0.232

[cebeu]

Woman who blew a 0.232 in Aspen won't face DUI charge (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17581120)


"... local defense lawyer Lawson Wills, who claims that [officer] Cole has an "over-aggressive" style in his pursuit of tipsy motorists."

Tipsy vs 0.23 hmmmmmm...

[2008f450]

There is a scum bag lawyer for every occasion

[Byte Stryke]

I Smell more to this story...
this isn't the first one of his thrown out?

Reserving comment until we get the rest.

[cstone]

I no longer drink, but if me or one of my loved ones was caught DUI in Aspen, I know which attorney I would hire.

I'm no fan of lawyers, but when you need one, you get the best you can afford.

I'm amazed it wasn't plead out. Normally the BAC is the final word on DUIs.

Let's just hope this woman doesn't kill someone next time.

[patrick0685]

Holy crap, I don't know that I could even find my car that drunk

[CrufflerSteve]

Definitely more to the story. I haven't had a drink in decades but I'd assume someone with that level would be all over the road. Wonder if that cop has been out of line on previous cases.

In Colorado the justice system is pretty honest other than the part of "Not able to afford a good lawyer" = "guilty". I lived in Chicago for a few years in the early '70's and that own was openly corrupt. I worked for a retired police captain who liked to tell stories. Back then the going rate to beat a DUI was $5000. The judge got most, DA & lawyer & cop split the rest. I can't see that happening here when it causes that much publicity.

Steve

[BushMasterBoy]

It's not who you know...but who you blow!

[BigDee]

Good for the lawyer.

I don't agree with people who get behind the wheel after having some drinks but I think there are many situations where cops cross the line.

2 beers put most people over the limit and most people will have 2 beers with dinner. We hear about DUI arrest like the cops are big hero's geting drunks off the road and that is not the case in many DUI situations.

A guy goes to Chili's with a few friends and has a presidente margarita and 1 beer with lunch. The guy leaves Chili's and on his way home someone blows through a red lights and plows right into the guy. Officers repond to the scene and notice the smell of alcohol on guys breathe they make him do a breathalizer and he blows .081. The guy is charged with a DUI even though he didn't cause the accident and there is no reason to believe he was a danger to the public.

A woman ends a night at a company party. While driving down the highway her car starts to accelerate. She notices the acceleration and hits the brakes. She finally puts the car into neutral because the car continues to accelerate even with the brake pedal full depressed. The woman pulls off to the side of the highway and turn off the car. The car catches on fire so the woman calls 911. Police arrive along with the fire department and the vehicle fire is put out; an officer notices a smell of alcohol on the womans breathe and she is charged with DUI.

A guy gets into a fight with his GF, she throws him out of the house and tells him not to come back home. The guy goes to th ebar and gets hammered. After a long night of drinking the guy goes out to his car and goes to sleep. Due to the fact that it's 5 degrees outside the guy turns on his car and fires up the heater before going to sleep. Not long after dosing off the guy is awoken by an officer knocking on his window, the officer smells alcohol and demands a breathalize. The guy gets arrested for DUI.

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.

In no way shape or form am I codoning the act of DUI. I think drinking and driving is wrong but I also think DUI enforcement is enforced in a chicken sh*t fashion.

[Beer]

[spyder]

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.


I would have to agree with fox here and say that you are wrong about the "MOST" part in that statement. Does random stupid shit happen to drunk people that shouldn't happen? Ya, on rare occasion. Funny enough, on my brothers 40th we got him drunk at a bar here and he went out and got into his car to wait on us. He was cold, it was last January, he put the keys in the ignition and turned on his car to get warm. He was arrested and gone by the time we got out, his wife got the call as we were looking for him. Anyway, it went to court and the judge ruled in his favor. Stupid shit like that does happen, but not often and when it does I am sure it gets ruled in the defendants favor, most of the time...

[Bailey Guns]

Good for the lawyer.

I don't agree with people who get behind the wheel after having some drinks but I think there are many situations where cops cross the line.

2 beers put most people over the limit and most people will have 2 beers with dinner. We hear about DUI arrest like the cops are big hero's geting drunks off the road and that is not the case in many DUI situations.

A guy goes to Chili's with a few friends and has a presidente margarita and 1 beer with lunch. The guy leaves Chili's and on his way home someone blows through a red lights and plows right into the guy. Officers repond to the scene and notice the smell of alcohol on guys breathe they make him do a breathalizer and he blows .081. The guy is charged with a DUI even though he didn't cause the accident and there is no reason to believe he was a danger to the public.

