Some see Fresno's DUI crackdown as a model

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, someone(Tall Man) just admitted to committing a felony and no one even mentioned it that I could see. Sad, oh well. Everyday my respect for the legal and political area is reduced. I have zero respect for people that run from the police. It's too bad the penalty is as low as it is.

I will have to agree with those that don't like DWI checkpoints. Everything else in Fresno seemed good to me.

I would not stop a person from getting into his car and committing a crime. That's his free choice. If he chooses to do that, I would pull him over and arrest him if he's drunk. I am not responsible for his choices, he is.

For those who think DWI laws are about money, you are partly right. They are about lawyers making money. It not only cost the PD (City) the amount it costs to arrest the person, but also the amount of OT it takes to go to court. In my area it takes around 3 hours to make the arrest for DWI (about 3 hours, depending on the circumstances) it also takes the backup officer's time (about 30 minutes, maybe more if there are passengers), plus the jailer, Intoxylizer oper. and the judge to hear the case. So just in the arrest, you've got a cost of at least $200. Now take into account the time the person spends in jail, and more if he goes into the county. Plus the amount that it costs the county to try (or get them to plead) the case. No way DWI's make a city/county any money (if they do, I'd like to see how). Now the lawyers make tons.

Andrew
 
mistaking luck for skill

"There is...if they aren't driving dangerously, they obviously aren't too impaired."

don't mistake luck for skill.
unless you believe that by some fluke of nature your timing and reactions don't deteriorate when drinking. how many times have you had a near miss on the road one of those where only quick thinking and reaction kept it safe. and i know the usual folks will come out and say "WHAT ABOUT CELL PHONES!"
ignoring for somereason the reallity that i can stop or not use a cell phone once drunk i can't "undrunk" to handle a crisis.
i was drunk for more than a decade never had an accident. was definitly luck not skill
 
wow, talk about a police state!
Click to expand...

Yup welcome to the DPRK! You to stupid to think so we will think for you...but of course you can go to college and have a drivers licencse but we know better than you do because we are the government and we NEVER make a mistake and your civil liberties only matter when they dont interfere with us.
 
its all whose ox is gored

i hear all this "your civil liberties only matter when they dont interfere with us."
and yet to me i like to think i have a right to drive not endangered by someone who choses to drink and drive. so i guess you libertt to drink trump the right the rest have to be safe
 
If Governemnt is such a bad idea, why do we have it at all?
Click to expand...

Nio, I asked myself that same question years ago. I pondered it from my late teens until my late twenties and the conclusion I came to is a simple one.

Governments are reactions to fear. They are not a "response" as to respond requires a reasoned and careful assessment of the actual facts without regard to appearances or sacred cows. The desire to be "governed" is based in making the assumption that the fellow next to you, is as bad of a person as you think you are. A lack of government is not going to change their goals or desires. It is a false assumption to assume that lack of government equals a lack of interpersonal cooperation.

But that was just one part of the long ideological road I've wandered from being a Goldwater Republican to my present position as an individual anarchist.
 
I can't believe everyone here who always make DUI seem like no big deal. At 12:15am 1/1/07 a woman got taken out by an idiot driving drunk who ran a light. No big deal, I guess. Just the first DUI death of the year - and yes it was "alcohol related". They also arrested 52 here for DUI between 9pm and 6am.

The only thing that would make Fresno's program better is if you went to prison for life for the first offense - that's right, life in prison for the first DUI. Then we'd see how many idiots "fire it up" and get behind the wheel and kill other people.
 
You think Fresno is bad ?

The police have been doing this in NJ for years. It's a witch-hunt. When you are convicted of DWI in NJ, you pay your fine, lose your license for 90 days, then you have to pay the state a $3000 "Insurance Surcharge". It has nothing to do with insurance, as we still pay the highest premiums in the US. They also put it on your credit report. This motor vehicle surcharge is applied when you are convicted of ANYTHING, but it's not always $3000. Spitting on the sidewalk will get you surcharged. Whatever you're charged with, the surcharge is usually 3 to 6 times the amount of the fine.

