominant understanding of sodomy relates it to anal sex.”

Husband: “But we’re married! And we weren’t doing any anal sex, we were having very conventional marital relations.”

Cop #1: (thumping the husband over the head with his billy club) “Pipe down, Ward Cleaver! You’ll have your day in court!”

Wife: “What’s anal sex?”

The second cops leans over, and whispers a brief but detailed explanation into the wife’s ear.

Wife: “Ew. Who would want to do that?”

Cop #1: “Usually it’s just hardened cons, homosexuals, San Francisco City Councilmen, and the occasional Catholic priest after too much of the Easter wine. But in this case, clearly, it was your husband Howard Cunningham here.”

Husband: (nursing a lump on his head) “But I was doing the straight missionary-style husbandly-duty, officer. I swear.”

Cop #1: “Yes, but the signs of criminal intent are all over this bedroom. The dim candles, the bottle of wine, the, *what’s this?*, this tube of K-Y Jelly!!”
(he thumps the man over the head with his billy club again) “You deviant bastard!!”

Husband: “OW! I swear I wasn’t gonna take the dirt-road home, officer. That K-Y Jelly was just on hand in case her marital-whisker-biscuit got a little parched!”

Cop #1: “A likely story. Look, you’ve already admitted to vaginal penetration. And the vagina is typically located in quite close proximity to the anal orifice, am I not correct?
Frank, look and see if she’s got an anus!”

The second cop produces a large black flashlight, and looks around under the blankets and sheets for a moment. “Yep, here it is. Just an inch and a half away from the scene of the admitted previous violation!!”
He drops the blankets and glares at the husband. “Sir, you disgust me!”

Wife: “I didn’t know. How was I to know?” (weeping)

Cop #2: (sitting on the edge of the bed, and wrapping his arm around the wife in a gesture of comfort) “There, there.”

Cop #1: (producing a set of handcuffs, and securing them around the husbands wrists) “The family members are always the last to know, ma’am. All right, Father Knows Best. I am arresting you under the provision of Alabama Law, Title 356-11, Section 17, and I quote, intent to coerce an unwilling party to participate in an abominable and detestable crime against nature!”

Husband: (face-down in the blankets, with his hands cuffed behind his back) “But we’re in Texas!! Sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional by virtue of LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS, in the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas, Fourteenth District, on June 26th, 2003!!”

Cop#1: “That’s all true, Perry Mason. But I couldn’t help but notice that here in your wallet,” (he produces the man’s billfold off of the nightstand) “ that you are carrying an Alabama drivers license. Vulgar and seditious acts are still against the law in your home State.”

Cop #2 has his own billfold open, and he is showing the wife pictures of his spouse and children. He looks up and offers, “And in Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, and nearly all the States that start with an ‘M’, too!”

Wife: “Florida. That’s where we had our honeymoon a few years ago. It was on our honeymoon that he asked me to take his wiener into my mouth!”

Cop #1: (striking the man on the back of the knees with his billy club) “Strike Three and you are OUT!! You perverted son of a bitch, you are going away for a long, long time!”

Husband: “I’m innocent, I tell you. Honey, don’t believe them!! I wasn’t going to do anything wrong. I’m not a bad person!!”

Cop #2: (tucking the wife neatly back into bed, and donning his patrol cap) “He’s probably not a truly bad person, ma’am. Just a misguided one. They have some very nice counseling & rehabilitation programs in the local prisons. He will come out of there in a few years a better man for it. I can almost guarantee it.”

The cops escort the husband out the door, and toward the waiting patrol car.
Cop #2 leans back into the door way for a moment, on his way out.
“You can sleep well tonight, madam. No one will be violating you on this, or any other evening, ever again.” He tips his cap.

Wife: “Thank you, Officer Frank, and God bless you. And God bless the Great State of Texas!!”

She turns out the light, and rolls over and goes to sleep.
:eek:

Can we get an "amen"?

Interesting that the conservatives on this thread are making the same argument the anti-gun crowd always makes: 1) no good can come of it 2) think of the lives that will be saved.

I disagree that a bar is a public place, though. There are plenty of restrictions on who can come in, there's limited access, and the owners can choose who it wants to let in.

I recall hearing this on the radio. One guy was arrested for drinking in the bar of the hotel he was staying in. What crime was averted there?

I know MADD means well, but you can't let such a completely one-sided organization dictate policy.

Ah,to live in the free world.Thanks guys.

I heard that some new cop was trying to make a name for themself by carrying out the law to the letter, with complete disregard for what the public wants.I think the argument should be taken up with the state legislators (legislative branch - write laws) rather than the police (executive branch - execute laws).
What the "public wants" can best be attained on election day.

Interesting that the conservatives on this thread are making the same argument the anti-gun crowd always makes...I think this thread is about whether or not to enforce existing law.

To wit: "Since when, in the USA has it been legal to use one law to arrest someone for..."

I don't mind the idea of "the sting" it's just that the procedure needs to modified slightly. In stead of arresting them in the bar just need to be waiting for them down the road. All cars leaving the parking lot are checked and the drivers given a Breathalyzer. Problem solved. Pick a different bar each night.

I remember an incident near a major military installation where a young soldier (admittedly 3 sheets to the wind) was apprehended for 'drunk in public' between the front door of the bar and a waiting taxi. The soldier knew he was drunk, had given his keys to the barkeep & asked that barkeep to hail a taxi. All this came out during a brief stance in front of a local judge. The soldier was fined & the kops admonished & the local judge only cared about revenue for his little town that was completely dependent for its' very existence on that major military installation down the road. Pretty sad state of affairs, IMHO.

I don't mind the idea of "the sting" it's just that the procedure needs to modified slightly. In stead of arresting them in the bar just need to be waiting for them down the road. All cars leaving the parking lot are checked and the drivers given a Breathalyzer. Problem solved. Pick a different bar each night.

Good call. I like that plan.


If we outlaw drinking too much in a bar, what determines how much is too much. That could easily lead to only allowing one or two drinks a person and then to outlawing drinking in bars completely.

In stead of arresting them in the bar just need to be waiting for them down the road. I think the arrestees would prefer the much lesser charge of public intoxication.

Also, you run the risk of a high speed pursuit with an intoxicated driver. Imagine the jury award for the father of three, crippled for life who was hit by a car which the police knowingly allowed to leave the bar parking lot.

As usual the police, and the public for that matter, can't win either way.

This is quite an unusual situation 'arresting people for being drunk in a bar', I can understand theres a certain logic in it,but I cant think off hand anything like it anywhere else in the world.

How about this plan. Everyone who enters the bar checks their keys in. When they leave, they can only get them if they are able to pass a breathalyzer. If they can't, they can call a cab, or sleep it off on the premises.

I consumed four beers inside my own house last night.
Rebel that I am, I flaunted my consumption of alcohol openly, and made no attempts to hide the fact that I was drinking beers within 50 feet of my car keys.