A woman ends a night at a company party. While driving down the highway her car starts to accelerate. She notices the acceleration and hits the brakes. She finally puts the car into neutral because the car continues to accelerate even with the brake pedal full depressed. The woman pulls off to the side of the highway and turn off the car. The car catches on fire so the woman calls 911. Police arrive along with the fire department and the vehicle fire is put out; an officer notices a smell of alcohol on the womans breathe and she is charged with DUI.

A guy gets into a fight with his GF, she throws him out of the house and tells him not to come back home. The guy goes to th ebar and gets hammered. After a long night of drinking the guy goes out to his car and goes to sleep. Due to the fact that it's 5 degrees outside the guy turns on his car and fires up the heater before going to sleep. Not long after dosing off the guy is awoken by an officer knocking on his window, the officer smells alcohol and demands a breathalize. The guy gets arrested for DUI.

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.

In no way shape or form am I codoning the act of DUI. I think drinking and driving is wrong but I also think DUI enforcement is enforced in a chicken sh*t fashion.

[Beer]


DISCLAIMER: Between 1992 and 2000 I made over 850 DUI arrests in the Evergreen/Conifer and south-metro areas. I lost 2 of those cases in court....both because I missed court for one reason or another. Rough guess...99% of the cases never made it to court because of a plea bargain.

The part I highlighted is pure nonsense. The overwhelming majority of DUI arrests are the result of poor driving witnessed by the officer. "Weaving", I would guess, is far and away the number one reason for a stop in DUI cases...no other cause for stops even comes close.

And your examples, while plausible, are still considered DUI violations under the law.

So what? In your "guy goes to Chili's" example...so he's driving through a red light and gets nailed by another at-fault driver. That should excuse his DUI? I don't think so. Let's say your same driver (sober this time) just stole $10,000 in cash/product from the company he works for (without any violence) and gets into the same accident. Cops arrive, find evidence of the theft at the accident scene and arrest him. By your logic he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't at fault and he wasn't a danger to the public.

I've got news for you. Anyone driving with a BAC of .081 IS a danger to the public. In accidents where a driver is DUI, the DUI driver is at fault in many more of those accidents than not.

And, yes, I made plenty of those "chickenshit" arrests where people were sleeping in their cars and were shitfaced. Not necessarily in parking lots at bars, but in various places. Most of the time they drove to wherever it was they were parked. Do you actually think that person stays there until they're sober? Not likely.

I had no tolerance for someone driving under the influence when I was on the job. I arrested one guy 5 times in a 2 year period for DUI. I was also hit by a DUI driver while standing beside a car talking to...you guessed it...another DUI driver. Luckily I wasn't badly injured...but the impact tore my holstered gun and a few other things right off my belt and left me with some pretty good bruises. I had two patrol cars hit head on by DUI drivers...while I was driving them. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your assessment that most DUI drivers are arrested for things other than reckless or dangerous driving.

You'd probably also be surprised at how often drunk drivers, especially women, have their kids in the car with them while driving drunk. If someone is driving with a BAC of .081 would you allow your children to ride with in the car with them?

Drunks are responsible for a large part of a cops enforcement activity outside of driving, too. If it weren't for people drinking to excess, we'd probably only need about 25% of the cops that are normally on duty.

You say you aren't condoning drunk driving yet in the same breath you complain about "chickenshit" enforcement. You can't have it both ways. It's entirely possible your life has been saved because a LEO arrested a drunk, in a "chickenshit" stop, before that drunk was able to kill you in an accident.

[Graves]

Heres an easy solution to not getting a DUI. Don't drink three+ beers at dinner all the time. And no, most people don't do that. Only alcoholics.


Guess I'm a proud alcoholic. [Muaha]
When the wife and I are out I'll usually hit their bar for a beer or two if there's a wait and have another with my meal. My solution for avoiding a DUI: Don't drive after you've been drinking! Pretty flippin' simple. I'd be risking a lot by gettin' behind the wheel even after one beer as the bac limit for me is .04.

[2008f450]

Guess I'm a proud alcoholic. [Muaha]
When the wife and I are out I'll usually hit their bar for a beer or two if there's a wait and have another with my meal. My solution for avoiding a DUI: Don't drive after you've been drinking! Pretty flippin' simple. I'd be risking a lot by gettin' behind the wheel even after one beer as the bac limit for me is .04.


