User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:10:01 PM EDT
[#1]
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/article/0,1051,SAV-0106270375,00.html[/url]
I think everyone should send in their $99 and make him [red]RICH[/red]. In most states refusel to submit to a breathalyzer results in loss of your operators license. However the only DUI arrest that I ever lost in 15 yrs was one that refused the breathalyzer and refused sobriety tests.[red] The jury convicted her of impaired driving instead.[/red] For what ever you think its worth sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:21:36 PM EDT
[#2]
That company should be raided, the owners and all employees should be arrested and charges of obstruction of justice by proxy should be filed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:28:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: In most states refusel to submit to a breathalyzer results in loss of your operators license. That's also the line of the local PD. I'm not quite sure how much the box will help, but it seems designed to make the LEO job's that much more difficult in getting drunks off the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:35:59 PM EDT
[#4]
I am SO sick of people using the "In most states refusel to submit to a breathalyzer results in loss of your operators license for 90days."
Who gives a shit!!? Its SO much better than a DUI, which is 90days suspension, jail time FINES UP THE ASS!! Then the secret stuff begins.. In some states: 1) Marks on your license( a star marked or punched through your license)no more going to Canada. 2) High insurance rates. 3) Can't get your license back until you complete a drug/alcohol program(this isn't EVER mentioned even in court, you just suddenly get a letter after your 90days suspension is up basically stating that "remember those 90days well you now have to wait another 60" State mandated, but not court ordered. 4) Forget EVER getting insurance from Geico, they charge 100% over what you were just paying. So I heard... So I'd rather deny "blowing" BISHOP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:46:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: That company should be raided, the owners and all employees should be arrested and charges of obstruction of justice by proxy should be filed. Spoken like a true libertarian.... NOT. You sir, strike me as being an elitist. Really, what laws have they broken? Not one. Is the guy trying to make some money? You bet. It's called capitalism. If you don't like, there's plenty of countries that would take you in. Do the police knowingly bend the laws to seek conviction while counting on civilian ignorance of the law and their rights? Yes, and you know this can not be denied by any truthful LEO. I'm not anti LEO, but lets take away any masks of "duty" and "but it's my job" and "common good" and speak the truth here. The truth is the truth is the truth, and this guy has done nothing illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 2:54:27 PM EDT
[#6]
refusal in ohio is a 1 year supension.mmk
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 4:25:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Originally Posted By madman kirk: refusal in ohio is a 1 year supension.mmk This is true. I had a OMVI 10 years ago. Under my lawyers instructions I refused the test. Upon going to court I pled guilty ended up with a 60 day suspension with driving privileges. So it isn't cut and dry an automatic 1 year suspension. This by the way is why I haven't drank in 10 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 4:34:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: I am SO sick of people using the "In most states refusel to submit to a breathalyzer results in loss of your operators license for 90days." Who gives a shit!!? Its SO much better than a DUI, which is 90days suspension, jail time FINES UP THE ASS!! Then the secret stuff begins.. In some states: 1) Marks on your license( a star marked or punched through your license)no more going to Canada. 2) High insurance rates. 3) Can't get your license back until you complete a drug/alcohol program(this isn't EVER mentioned even in court, you just suddenly get a letter after your 90days suspension is up basically stating that "remember those 90days well you now have to wait another 60" State mandated, but not court ordered. 4) Forget EVER getting insurance from Geico, they charge 100% over what you were just paying. So I heard... So I'd rather deny "blowing" BISHOP Now after this post I'll bet that you still claim to be against drunk driving. yada,yada,yada,yada......................... sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 6:09:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Funny that someone would complain about a lawyer trying to make a buck while defending intoxicated (maybe) drivers. After all, the whole DWI, DUI "war" is nothing but a revenue factory in itself. One that is fabulously popular with the public, one whose existence never has to be continuously justified.
It's sad when a country starts to see bogeymen lurking in every shadow and has to pass laws to protect its people from possible, but not necessarily likely events. And while the propaganda and misdirection continued, few noticed that their essential liberties and freedoms they had taken for granted had all but disappeared. They craved safety, but what they got was tyranny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:56:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Well DUH yeah I'm against it...
