N.Y. Orangeman Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Next time you're in the same situation without the police presence, do the same thing & walk home. Too bad it took the police presence for you to do the right thing. 342013[/snapback] He did the right thing; why the uncalled for lecture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 They have no right to be inside the establishment shining lights inpeoples eyes. They can patrol the roads and identify cars in a parking lot, but to walk into a place of business is not OK. They over stepped their boundaries on this one, but who is going to get into the face of a cop. 342008[/snapback] Sure they can if the bar owner called and told them he was having problems...One other thing is that almost ALL stories have three sides, we are hearing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 He did the right thing; why the uncalled for lecture? 342069[/snapback] Because he still hasn't learned not to drink and drive, All he learned was not to drink & drive when the police are out in force. Uncalled for, hardly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Yeah the cops are all a-holes unless it is your familiy member or loved one that is killed by some drunk. Don't drive drunk sh-thead and you'll have nothing to worry about. 342015[/snapback] You can't protect everyone from everything all of the time, but lots of people seem to want total security. You can get it, sure... the only price to pay is your freedom. This is how the police state evolves. But yeah, it'll save someone from stubbing a toe or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 You can get it, sure... the only price to pay is your freedom. This is how the police state evolves. What about your freedom to not get killed by a drunk driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 You can't protect everyone from everything all of the time, but lots of people seem to want total security. You can get it, sure... the only price to pay is your freedom. This is how the police state evolves. But yeah, it'll save someone from stubbing a toe or something. 342087[/snapback] Yeah, because that's what drunk drivers do all the time: stub people's toes. Everyone is all crazy about this until some nice family on vacation gets killed by drunk driver, and then we want blood. God forbid we should take extra steps to prevent us from our own fuggin' irresponsibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/23 A Closer Look at DUI Fatality Statistics For years now the "DUI crackdown", along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz said, for example, DUI "sobriety checkpoints" appear to violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicionless stops by the police -- but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is "outweighed" by the "carnage" on our highways of 25,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol. From where did these statistics come? Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions, however, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related". Not "caused", but related. This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another "alcohol-related" death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related". In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as "alcohol-related". In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." In other words, the statistics weren't even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths. So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA's figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as "Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.", indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.) 5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD. Despite this irritating little truth, MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DUI laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Did you know...... If you get a DUI in the USA you're not allowed into Canada. If they run your license at the border and it shows you have a DUI 8 years ago they WILL NOT let you into Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Did you know...... If you get a DUI in the USA you're not allowed into Canada. If they run your license at the border and it shows you have a DUI 8 years ago they WILL NOT let you into Canada. 342107[/snapback] I was once told that two or three DUIs in China results in the death penalty.Not sure if it's true. But I like the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I was once told that two or three DUIs in China results in the death penalty.Not sure if it's true. But I like the idea. 342132[/snapback] that sounds like a great idea...i'll vote for the candidate that brings this up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 that sounds like a great idea...i'll vote for the candidate that brings this up 342135[/snapback] Wouldn't work here because the US doesn't have a death penalty, per se. I mean, you can commit a crime and be sentenced to death, but the odds of you actually being put to death are slim to none. In a recent column by Gordon Dillow in the Orange County Register, Wednesday, May 18th, 20005, it was pointed out that in California, at least, you will die of old age before you are put to death. From the article: "More people on (California's) death row die from old age than from lethal injection," notes Orange County district attorney spokeswoman Susan Schroeder. "It's outrageous." Schroeder is right on the numbers. According to Department of Corrections figures, since 1978 some 45 death row inmates have died on the row without being executed - one shot by corrections officers, one stabbed by another inmate, one dead of a heart attack after being pepper-sprayed, 12 by suicide and 30 of natural causes. Meanwhile, just 11 have been executed. In addition to pointing out that 100 of California's 644 death row inmates have been in prison for 20 years or longer, he highlights a murder case...one that is similar to the one we just watched with Samantha Runnion's killer. Consider, for example, the case of Rodney Alcala, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1980 for the 1979 murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe of Huntington Beach. The California Supreme Court later threw out the conviction on grounds that evidence of Alcala's prior attacks on young girls shouldn't have been admitted at trial. In 1986 Alcala was tried and convicted and sentenced to death yet again. The case went all the way through the state appeals process, only to have the federal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bounce it back again two years ago, 24 years after the crime, this time on grounds that testimony from the first trial shouldn't have been admitted in the second trial. So now Alcala is waiting for his third trial - and if he's convicted, and assuming an appeals court doesn't throw out the conviction and order a fourth trial, he's looking at another 10 to 20 years of appeals before he would have to walk into the execution chamber. By that time, he could be more than 80 years old. (Oh, by the way, Alcala is also facing trial in the murder and rape of a woman in Los Angeles County in 1977 - which could start yet another round of appeals.