In NJ, you can be convicted of drunk driving in a motor vehicle, on a bicycle, OR ON FOOT, nowhere near a car. Hard to believe? It's all true. It's a HUGE moneymaker for the state.

In Oaklyn NJ, I was convicted of DWI, about 20 years ago. I hadn't had a thing to drink that night. It's a one-horse town, and the 2 cops had nothing better to do at 11pm. They said they pulled me over for swerving, which was a lie. The police report might have been written by the brothers Grimm. They said I couldn't recite the alphabet. Also a lie. They said I was swerving from one curb to the other, also BS. They hauled me in for a breathalyzer. They said I blew a .11, just over the limit. That's not very high for all this swerving and inability to speak.

My lawyer was a lazy jackass, and advised me to plead guilty, because it was my word against the cops. Big mistake.

Well, one day they pulled this stunt on the wrong guy, who complained to the County Prosecuter. His office set up a sting, and nailed one of the cops. He was convicted of falsifying breathalyzer results, and extortion. Bye-bye for 7 years. I wonder what his fellow inmates did when they found out who he was, and why he was there. I hope they did very bad things to the low-life. I wonder how many people's lives he ruined. How many people lost their jobs because of this creep? They should have shot him.

Quote-
"If a cop is hanging around outside a bar, he is in a position to prevent a crime, prevent risk of injury to the community, and keep someone from having to go to jail -- note that the guy who's had a few too many is also a taxpayer." Why don't they do this? Because there is no money in it, and no glory for them.

Don't you all wish you could live here?
 
An ex gf of mine and her bf (also a friend of mine) were hit by a drunk driver. His college football career came to a screeching halt. Her broken pelvis gave her months of painful rehab and problems when she gave birth later on. The driver was on a suspended license. He got parole.

My best friend in the Navy was hit while riding his motorcycle on the highway. The drunk sideswiped him and caused him to run into a bridge abutment. He lived for 3 days.

If cops hang around outside a bar and ticket someone who looks drunk I really don't give a S*&T! The BATFE would be much more useful if they concentrated on drunk drivers instead of guns. I like to drink but have zero tolerance for those who get behind the wheel and endanger the rest of us.
 
Quote:
wow, talk about a police state!
Yup welcome to the DPRK! You to stupid to think so we will think for you...but of course you can go to college and have a drivers licencse but we know better than you do because we are the government and we NEVER make a mistake and your civil liberties only matter when they dont interfere with us(let me fix this) when they don't affect our self-perpetuation of our agency, that is more important then your civil rights....
Click to expand...

S
 
I always love the anecdotal stories concerning specific individuals who were killed or maimed by drunk drivers. "Oh, I know! I can't articulate why I hate drunk driving, so I'll use an emotional response that will overcome the sense of reason." Oddly, that sounds like a tactic used by some other people.

Why does a death always seem worse if the driver was drunk.

Suzy was hit by a train. Sad.
Suzy was hit by a driver who spilled his coffee. Sad.
Suzy was hit by someone who was simply a crappy driver. Sad.
Suzy was hit by a drunk driver. OMGWTF!!!1!! (Screams of righteous indignation)

This situation, or rather, how it is being handled is exactly like the gun issue. True believer zealots (the misogynist in me remarks that both the alcohol haters, which MADD has become, and the gun haters are chiefly women), misleading statistics, arguments based on emotional anecdotes, and laws which don't really do any good are the standards.

Honestly, I'm kindof surprised that MADD hasn't taken a page from the Brady playbook and started suing beer companies.
 
Fresno

And, PromptCritical, what is this "sense of reason" that is unfairly being overcome by emotion?

By the way, I read an earlier post where someone is hypothically driving down the road with a six pack in them, driving perfectly-in this situation, contrasted to what I understand is the scenario in Fresno, I concede that the State has no right to stop you, because they lack even reasonable suspicion, UNLESS, like some impaired drivers, the driver in your hypo isn't as good as he/she might think they are (you understand, of course, that alcohol impacts perception and thought process-that's why we drink, right?).
 