Yep I let wife drive if I have a drink with dinner. Im in the same boat. .04 limit with a class A license

[DD977GM2]

Very well put. I hate DUI drivers with a passion. They cause far more uneeded harm then anything I can think of.


DISCLAIMER: Between 1992 and 2000 I made over 850 DUI arrests in the Evergreen/Conifer and south-metro areas. I lost 2 of those cases in court....both because I missed court for one reason or another. Rough guess...99% of the cases never made it to court because of a plea bargain.

The part I highlighted is pure nonsense. The overwhelming majority of DUI arrests are the result of poor driving witnessed by the officer. "Weaving", I would guess, is far and away the number one reason for a stop in DUI cases...no other cause for stops even comes close.

And your examples, while plausible, are still considered DUI violations under the law.

So what? In your "guy goes to Chili's" example...so he's driving through a red light and gets nailed by another at-fault driver. That should excuse his DUI? I don't think so. Let's say your same driver (sober this time) just stole $10,000 in cash/product from the company he works for (without any violence) and gets into the same accident. Cops arrive, find evidence of the theft at the accident scene and arrest him. By your logic he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't at fault and he wasn't a danger to the public.

I've got news for you. Anyone driving with a BAC of .081 IS a danger to the public. In accidents where a driver is DUI, the DUI driver is at fault in many more of those accidents than not.

And, yes, I made plenty of those "chickenshit" arrests where people were sleeping in their cars and were shitfaced. Not necessarily in parking lots at bars, but in various places. Most of the time they drove to wherever it was they were parked. Do you actually think that person stays there until they're sober? Not likely.

I had no tolerance for someone driving under the influence when I was on the job. I arrested one guy 5 times in a 2 year period for DUI. I was also hit by a DUI driver while standing beside a car talking to...you guessed it...another DUI driver. Luckily I wasn't badly injured...but the impact tore my holstered gun and a few other things right off my belt and left me with some pretty good bruises. I had two patrol cars hit head on by DUI drivers...while I was driving them. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your assessment that most DUI drivers are arrested for things other than reckless or dangerous driving.

You'd probably also be surprised at how often drunk drivers, especially women, have their kids in the car with them while driving drunk. If someone is driving with a BAC of .081 would you allow your children to ride with in the car with them?

Drunks are responsible for a large part of a cops enforcement activity outside of driving, too. If it weren't for people drinking to excess, we'd probably only need about 25% of the cops that are normally on duty.

You say you aren't condoning drunk driving yet in the same breath you complain about "chickenshit" enforcement. You can't have it both ways. It's entirely possible your life has been saved because a LEO arrested a drunk, in a "chickenshit" stop, before that drunk was able to kill you in an accident.

[Sixgun]

DISCLAIMER: Between 1992 and 2000 I made over 850 DUI arrests in the Evergreen/Conifer and south-metro areas. I lost 2 of those cases in court....both because I missed court for one reason or another. Rough guess...99% of the cases never made it to court because of a plea bargain.

The part I highlighted is pure nonsense. The overwhelming majority of DUI arrests are the result of poor driving witnessed by the officer. "Weaving", I would guess, is far and away the number one reason for a stop in DUI cases...no other cause for stops even comes close.

And your examples, while plausible, are still considered DUI violations under the law.

So what? In your "guy goes to Chili's" example...so he's driving through a red light and gets nailed by another at-fault driver. That should excuse his DUI? I don't think so. Let's say your same driver (sober this time) just stole $10,000 in cash/product from the company he works for (without any violence) and gets into the same accident. Cops arrive, find evidence of the theft at the accident scene and arrest him. By your logic he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't at fault and he wasn't a danger to the public.

I've got news for you. Anyone driving with a BAC of .081 IS a danger to the public. In accidents where a driver is DUI, the DUI driver is at fault in many more of those accidents than not.

And, yes, I made plenty of those "chickenshit" arrests where people were sleeping in their cars and were shitfaced. Not necessarily in parking lots at bars, but in various places. Most of the time they drove to wherever it was they were parked. Do you actually think that person stays there until they're sober? Not likely.