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 For years now the "DUI crackdown", along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers. We have a constitutional right to drive drunk? Who knew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone and once in a car a driver should be subject to routine sobriety checks. I have no problem with cops observing drunks exiting bars and following them to see if they are driving erratically. However, I don't see any reason for cops to enter a bar and harrass customers unless the bar owner has called in a disturbance. Bar owners have the right and the responsibility to "police" their customers by denying service to those visibly impaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone and once in a car a driver should be subject to routine sobriety checks. I have no problem with cops observing drunks exiting bars and following them to see if they are driving erratically. However, I don't see any reason for cops to enter a bar and harrass customers unless the bar owner has called in a disturbance. Bar owners have the right and the responsibility to "police" their customers by denying service to those visibly impaired. 342166[/snapback] I happen to agree with you. The thing is, many of us are standing on the sidelines cheering while our rights erode. How many people in this same thread who now seem indignant will be clapping when police and "health inspectors" burst into a bar and give out thousands of dollars in fines because some guy is smoking a cigarette? Already, the chickens are coming home to roost. How does it feel? Would you walk into a bar if you were going to get a light shined in your face (although I must admit to never having heard of this)? I for one would not, even if I was not driving. My thinking is that in a few short years, there will be far less bars. There will still be drinking because humans consume alcohol, even the yuppies who make these intrusive policies. There will also be DWIs. This will not change either merely because people get lights shined in their faces. They will simply drink elsewhere. This is only the beginning. Keep watching as your taxes rise and your freedom shrinks. As TD once said, "stay tuned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sounds like Virgina's the place where this is going on: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=30288 "Virginia statutes say any business with a liquor license is considered a public place; therefore, police are allowed free access. If they find someone over the legal alcohol limit of .08, or suspect a customer of being intoxicated while still being served or present in an establishment, police can issue a ticket for public intoxication." http://www.getmadd.com/BarsofVirginia.htm "But what exactly is illegal use of alcohol? During the raids the policemen used a BAC standard of .08 as grounds for arrest. The thing is, .08 is the level at which it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle, not sit on a barstool. Virginia law doesn’t specify what level of blood alcohol constitutes public drunkenness. " http://www.prisonplanet.com/a_crime_to_drink.html "If the law says that if you are in a public location and intoxicated, you are subject to arrest," said Lt. Tor Bennett of the Reston District of the Fairfax County Police Department. He said that in practice, people who are a little intoxicated but minding their own business are probably not going to be bothered by police. The person "must be drawing attention to themselves," said Bennett, who supervised the operation. "What drew their attention to Mike [Heidig] in this particular evening was not a fight or disruption out in the parking lot," Bennett said. "Mike happened to be wearing a Santa Claus suit and was seen with a karoke machine at the bar and that's how he got arrested." Under Virginia law, a restaurant or bar is considered a public space, and public intoxication is a low-level misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $250 and can also be punishable by a night in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Remember when being an American meant you were free? Keep up the good work, Democrats and Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRic Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Because he still hasn't learned not to drink and drive, All he learned was not to drink & drive when the police are out in force. Uncalled for, hardly! 342080[/snapback] Actually, I wasn't doing anything wrong here. Ever hear of drinking in moderation? Roughly 1 beer per hour, on a full stomach, with plenty of water in between drinks. I'm a 34 year old 190lb guy and I know my limits. My partying days are about a decade behind me. Marengo, IL is a pretty small town and the walk from my home to the local pubs is perhaps a quarter mile. I routinely walk to and from the bar, so most of the time driving never even figures into things. I didn't walk home because I was intoxicated, I did so because I didn't want the hassle of a potential pullover, field sobriety test, etc etc. If I had been pulled over, however, I don't believe there would have been enough alcohol in my system to cause a problem. If you do the math, the most I would have blown would have been .025. If you've ever had a glass of wine with dinner and then driven home, then you are just as "guilty" me. As far as a pub owner asking the cops for assistance? I don't think this was the case because all 4 bars on the main drag in town were targeted. The police officers were actually following people walking from one bar to the next and hounding some people almost to the point of harrassment. All in all it was a very strange scene and seemed quite surreal at the time. I guess I'd have to mark it down as crude but effective. Regards to all, Eric C ChicagoRic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...7¬Found=true At Champps in Reston, general manager Kevin O'Hare described police as "antagonistic." He said they "pulled" people from their chairs who were making no commotion. "They're always welcome to come in anytime," he said of police. "It's not an issue when they talk to our guests. But when they actually pull people out of their seats, it is an issue. When it's borderline harassment, it's an issue." One man who was arrested during one of the police raids acknowledged having several drinks during the course of the afternoon, but said he was not driving or acting unruly as he sat at a table with several work colleagues. He had just finished singing "Jingle Bell Rock" on the karaoke machine when an officer asked him to step outside. He failed a breath test and was taken in a van to jail. "I've lived my life with tremendous respect for the rule of law," said the man, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is contesting the charges. Now his respect is tarnished. "You could be anybody, anywhere, and they can take you out and throw you in jail," he said. ". . .I didn't do anything other than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRic Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 So a violent criminal was killed by the cops in commission of yet another crime? I guess I'm missing the meaning of the "things could be worse" reference. Sounds to me like the RPD deserved an atta-boy.btw....5 drinks in 4 hours would put most people over the legal limit for driving, so it sounds like the cops prevented Eric from driving home drunk. 341988[/snapback] Umm, 5 beers in 4 hours does not equal drunk. 5 beers in 1 hour were be a whole different story though. Here's a handy link: http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp Regards, Eric C ChicagoRic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 5 drinks in 4 hours would put most people over the legal limit for driving, so it sounds like the cops prevented Eric from driving home drunk. 341988[/snapback] Who....a newborn? You have to be kidding me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts