Sickening abuse of office

Status
Not open for further replies.
TBO:

I believe the argument is that impaired driving ought to be the criteria, not the possibility that someone could choose to drive drunk.

If I leave a party, can't drive because I'm way too intoxicated, and choose to sleep it off in the back seat under my poncho liner, IMHO that shouldn't be an arrestable offense. In many places, if I'm in control of my keys, it is. If I take the keys and throw them on the dash in the front seat (as we were taught in Health class many years ago), it's still arrestable.

Why? Because I have the means to drive, even though I don't have motivation or intent.

It shouldn't be illegal to sleep on your own property, even if drunk.
 
The EGG,

It is not about what you might do. It is about what you have done, namely take control of a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. No hypotheticals or maybies involved in that part.

---

As to why officers may enter your property in respose to such a call, it is usually a case of observation or reporting on the part of a concerned citizen. In most case, the driving has already occurred. In all cases I've ever experienced, the driving had either already occurred or was the intended next step, per the offenders themselves.
 
Yes, the facts are sparse. There is a difference between arresting a man who simply is sleeping it off in the back seat and arresting a man found slumped behind the wheel with his keys in the ignition of a vehicle just of the public road and with its engine warm. We don’t know which this situation was more like.

As for arresting the man in the back seat because he has the means to drive drunk, that strikes me rather like arresting a man sleeping drunk on his couch in the same room as his gun cabinet because he has the means to go on a drunken shooting rampage.
 
You seem to be deliberately mis-understanding my post TBO. I said nothing about someone DRIVING on their own property. My point was, and I quote myself



If he is sleeping in his own car, on his own property -- LEAVE HIM ALONE!
Click to expand...

The facts in the case stated in the report are that this man was asleep in his own vehicle on his own property. There is no assertion that he was operating the vehicle, that he was driving, that he intended to drive, that he was charging around the back 40, that he crashed and killed someone, or any other of your straw man arguments. You leap to the conclusion that I am defending someone actually operating a vehicle while drunk on their own property -- this is not my point at all and I did not say so.

You seem to be asserting that someone who is sleeping in a vehicle while intoxicated on his own property, even if you HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that they are driving or intend to drive should be found guilty of some crime.

I maintain the opposite. That unless you as an officer of the law have observed the individual operating the vehicle under the influence or have some kind of basis under which you believe he was or will do so, you should leave the guy alone.

The reason that I stated repeatedly ON HIS OWN PROPERTY is that I don't dispute the rationale that would allow you as an officer of the law to arrest someone sleeping drunk in their own vehicle on the public by-ways -- he then represents a greater danger to the public -- ie he either drove to the public area drunk, or he drove there then got drunk and is liable to drive home drunk. That would be acceptable (to me) preventive action.

Your example of shooting into the air does not wash -- that is an identifiable and verifiable ACTION that endangers others. How is someone taking a nap in the car after a few beers on their own property doing ANYTHING that can be reasonably considered dangerous?

If you maintain that this IS a dangerous action, then my carrying a handgun is equally dangerous -- the same hypothetical potential for harm is there and is just as great if not greater. And I maintain that your logic applys equally well to both.
 
I see the police-staters are out on force on this, but in truth, this has a lot more in common with the Good Old Days than it does with the current era of "Militarized Police."

Incidents of property being switched, coming up missing, and politicians being tight with the PoPo were far more common in the Days of Yore for which THR members seem to yearn.

That said, obviously this is wrong. Its his property, it has nothing to do with the case, it is not evidence. You can't just swap it for something else, Mr. Mayor, just because you like it.

Mike
 
Oh, and the "facts" of the original case (the DUI/DWI/OVI/OMVI/whatever you want to call it) are so sparse that they don't even merit discussion. What, two lines in an article? If that? Could they have violated his rights? Maybe. Could they have done everything correctly? Maybe. I have no clue, based on that write up.