I had no tolerance for someone driving under the influence when I was on the job. I arrested one guy 5 times in a 2 year period for DUI. I was also hit by a DUI driver while standing beside a car talking to...you guessed it...another DUI driver. Luckily I wasn't badly injured...but the impact tore my holstered gun and a few other things right off my belt and left me with some pretty good bruises. I had two patrol cars hit head on by DUI drivers...while I was driving them. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your assessment that most DUI drivers are arrested for things other than reckless or dangerous driving.

You'd probably also be surprised at how often drunk drivers, especially women, have their kids in the car with them while driving drunk. If someone is driving with a BAC of .081 would you allow your children to ride with in the car with them?

Drunks are responsible for a large part of a cops enforcement activity outside of driving, too. If it weren't for people drinking to excess, we'd probably only need about 25% of the cops that are normally on duty.

You say you aren't condoning drunk driving yet in the same breath you complain about "chickenshit" enforcement. You can't have it both ways. It's entirely possible your life has been saved because a LEO arrested a drunk, in a "chickenshit" stop, before that drunk was able to kill you in an accident.
Sounds like Bailey is still the wild wild west.[Tooth]
I really hate drunks, there is no room for them in my life.

[BigDee]

DISCLAIMER: Between 1992 and 2000 I made over 850 DUI arrests in the Evergreen/Conifer and south-metro areas. I lost 2 of those cases in court....both because I missed court for one reason or another. Rough guess...99% of the cases never made it to court because of a plea bargain.


So of the 850 people you charged with DUI 9 made it to trial and out of the 9 that did you couldn't make it to the trial 2 times? As a civilian who doesn't make it to court you are either charged with a failure to appear or have a guilty verdict issued against you. It must be nice to have exceptions made for your behavior because you have a badge.



The part I highlighted is pure nonsense. The overwhelming majority of DUI arrests are the result of poor driving witnessed by the officer. "Weaving", I would guess, is far and away the number one reason for a stop in DUI cases...no other cause for stops even comes close.



I'm not going to touch this because I know you are reaching when you say the majority of stops are the officer witnessing weaving. In most cases where weaving occurs it is most likley the result of the officer riding someones ass causing them to be nervous and swerve (this has occured to me numerous times and twice I was stopped and let go because I was completely sober)



And your examples, while plausible, are still considered DUI violations under the law.



So what? In your "guy goes to Chili's" example...so he's driving through a red light and gets nailed by another at-fault driver. That should excuse his DUI? I don't think so. Let's say your same driver (sober this time) just stole $10,000 in cash/product from the company he works for (without any violence) and gets into the same accident. Cops arrive, find evidence of the theft at the accident scene and arrest him. By your logic he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't at fault and he wasn't a danger to the public.


How do you know this to be true? You yourself just stated that 99% of the people you charged with DUI never made it court. I assume you meant trial. Why is that? Because 99% of people take a plea deal even if they are innocent due to the fact that they know the odd's are against them when fighting the system. There are only 2 situations in which a person will fight the system. Situation 1 is that they have more money then god and they can afford great attorney's. Situation 2 is that they have absolutely nothing to lose.

In the Chili's situation my buddy was driving through an intersection and the at fault driver blew through a red light.



I've got news for you. Anyone driving with a BAC of .081 IS a danger to the public. In accidents where a driver is DUI, the DUI driver is at fault in many more of those accidents than not.


Every study that proves your point has been subjective and there is no solid evidence to prove that a person who has practiced driving with a BAC at .081 is any greater risk to the general public than a 16 year old who just got their learners permit.



And, yes, I made plenty of those "chickenshit" arrests where people were sleeping in their cars and were shitfaced. Not necessarily in parking lots at bars, but in various places. Most of the time they drove to wherever it was they were parked. Do you actually think that person stays there until they're sober? Not likely.


Sometime's they do. Soemtimes their intention may have been to stay and sleep it off but instead you arrested them, quite possibly cost them their job and several thousand dollars in fines, not to mention the embarassment of a DUI when they could have just driven home and probably not gotten a DUI. Someone trying to be a responsible person became your pray. Last I checked there aren't a lot of cabs running around Connifer chauffering drunk people around town.



I had no tolerance for someone driving under the influence when I was on the job. I arrested one guy 5 times in a 2 year period for DUI. I was also hit by a DUI driver while standing beside a car talking to...you guessed it...another DUI driver. Luckily I wasn't badly injured...but the impact tore my holstered gun and a few other things right off my belt and left me with some pretty good bruises. I had two patrol cars hit head on by DUI drivers...while I was driving them. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your assessment that most DUI drivers are arrested for things other than reckless or dangerous driving.