(S)omeone...just admitted to committing a felony and no one even (made reference to) it...
Click to expand...

I wasn't that surprised, Andrew, as my post (and the one that inspired it) are merely adjuncts to this thread's particular subject matter.

I don't recommended others do what I did. Had I been caught*, I doubt the penalty would have been as modest as you suggest.

I wasn't caught, though. I took decisive action in the face of lousy public policy, and I prevailed. It felt great! My conscience is clear. Others may not agree, and would probably like to place me in reduced circumstances for my particular choice that day. However, as I do not attempt to manage their lives (warts and all), I would expect to be left alone.

*Actually, if I had decided to slow down and pull over...;)

-TM
 
PromptCritical said:
[1]Suzy was hit by a train. Sad.
[2]Suzy was hit by a driver who spilled his coffee. Sad.
[3]Suzy was hit by someone who was simply a crappy driver. Sad.
[4]Suzy was hit by a drunk driver. OMGWTF!!!1!! (Screams of righteous indignation)
Click to expand...

1: accident

2: accident

3: define "crappy driver"

4: Here someone (a) chose to become intoxicated, and (b) chose operate a vehicle while impaired. Their specific choices contributed to, and cause the death of another human being.

Number 4 differs from the rest because it's not just an accidental lapse in attention (i.e., coffee scenario), or accidental operator error (i.e., train that didn't blow it's horn prior to crossing the roadway). Number 4 is a result of specific choices one person made with complete disregard for anyone else they may come into contact with on their selfish journey.

Each example you provide is arguably an "accident" in that we can assume the drunk driver didn't go out with the intent to kill another human being. No matter how hard you try, you will fail to make them equal by classifying them in such a broad sense.

They're all accidents and all born from different circumstances entirely.
 
It not only cost the PD (City) the amount it costs to arrest the person, but also the amount of OT it takes to go to court.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it doesn't cost the elected or politically-appointed Sheriff or Police Chief one red cent.

They don't care about spending our tax dollars to get themselves some good media coverage. It's worth more than any campaign they can mount.

Be careful about simplified assumptions.
 
So if they make money off the arrests, then they're just trying to get more money. If it costs the city money then we blame them for wasting tax dollars. Oh well.

Andrew
 
So if they make money off the arrests, then they're just trying to get more money. If it costs the city money then we blame them for wasting tax dollars. Oh well.
Click to expand...

No.

I never thought "they", meaning the city, "make money off the arrests".

I know something about how politics work in California, since I was born and raised here. Spending tax dollars to placate public employee unions, feed money to cronies, and get media coverage for politicians and high-level appointees is par for the course.

It's not about making money for the city; it's about running a campaign with tax money.

In this case, it certainly appears that Fresno officials wanted, sought, and got, media attention.
 
The scariest thing is the blatant parallels between crimes caused by gun owners and car owners. The rights of people to be secure in their persons while traveling on public streets are being violated and people seem to be okay with it because "if it saves just one life" mentality doesn't seem to apply to drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

Travelling is a right. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a priviledge.

You are absolutely free to hire a driver (cab, limo, whatever) to bring you from place to place, or to walk the public roadways and be secure in your person against unreasonable searches.

However, since operating a motor vehicle on public roadways is a licensed priviledge subject to certain specific constraints (such as showing a driver's license and submitting to DUI tests), then you must live within those constraints to make use of the shared public resource.

All shared public resources have constraints on their use which almost always involve obtaining a license and agreeing to some level of monitoring and disclosure: wildlife resources, limited radio spectrum, limited airways and waterways, etc. Why should the public roadways be any different?

