I thought Tony was always right.......

Michael DeRose said:
Also has your friend driven drunk since he was arrested the first time?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. We haven't worked together in years and have been out of touch for the most part.

Might be interesting to contact him now and see how the experience has effected his life after the fact. The man is definitely a habitual drinker (at least he was), so I don't know where he is in life now. Maybe (hopefully) it turned him around... and maybe (hopefully) he's had time to reflect on how it could impact his daughter as well.

Here's a clip of "Pete" in action... way back when.

 
Michael DeRose said:
We are not making up stuff you just have not clarified what you want the officer to do once they have someone pulled over and the driver is clearly drunk. Please explain what are the steps you would like to see from this point in the example.
Click to expand...

Ok. Simply put, and this is focused ONLY on a situation where someone is pulled for being suspected of drunk driving and where NO accident has occurred. (Anyone flipping it to an "injured party" argument simply can't read and is a complete idiot.)

If a suspected drunk driver gets pulled over, the officer has plenty of tools at his/her disposal to determine if the stop is justified. If, in the officers opinion, the driver is under the influence (alcohol, drugs, medication), the officer can either call a cab and send the driver home or have the driver call someone to get them. In the event the driver (in the officers opinion) was under the influence, the event can be logged and used in the future to tally a habitual status if need be. If the driver is caught again (impaired) in the future, then stronger measures can be taken.

At this point, no one has been harmed (no accident). The driver gets to wake up the next day and go to work and his livelihood remains intact. His family doesn't suffer either.

Due to all the conditioning we've been exposed to over the decades, this sounds completely absurd, but it's not. No one was injured, so why ruin the lives of people that weren't in any way related to the indecent?

The second offense could be (for example) a night in jail with a visit to the judge in the morning who could order a year of mandatory AA meetings. Let them listen to others and how it's ruined their lives. Possibly MADD meetings to hear how it effects those that have lost someone to a drunk driver.

The third time (keeping in mind, we are still talking about a "no injury" situation) hit them with everything they do now. Obviously this person isn't getting the message.

Tony Shelton said:
... The only answer to this problem is start a massive decriminalization of victimless crimes ...
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about.

Michael DeRose said:
So drinking and driving is a victimless crime as long as no one gets into an accident?
Click to expand...

If it's not [a victimless crime], then please identify the victim. Keep in mind there has been no accident of any kind.

In a scenario where there IS a victim, then by all means "let justice be served".
 
Wait... I already know what you're going to say (I've heard it a hundred times). The cop protecting everyone else. That may be true on some insignificant level, but he/she is doing far more damage. The simple act of a cop getting an impaired driver home safely is as easy as calling a cab and putting the driver in it. Problem solved, noone hurt, no damages ... and so on

Cant really say I agree with the above statement Red. When a cop pulls someone over and they are physicaly and mentaly impaired from alcahol then they should not be allowed to go free.

And I am Calling B.S to any cop with more than 6 months service saying they have never seen another cop do something illegal. I dont buy that at all.
 
junker1 said:
Wait... I already know what you're going to say (I've heard it a hundred times). The cop protecting everyone else. That may be true on some insignificant level, but he/she is doing far more damage. The simple act of a cop getting an impaired driver home safely is as easy as calling a cab and putting the driver in it. Problem solved, noone hurt, no damages ... and so on

Cant really say I agree with the above statement Red. When a cop pulls someone over and they are physicaly and mentaly impaired from alcahol then they should not be allowed to go free.

And I am Calling B.S to any cop with more than 6 months service saying they have never seen another cop do something illegal. I dont buy that at all.
Click to expand...

I agree but only for repeat offenders. How hard is it to keep a database of names of people who have been given a ride home? Thousands will only need ONE ride home. Reading the papers here it looks like most deaths are caused by serial offenders.

I agree with you on the bs issue too. Especially Mike P. He has made it very clear that his force walks on water and he won't condemn the actions of anybody with a badge making excuses for every atrocity.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
junker1 said:
When a cop pulls someone over and they are physicaly and mentaly impaired from alcahol then they should not be allowed to go free.
Click to expand...

Why not? (by "go free" I'm suggesting they are sent home, not let go to drive again)

How can you justify ruining someones life and possibly their family too when no one was hurt, no damage done and there's a clear and easy method for handling the situation that gives them [the impaired driver] a chance to redeem themselves?

A victimless crime is where there is no victim, no injured party, no damages. The driver (and everyone they support), all of a sudden, becomes a victim of "the system."

Now consider who has the most to gain. The STATE OF... has the most to gain. They get all sorts of fines and fees. Most people don't have a clue how much the state makes off these cases. Bonds are created when someone is arrested, these bonds are typically sold in bundles on the stock market. The state has a tremendous motivation to arrest people (for whatever they can) to make a buck.

Follow the money and you'll soon realize why there are so many "victimless" crimes on the books.
 
"Red" said:
Why not? (by "go free" I'm suggesting they are sent home, not let go to drive again)

How can you justify ruining someones life and possibly their family too when no one was hurt, no damage done and there's a clear and easy method for handling the situation that gives them [the impaired driver] a chance to redeem themselves?

A victimless crime is where there is no victim, no injured party, no damages. The driver (and everyone they support), all of a sudden, becomes a victim of "the system."

Now consider who has the most to gain. The STATE OF... has the most to gain. They get all sorts of fines and fees. Most people don't have a clue how much the state makes off these cases. Bonds are created when someone is arrested, these bonds are typically sold in bundles on the stock market. The state has a tremendous motivation to arrest people (for whatever they can) to make a buck.

Follow the money and you'll soon realize why there are so many "victimless" crimes on the books.
Click to expand...

I dont like the idea. Its our responsibility as adults to not put others in harms way. when a person is intoxicated they think they are fine to drive but thats the booze talking. And when we let the booze talk we are not acting as responsiblle people and end up killing and injuring innocent people. Think about it, giving them a ride home is just going to make people think they can do it again and again.

My BEST friend has been in a chair since 97, cannot walk. It is a daily ritual for me to call and check up on him. I do all his shopping, errands, drive him to appointments, clean his house, shovel the deck, plow the drive, mow his lawn, cut his toe nails and occasionaly get him dressed. I have been to his house on more than 25 occasions picking him up off the floor. so I aint buying that one. we as adults have to do the right thing and when someone is Impaired ( Definition of IMPAIRED: being in a less than perfect or whole condition: as . a: disabled or functionally defective —often used in combination ) they physicaly cannot do the right thing, no matter how hard they try or no matter how much they tell themselves.
 
You went and flipped the topic back to the injured party scenario, so what's the point in responding?

Why don't people get jailed for speeding? They could cause an accident and kill someone. Let's lock them up so as to not put others in harms way.

Statistically, there are far more speeders on the roads than drunk drivers, which translates into a far more likelihood that someone will get injured from someone speeding than drinking.

You're logic is only sound if it's isolated to cases involving an injured party.

Speeders should be treated the same way as drunk drivers and vice-versa. The "legal" system in NOT about saving lives, it's about fleecing the American people for everything they have and destroying lives.

Look, you can believe whatever you want, as can the rest of us, but the system is not designed around what is right and wrong, but how they can take from us. Do you think the court system cares about the victims? Well they don't, the system makes 10-100 times more on these cases than the victims will ever see.

Where's the justice in that?

Go back and re-read post #183.
 
I know of many people who have gone thru the system of humiliation & $10,000 for a couple of beers or a glass of wine with dinner. One guy lost his job as a CDL driver, wound up divorced and on the street for 2 f**kin beers at a poker game. Was not drunk but they smelled it on him, he refused to blow and said he would take their physical test, and he was fine on the video but they arrested him anyway. They need to use common sense but that has gone away a long time ago, they are motivated and told buy their superiors to arrest everyone. The states are broke and they keep coming up with more bullshit to generate income regardless of how they ruin your life !! Just like these Jackoffs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjbtutJvQ7Y
 
You know something are based on common sense and in some horrific areas you can pretty much take what you learned in a academy and throw it out the window. I would say this even when I was on the job and if I had to testify in court on an action that I may have done it would have to be how you articulated it. Example is to pass the written gun test back in the 80's called the "Justification test" and to pass this you had to get a 100% so you had to study up on it. Nothing in it's open for debate. Doesn't mean out in the street you had to follow it to a tee.

So for the non cops in here and even some of the cops in the real world or here you need to be able to "articulate" why you did what you did and it's plausible in court. An extreme example to the justification test is a guy takes a baby and holds it in front of him and and he starts shooting at people. He just shoots 3 people yet you do not want to fire unless you have a clear shot to avoid killing the baby. You will not be held accountable for that because you are still doing your job. Now cop B shows up and fires back and the baby gets killed and the guy gets injured. Did that cop do something wrong? No. Your are allowed to shoot back even though the baby was being used as a shield.

I love justification questions. Like if a guy never fires his gun are you allowed to fire at him... Of course because if you wait for him then that first bullet he fires might very well be the last thing you ever saw.

When it comes to drunk driving just because a person swerves and doesn't mean his drunk. The cop at the scene can make the determination that the guy could be drunk and now start that procedure. The cop can also make the call that he is most likely not drunk. Just because you smell alcohol it does not mean the person is either DUI or DWI. The one thing a cop could find himself in trouble for is if he let's the guy go and he proceeds to get in an accident and kills someone. So with that knowledge a smart cop would never just write a ticket if a guy smells like booze and then tell him to have a nice day.. That documented ticket and how soon he got into an accident afterwords can come right back to tue cop...