But I think that EVERYU cop should also tell people pulled over for suspicion of DUI what options they have. BTW why do they have such "double jeporty"(sp) laws. Damned if you do damned if you don't. BISHOP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:59:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Well DUH yeah I'm against it... But I think that EVERYU cop should also tell people pulled over for suspicion of DUI what options they have. BTW why do they have such "double jeporty"(sp) laws. Damned if you do damned if you don't. BISHOP Because the police aren't there to provide you with legal advise. They aren't double jeopardy, you agreed to certain things wehn you got your license and decided to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:06:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Funny that someone would complain about a lawyer trying to make a buck while defending intoxicated (maybe) drivers. After all, the whole DWI, DUI "war" is nothing but a revenue factory in itself. One that is fabulously popular with the public, one whose existence never has to be continuously justified. It's sad when a country starts to see bogeymen lurking in every shadow and has to pass laws to protect its people from possible, but not necessarily likely events. And while the propaganda and misdirection continued, few noticed that their essential liberties and freedoms they had taken for granted had all but disappeared. They craved safety, but what they got was tyranny. 1) I value liberty, I have the right not to get hit by a drunk driver. It is quite exciting to have a vehicle coming at you going the wrong way on a divided highway. Only had that happen twice in about the last year. 2) It's not revenue most places have more people killed as a result of DUI than intnetional homicide. What is someones life worth?? Here its 2 intentional homicides, 7 DUI killings, so far this year. 3) The whole revenue thing for DUI is beyond stupid, I would call you a moron but then morons would say that I discredited them by putting you in that group. If the fact that an arrest for DUI is expensive that is supposed to deter people from doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:18:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Some LE agencies nearby are testing a flashlight that has a booze detector built into it. They could put it up to the crack in the window and tell if there is alcohol in the air. Bishop, in the PRK, there is an implied consent law. Refuse a test and get your license yanked for 1 year.
Personally, I think the whole .08 law is bogus. I have to drink way more than that to get too jacked up to drive safely. Second, I have never driven drunk (or even close), but have been so tired from working a double shift that I have dozed off at stop lights. If they want to bust somebody for bad driving, then that should be the charge. Arresting somebody for what they might do is weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:52:46 PM EDT
[#14]
the automated male voice announces when a button on the cover is pushed. Wonder how many will get SHOT for threatening an LEO with a BOMB? hold up this box push a button...yeah I can see it. P.S. Not a pro-police-state type just think its a little ridiculous, why would you need an automated voice? obviously for those to drunk to talk fdor themselves. p.p.s I dunno whats funnier Imbrog|ios or Invictus's comments or the people who take them serious and get pissed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 2:49:10 AM EDT
[#15]
Hmmmm,
I think I am gonna have to agree with Imbrog|io on this one. Gee Imbrog, are you finally seeing the light? There is really no call, or room for this product anywhere in this country. People like this Ramsell fellow or organizations like the NMA who do nothing but make life tougher on the police need to be locked up wholesale. The cops have enough to worry about without having the nutcases start getting uppity about some rights they supposedly have, but of course in reality they don't. In civilized countries like Russia the police dont have to put up with such abuse, I mean if you get pulled over in that country and I would love to hear you say some smart-ass comment like "sorry officer, but I am affirming my (Nth) ammendment rights to not (insert supposedly unconstitutional activity here)". They would say "sure Mr. Tom Jefferson I got your fourth and fifth ammendments hangin' right here", just before they politely removed you from your vehicle and reminded you of your duty to respect their authoritaay...about your head and shoulders...repeatedly. Ouch Erick, you wound me. I don't see much humor in what I am posting and from Imbrog's post on this thread it appears he too is coming around to truth, justice and the American way. Its to bad that you admit you are not pro police, we don't need any more anti-'s here. At least Imbrog|io isn't anti-LEO anymore. [:D] rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 8:31:38 AM EDT
[#16]
It won't stop me from putting drunk drivers in jail - nor will it stop any other officers from doing the same.
This sounds like some moron (with an alcohol abuse problem?) trying to make money off of others who want to try to get away with manifestly irresponsible behavior. What he doesn't tell you is that giving the silent treatment & refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders is (could be)considered "Obstruction" or "Resisting and Officer (without violence)." [-Florida Laws] If you booze & cruise and get caught, it's going to cost you thousands in lawyer fees whether you get convicted or aquitted. Solution? Be responsible. Don't drive drunk. Don't you dare risk my life, my family's life or the lives of the people I serve. Granted, as a Cop/Paramedic/Firefighter I have a unique perspective on this - from patient care to the courtroom. If you're drunk and driving - and then get caught - don't bitch to me. If you think that _you_ are the one being violated... go pound sand. Impaired drivers have left too many bad things in their irresponsible and selfish wakes. P3[pyro][^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 8:43:45 AM EDT
[#17]
Let me go ahead and shoot this down!
There is such a thing as a Mimms Order. Named for the guy who lost in a U.S. Supreme Court case. A Mimms Order is basically when a police officer orders you out of the vehicle on a routing traffic stop. For purposes of officer safety, the U.S. Supreme court has upheld the legality of an officer ordering a driver out of the vehicle. This now gives the officer the ability to see a drunk driver falling all over himself and smelling like a brewery. Refusal to comply with a Mimms order will only result in additional charges of resisting an officer on top of the DWI you ARE going to get. Refusal to submit to field sobriey is an automatic trip to the iron bar hotel and being booked in for DWI. Yeah, you might get off after having to bond out and pay a lawyer more than the fines will be. If you drunk drive, it's a lose/lose situation. One way or another you're gonna pay! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 8:48:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: It won't stop me from putting drunk drivers in jail - nor will it stop any other officers from doing the same. This sounds like some moron (with an alcohol abuse problem?) trying to make money off of others who want to try to get away with manifestly irresponsible behavior. What he doesn't tell you is that giving the silent treatment & refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders is considered "Obstruction" or "Resisting and Officer (without violence)." [-Florida Laws] If you booze & cruise and get caught, it's going to cost you thousands in lawyer fees whether you get convicted or aquitted. Solution? Be responsible. Don't drive drunk. Don't you dare risk my life, my family's life or the lives of the people I serve. Granted, as a Cop/Paramedic/Firefighter I have a unique perspective on this - from patient care to the courtroom. If you're drunk and driving - and then get caught - don't bitch to me. If you think that _you_ are the one being violated... go pound sand. Impaired drivers have left too many bad things in their irresponsible and selfish wakes. P3[pyro][^] Officer's lawful orders? Who's laws and according to whom? You and the the rest of looters? Since when is silence a crime? It's not. This is merely another example of the hypocrosy of some LEO. "I'm proud to job my job and enforce the laws, it's my duty". What if the laws are wrong? "Oh, thats not my problem, I just enforce them, I don't make them up". Please, I am the only ones who see actions and words like this for what they are? By defending other people's immoral values, you become their slaves and the imprisoner of free men. Remember, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who claim neutrality during a moral crisis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 8:50:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Ahhh...Lawyers, Court Rooms, Judges and the F*cked Up "Laws".....Wonderful, just Wonderful...
[img]http://a1964.g.akamai.net/7/1964/1392/1dcf6501c8f9fa/images.ucomics.com/comics/mb/2001/mb010628.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 8:58:06 AM EDT
[#20]
...another example of the hypocrosy of some LEO. "I'm proud to job my job and enforce the laws, it's my duty". [red]What if the laws are wrong?[/red] "Oh, thats not my problem, I just enforce them, I don't make them up". Here goes the [b]WHAT IF[/b] game. The what if game is based on an imaginary (often unrealistic, or non involved) topic. Often used by someone unable to discuss the merits of the actual topic. Please, I am the only ones who see actions and words like this for what they are? If you take your medication the visions will stop!!!![:D] sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:06:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: ...another example of the hypocrosy of some LEO. "I'm proud to job my job and enforce the laws, it's my duty". [red]What if the laws are wrong?[/red] "Oh, thats not my problem, I just enforce them, I don't make them up". Here goes the [b]WHAT IF[/b] game. The what if game is based on an imaginary (often unrealistic, or non involved) topic. Often used by someone unable to discuss the merits of the actual topic. Please, I am the only ones who see actions and words like this for what they are? If you take your medication the visions will stop!!!![:D] sgb Spoken like a true liberal professor. Go read Atlas Shrugged, maybe you'll figure it out. BTW, I said the law of prosecuting someone for silence is wrong. Do you agree with such a law? Do you just believe that other people will make fair laws for you to abide by? I never mentioned anything about DWI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:12:42 AM EDT
[#22]
As a former LEO, I can tell you that the way this country is going, you must do all you can to save yourself. I in no way am for drunks on the road, in fact I don't even drink. But, the LEO community hates it when you refuse anything.