Some people (not all; in fact not most) are just fucking idiots and will be a menace to society no matter how many laws are passed. I can go on for days about the incidents that have occurred to me while on the job but I wont because it's the job I choose and I continue to choose to do it therefore I have no right to bitch.



You'd probably also be surprised at how often drunk drivers, especially women, have their kids in the car with them while driving drunk. If someone is driving with a BAC of .081 would you allow your children to ride with in the car with them?


I'm more concerned about my kid getting in a car with Xanaxed out soccer mom with a script for her Xanax.


Drunks are responsible for a large part of a cops enforcement activity outside of driving, too. If it weren't for people drinking to excess, we'd probably only need about 25% of the cops that are normally on duty.


This is a complete falacy. State and local government's are now being held hostage by labor unions. Many cities have hired additional officer's due to labor agreement's even when they don't need additional officer's. Here's an article for you to read http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=165156





You say you aren't condoning drunk driving yet in the same breath you complain about "chickenshit" enforcement. You can't have it both ways. It's entirely possible your life has been saved because a LEO arrested a drunk, in a "chickenshit" stop, before that drunk was able to kill you in an accident.


I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm also not going to condone a government that is far overreaching and takes advantage of it's citizens in the name of "so called" public safety.

[DFBrews]

Guess I'm a proud alcoholic. [Muaha]
When the wife and I are out I'll usually hit their bar for a beer or two if there's a wait and have another with my meal. My solution for avoiding a DUI: Don't drive after you've been drinking! Pretty flippin' simple. I'd be risking a lot by gettin' behind the wheel even after one beer as the bac limit for me is .04.

Same here pesky CDL's [Beer]

[ldmaster]

of posting...

So tedious I can't even read them.

Actually, an LEO might get a contempt citation or worse for failing to appear. In my last job if a cop missed court twice in a year, he/she was suspended.

I had exactly zero tolerance for DUI's myself, it got me fired when I booked someone in with "only" a .155. There's a permissive set of people out there, especially up in the mountains, that seem to think that DUI is a normal state of being and allowable. Cause, heck, we're all locals!

The only DUI I have ever disagreed with is the driver that went out of the bar that they got drunk in, and slept it off in their car without moving it. I think THAT is chickenshit.

Sometimes I have talked with people who seem to know a lot of people who've gotten "chickenshit" DUI's - and all I've ever had to say to them was that they sure had a lot of personal friends that were alcoholics.

What some overlook is the TWO hearings you'll have if you get a DUI, one with the criminal justice system, and one with the Dept. of Revenue. It has happened that someone beats the criminal case, but still loses their license. The DOR hearing is very very quick after the arrest.

[Bailey Guns]

So of the 850 people you charged with DUI 9 made it to trial and out of the 9 that did you couldn't make it to the trial 2 times? As a civilian who doesn't make it to court you are either charged with a failure to appear or have a guilty verdict issued against you. It must be nice to have exceptions made for your behavior because you have a badge.

Nice try. One of them I was on a SWAT call from the previous shift. The other one I missed because of something else, duty-related, that kept me from going...I don't recall. Of course, you're just a little butt-hurt so you obviously feel the need to assume I just didn't feel like going, abused my position, etc...

Just FYI, I know officers who were suspended for not going to court. You don't get a free pass to miss court just because you wear a badge. As a matter of fact, courts and LE agencies take a very dim view of that.

By the way: just last year (10 years and 2 months after I made the arrest and over nine years since I left police work, I might add) I had the pleasure of going to court in Arapahoe County, on my own time and at my own expense, for an 11-year old DUI case. The guy FTA'd and moved outta state. He came back and was arrested on a warrant. I went to the prelim, spent lots of time reviewing reports, testified...then the peckerwood pleaded. He and his lawyer were just a little disappointed that I showed up for court.


I'm not going to touch this because I know you are reaching when you say the majority of stops are the officer witnessing weaving. In most cases where weaving occurs it is most likley the result of the officer riding someones ass causing them to be nervous and swerve (this has occured to me numerous times and twice I was stopped and let go because I was completely sober)

Yeah...probably a lot better just to go by your vast experience with DUI stops/arrests.