But remember here just because a cop may think your drunk doesn't mean you are. That opens the pandora box for a cop at times to do the right thing.

So here's where I'll get clocked by people who only see right or wrong and nothing in between. Not everything out in the street is done by the book. If the cop is going to be in trouble then he better hope he did things mostly by the book.

But now common sense. There is nothing that says I couldn't get the guy home safely by either putting myself out on the radio to give the person a ride home.

There was times and this was most of the time if I could I would try to get the person a ride home. If he was wacked, belligerent or there were other things going on then he was most likely going to get tested. If there was an accident involved then there weren't really any choices for this person.

But most times in my experiences the ride home was the best option. There's nothing in here that says the guy was absolutely drunk because he wasn't tested. There is no absolute that can say just by visualization or the way the person acted absolutely means there drunk. Breathalyzer's and especially blood test are the most absolute but of there not done then there's openings to do something that is much more helpful to all.

So yes.. If I could and the circumstances were right I would get the person a ride home. Hwy cops and DWI cops if there involved then things could be a little bit different. So things can and will at times require different solutions in the street whereas in an academy or people who only see right or wrong and nothing in between the answers there are just blue or green and nothing in between and take it from experience it's almost never just right or wrong and exacting procedure.. It's common sense probably more then anything when dealing with the public instead of it's an "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Hardcore criminals,crooks and thieves then it's an "Us vs. Them" mentality but to your everyday decent person then there are legal options...such as determining that all they need as a safe ride home.
 
"Red" said:
Well then, the speeders need to be given the exact same treatment. First offense = life ruined (regardless of circumstances).
Click to expand...

And cigarette smokers
And those who dare to discipline their kids with spankings
And anybody who's child gets out of the vehicle containment device
And those who dare to sell their farm milk
Those who dare to catch "the people's rainwater.
Those who own property ( guns, cars, medicine, etc, that haven't been properly registered with the authorities
Those who allow their kids to climb trees or jump in those evil bouncy houses.
Those who eat too much sugar and those who choose to eat too little.
Those who use the "n" word or dare express any views that might be offensive to a few.
Those who question official reports.
Those who have too many animals
Those who build additions on their own houses
Those who choose to have an unlicensed handyman install a water heater.
Those who burn their own trash
Those who let their kids ride bikes or who choose to ride motorcycles without helmets.
Those who choose to drive 85 mph across the desert instead of falling asleep at 65 on roads that were designed for 85mph travel back when cars were rolling death traps.
Those who don't "submit"
And those who choose to live in seclusion and just be left alone.




Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
The Cleaner said:
I know of many people who have gone thru the system of humiliation & $10,000 for a couple of beers or a glass of wine with dinner. One guy lost his job as a CDL driver, wound up divorced and on the street for 2 f**kin beers at a poker game. Was not drunk but they smelled it on him, he refused to blow and said he would take their physical test, and he was fine on the video but they arrested him anyway. They need to use common sense but that has gone away a long time ago, they are motivated and told buy their superiors to arrest everyone. The states are broke and they keep coming up with more bullshit to generate income regardless of how they ruin your life !! Just like these Jackoffs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjbtutJvQ7Y
Click to expand...

i agree Nick common sense should prevail. If a person is pulled over and booze is involved a field sobriety test is good. if they pass that they should be on their way. If they cannot stand on one foot for 30 seconds or whatever meanial task they have then their should be further action.


guy gets on a plane with a bomb, maybe he will blow it up maybe he wont,he hasnt made up his mind.flys from boston to L.A. decides he is not gonna blow up the plane today, no harm no foul lets give him a ticket back to boston.
 
The Cleaner said:
I know of many people who have gone thru the system of humiliation & $10,000 for a couple of beers or a glass of wine with dinner. One guy lost his job as a CDL driver, wound up divorced and on the street for 2 f**kin beers at a poker game. Was not drunk but they smelled it on him, he refused to blow and said he would take their physical test, and he was fine on the video but they arrested him anyway. They need to use common sense but that has gone away a long time ago, they are motivated and told buy their superiors to arrest everyone. The states are broke and they keep coming up with more bullshit to generate income regardless of how they ruin your life !! Just like these Jackoffs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjbtutJvQ7Y
Click to expand...




I forgot about the horrible felony of videotaping in public also.

 
oops sorry, and I thought I was following this pretty close but i been in and out all day plowing so i apolagize, somehow i missed the part of only allowing this to happen once, my bad. I was under the impression that that it should happen all the time. Ya I could go with something like that.

Michael, your thoughts ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top