I would suggest that you [b]refuse[/b] field tests as well as the breath test. They are going to try and talk you into it, and maybe even threaten you. But, never give in. Most COPS could care less what you do. In fact, they are laughing at you when it is all over. One of the main reasons I got out of it was the hipocracy. I have seen Officers go out and run a few guys in for DWI and then at the end of shift, they go out and go bar hopping and drive even more drunk than the guy they arrested. They know that their buddies are not going to lock them up. I retired when I could. Alot of LEOs give a bad name for the good ones. Remember, refuse the test and they will have a very hard time convicting you on the Officer's word. Whenever you give a breath sample, you are just building a case against yourself! However, if you drink and drive , you really do deserve some jail time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:30:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: ...in the PRK, there is an implied consent law. Refuse a test and get your license yanked for 1 year. Same here in Florida, although, if you kneel before the judge, they _may_ give you a permit to drive to work. Personally, I think the whole .08 law is bogus. I have to drink way more than that to get too jacked up to drive safely. Wrong. Now spare me the righteous indignation, arrogance, and ignorance & let me explain. What's not commonly understood is that you ARE IMPAIRED AT EVEN +/-.05!!!! No shit. The insidious nature of alcohol and a lot of narcotics (legal & not) - hell, even certain OTC (over the counter) cold medicines will impair you. They impair your higher cognitive functions, as well as your judgment - your ability to perceive the environment around you. So you are literally lit, and don't even know it. I'll spare you the tedious quoting of scientific studies (facts). I know that you're setting your flamethrower on "immolate" right now. But before you knee-jerk in an unintended direction, read this: Unlike the law and a some of my fellow cops believe, I believe driving is a RIGHT, not a government-granted privilege. But, with rights, come RESPONSIBILITIES. Be responsible. You wouldn't let some guy who was lit handle a loaded firearm around you or your kids, right? A two+ ton piece of steel, rubber & plastic going 60 MPH is no different, except for the higher body count. P3[pyro][^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:37:15 AM EDT
[#24]
From little box held by motorist:
[i]"Officer, please understand that I will only exit the vehicle for your safety or if under arrest," the automated male voice announces when a button on the cover is pushed. "Please read the enclosed for additional information."[/i] Officer: [i]That is fine sir. Now step out of the vehicle before I am forced to lawfully physcially remove you. You are under arrest for hendering and interferring with an officer during the lawful performance of his duties......a felony.[/i] For the record I have had my dispatcher call the wife/girlfriend/SO of a drunk driver and ask them to come and get them rather than book 'em. I have also driven drunks home to keep from having to put them through a DWI arrest. (These all cases where the person had no record of prior offenses.) But you play games you go to jail. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:43:27 AM EDT
[#25]
I'm still a little confused as to whether or not you should blow.
If I have this straight, if you refuse you lose your license for a stated period of time, correct? Is that it? If you blow and fail you get convited of a felony (lose your guns?), lose your license for awhile, pay lawyers, pay higher insurance, etc. etc. If you blow less then the limit, say .07 what happens? Isn't there a DUI and DWI, can you still be convicted of something? There have been times when I've gone out for 5-6 beers after a softball game, party, or wedding and felt fine but wondered what to do if I was pulled over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:51:07 AM EDT
[#26]
Spoken like a true liberal professor. Actually I'm republican, and as to being a professor I'm not, although I'll take that as a compliment. BTW, I said the law of prosecuting someone for silence is wrong. Actually this is what you said. [red]Officer's lawful orders? Who's laws and according to whom? You and the the rest of [u]looters?[/u][/red] The only thing that I deem from this dribble is that you don't like the Police. Since when is silence a crime? It's not. You are correct, no one inferred that silence is a crime, ever hear of the 5th amendment? Do you agree with such a law? First you state there is no such law, then you imply that there is and ask if I agree with it? Please make up your mind. Do you just believe bide by? Hell if I know. I never mentioned anything about DWI Neither did I in my response to your [b]WHAT IF[/b] scenario. However the you might wish to read the entire thread. [red]Here goes the WHAT IF game. The what if game is based on an imaginary (often unrealistic, or non involved) topic. Often used by someone unable to discuss the merits of the actual topic.[/red] sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 9:56:18 AM EDT
[#27]
Ok,