"Kind of a dangerous game you're playing there, Spark," my wife cautioned. "If the cops knew you were in here slamming down the Killians, you could be in real trouble."

I settled back into my Lazy Boy lounger, and adjusted the volume on the Clemson game. "What do the cops know or care what I do inside my own house? It's a free country, I can do whatever I want!" I took another sip of the malted beverage, and turned my attention back to the ball game.

"Yeah, but the evidence trail is staggering; you're drinking beers, there are the car keys hanging in full view by the garage door, and both cars have full gas tanks and fully-charged batteries. The implication is clear."

"What implication??" I exclaimed. "I'm sitting here watching the television. I'm not planning to get in the car and go anywhere!!"

She smirked, "Yes, but you could. In fact, with certain knowledge that alcohol lowers your inhibitions and affects your judgment, who knows what could happen? Admit it, you are a totally drunken loose-cannon, a veritable drunk-driving accident just waiting to happen!"

I sulked, "So what, are you going to turn me in or something?"

My bride returned to her knitting, and sadly shook her head. "No, not me. I love you and I would never turn you in. I just want you to consider joining some sort of 12-steps program for your Potential Drunk Driving Syndrome (PD2S). And I'd really like it if you would lower the shades when you consume alcohol in here. What will the neighbors think?"

I glanced out the bay windows, and nervously noted that some of the neighbors were indeed strolling by, out for an exercise walk. Were my eyes playing tricks on me, or did Sam Schwartz look quickly away when he saw me glance at him through the double-paned glass? And did his wife Libby surreptitiously jot something down on a small note-pad?

I got paranoid all of a sudden, and stumbled to my feet & ran to the bathroom. I hurriedly locked the door, and turned the tap on the faucet in order to create some white noise.
I took a quick swallow of beer for courage, and then slumped to the cool tile floor. I sat there and nursed my beer for awhile, and tried to collect my thoughts.

The sound of a siren wailing caused me to tense up suddenly, but I relaxed when I heard it pass by the neighborhood and then continue on down County Line Road. “Probably an ambulance or a fire truck,” I uttered aloud.

But just to be sure, I rinsed out my beer bottle real good, and hid it in the trash can underneath a pile of tissues and empty toilet paper rolls.
:eek:

I think the arrestees would prefer the much lesser charge of public intoxication.
Yes they no doubt would. However, I and most other responsible citizens (including you perhaps) would feel more vindicated and safer if they were caught DUI and had their license revoked. It's a pulic safety matter. I am for every public freedom imaginable. Drinking, drugs, prostitution...until the individual demostrates a lack of rational ability to handle that freedom. I believe endangering another is the measure stick. Once one does that, they lose that particular freedom for a certain period of time...possibly forever.

I don't think, being publically intoxicated should lead to an arrest. And certainly should not lead to the ASSUMPTION that the individual is stupid enough to endanger the lives of others by attempting to drive.

Also, you run the risk of a high speed pursuit with an intoxicated driver. Imagine the jury award for the father of three, crippled for life who was hit by a car which the police knowingly allowed to leave the bar parking lot.

As usual the police, and the public for that matter, can't win either way.
You do run that risk. However I think the risk would be minimal compared to those who would leave their cars at the bar and cab it just knowing there was a good chance the cops were out. We do it here in my city during our big Octoberfest. Everyone knows that you will be stopped randomly anywhere in the city day or night for two weeks. It can happen at 11 O'clock in the morning as you leave the supermarket. And all cars are stopped in a line and the check begins. You are asked if you have been drinking today and things proceed from there.

It works and I think it is worth implementing in any community where drunk drivers are a problem.

How about this plan. Everyone who enters the bar checks their keys in. When they leave, they can only get them if they are able to pass a breathalyzer. If they can't, they can call a cab, or sleep it off on the premises.

That won't work. It neither allows for additional income for the city coffers nor does it allow politicians to claim that they're "tough on drunk drivers."

I do remember a few bars installing breathalyzers, they resulted in drinking contests to see who could "ring the bell" with the highest number.

Yes they no doubt would. However, I and most other responsible citizens (including you perhaps) would feel more vindicated and safer if they were caught DUI and had their license revoked. It's a pulic safety matter. I am for every public freedom imaginable. Drinking, drugs, prostitution...until the individual demostrates a lack of rational ability to handle that freedom. I believe endangering another is the measure stick. Once one does that, they lose that particular freedom for a certain period of time...possibly forever.

I don't think, being publically intoxicated should lead to an arrest. And certainly should not lead to the ASSUMPTION that the individual is stupid enough to endanger the lives of others by attempting to drive.

Great post - I completely agree

I do remember a few bars installing breathalyzers, they resulted in drinking contests to see who could "ring the bell" with the highest number.

Yea, I've had a friend buy one and bring it to a bar. Started a contest too - the bartender had to cut like 5 people off.

Just over 400 road deaths in Ireland so far this year,out of a pop. of 6 million,most happen on weekend nites.
300 in Republic
100 in North.
http:www.rte.ie/news/2006/1021/rta.html

And all cars are stopped in a line and the check begins. You are asked if you have been drinking today and things proceed from there.
In NY State and maybe all of the US) that would actually be an illegal stop.

I am for every public freedom imaginable. ...until the individual demostrates a lack of rational ability to handle that freedom. Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way. Everyone is bound by law written for the worst among us.
If you never littered, you're still responsible for the five cent deposit on soda bottles.
If you don't drive your motorcycle like an a-hole, you still have to wear a helmet.
If you can be responsible with a can of spray paint, you still can't buy one if you're under 18 (people outside of New York may be shocked by this one).
If you're a good 17 year old male driver, your insurance rates are still high.
And on and on.

It's probably too time consuming, unmanagable and (in the short run) dangerous to give total freedom to everybody and then catch the ones who screw it up.

It may be an illegal stop, but I've see it done in a lot of places - NY included. Try to push the illegal stop thing if you're apprehended for DWI ... that'll be as well received by the judge as a fart in church. The kops use "seatbelt" checks, or "vehicle safety" checks as an excuse for the stop.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for getting drunks off the roads. Alcohol abuse is an insidious blight on society, not just in the U.S. but nearly world wide. What really bothers me is that you can run down a Suburban full of orpahans, driven by nuns while 3 sheets to the wind and not get the same penalty you would get after getting stopped for a burnt-out tail light & the kop finding a half ounce of pot in the car. There is an assistant DA in NY that is pushing it hard, however, she just got a murder conviction on a DWI traffic accident. That's a good thing.

In NY State and maybe all of the US) that would actually be an illegal stop.
Really? They do it in Berkeley too. We have sobriety checkpoints after most football games.

Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way. Everyone is bound by law written for the worst among us.
If you never littered, you're still responsible for the five cent deposit on soda bottles.
If you don't drive your motorcycle like an a-hole, you still have to wear a helmet.
If you can be responsible with a can of spray paint, you still can't buy one if you're under 18 (people outside of New York may be shocked by this one).
If you're a good 17 year old male driver, your insurance rates are still high.
And on and on.

It's probably too time consuming, unmanagable and (in the short run) dangerous to give total freedom to everybody and then catch the ones who screw it up.

Very good point, yet how far do you do. Should we make cars go a max of 40 mph because some people can't handle the faster speeds?

I do agree with you on the issue of drugs - there are many of them which, when under the effects your ability to control yourself is severely limited (for the vast majority of the population, but I am sure there are a couple who can handle many types of drugs just fine). Alcohol is one of those drugs, but only when one has consumed a fair amount.

I'm saying that we should allow people to reach that state where they lose some of their self-control; yet only in particular locations (their home, bars, clubs), and only as long as they have enough self-control to not be a menace to others.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that we should not allow people to even get to that state where they lose some of their self-control; even in bars, their home or clubs.

It may be an illegal stop, but I've see it done in a lot of places - NY included. Try to push the illegal stop thing if you're apprehended for DWI ... that'll be as well received by the judge as a fart in church. The kops use "seatbelt" checks, or "vehicle safety" checks as an excuse for the stop.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for getting drunks off the roads. Alcohol abuse is an insidious blight on society, not just in the U.S. but nearly world wide.
Ah, we're on the same page for once, almost. The cops shouldn't be breaking the law, if there is a law that says that the cops can't do that (is that the law saying that they can't pull you over unless they have probable cause?).

What really bothers me is that you can run down a Suburban full of orpahans, driven by nuns while 3 sheets to the wind and not get the same penalty you would get after getting stopped for a burnt-out tail light & the kop finding a half ounce of pot in the car.
Are you exaggerating, or is that actually true?

There is an assistant DA in NY that is pushing it hard, however, she just got a murder conviction on a DWI traffic accident. That's a good thing.
That's not a good thing. Did the driver purposely kill the person? If not, then that is not murder. Murder includes malice aforethought or an intent to kill. If it was an accident, then the judge should be fired for such a horrible interpretation of the law. I'm all for being tough on drunk driving, but I am not ok with subverting the law to get there.

This is (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/weekinreview/22vitello.html?_r=1&ref=thecity&oref=login) the article I referenced.

Here's another (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/nyregion/18dwi.html)

He's going to get the same punishment as someone who walks into a person's house, goes to their room and strangles them.

For a punishment, you do not only take into account who was harmed, but the intent of the person, and if they had planned it out - so why is he getting the same punishment as if he had intentionally killed someone?

I've read news reports over the years of individuals in front of the judge for their 5th or more conviction for a moving alcohol related charge (DWI + driving without a license kind of thing) and walking away with probation and a fine, while a possession charge might get somebody 2 years or more.

He's going to get the same punishment as someone who walks into a person's house, goes to their room and strangles them.

For a punishment, you do not only take into account who was harmed, but the intent of the person, and if they had planned it out - so why is he getting the same punishment as if he had intentionally killed someone?
His judgement was impaired by a drug therefore he was not in his "right mind" so what should happen to him?

Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way. Everyone is bound by law written for the worst among us.
If you never littered, you're still responsible for the five cent deposit on soda bottles.
If you don't drive your motorcycle like an a-hole, you still have to wear a helmet.
If you can be responsible with a can of spray paint, you still can't buy one if you're under 18 (people outside of New York may be shocked by this one).
If you're a good 17 year old male driver, your insurance rates are still high.
And on and on.

It's probably too time consuming, unmanagable and (in the short run) dangerous to give total freedom to everybody and then catch the ones who screw it up.
Well actually, I was not putting my personal belief system onto the law. Unfortunately, we have a system that feels the need to "protect the individual from themself". In most cases that is probably a helpful thing although not necessarily the right thing.

I've read news reports over the years of individuals in front of the judge for their 5th or more conviction for a moving alcohol related charge (DWI + driving without a license kind of thing) and walking away with probation and a fine, while a possession charge might get somebody 2 years or more.
That must be a very nice judge, or a leniant area.


DUI Penalties for California, first offense:

You could...
Be sentenced to up to six months in jail.
Fined anywhere between $390 and $1,000.
Be required to pay a "penalty assessment" equal to approximately three times the amount of your fine.
Lose your driver's license for six months.
Be required to complete a DUI program before your license will be reinstated. If your BAC was very high, this program might last nine months.
Pay a reissue fee of $125 to have your driver's license reinstated after it has been suspended.


I'm all for doubling the fines for a second DUI and tripling them for a third offense.


For weed, an amount under 28.5 grams (first offense) is 100$ with no jail time, and over that is 500$ fine and up to 6 months.

If you sell weed, you can face 2-7 years, at least in Cali.

That must be a very nice judge, or a leniant area.


DUI Penalties for California, first offense:

You could...
Be sentenced to up to six months in jail.
Fined anywhere between $390 and $1,000.
Be required to pay a "penalty assessment" equal to approximately three times the amount of your fine.
Lose your driver's license for six months.
Be required to complete a DUI program before your license will be reinstated. If your BAC was very high, this program might last nine months.
Pay a reissue fee of $125 to have your driver's license reinstated after it has been suspended.


I'm all for doubling the fines for a second DUI and tripling them for a third offense.


For weed, an amount under 28.5 grams (first offense) is 100$ with no jail time, and over that is 500$ fine and up to 6 months.

If you sell weed, you can face 2-7 years, at least in Cali.It sounds as though you think those DUI penalties are severe. I think they're incredibly mild for a crime that kills innocent people. On the other hand they can throw you in prison for a crime that doesn't kill anyone. That's very wrong.

It sounds as though you think those DUI penalties are severe. I think they're incredibly mild for a crime that kills innocent people.
No... actually I didn't think they were severe enough. I said that we should increase the penalties. It was in response to what es347fan said when he compared the penalties for pot and DUIs.

On the other hand they can throw you in prison for a crime that doesn't kill anyone. That's very wrong.
Weed inhibits your reaction time and your motor skills too. You can still kill people by driving and smoking weed.

Weed inhibits your reaction time and your motor skills too. You can still kill people by driving and smoking weed.Yes, that would also be driving under the influence. But you don't have to drive a vehicle to be sent to prison for possession of marijuana.

His judgement was impaired by a drug therefore he was not in his "right mind" so what should happen to him?

He should be charged with manslaughter - he had no intention of killing them, no malice towards them. It was very poor judgement on his part to have drunk so much, and then to have driven afterwards; but the punishment for murder is worse than that of manslaughter because there was intent behind a murder. You don't simply alter the crime that they did because murder is a bigger punishment; thats a mockery of our justice system.