Shared public resources mean shared public interests. This justifies licensing and regulation. There is no Constitutional problem here as long as citizens can freely chose not to use the resource in a way that mandates licensing and infringement upon fundamental rights. Your right not to take a DUI test is voluntarily relinquished when you get a driver's license. You are free wo maintain your right to refuse a DUI as long as you only use the roadways in ways that do not require a dirver's license.

Note that this proper understanding of DUI chckpoints and driver's licenses in no way implies the necessity of licensing gun ownership, since gun ownership does not imply usage of a shared resource.

Michael Courtney
 
Huh, this thread's been around for a while without me seeing it.

My thoughts:

1. I'm okay with the police hanging around a Bar's parking lot and arresting people for DUI when they get in their cars to leave. It'd be better if they actually intervened and got them to arrange different means of transportation, but then you have the arguement about the expense of police or even monitors.

2. Penalties for drunk driving are in many ways ridiculous. Many drunks are so addicted to alchohol they don't blink at thousands of dollars, and the car is so king here that they'll drive regardless of license status. I'd go for mandatory jail time, esculating to prison if they don't stop.

3. For pete's(and my) sake, DON'T DRIVE TO THE BAR!!!! I hear about all sorts of free ride home programs, but they mostly suffer from at least one problem. The assumption is that the person who uses the system, calls a cab, whatever leaves his car where he parked it at the bar. This necessitates going back to the bar in the morning to get your vehicle. I say: Take a cab or get a ride in the first place! Maybe start having a program: Free cab ride to the bar with a 3 drink purchase! In addition, it no longer really matters how much I drink and how much judgement I loose, I'm not going to be driving my car home because it's already there.
 
This is kind of like the Crystal Meth thread with people drawing parrellels to gun ownership. The difference is guns can be owned and used responsibly.


I still maintain that:

You cant use crystal meth responsibly
You cant drink and drive responsibly

They very acts themselves are dangerous and irresponsible.. like having a wife and also unprotected sex with a bunch of hookers on the side. Eventually you're hurt yourself or someone else with your behavior.
 
Wow, someone(Tall Man) just admitted to committing a felony and no one even mentioned it that I could see. Sad, oh well. Everyday my respect for the legal and political area is reduced. I have zero respect for people that run from the police. It's too bad the penalty is as low as it is.
Click to expand...
We all saw, perhaps we didn't want to derail the thread by patting him on the back for avoiding a blatant violation of his rights.

I would not stop a person from getting into his car and committing a crime. That's his free choice. If he chooses to do that, I would pull him over and arrest him if he's drunk. I am not responsible for his choices, he is.
Click to expand...
So since by your thinking a person who has reached the legal limit to drive is a danger you would let him get in the car, drive, hope he doesn't do anything stupid, and if he kills someone cause you just had to make that arrest rather then deter crime you are fine if he say oh...runs over a little girl. Nice.
 
nanny state

funny how some of those most prone to rant nanny state want a wet nurse for folks too dimwitted not to drive drunk. the cops jailing em for being stupid is watered down darwinism. too slow though
in va there is mandatory jail time for second dwi. and i know a multiple offender doing 10 years.
 
here is an idea

We already have reckless driving laws, enforce them and punish them harshly rather then demonizing a substance that may be effecting someones ability to drive.
 
not the substance

"We already have reckless driving laws, enforce them and punish them harshly rather then demonizing a substance that may be effecting someones ability to drive."

substance is fine people overdoing it and trying to drive home is the issue kinda like guns don't murder stupid people do.
booze can't kill someone else on the road if you don't drink too much and drive
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(MT) Lawmakers want gunslinger law applied to DUIs
Replies
2
Views
917
Guy B. Meredith
Guy B. Meredith
C
  • Locked
Where does "individual liberty" end and "public good" start?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
SoCalShooter
S
M
  • Locked
So much for Texas civil liberties...arrests IN BARS for being drunk?
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
Nine People Found Dead in Fresno Home
Replies
0
Views
267
Desertdog
D
A
  • Locked
Law To Close DUI Loophole
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
TheeBadOne
T
Back
Top