most states have what is called a "implied consent" law. What this states is that when you apply for a DL you give up your right to refuse to be subjected to a DUI test. I.E. you have to blow. However, you can refuse, usually your license will be suppended for a designated amount of time. They technically can still charge you with a DUI, but with no evidence it will be damn hard to prove in court. As for blow/no blow look at it this way. When a cops stops you and starts asking questions, whoever said that refusal to talk is obstructing an officer is a load of crap. When they start questioning you, they are trying to build a criminal case against you. Therefore under Miranda you have a right to an attorney during ALL phases of questioning. By advice, have a buddy that is an attorney, keep his card/info with you. If you get pulled over and start to get hassled, politely give them his card and refuse to answer anything till he arrives. It will make them mad as hell, but it is your right. Around here we ahve a bunch of good ole boys dong illegal car searches, etc. And I always refuse anything of that nature. iF you get grief like "what ya hiding?" calmy state, youi have had other people in your care, and you are insure of anything they could have left behind. Tell them to get a warrant, and you will be happy to let them search then. Just my opinion James |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 10:22:35 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Since when is silence a crime? It's not. Agreed. You're right. I never said it was. 5th amendment, remember? If you inferred differently, I apologize for not being clearer. By law, you must identify yourself in certain "custodial" (read: you're not free to leave) situations, r.e., a traffic stop. -That's what I tried to convey. By defending other people's immoral values, you become their slaves and the imprisoner of free men. Hmmmm. How eloquently banal. Tell me what's immoral about stopping people from killing others BEFORE they kill themselves or others. Remember, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who claim neutrality during a moral crisis. First, I do not believe in god(s), so I'm not intimidated (read: oppressed) by that. Second, I, sir, am most decidedly NOT neutral during this "moral crisis"; I am at war. At war with those who would irresponsibly (note I didn't say "unlawfully") jeopardize and hurt my fellow citizens, who I SERVE. That's right, bucko, I am a Police Officer, Paramedic, AND Firefighter; I am a citizen and a civilian who most proudly SERVES for reasons not much more complicated than mere principle and a pittance of a paycheck cut by politicians who have nary an inkling of what I do for their (mostly grateful) constituants. And no, goddammit, I do not enforce the law - I do not look at my duty as being for the law - it's for the people I serve. And I love my job(s). Now, come close. Closer - I want to tell you a secret. Shhhhhhh. You know what? Most cops are not ballbreakers who follow the letter of the law and look upon the "civilians" (which they, ironicly ARE as well) in an adversarial way. Most cops, myself included, are out to (WARNING: Corny phrase ahead) "SERVE and PROTECT." To help. Yes, I'll admit that among our oathes is one to "enforce" the law. But most cops will use whatever discretion they can to not jam people up. Readjust your tinfoil hat - the radiowaves beamed from the UFOs in orbit are getting in and clouding your thoughts. Oy, phucking Veh. P3[pyro][pissed] P.S.: Am I fired up today, or what? EDITED FOR CLARITY AND INCOMPETENT USE OF "QUOTE" CODE.[BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 10:31:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Would some of you all feel better about it if because of this and/or your arguments that the drunk that drove away and was not arrested killed your wife, you kid or one of your parents as a result?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 10:42:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Since when is silence a crime? It's not. Agreed. You're right. This is merely another example of the hypocrosy of some LEO. "I'm proud to job my job and enforce the laws, it's my duty". What if the laws are wrong? "Oh, thats not my problem, I just enforce them, I don't make them up". Please, I am the only ones who see actions and words like this for what they are? By defending other people's immoral values, you become their slaves and the imprisoner of free men. Hmmmm. How eloquently banal. Tell me what's immoral about stopping people from killing others BEFORE they kill themselves or others. Remember, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who claim neutrality during a moral crisis. First, I do not believe in god(s), so I'm not intimidated (oppressed) by that. Second, I, sir, am most decidedly NOT neutral during this "moral crisis"; I am at war. At war with those who would irresponsibly (note I didn't say "unlawfully") jeopardize and hurt my fellow citizens, who I SERVE. That's right, bucko, I am a Police Officer, Paramedic, AND Firefighter; I am a citizen and a civilian who most proudly SERVES for reasons not much more complicated than mere principle and a pittance of a paycheck cut by politicians who have nary an inkling of what I do for their (mostly grateful) constituants. And no, goddammit, I do not enforce the law - I do not look at my duty as being for the law - it's for the people I serve. And I love my job(s). Now, come close. Closer - I want to tell you a secret. Shhhhhhh. You know what? Most cops are not ballbreakers who follow the letter of the law and look upon the "civilians" (which they, ironicly ARE as well) in an adversarial way. Most cops, myself included, are out to (WARNING: Corny phrase ahead) "SERVE and PROTECT." To help. Yes, I'll admit that among our oathes is one to "enforce" the law. But most cops will use whatever discretion they can to not jam people up. Readjust your tinfoil hat - the radiowaves beamed from the UFOs in orbit are getting in and clouding your thoughts. Oy, phucking Veh. P3[pyro][pissed] P.S.: Am I fired up today, or what? Have you ever enforced a law which you knew to be wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 11:16:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Have you ever enforced a law which you knew to be wrong? Never, sir, nor shall I. Especially when it comes to citizen disarmament laws. And, if pressed to do so, I would, albeit with a heavy heart, walk proudly away from the job, my shield gingerly laid upon the Chief's desk. I would shortly thereafter help my neighbors fill sandbags and load magazines. P3[pyro][(:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 11:22:55 AM EDT