He should be charged with manslaughter - he had no intention of killing them,
I agree with you but here's an example of how the law can work.
When I was in the academy, a question on a test had to do with the culpable mental state for a certain degree of arson. The law said that if you start a fire intentionally, and that fire accidentally causes a building to burn down, you got this certain charge.
In the example a man lit a cigarette, accidentally dropped the match into some leaves which accidentally lit the house on fire.
Obviously the initial fire was an accident, right? Wrong, the initial fire was the match being intentionally lit. Not really fair.

Similarly, I think we'll see the drunk driver's culpable mental state begin when he is sober and making the decision to impair himself, knowing he will be driving. There's the intent.

Similarly, I think we'll see the drunk driver's culpable mental state begin when he is sober and making the decision to impair himself, knowing he will be driving. There's the intent.
I like that.

That's not a good thing. Did the driver purposely kill the person? If not, then that is not murder. Murder includes malice aforethought or an intent to kill. If it was an accident, then the judge should be fired for such a horrible interpretation of the law. I'm all for being tough on drunk driving, but I am not ok with subverting the law to get there.

I saw a report on that case on television. The reason for the murder conviction was the dashboard videotape. The victims were riding in a limousine that had a dashboard video camera. The perpetrator was traveling on the wrong side of a multilane interstate. The limo was in the right lane of their side of the interstate. The oncoming vehichle was in the left lane. As he approached them, he shifted into their lane at the last moment and hit them head on. The jurors felt this indicated intent to hit the limo.

Cop #1: “A likely story. Look, you’ve already admitted to vaginal penetration. And the vagina is typically located in quite close proximity to the anal orifice, am I not correct?
Frank, look and see if she’s got an anus!”

The second cop produces a large black flashlight, and looks around under the blankets and sheets for a moment. “Yep, here it is. Just an inch and a half away from the scene of the admitted previous violation!!”
He drops the blankets and glares at the husband. “Sir, you disgust me!”

Wife: “I didn’t know. How was I to know?” (weeping)
Incredibly funny, Sparky.

I am a little upset. I feel that Texas is stepping on the rights of its citizens. (I am currently visiting some family here in the Lone Star State.) Last night I was watching the local TV news to find out that there have been sting operations in Texas where over 2800 people have been arrested inside of bars for being intoxicated in public. The excuse used to arrest these people under a law that does not allow public intoxication is that they MIGHT leave and drive drunk! My questions are this; Since when, in the USA has it been legal to use one law to arrest someone for to prevent them from potentially breaking another law? (No conspiracies here) Also, how can we be arrested for "public" intoxication in a privately owned establishment when the general public is not allowed to be there (minors, for example). I'm appalled that there is a law allowing someone to be arrested in this country in a privately owned establishment with the excuse that they are arrested to prevent them from possibly breaking another law!

Is this concept only scary to me?
:mad:

how would they know that the 'drunk' people drove there?

And all cars are stopped in a line and the check begins. You are asked if you have been drinking today and things proceed from there.
In NY State and maybe all of the US) that would actually be an illegal stop.
I've said that for years; it's completely unconstitutional, yet the cops in Illinois do it all the time under the guise of "keeping the streets safe". Riiiiiiight - like they'd care about keeping the streets safe if DUI's weren't the biggest cash cows in citation history.

I've read news reports over the years of individuals in front of the judge for their 5th or more conviction for a moving alcohol related charge (DWI + driving without a license kind of thing) and walking away with probation and a fine, while a possession charge might get somebody 2 years or more.
Not in Illinois. You drink (3 beers at 220 lbs with a huge tolerance while in possession of sharp tongue) there, and you're fucked.

Almost everyone I know has at least one, barring the elderly, and while that might sound ridiculous, trust me - it's not. Hell, the Mayor of Bolingbrook (a fair sized city to the southwest of Chicago) has one. Of course his was thrown away in court, but.......

I've said that for years; it's completely unconstitutional, yet the cops in Illinois do it all the time under the guise of "keeping the streets safe". Riiiiiiight - like they'd care about keeping the streets safe if DUI's weren't the biggest cash cows in citation history.

Note that sobriety checkpoints never run when the weather turns cold, except maybe New Year's Eve. Hmmm.

Several years ago on a visit to Montana, I was given a "go-cup" at a bar to take out to my car. Absolutely true - when you're ready to go and you've got an unfinished drink, they'll pour the drink into a paper cup so you can take it on the road. Don't know if this is still the case, but I was astounded to find out how things are (were?) done in the wild west!

And while it is true that alcohol can impair your ability to drive, so can cell phones. Heard a stat the other day that driving while on the phone increases your likelihood of having an accident NINE TIMES! I'd be happy to see THOSE outlawed on the road...

:mad:

Frankly, it wouldn't cross my eyes if cell phones were banned altogether. While standing in line at the bank the other day, a guy in line ahead of me was blabbing (loud enough for the entire bank to hear) incessantly on his cell phone. When his turn came, he approached the teller and handed her his paperwork without even speaking to her - but never STFU from his oh-so-important phone call (about his freakin' lawnmower, for gawd's sake). The teller finished his transaction and he walked away, STILL RUNNING AT THE MOUTH.

Anyone who feels the need to be THAT connected is either insecure beyond belief (TALK TO ME!! I NEED CONSTANT VALIDATION OF MY EXISTENCE!!) or a raging self-important jerk (EVERYBODY LISTEN TO MY OH-SO-IMPORTANT AND ENDLESSLY ENGROSSING CONVERSATION!!!).

:rant:

Several years ago on a visit to Montana, I was given a "go-cup" at a bar to take out to my car. Absolutely true - when you're ready to go and you've got an unfinished drink, they'll pour the drink into a paper cup so you can take it on the road.
Yeah, that's called a traveler where I'm from. ;)

Note that sobriety checkpoints never run when the weather turns cold, except maybe New Year's Eve. Hmmm.
No doubt...

Just to add some info to this thread:

Texas Penal Code defines "public place" as:

"any place which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops."

I would say a bar is very similar to a "shop" for the purposes of this statute so a bar would be considered a public place, during operating hours at least.

I'd also like to quote the Texas Penal Code on the offense of "Public Intoxication":

"A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another."

All of that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Couple that fact with the right to a jury trial and you'll be able to guess correctly that the state is probably losing these cases at trial....i.e. its more of a political maneuver or scare tactic than actual law enforcement.

I'd also like to quote the Texas Penal Code on the offense of "Public Intoxication":

"A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another."
I personally feel that if the bar in question didn't call the cops in the first place, then they shouldn't be there, period.

Besides, you'd think they could wait until they're off duty to hit the bar scene because we all know they can drink themselves into a stooper with impunity when they're off the clock in "their" town.

Lord knows, I've seen it happen in mine.