How do you know this to be true? You yourself just stated that 99% of the people you charged with DUI never made it court. I assume you meant trial. Why is that? Because 99% of people take a plea deal even if they are innocent due to the fact that they know the odd's are against them when fighting the system. There are only 2 situations in which a person will fight the system. Situation 1 is that they have more money then god and they can afford great attorney's. Situation 2 is that they have absolutely nothing to lose.

OK...trial. You got me on that one. But you're saying that 99% of the people who take a plea bargain do so because they're innocent. I can't even begin to tell you how ridiculous that is. The odds are against them because they were drunk and the standards for proving that they were are pretty rigid. It's pretty hard to beat the evidence. If you want to blame someone, blame defense attorneys who've made a career out of getting guilty people off. They're their own worst enemies. They've made the system almost foolproof by forcing officers to obtain extensive training and then to follow extremely stringent guidelines for making DUI arrests and collecting evidence. Not saying that's bad, it just is what it is. Is it ever abused...probably. But it certainly isn't epidemic as you suggest.

In the Chili's situation my buddy was driving through an intersection and the at fault driver blew through a red light.

Ummm...don't you mean your DRUNK buddy?


Every study that proves your point has been subjective and there is no solid evidence to prove that a person who has practiced driving with a BAC at .081 is any greater risk to the general public than a 16 year old who just got their learners permit.

Trust me...there are plenty of drivers who frequently "practice" driving at .081 and even above. They're called drunks. I've arrested lots of them.


Sometime's they do. Soemtimes their intention may have been to stay and sleep it off but instead you arrested them, quite possibly cost them their job and several thousand dollars in fines, not to mention the embarassment of a DUI when they could have just driven home and probably not gotten a DUI. Someone trying to be a responsible person became your pray. Last I checked there aren't a lot of cabs running around Connifer chauffering drunk people around town.

Yeah...I can barely live with the guilt of taking a potential killer off the street. I might need therapy.


Some people (not all; in fact not most) are just fucking idiots and will be a menace to society no matter how many laws are passed. I can go on for days about the incidents that have occurred to me while on the job but I wont because it's the job I choose and I continue to choose to do it therefore I have no right to bitch.

No argument there.


I'm more concerned about my kid getting in a car with Xanaxed out soccer mom with a script for her Xanax.

DUI or DUID. Same thing. The only difference is the substance the driver used to become intoxicated.

This is a complete falacy. State and local government's are now being held hostage by labor unions. Many cities have hired additional officer's due to labor agreement's even when they don't need additional officer's. Here's an article for you to read http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=165156

Again...I'll defer to your Law Enforcement experience. But I'm guessing most cops you choose to ask will tell you a large percentage of the people they deal with are intoxicated...especially the ones who mostly worked night shifts like I did.


I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm also not going to condone a government that is far overreaching and takes advantage of it's citizens in the name of "so called" public safety.

Sure...whatever.

Thanks. I'm done.

[Sixgun]

Ding,Ding,Ding...and the winner is..........Bailey Guns.........and the crowd goes wild......[Beer]

Why would anyone defend a drunk?

[hurley842002]

Why would anyone defend a drunk?

I'm thinking it's someone that has many friends that don't like to obey the Law, and quite possibly someone that doesn't like to obey the law themselves, someone with a complete disregard for authority, or the safety of others. I think we may have a new candidate for the biggest anti LEO member on the forum.

[Irving]

Just because someone was pulled over for a DUI, doesn't mean they were even drunk. I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

[Sixgun]

Just because someone was pulled over for a DUI, doesn't mean they were even drunk. I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
I agree, but why defend them.

[Irving]

Well, I'm not going to take sides on this. BigDee is clearly.....well, I don't know quite how to classify him. Just suffice it to say that I didn't agree with his post and thought it was ridiculous that he thought that 99% of DUI stops were BS. I laughed when I read that.

[Byte Stryke]

I Still think there should be a clause saying something about the vehicle moving to be required for a DUI.
I have heard about DUIs being issued because the person was sleeping it off in a car and he had the keys on his person or in the ignition.

Just my opinion, but unless the vehicle is in gear, it's not driving.

That being said, If you roll a car 1" and you are over I hope they nail your ass to a wall and pound your fucking balls into a stain with a goddamned sledgehammer.

and these dumbfucks that get 4 and 5 DUIs on a suspended license need to have an amputation at the neck.[Rant2]

Alcohol abuse isn't an "illness", its a weakness. Influenza is an illness.