[#32]
[size=5][red]TROLL[/red][/size=5]
[size=4]Don't you know the only laws worth enforcing are just the illegal ones.[/size=4][whacko] [size=5][red]Bad, bad troll[/red][/size=5] [spank] sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 11:31:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Have you ever enforced a law which you knew to be wrong? Never, sir, nor shall I. Especially when it comes to citizen disarmament laws. And, if pressed to do so, I would, albeit with a heavy heart, walk proudly away from the job, my shield gingerly laid upon the Chief's desk. I would shortly thereafter help my neighbors fill sandbags and load magazines. P3[pyro][(:)] Then Sir, FWIW IMHO, you are a man worthy of respect and admiration. I hope that you are never forced to make that decision. My point was simply to illustrate what I see as a disturbing trend of people enforcing and supporting laws that they know are wrong and hiding by behind phrases like "It's my job" or "I just enforce the rules" or "the government knows best" or "it's for the common good, so what if a few people are innocent victims". I'm not anti LEO, I'm anti people who will not be true to themselves and their beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 11:48:34 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Then Sir, FWIW IMHO, you are a man worthy of respect and admiration. Merci Beaucoup. ..."It's my job" or "I just enforce the rules" or "the government knows best" or "it's for the common good, so what if a few people are innocent victims?". fan, I'm really not seeing this happening - at least not at a local level. Maybe this is something unique to South/central Florida, but I have yet to see such unacceptable attitudes. I'm not anti LEO, I'm anti people who will not be true to themselves and their beliefs. Then you have earned my reciprocal respect and admiration. Now, what was the original thread subject about....? [:D] P3[pyro][^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 12:15:28 PM EDT
[#35]
I see this issue to be a rather simple issue. Can anyone show me a law where it is a right of a citizen to be able to drive? I was taught that it was a privilege, and because it was a privilege, certain items and roles would have to be accepted, even though it may not be liked. For example, in Ohio, you are required to have some form of training to be able to get a license. If this is a right, why would there be training needed? (On a side note, I am wondering if there is anywhere training is needed to own/bear firearms, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right). Additionally, it is a requirement that one has a certain level of liability insurance in Ohio. Does this mean that it is unfair to require someone who has never had an accident to carry at least the same amount of insurance as someone who may have had multiple accidents? Another item is that the laws state that driving while under the influence is illegal. This is something that one must accept when they get their driver's license. If they chose to drive under the influence, then yes, LEO should be able to test and find out whether if the person is under the influence or not. I personally dislike the idea of the black box described in the article due to the fact that (IMHO) the individuals who would be using this would be the ones that are knowingly breaking the law. I am not an attorney, but I would think that the majority of LEOs would only perform sobriety tests on individuals that have given them probable cause to believe that they are under the influence, and should be punished as defined by the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 12:24:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Then Sir, FWIW IMHO, you are a man worthy of respect and admiration. Merci Beaucoup. ..."It's my job" or "I just enforce the rules" or "the government knows best" or "it's for the common good, so what if a few people are innocent victims?". fan, I'm really not seeing this happening - at least not at a local level. Maybe this is something unique to South/central Florida, but I have yet to see such unacceptable attitudes. Maybe I'm too pessimistic but I see this everywhere, at work, in the streets, on the news, in the newspapaer, tin foil hat or no. I've deemed it the "death of competence". I'm not anti LEO, I'm anti people who will not be true to themselves and their beliefs. Then you have earned my reciprocal respect and admiration. Now, what was the original thread subject about....? [:D] Some dude with a little black box:) P3[pyro][^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 3:41:50 PM EDT
[#37]
"[b]If you blow and fail you get convited of a felony (lose your guns?), lose your license for awhile, pay lawyers, pay higher insurance, etc. etc.