I agree with you but here's an example of how the law can work.
When I was in the academy, a question on a test had to do with the culpable mental state for a certain degree of arson. The law said that if you start a fire intentionally, and that fire accidentally causes a building to burn down, you got this certain charge.
In the example a man lit a cigarette, accidentally dropped the match into some leaves which accidentally lit the house on fire.
Obviously the initial fire was an accident, right? Wrong, the initial fire was the match being intentionally lit. Not really fair.
There are differences between the intent to burn some of a building (intent to break the law) and the intent to light a match with no illegal intent at all. I would punish the first much more severely than the latter.

Similarly, I think we'll see the drunk driver's culpable mental state begin when he is sober and making the decision to impair himself, knowing he will be driving. There's the intent.
Well, you are assuming that he had intent to drive drunk when he was sober. That could be the case, but it may not be (and I doubt it was) and we don't base our sentences solely on possibilities or suppositions.

How would you compare him to someone who wrote a note saying that bad drivers pissed the hell out of him, jumped in a car and rode down the wrong way on the freeway until he crashed into another car and killed them all.

This driver was purposely out to do damage; full intent to maim others, and possibly kill them as well. Yet you give him the same sentence as a person who made a poor judgement and had no intention of killing anyone.

I saw a report on that case on television. The reason for the murder conviction was the dashboard videotape. The victims were riding in a limousine that had a dashboard video camera. The perpetrator was traveling on the wrong side of a multilane interstate. The limo was in the right lane of their side of the interstate. The oncoming vehichle was in the left lane. As he approached them, he shifted into their lane at the last moment and hit them head on. The jurors felt this indicated intent to hit the limo.

If that's the case, then it seems as if there was intent. I fully support giving him the sentence of murder if he intentionally crashed into them.

I've said that for years; it's completely unconstitutional, yet the cops in Illinois do it all the time under the guise of "keeping the streets safe". Riiiiiiight - like they'd care about keeping the streets safe if DUI's weren't the biggest cash cows in citation history.

As well they should be. Put a big fine on those things which cause the most damage.

Note that sobriety checkpoints never run when the weather turns cold, except maybe New Year's Eve. Hmmm.

Yea. Thats when people get roaring drunk...

Well, you are assuming that he had intent to drive drunk when he was sober. That could be the case, but it may not be (and I doubt it was) and we don't base our sentences solely on possibilities or suppositions.

How would you compare him to someone who wrote a note saying that bad drivers pissed the hell out of him, jumped in a car and rode down the wrong way on the freeway until he crashed into another car and killed them all.

This driver was purposely out to do damage; full intent to maim others, and possibly kill them as well. Yet you give him the same sentence as a person who made a poor judgement and had no intention of killing anyone.
That's an excellent point, Wip.

Just to add some info to this thread:

Texas Penal Code defines "public place" as:

"any place which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

You drink alcohol at a bar. No shit you're going to get drunks at a bar. That's kinda the purpose and the reason that people go to those places. If you don't want to be around drunks, don't go into the bar.

Also, a bar is semi-public. They do not allow people under 21 into bars; you could still claim that a substantial group of the public has access, so technically you're right. But there are also laws that say it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing, and a law that makes it illegal to own more than 6 dildos. I think the law in this case needs to add a clause to allow intoxication in bars.

... and a law that makes it illegal to own more than 6 dildos...

Darn, there goes my Sunday,http://www.allforums.net/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yea. Thats when people get roaring drunk...

No one gets roaring drunk after Labor Day and before Memorial Day, except for New Year's Eve?

Yep - I think that's what he's trying to say....

As well they should be. Put a big fine on those things which cause the most damage.
Don't you understand - it's not about "protecting" people; it's about making money. If you're ever graced with the misfortune of having to go through one, then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about first hand. It's a fucking racket; from the evaluation to the "counseling" to the attorney fees (and trust me, they're all in bed together) – it's nothing short of a goddamned coup.

Don't you understand - it's not about "protecting" people; it's about making money. If you're ever graced with the misfortune of having to go through one, then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about first hand. It's a fucking racket; from the evaluation to the "counseling" to the attorney fees (and trust me, they're all in bed together) – it's nothing short of a goddamned coup.

Would you feel better if instead of large fines, that the offenders go to jail for awhile? I would be fine with that, but I also think that there should be large fines as well to pay for the damage caused by drunk drivers. I agree, not all of the money is going to where it should go. I am not going to pretend to know where the money actually goes (I have not been guilty of a DUI yet), but I do know where it should go.

Attorney fees are always fairly high, counceling is not mandatory and I don't know what the evaluation is, or the costs associated with that.

No one gets roaring drunk after Labor Day and before Memorial Day, except for New Year's Eve?

Well, a lot of people get drunk on New Year's Eve, so it makes sense to have more cops out to pull the drunk drivers off the road.


Yep - I think that's what he's trying to say....
Yup

Would you feel better if instead of large fines, that the offenders go to jail for awhile? I would be fine with that, but I also think that there should be large fines as well to pay for the damage caused by drunk drivers.
Let me know how that works out for you when you're pulled out of your vehicle and charged with a DUI for "intent" while sleeping it off in a PRIVATE parking lot. Considering the money the state makes (for it's the number 1 revenue generator in the state of Illinois), and considering the conversations I've had with MULTIPLE lawyers, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that officers are being given incentives to "hunt down" drunken drivers. The police force grows in a way that isn't commensurate with the population, and seeing as to how the DUI racket is so lucrative, I can understand lowering the legal limit from .1 to .08, because .08 is approximately two beers for a man who's 180 Lbs. Whoa - look out everyone; there's a problem drinker! Let's fine him 3,000 dollars, take his license away, make him lose his job, send him in for a 400 dollar, 30 minute "evaluation", have him attend "counseling" classes (that are state approved, no less - READ; conducted by state employees) where the "professional" there charges another 1,500 dollars to show you video tapes of alcohol-related accidents (only to cut the session short because that same "professional" wanted to leave early) with the coup de grace being (depending on the circumstances) that they'll possibly incarcerate you based on what the jag off cop made up in his report to secure a conviction. Then let's make this poor schmuck retain some shyster lawyer at no less than 5,000 to 7,500 dollars to clear his name.

Yeah, that's punishment in fitting with the crime, alright...:rolleyes:

You know, I wouldn't have such a problem if they didn't outright lie to us in the first place (i.e. give us a false sense of security). IOW, don't give us some arbitrary ".08" barometer (which no one can monitor anyway); just make a zero tolerance law. That way there's no gray area - at least people wouldn't feel like they're being sucker-punched by a crooked, money-hungry system that employs fat fucks to sit in parking lots while they talk to one another on your dime only to end up treating you like a fucking criminal (falsely, in many cases) before your day in court.

Pissed off? Yeah...just a bit...

Let me know how that works out for you when you're pulled out of your vehicle and charged with a DUI for "intent" while sleeping it off in a PRIVATE parking lot.
That would not be fair at all. I don't disagree with you on that.