Mike
 
Emphasis mine:
Smith's note was seized last April when he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Smith, who lives in nearby Jennings, said he was sleeping off a few drinks in his truck on a lot he owns.
Click to expand...
Is this the basis for the debate about the DUI charge? The unverified word of the defendant, as paraphrased in a newspaper?

Just making sure. ;)

Mike
 
Coronach --

not going back to the beginning and reading all again -- I am done with this topic --

But my recollection is the DA refused to file charges on the guy. I think that this means that he is not a "defendant".

Outta here -- gonna go shooting while it is still legal.:D
 
I think this is the inevitable result of the property seizures brought about by the so called war on drugs. In many cases the Police and the municipality have a direct financial incentive to seize property and make it tough for someone to get it back, even when property return is justified.

There was a case here several years ago. A guy had his Harley seized, and later got it back. Local Officers had considered it a job benefit and put several thousand miles on it.

To me that example, and the one in this thread, are both examples of theft. If it’s evidence, you shouldn’t be using it. If it’s held as the owner’s assets, it’s still his until convicted. Keeping the $1000 bill is the same as grabbing up a diamond ring and replacing it with the equivalent in cash. I realize the law reads otherwise (it DOES belong to the city when taken), but things like this are what cause the us versus them mindset.
 
mpthole,

Depends on the blue pill. While the triangular shaped ones are not for sleeping, the little round ones, 10mg Valium or Halcion (if you can find them) work real good for sleeping!

I hate this confiscation of property. The Gestapo is alive in America at the LE level. When I lived in the PRK, someone who got caught buying $100 worth of smoke got their car confiscated. No trial, no guilty plea. This is totally ridiculous and should be stopped.
 
Keeping the $1000 bill is the same as grabbing up a diamond ring and replacing it with the equivalent in cash.
Click to expand...
No, because then the equivalent in cash would at least be the retail value. A $1000 bill has monetary value - to a collector - well above it's face value.

What if, instead of a paper $1000 bill, the guy had, say a 1907 high relief St. Gaudens double eagle which he carried as a "lucky coin?" Face value is $20, right? So, would taking the coin and giving him 20 bucks make things all square? (Note that a collector would pay THOUSANDS for a high relief Saint.)

The rules of THR enjoin me from using the language this calls for, I have to make do with :cuss: . IMHO the guy should file a stolen property report. Heck, the cop was armed, right? How about swearing out an ARMED ROBBERY complaint against the crooked cop? (Do they have an Internal Affairs department there?) And a "RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY' complaint against the Mayor?

And do it with the State Police, since the local yokels are crooked as heck.
 
Wow, there are crooks in gov't offices. I'm shocked. :p

Hope the guy get's his cash back, and the Mayor gets hung out to dry.
 
sounds similar to what a friend is going through in MN...

His wife couldn't get ahold of him (he was drunk, and busy trying to empty his stomach in the bathroom). She got worried, and called the police: they arrived just in time for him to answer the door. Once they verified that he was alive, they asked him a few questions, one of which was "are there any weapons in the house?". He said yes, and allowed them to take them into custody "as a safety measure", assuming he would get his collection back in a bit (he was even told as much). Technically, he should be able to have his property returned now, but the Chief of Police has decided his weapons should be destroyed "for the public good". BTW: two of said weapons are fully crested Japanese toys from WWII (a type 38 and an NCOs katana), and the COP is a collector. Anyone see a pattern?
 
I don't understand how it is possible not to break the law if you seize someone's property as evidence and then do not return it when he is cleared and the case closed.
Click to expand...

...if you are "above the law" it is possible. There is not a whole lot of difference between american political/public officials and organized crime, IMHO.
 
theres nothing to misunderstand.the mayor took the collectable 1000 dollar bill then had 10 -100 dollar bills counted and gave them to the guy caught sleeping it off in his truck upon his release.what part of theft isnt clear?the other stuff is moot to me..fact is the mayor stole another mans property then "paid" the guy with something of much lesser value than the original document.theft is theft.this stuff goes on ALOT more than is reported..its not only limited to theft.
 