[/b]" I nevber heard if it being a Felony. Not in the regular sence anyway. I have heard of it being called a automotive Felony. I have had a DUI and I still own and legally buy guns... BISHOP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2001 3:51:30 PM EDT
[#38]
In WI
DUI 5th offense is a felony DUI 3rd offense with a passenger under 16 is a felony DUI 2-4(no 16 yo pass) is a traffic crime(Misdeameanor) DUI 1 is a civil forfieture, meaning no jail time as a punishment. DUI causing injury is a traffice crime. DUI causing great bodily harm is a felony Homicide by DUI is a felony Anyone under 21 yo driving with any alcohol is there system can be cited for an "absolute sobriety violation". So far DUI 1 or 2 .10 BAC DUI 3 .08 BAC DUI 4 or more .02 BAC or more I think there trying to get across anyone can make a mistake but if you keep doing it, it is a "lifestyle". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2001 7:20:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I'm still a little confused as to whether or not you should blow. If I have this straight, if you refuse you lose your license for a stated period of time, correct? Is that it? If you blow and fail you get convited of a felony (lose your guns?), lose your license for awhile, pay lawyers, pay higher insurance, etc. etc. If you blow less then the limit, say .07 what happens? Isn't there a DUI and DWI, can you still be convicted of something? It's a lose/lose situation. If you're sober definetly blow! If you think paying a lawyer $10,000 to get you off of a $400 1st offense DWI fine is worth it and can do without your license then don't blow! Where I live I know of two lawyers who gurantee to get you off whether you blow or not. Both of these guys are retired state troopers who specialized in DWI's while on the force. They now make a killing getting drunks off of DWI charges. They WILL get you off, but their fees are $10,000 for a first offense and go up from there. The fine here for a first offense is only $400 plus community service. It's not a felony until your 3rd offense. The lawyers tell you not to blow because it makes their job easier. Your pocket book will take the same beating though. You only lose your license if you don't blow. Unless it's your third or higher offense it's cheaper to blow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2001 8:00:15 PM EDT
[#40]
While I abhor actual drunk drivers, the trend toward lowering the the blood alcohol level at which one can be presumed to be intoxicated is of great concern to me.
A person who has two beers with dinner is not a drunk driver in my opinion. Yet, by the standards in many states, he is considered legally drunk. It is the same incrimental approach that has been used against gun owners and smokers. It is the same crap that made a Russian imigrant comment to me recently that in a lot of ways, they enjoyed more freedom in Russia than we do here. Twenty years ago, cops looked for "real" drunks. Today, they'll take a guy that had a glass of wine with dinner. I can't wait to find a free country to live in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2001 2:40:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: While I abhor actual drunk drivers, the trend toward lowering the the blood alcohol level at which one can be presumed to be intoxicated is of great concern to me. A person who has two beers with dinner is not a drunk driver in my opinion. Yet, by the standards in many states, he is considered legally drunk. It is the same incrimental approach that has been used against gun owners and smokers. It is the same crap that made a Russian imigrant comment to me recently that in a lot of ways, they enjoyed more freedom in Russia than we do here. Twenty years ago, cops looked for "real" drunks. Today, they'll take a guy that had a glass of wine with dinner. I can't wait to find a free country to live in. Louisiana recently dropped the limit from .10 to .08. Many states are doing the same under threat of losing Federal highway funds. I certainly don't agree with this drop. I also certainly don't think anyone should be FREE to drunk drive and kill people. When I was in the police academy, I got to be one of the test subjects. A lot of departments will get volunteers to come drink. They basically pay for all the booze and let you get loaded. They keep track of how much you drank and then let trainees run field sobriety testing on you. I got more trashed than I've ever been and only blew a .086. I felt sloshed and such a LOW level. A guy at .08 or .10 IS indeed impaired and has no business driving! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2001 7:52:32 PM EDT
[#42]
This gadget is just like some of these radar detector ads that guarantee you not to get a speeding ticket. If you're worried about speeding tickets slow down and drive the speed limit.
On the same token if you are worried about getting a DUI, don't drink and drive or get a designated driver. The kind of people who would even think of buying one of these things are people who can't control their drinking and probably belong in rehab instead of on the road anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2001 8:00:08 PM EDT
[#43]
I was an MP.