Considering the money the state makes (it's the number 1 revenue generator in Illinois), and the conversations I've had with MULTIPLE lawyers, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that officers are being given incentives to "hunt down" drunken drivers.
Then there should be stricter guidelines in catching drunk drivers - such as, they actually have to be driving and intoxicated.

The police force grows in a way that isn't commensurate with the population, and seeing as to how the DUI racket is so lucrative, I can understand lowering the legal limit from .1 to .08, because .08 is approximately two beers for a man who's 180 Lbs. Whoa - look out everyone; there's a problem drinker!
You're right, the limit is ridiculous. We should up it to around .12 - I do agree with that.

Let's fine him 3,000 dollars, make him lose his job, send him in for a 400 dollar, 30 minute "evaluation", have him attend "counseling" classes (that are state approved, no less - READ; conducted by state employees) where the "professional" there charges you another 1,500 dollars to show you video tapes of alcohol-related accidents (only to cut the session short because he wants to leave), with the coup de grace being that (dependant on the circumstances), they'll possibly incarcerate you based on what the jag off cop fucking made up in his report to secure a conviction. Then let's make this poor schmuck retain some shyster lawyer at no less than 5,000 to 7,500 dollars to clear his name. Yeah, that's punishment in fitting with the crime, alright...:rolleyes:

The fine I agree with; it ranges from a fine of 390 to 4,000. Why would the person lose their job?
The counseling classes I am not familiar with, but if it was the first offense I wonder if the judge would still require that. Corrupt cops are a different issue. You don't have to pay that much for a lawyer, but it is wise to have a lawyer.

You know, I wouldn't have such a problem if they didn't outright lie to us in the first place (i.e. give us a false sense of security). IOW, don't give us some arbitrary ".08" barometer (which no one can monitor anyway); just make a zero tolerance law. That way there's no gray area - at least people wouldn't feel like they're being sucker punched by a crooked, money-hungry system that employs fat fucks to sit in parking lots while talking to one another on your dime only to treat you like a fucking criminal (falsely, in many cases) before your day in court.
I would have a fit if they made it 0 tolerance. You can still act perfectly fine with a few beers in you. I can act completely sober afer 4 beers easily, oftentimes more.

The cops where you live sound pretty bad. Out here they are repectful and fair for the most part.

Then there should be stricter guidelines in catching drunk drivers - such as, they actually have to be driving and intoxicated.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the current system works.
Why would the person lose their job?
If their license is taken away (which 99% of the time is a veritable certainty), then getting to their place of employment poses quite a challenge, doesn't it? If they can't get to work, then typically, they'll lose their job. It takes a really understanding boss to weather that storm. I've met many first time offenders that have lost their jobs.
The counseling classes I am not familiar with, but if it was the first offense I wonder if the judge would still require that.
In Illinois, they do - even if you're a level 1, moderate: the lowest possible "evaluation" (which, in and of itself, is a 250 to 400 dollar pop).
Corrupt cops are a different issue.
Smart off to one and you'll find that 99% of them are corrupt. Don't smart off, and you'll find that roughly 50% of them are corrupt. (NOTE: I haven't had that experience with Chicago cops (or any big city cops, for that matter, for it's been my experience that they have real jobs...)).
The cops where you live sound pretty bad.
You have NO idea....

Unfortunately, that's not the way the current system works.
I agree with you there

If their license is taken away (which 99% of the time is a veritable certainty), then getting to their place of employment poses quite a challenge, doesn't it? If they can't get to work, then typically, they'll lose their job. It takes a really understanding boss to weather that storm. I've met many first time offenders that have lost their jobs.
There is public transit, taxis, carpooling or biking if it got that bad. It currently takes me 12 minutes to get to work (almost no time), but even if it took me 45 minutes I could find my way by taking busses and biking if need be.

In Illinois, they do - even if you're a level 1, moderate: the lowest possible "evaluation" (which, in and of itself, is a 250 to 400 dollar pop).

Well, until I know more about that subject I won't make an opinion on it.

Smart off to one and you'll find that 99% of them are corrupt. Don't smart off, and you'll find that roughly 50% of them are corrupt. (NOTE: I haven't had that experience with Chicago cops (or any big city cops, for that matter, for it's been my experience that they have real jobs...)).
If you smart off to them then they will have a bias against you; as with all people. You act like a jackass to a store clerk and they can refuse you their business. You act nastily to a cop and they will give you the most charges that they can; still I have not heard of an instance from my friends of a cop acting outside of the law though.

Ever seen the book of laws a cop has available to them? Almost 3 inches thick in some areas. Cops are there to serve the public, not to punish or belittle them. That's not in their job description.

Well, a lot of people get drunk on New Year's Eve, so it makes sense to have more cops out to pull the drunk drivers off the road.

OK, apparently my point was missed. Absolutely the cops should be out there on NYE. But people get drunk every weekend of the year, and if these sobriety checkpoints are so great, they should run them every weekend, or once a month. Besides NYE, they only run them when the weather is nice, which to me is an indication that they're more for show than for anything else.

Ever seen the book of laws a cop has available to them? Almost 3 inches thick in some areas. Cops are there to serve the public, not to punish or belittle them. That's not in their job description.
THANK YOU, Es!

There is public transit, taxis, carpooling or biking if it got that bad. It currently takes me 12 minutes to get to work (almost no time), but even if it took me 45 minutes I could find my way by taking busses and biking if need be.
I was going to mention that in my (overly) long post above. Not everyone has public transportation. Taxis are ridiculously expensive, especially if you had to take them every day to AND from work. You're lucky - you only work 12 minutes from where you live; I'm 30. Considering that alone, it takes me almost two hours to get to work now via public transportation. I have to transfer from one bus to another with a ten to fifteen minute delay each way. Biking isn't an option unless my family's okay with burying me in a closed casket.
If you smart off to them then they will have a bias against you; as with all people. You act like a jackass to a store clerk and they can refuse you their business. You act nastily to a cop and they will give you the most charges that they can; still I have not heard of an instance from my friends of a cop acting outside of the law though.
When a cop tears up one ticket only to issue another because he felt insulted by someone's "words" (no swears or threats; just a sharp tongue) that's, A) a complete lie, and B) far more severe in penalty than the first citation, then he's decidedly operating "outside of the law". Question for you: what are you going to do when this happens to you.....call the cops? I suppose I should've just kept my mouth shut, right? I'm sorry, but I refuse to place a price on my dignity if someone's an asshole to me for no reason; ESPECIALLY when that person is a fucking civil servant.

Let me know how that works out for you when you're pulled out of your vehicle and charged with a DUI for "intent" while sleeping it off in a PRIVATE parking lot.

This raises the question: was the private parking lot owned/overseen/adjacent to a drinking establishment, or not? Any officer finding you "sleeping it off" in your car miles from a bar would have excellent reason to assert that you'd driven to that parking lot while drunk.