From what I'm getting from some of these posts is you have no problem with someone in the back 40 getting charged with DUI if they crash and hurt someone, but if they don't crash and hurt someone let them be alone.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can understand the gov't telling me how to drive on public property such as highways or publically funded roads. What I cannot understand is the gov't telling me to follow those rules on private property.

Just to be clear, I don't care if someone gets drunk and drives their car all over their own property and crashes it into their own tree and kills themselves. Doesn't bother me in the least. If they cross their property line or a tire touches public asphault ... then we can talk about arrest and prosecution for various traffic violations including DUI. You don't pull over cars at the local race tracks for speeding, do you?

If they're driving recklessly around their own property and hit someone regardless of intoxication, then they should be charged not with DUI, but attempted murder, murder, vehicular manslaughter, reckless endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.
Well, that really doesn't make much sense now does it? Kind of like saying , "Let them drive on the road drunk and only do something if they crash/cause a wreck". There is such a thing as "Prevention", which is what DUI enforcement is all about.
Click to expand...
Again, I have no problem with you enforcing traffic laws. On public roads.

And that's a slippery little arguement. How far does "Prevention" go? As I mentioned before, race cars routinely exceed state speed limits, rarely even have turn signals or mufflers and often are involved in accidents. Where's the roadblock on turn 4? Prevention, man! ;)

Frankly, I trust that you (and the other good police officers here on THR patrol) or the vast majority of your brother officers will enforce such laws well and use them to good effect. Where it comes to enforcement of the law, you don't concern me, TBO. But not all cops are as good as you. Thankfully, they seem to be pretty decent around here, and I hope it stays that way, but I don't have unending faith in all officers just because they wear a badge.
You have no problem with calling someone shooting a firearm into the air an Idiot and saying he should not do that (even if he doesn't hit something/someone). But buy using the logic of some posters he should be able to fire blindly in the air on his own property and there should only be something done if the bullets land on someone/something. Don't worry about prevention....
Click to expand...
I always shoot my firearms into the air.
If they've got enough land to do it safely (in other words, as long as all bullets are guaranteed to land on their own property), I don't care if someone wants to fire at whatever angles they wish.
It's when they start throwing bullets onto other people's property, or firing in such a manner to endanger innocent people that I have a problem. That's when they're an idiot.
 
just FYI

Again, I have no problem with you enforcing traffic laws. On public roads.

And that's a slippery little arguement. How far does "Prevention" go? As I mentioned before, race cars routinely exceed state speed limits, rarely even have turn signals or mufflers and often are involved in accidents. Where's the roadblock on turn 4? Prevention, man!
Click to expand...
That's because there is no speed limit on private property, but DUI does apply on private property. It's all in the statutes. Most traffic statutes only apply on right of ways. Only a couple apply anywhere, and DUI is one of them.

All the best

TBO
 
That's because there is no speed limit on private property, but DUI does apply on private property. It's all in the statutes. Most traffic statutes only apply on right of ways. Only a couple apply anywhere, and DUI is one of them.
Click to expand...
I understand that may be the way the laws are written, but that does not make them "right" or justified. Hence my personal objections. And I see the same (or greater) reasoning behind enforcing speed limits on private property as DUI ...

The law could say that police have the right to summarily execute suspects, and it might even be used for good by some officers, but I'd oppose it anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
IL: Mayor loses ground to gun lobby in Legislature
Replies
0
Views
452
2dogs
2
D
  • Locked
(MO) Refusal to give gun permits may end
Replies
3
Views
513
Black Snowman
B
T
  • Locked
House Approves Blocking Police from Seizing Legal Guns During Disasters
Replies
18
Views
729
Bartholomew Roberts
B
D
  • Locked
Bill would forbid illegals to bear arms
2
Replies
26
Views
976
alan
A
J
  • Locked
When do children become adults?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Cellar Dweller
C
Back
Top