I did a shitload of FSTs, and I cuffed up a lot of drunks. On the frequent nights we on patrol were sans a PBT, I could tell who would blow a 10 or higher, by their inability to perform the FST correctly. Under that, it could be drinks or it could be nerves. Over a 12 or 13, you wouldn't even let them do the test, because they were on the edge of falling at all times. My record was a 17, and he could not even stand when I helped him out of the car. I followed him for over 5 klicks (Germany), lights on, and siren half the time, before he stopped. The funny part was that he was from canada, a civvie w/o government connection, who was on a tour and figured he needed to find an american zone to drink hard (the beer didn't do enough for him) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2001 8:43:32 PM EDT
[#44]
I don't mind at all when they refuse to blow or answer questions. I have never had a problem getting convictions. The breath/blood/urine are secondary. If I am not sure, beyond a resonable doubt (Probable Cause) then you don't get arrested for DUI. Whether you blow or don't really has little to do with the outcome. I have to articulate what drew my attention to you, what I observed then that led me to make a traffic stop, what I observed when I made contact with you, standardized field sobriety tasks if done. All this has to be done before I put the cuffs on. I have had people blow .000BrAC (breath alcohol level which is different than BAC, Blood alcohol content, which is measured by chemical analysis vs. breath by volume) If I don't have my probable cause together before I place you under arrest, it really does not matter what you blow. In fact if you don't blow, you get an automatic adminstrative suspension of 1 year or 18 months if you have previously refused a REQUIRED test. The breath/urine/blood just tend to confuse the issue with jury's, so I personally just as soon you not blow. It actually cut's down on my paperwork.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2001 9:54:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I was an MP. I did a shitload of FSTs, and I cuffed up a lot of drunks. On the frequent nights we on patrol were sans a PBT, I could tell who would blow a 10 or higher, by their inability to perform the FST correctly. Let me tell ya a story.. One day (and it was daytime) I came through the front gate at the base I'm stationed at. Teh LCPL at the gate decided to give me the "pen test". According to him, I failed, so he had me pull over to do a sobrity test. A CPL comes over to give me the test. As we start, he demonstrates each part of the test. He could not complete the test(couldn't keep his balance on one foot with his head tilted back and touch his nose) and I looked at him and said "you can't complete the test and you are going to administer it to me and determine if I'm drunk??" Well, needless to say, he let me go. And no, I haden't been drinking, so I was completely sober. So I don't put much faith in the "pen test" or a FST. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2001 8:17:51 AM EDT
[#46]
So I don't put much faith in the "pen test" or a FST. "We fear that which we don't understand." The "pen test" is checking your eyes for signs of lack of smooth pursuit, jerking when your eyes are all the way over to either side, and jerking prior to reaching 45 degrees prior to "maximum deviation". This is called Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. When you are fitshaced, you're eyes will have a combination of or all of the above signs. Outside of the obvious stank of alcohol & driving cues, its the test that will determine whether I will continue with the other FSTs.(I use this test on my medical & trauma patients, too.) It's only one of many FSTs (Field Sobriety Tests). These tests were proven by many scientific studies over the past twenty years from California, Florida, and others. They are dead bang accurate to tell if someone is at or above .10 mg/dl of ETOH (alcohol) in the blood. BTW, as written before, one CAN be impaired with even _one_ drink - I'm close to 240lbs, and I'll get buzzed with one beer on an empty tummy. Booze is like that; you can be lit and not even know it. Most of my DUI arrests don't "feel" like they're impaired. Even the guy who we spent fifteen minutes cutting him out of the remains of his car. P3[pyro][^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2001 10:16:41 AM EDT
[#47]
One beer might d ome in as far as "sobriety" but I hadn't had a drink, or on any meds. The LCPL at the gate had no clue what he was doing, nor did the CPL who adminstered(and failed the demonstration) of the FST.
I'm not saying that we should drive drunk, but IMHO alot of LEO's don't have the continuious training to keep their skills up to date, just like thay don't have continuious weapons training at work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2001 1:38:27 PM EDT
[#48]
I guess I'll put my 2 in. As other members have already stated, a conviction for DWI is not difficult if you are trained. The BAC (certified breath alcohol) machine is just the final confirmation of blood alcohol content. By the time that occurs you have probably committed a minor traffic violation , failed some field sobriety tests , plus have some other clues that cannot all be ignored. These might be condition of eyes, breath, clothing(sometimes a drunk will vomit or urinate on himself), open containers in the vehicle. If you don't want to blow I don't care. It really does'nt make my case more difficult if you are an impaired driver and/or I have done my homework. The lowering of the legal limit is not the LEO's doing and I currently have mixed feelings about it. And as far as refusing to exit the vehicle, I probably should'nt go there for fear of being FLAMED and bad! Come on guys, nobody wants drunks on the road. This is something that all CITIZENS should be able to agree on , LEO or not. Arkansas recently lowered the limit to .08 and 4th DWI in 5 years is a felony .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2001 1:58:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Carrie Nation and the Women's Temperance League will save us all!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2001 12:34:20 PM EDT
[#50]
If this gadget was so successful, you'd see articles about it on Dateline and 60 Minutes. The cheapest and least hectic way out of a DWI is to have a Designated Driver. Short of that, call a cab when you're drunk. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions. Responsibility is something no one in this society seems to wants anymore. It's always someone else's fault that you F***ed up, got drunk and got a DWI.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