If you stumbled out of a bar and across the parking lot to your car to "sleep it off" there, you might have a case.

Also, mouthing off to a cop for any reason is just stupid.

I was going to mention that in my (overly) long post above. Not everyone has public transportation. Taxis are ridiculously expensive, especially if you had to take them every day to AND from work. You're lucky - you only work 12 minutes from where you live; I'm 30. Considering that alone, it now takes me almost two hours to get to work now via public transportation. I have to transfer from one bus to another with a ten to fifteen minute delay each way. Biking isn't an option unless my family's okay with burying me in a closed casket.

When a cop tears up one ticket only to issue another because he felt insulted by someone's "words" (no swears or threats; just a sharp tongue) that's, A) a complete lie, and B) far more severe in penalty than the first citation, then he's decidedly operating "outside of the law". Question for you: what are you going to do when this happens to you.....call the cops? I suppose I should've just kept my mouth shut, right? I'm sorry, but I refuse to place a price on my dignity if someone's an asshole to me for no reason; ESPECIALLY when that person is a fucking civil servant.

Chill out. The vast majority of cops aren't out to get you. They don't enjoy issuing citations. Most people become cops to catch criminals, not harass everyday people.

A public intoxication offense is not much worse than a traffic ticket (and is actually less severe than getting a ticket for no insurance). Furthermore, the police I deal with know damn well not to charge someone with a P.I. unless they're so drunk that they are out of control. They will, however, be a lot harder on you if you're an asshole to them, which I suspect has been your experience...welcome to the real world: people don't treat you well if you don't treat them well.

OK, apparently my point was missed. Absolutely the cops should be out there on NYE. But people get drunk every weekend of the year, and if these sobriety checkpoints are so great, they should run them every weekend, or once a month. Besides NYE, they only run them when the weather is nice, which to me is an indication that they're more for show than for anything else.
I wasn't quite sure what your point was originally, since I thought that usually New Years Eve has crappy weather. Out here, and in Seattle they do have sobriety checkpoints at other times too, but only on event days. Like football games, or during rush week. Sobriety checkpoints slow down traffic and take a lot of manpower, so they wouldn't use them just any day.

Ever seen the book of laws a cop has available to them? Almost 3 inches thick in some areas. Cops are there to serve the public, not to punish or belittle them. That's not in their job description.

You're right, cops are there to serve the public. Was that comment directed at one of the statements I made?

Also, mouthing off to a cop for any reason is just stupid.
Yeah - swallow your pride. Take his bullshit insinuations and insults like a man, right?

Sorry, Frannie, but I won't bend over for anyone - especially for someone who's there to protect and "serve" me. In answer to your sig, I can tell you unequivocally that smells like ham when I'm pulled over, if that's any help...

This raises the question: was the private parking lot owned/overseen/adjacent to a drinking establishment, or not? Any officer finding you "sleeping it off" in your car miles from a bar would have excellent reason to assert that you'd driven to that parking lot while drunk.
That aside, who's to say that your temperamental, ragging girlfriend (who, incidentally, promised to drive that night) didn't get into a fight with you mid-way home and decide to stop your car and walk home from the private parking lot in question? Cops aren't there to assume; they're there to enforce the law and exercise a little judgment in the process.

I mean, c'mon – is the guy "sleeping it off" in a nearby parking lot a fucking criminal?

Was that comment directed at one of the statements I made?
I don't think so...

I think he was just expressing his opinion.

Yeah - swallow your pride. Take his bullshit insinuations and insults like a man, right?

From what you tell us, mouthing off was a big mistake in your case. Are you trying to get sympathy for being a jerk TO A COP? You brought the cop's attitude out, you suffer the consequences.

Funny how life works like that. :rolleyes: Grow up, kiddo.

Any intelligent adult would have STFU in your situation, then fought the case like hell in court (and you ALWAYS stand a good chance of beating any sort of ticket if you use your right to delay and delay and reschedule and so on.... cops' schedules get whacked out when you do that; if they don't show up in court, you win by default). Your explanation about being abandoned and too drunk to drive would have gone a long way to ameliorate the situation, but your fat mouth certainly didn't make it difficult for the cop to ignore your explanation and go by what his eyes told him.

Sorry, Frannie, but I won't bend over for anyone, especially for someone who's there to protect and "serve" me.

Yeah, your superior attitude toward "public servants" is blindingly obvious. Sure hope you never need to call 911 for anything. Some people have long memories, yanno.

I was going to mention that in my (overly) long post above. Not everyone has public transportation. Taxis are ridiculously expensive, especially if you had to take them every day to AND from work. You're lucky - you only work 12 minutes from where you live; I'm 30. Considering that alone, it takes me almost two hours to get to work now via public transportation. I have to transfer from one bus to another with a ten to fifteen minute delay each way. Biking isn't an option unless my family's okay with burying me in a closed casket.
Taxis are expensive, and if your job is far enough away and you make too little there to cover the expense; you probably shouldn't be working there anyways. I would not drive 1 hour to work if I only earned 15 bucks an hour there.
You can also take a bus for the main part of the trip, or through the dangerous areas, then bike the rest. You don't need to hold youself to only one form of transit. My dad biked 20 miles to work a day - I often bike to work myself (only 5 miles though)

When a cop tears up one ticket only to issue another because he felt insulted by someone's "words" (no swears or threats; just a sharp tongue) that's, A) a complete lie, and B) far more severe in penalty than the first citation, then he's decidedly operating "outside of the law".
When he tears up a ticket he is being generous. When he reissues the ticket he is still within the bounds of the law if you committed the crime (speeding or whatnot). Just because your additude made him act differently does not mean that he is either corrupt or doing anything illegal.

Question for you: what are you going to do when this happens to you.....call the cops? I suppose I should've just kept my mouth shut, right? I'm sorry, but I refuse to place a price on my dignity if someone's an asshole to me for no reason; ESPECIALLY when that person is a fucking civil servant.
I am always courteous to cops, if they are being unfair to me, or doing anything outside the law I will file a report or take legal action depending on what they do and how severe it is.
How are you placing a price on your dignity? To be polite and courtious does not mean that you lose your dignity. To be calm and rational when others are not is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Read "If" by Rudyard Kipling, I think you will enjoy it.

Yeah - swallow your pride. Take his bullshit insinuations and insults like a man, right?
And what would you get by bitching the cop out?

'Swallow your pride'? Does that mean that you are proud of bitching at a cop? Or just that you lose your pride for not talking shit? I have never had a cop insult or insinuate against me, but I would not go talking shit to them if they did insult me. I would ask for their badge number and name and after they finished, I would call their officer and report them or file a suit against them.

Sorry, Frannie, but I won't bend over for anyone - especially for someone who's there to protect and "serve" me.
They are there to enforce the laws as well.

From what you tell us, mouthing off was a big mistake in your case. Are you trying to get sympathy for being a jerk TO A COP?
Once again, you're making assumptions; I wasn't a jerk first - he was. The problem lies in the fact that I don't back down, and if you're a strong personality who doesn't take shit from jag offs, then dealing with cops (for the most part) just isn't gonna be your thing.
You brought the cop's attitude out, you suffer the consequences.
They're cops because they live to be cops, period. There's no "bringing their attitude out"....it's already out. That's why most of them point with their pinky and wear Oakley blades. Tell me I'm wrong.

9 times out of 10, officers choose that profession because they like the power, not because they get off on helping people or taking bullets (which, outside of working in a big city, is an incredibly rare occurrence).
Yeah, your superior attitude toward "public servants" is blindingly obvious.
Yeah, silly me for expecting them to operate in that capacity. :rolleyes:
Sure hope you never need to call 911 for anything. Some people have long memories, yanno.
So am I to take it that you endorse that kind of behavior?

They are there to enforce the laws as well.
And I'm not asking them not to; all I'm asking is that they do their job and stop wasting my time.

I would ask for their badge number.
And it's blindingly apparent that you've never tried that.

The problem lies in the fact that I don't back down

Oh, your ego-driven stubbornness is quite obvious, Prae. The question is, how's that workin' for ya? Are you respected and admired by those around you? Do you find that life always goes swimmingly for you - no troubles, no worries? Do all your bosses and co-workers smile and give glowing reports of what a fine and generous human being you are? (You don't have to answer; just think about it.)

So am I to take it that you endorse that kind of behavior?

I don't endorse substandard and/or vindictive behavior in any occupation, public service or otherwise. I'm just saying things happen.

You know, in case of an emergency tie, who wins?

Not you! :thumbs:

Oh, your ego-driven stubbornness is quite obvious, Prae. The question is, how's that workin' for ya? Are you respected and admired by those around you? Do you find that life always goes swimmingly for you - no troubles, no worries? Do all your bosses and co-workers smile and give glowing reports of what a fine and generous human being you are? (You don't have to answer; just think about it.)
Rest assured, I'm not answering your question(s), but I have to ask this one little thing: what the hell does my "generosity" have to do with anything? That aside, as subtle as what you're trying to say here is, I catch your drift.

And it's blindingly apparent that you've never tried that.
Why?

Rest assured, I'm not answering your question(s), but I have to ask this one little thing: what the hell does my "generosity" have to do with anything? That aside, as subtle as what you're trying to say here is, I catch your drift.

Generous as in being able to give others the benefit of the doubt, being willing to meet those you disagree with halfway, being characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit, that sort of thing.

Why?
Because you'd never make that mistake again.

Small story...(and quite humorous, I might add)

I was arrested once for being a passenger in someone else's car because I refused to give the cop my identification. Now, don't get me wrong - I realize that he'd have every right to see it if I had done something that warranted it, but seeing as to how I was guilty of nothing more than being a passenger in someone else's car, I figured he didn't need to. :) Before he placed me under arrest, I asked him for his badge number, and he thought he'd one-up me by offering his business card, so I obliged him and took it. I sat at the side of the road while he harassed my friends for about 20 minutes until another officer came up and asked for the card back. Well, needless to say, I refused, offering as my only defense, "Are you kidding - he gave it to me"! Well, this didn't set very well with officer Woppelli, so he placed me under arrest, handcuffed me, Mirandized me, and shoved me into the back of his Crown Vic intentionally striking my head against the roof while saying, "watch your head" as he tossed me in. While he was walking away, I was able to reach into my back pocket to remove the business card, and when I finally got to it, I ate it in short order. In the mean time, they took me back to the station and tried to book me for theft, but when they proceeded to read me the riot act in front of the other officers, they couldn't find the card. They got in my face and asked what I did with it. I played stupid and said, let me see if I get this straight...

You're arresting me for theft, right? Woppelli: Yes.

The item in question is a business card, right? Woppeli: yes.

So you're saying that I stole this business card from officer Greasi, right? Woppelli: That's correct.

And how exactly did I "steal" the card in question? Woppelli: you took it from officer Greasi.

After he gave it to me??? Woppelli: NO! After you took it from him!

::Scratches head:: I'm not understanding...are you saying that I physically took something from officer Greasi that he didn't want to give me? Woppelli: Yes.

And how exactly did I manage that? Woppelli: According to Greasi, you grabbed it out of his hand!

Why was the business card in his hand in the first place? Woppeli: Doesn't matter.

Do you expect anyone to believe that story? Woppelli: that's the report we're filing.

Okaaaay. (Meanwhile, officer Greasi returns from an extensive search of his squad car only to report, very angrily, I might add, that he found nothing)

Officer Greasi: What the fuck did you do with the card!? Me: What card???

They simultaneously grabbed me and threw me in the tank and waited an hour to let me make my phone call.

I laugh about that story to this day....

Because you'd never make that mistake again.

Small story...(and quite humorous, I might add)

I was arrested once for being a passenger in someone else's car because I refused to give the cop my identification. Now, don't get me wrong - I realize that he'd have every right to see it if I had done something that warranted it, but seeing as to how I was guilty of nothing more than being a passenger in someone else's car, I figured he didn't need to. :)

That was your mistake. You were guilty of obstructing an officer. He has a right to ask for your identification whether you think you did anything wrong or not. He has a right to protect himself, and a duty to protect the public, by ascertaining that you are not a wanted criminal. Incidentally, he also has a right to pat you down to make sure you aren't armed.

heh, ok well that was a fun read - but you were acting a little like a smartass to the cop - sure he shouldn't try to book you for theft, that was retarded, but you seemed to want to get his goat there :P

The more of these stories of yours I read, Prae, the more you sound like one of the mean rich kids from a John Hughes movie. :)

The more of these stories of yours I read, Prae, the more you sound like one of the mean rich kids from a John Hughes movie. :)
hahaha, where are all these other stories?

...because .08 is approximately two beers for a man who's 180 Lbs. Whoa - look out everyone; there's a problem drinker!
It would take 4 beers to bring a 180 pound man to a .08.
And if he drank a beer every twenty minutes, it would take more since he would lose .01 every forty minutes.
Here's a chart
http://www.lsp.org/safety_dwi.html#chart_m

IOW, don't give us some arbitrary ".08" barometer (which no one can monitor anyway); just make a zero tolerance law. That way there's no gray area - ...What do you mean?

Ever seen the book of laws a cop has available to them? Almost 3 inches thick in some areas. Cops are there to serve the public, not to punish or belittle them. That's not in their job description.Much of the Penal Law consists of indices, definitions, fines, unenforcable sections, etc. The actual enforcable law is probably less than half of the Penal Law.
And most of it is common sense. What would you consider a sneaky law that cops use as a harrassment tool?