[BigDee]

I think not only does he need to stop driving while drunk (and try to justify it), he needs to stop posting while intoxicated (called PWI on my site), and likely needs to go into A.A.

IM (no so) HO He's not anti-cop so much as he seems to always have a bottle in his hand and wants the world to be okay with that, and quite possibly has multiple DUI convictions against himself.

Reality check: If you kill someone because you numbed your reflexes and ability down to the level of a 16yo that just got their learners permit, it's manslaughter. You would NOT have killed them had you been drinking. Is it okay for a crane operator to show up to work completely hammered because he's still as good as a 16yo that's never operated a crane before?

News flash BD: You've got virtually no posts here, and I don't like you. Hopefully sclerosis gets you off the street before you kill anybody, if you haven't killed someone already. And I really hope one of those "chickenshit" officers gets you another DUI and takes your car in the near future, not that it wouldn't suprise me if your license is already revoked.


I hope that the majority of this site's membership is capable of having a debate in which people respect the fact that there may be opinions differing from their own. Obviously there are several people who's opinions are not the same as mine and I respect their opinions even though I may not neccessarily agree with them.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and making a personal attack against them because their viewpoint differs from yours. Wishing someone suffers from a debiliating condition such as multiple schlerosis is a bit below the belt. I've done many volunteer activities for those suffering from MS and I can tell you I would never wish something like that on my worst enemy.

[Irving]

And no, I'll respect opinions differing from my own 98.99% of the time, spanning politics, religion, drugs, sex, you name it.

Can you expand on some of the situations you've been in where you have disagreed with someone about how they wanted to have sex?

[FireMoth]

Our legal system gives the right to any individual to defend themselves against any accusation, and put the burden of proof on the courts.
Innocent, until proven guilty.

So, regardless of police reports, news reports, or otherwise, even a drunk has the same right to defense as anyone else.
If we start letting initial reports or news change our mind about this system, we will see disastrous results.

When the legal system steals even one day form an innocent citizens life, it is doing its most grave injustice. If trying to arrange the system to prevent that means that a slimy lawyer can get a drunk off the hook, so be it.
The punishments don't stop the offense in much the same way guns laws don't prevent violence. Fuckign cops drive drunk too.

Now, just to clarify, i am a straight edge, and I see no value in intoxicants of any kind, and think poorly of those who choose to abuse them. but i will defend to my death their right to make that choice.

If i want to see change, i will try to educate, and lead by example, and show people there is an alternative to drug an alcohol culture., but i will NOT start condemning people based on circumstances reported to me that i did not personally witness, no matter how 'right' it sounds.

We can look at this case as symptomatic of a system that allows offenders to walk free, and create statute or precedent o allow tighter constraint on our liberty for 'our own good'...

..or we can view it of symptomatic of a cuture permissive of substance abuse that turns a blind eye on our own culpability for supporting these habits, and decide to try to change how we behave, to save ourselves.

Odds are, the person addressed in this accusation didn't get blasted alone at home, take a spin around the block for giggles, and then head home alone again. other people participated in the process, and though ultimately an offender is responsible for their own actions, a community has influence, and responsibility to use it in its own interest.
We don't need to have a list of legal repercussions to know to stop some one from stumbling out the door of the bar towards their car. But some one looked away, nd now its a matter of law.

how many times did it take for that to happen for our liberties at arms to disappear, i wonder?

[Bailey Guns]

Hmmmm...

Sounds like some folks I've heard from recently may have been involved in THIS (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17619210?source=rss) story.

[cstone]

Defense attorneys win their case when their client is acquitted.

The government (We the People) win their case when justice is done.

I have been in courtrooms more than once and marveled at excellent defense representation which sometimes won the case for their clients. Many prosecutors and too many LEOs become over invested in winning their case by obtaining a conviction. Optimally, when everything is working as it should, the truth should come out long before a case is every presented to a jury. Plea bargains are necessary to keep dockets running semi-efficiently, not to increase the prosecutor's conviction stats.

Of course, when was the last time anything worked the way it should? Oh, except for my Glock. Bang every time. [Tooth]

[hurley842002]

Of course, when was the last time anything worked the way it should? Oh, except for my Glock. Bang every time. [Tooth]

Amen to that one [Beer]